BaconHound Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I want to deport American criminals to Australia, who's with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 So you work in law enforcement. What do you think about this wall business? Do you think it will work? Do you think it is moral and ethical? Maybe you've explained this and I never saw it. What is your moral and ethical dilemma with a wall? There should be 4 of them on your house keeping strangers out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 There isn't a moral or ethical dilemma. I'm not totally against the wall. I'm simply saying there are other measures that need to come with it in order for the total immigration reform to work in the grand scheme. It seems as if, this is the President's only focus when it comes to immigration. I think that's a short sighted stance because there is still the factor of human trafficking. This too is a part of illegal immigration. To me, curtailing human trafficking should be the first priority since it doesn't require a wall to be built. That would be my best answer from a law enforcement perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 There isn't a moral or ethical dilemma. I'm not totally against the wall. I'm simply saying there are other measures that need to come with it in order for the total immigration reform to work in the grand scheme. It seems as if, this is the President's only focus when it comes to immigration. I think that's a short sighted stance because there is still the factor of human trafficking. This too is a part of illegal immigration. To me, curtailing human trafficking should be the first priority since it doesn't require a wall to be built. That would be my best answer from a law enforcement perspective. I asked Osiris because his question seemed to imply he might find moral significance with it. But I agree there needs to be more than just a wall. I think it's just step 1. For the record, I think you should give the working, law abiding illegals some sort of visa. Once you allow them to establish residency, go to schools, enter the job market, raise families etc for an extended period of time you have to accept some blame in the situation. If you stop them at the border before any of that happens I have not one problem turning anyone away. And for those that cross anyway from here out the penalty needs to be harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Maybe you've explained this and I never saw it. What is your moral and ethical dilemma with a wall? There should be 4 of them on your house keeping strangers out. It is immoral if the wall is built and immigration is not reformed because you create a situation where it is even more difficult to come here and try to have a better life. As I said earlier, the important question isn't being discussed: why do some people choose to come illegally instead of legally? Like Marcus my wife is a wonderful contribution to this society. We got married abroad and had to live apart for about a year while we went through the visa process. It also cost quite a bit of money and time, and I know we had it easy compared to others. People without a familial relationship to a US citizen can wait 5-10 years. I have read about a refugee who waited 20 years to come here only to be turned away when she finally got her visa due to Trumps ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I want to deport American criminals to Australia, who's with me? I'd be happy to deport all the progressive snowflakes to Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 we need more gitmos. Some of them for traitors disguised as only hardcore leftists and anti-everything protesters. Trump never said all coming here were bad. That's just the common dem fake news - like on this board, we disagree, and the first thing that happens, is "xyz" is falsely referred to as "afg" which is bad, to try to get the "upper hand". So much a waste of time. It is NOT A PERMANENT BAN. It was a temp halt. and, Bush W. after 9/11, and obamao himself... also banned travel. But this is a democrat war. They will fight Trump from having breakfast with green eggs and ham, and they will find a dishonest lefty judge to order him not to, "because it discriminates against white and yellow eggs and bacon" and all the lefties and media will go with "Trump is a racist" over it. Just more hypocrisy. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/25358-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional-but-carter-bush-obama-travel-bans-constitutional As The New American reported in a previous article: In 2015, Obama signed H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. That bill clarified “the grounds for ineligibility for travel to the United States regarding terrorism risk, to expand the criteria by which a country may be removed from the Visa Waiver Program, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on strengthening the Electronic System for Travel Authorization to better secure the international borders of the United States and prevent terrorists and instruments of terrorism from entering the United States, and for other purposes.” The Huffington Post reported at the time of that bill's passage: In what could be a sign the administration is moving away from a policy seen as discriminatory, the Obama administration announced Thursday that it is restricting visa-free travel to the U.S. for recent visitors to three additional countries — but not for dual nationals with those passports. Under the new restrictions, citizens of the 38 countries that are part of the reciprocal visa-waiver program will lose their visa-free travel status if they have traveled to Libya, Somalia or Yemen within the past five years. Thursday’s announcement is an expansion of a law passed late last year, which revoked the visa-waiver status of people who had recently traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan, and who hold dual citizenship with any of those four countries. Interestingly, not only did the liberal mainstream media celebrate those restrictions (as the example from the Huffington Post shows), but there were no legal challenges brought against H.R. 158, either. Also, to put in the for-what-its-worth-column, that bill — signed into law by Obama and allowed to stand without being issued a restraining order — is one part of the legal framework on which President Trump’s executive order rests. Before that, though, in 2011, Obama’s State Department quietly halted all refugees from Iraq for a period of six months after it was discovered (to the surprise of no one paying attention) that terrorists who had actually fought against U.S. soldiers in Iraq had gained entry in the United States as “refugees” and were planning attacks here. It seemed that reason dictated a more stringent vetting process. Now where has this writer heard that recently? Going a little further back, in 2002 — in the wake of 9/11 — both houses of Congress unamimously passed, and President Bush signed — H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This legislation restricted travel to the United States “from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism” and created a vetting process so extreme that any vetting process Trump comes up with would have difficulty appearing anything but moderate by comparison. Of course, it was reasonable then and it is reasonable now. But to those looking to attack Trump’s policy on this issue so critical to national security, reason is a stranger. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that 73 Democrats who voted to pass that law in 2002 are still sitting in office and are among those decrying the suppposed evils of Trump’s executive order which rests as much on the legal framework of H.R. 3525 as it does on Obama’s H.R. 158. H.R.3525 is still on the books and in effect, granting the president the authority to stop the issuance of non-immigrant visas from the very countries Trump’s executive order names. And as Conservative Review noted, Trump merely applied that law in conjunction with his authority under The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) which grants the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Texas Guv Abbott finds a way to pay for the border wall, and it ain’t Mexico… Greg Abbott ✔ @GregAbbott_TX The border wall could be paid for by the Federal Government halting grants to cities with sanctuary city policies. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/dhs-reportedly-projects-us-mexico-border-wall-will-cost-21-6b.html … 12:31 PM - 10 Feb 2017 CNN Money says that we could garner $10 billion from New York City ALONE: Should Trump carry through on that pledge, his home city of New York could stand to lose close to $10.4 billion in federal funds, according to budget documents sent from the City Council Speaker’s office. Among some of the biggest recipients of federal funds in the city are the Department of Social Services, the New York City Housing Authority and the Administration for Children’s Services. Oh look here’s $1.6 billion from Chicago! An analysis by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a Chicago-based bipartisan think tank, said Trump would need Congress’ approval to yank all of the city’s federal funding, which is expected to total $1.3 billion, about 14 percent of its 2017 budget. http://therightscoop.com/texas-guv-abbott-finds-a-way-to-pay-for-the-border-wall-and-it-aint-mexico/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Sounds like a great Idea to me. Then deport all illegals to CA (where most are anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Yeah the wall might be part of an overall plan but I think it's a pretty tall task. I think those who operate Sanctuary cities should be prosecuted just like officials who take bribes from crack dealers. I think any illegal it breaks the law should be deported. I think legal immigration should be easier and we should consider a guest-worker program which would include strict identification. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 'Administration for Childrens Services'... So I trust the lot of you are comfortable with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 'Administration for Childrens Services'... So I trust the lot of you are comfortable with that? No.............so obey the law and that won't happen. If funding would get cut for Children's Services who is really to blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 No.............so obey the law and that won't happen. If funding would get cut for Children's Services who is really to blame? Blame isn't my concern nor my question. You're not comfortable with it but then you turn it around as if to say 'who's fault is it the children suffer more'?. A concerning start to a line of questioning from a man that is pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Blame isn't my concern nor my question. You're not comfortable with it but then you turn it around as if to say 'who's fault is it the children suffer more'?. A concerning start to a line of questioning from a man that is pro-life. I don't think asking sanctuary cities to obey federal law is too hard too ask. If they get a cut off of federal funds that is a decision they have made and the responsibility for the consequences of their actions are on them and them alone. Of course if the priority of sanctuary cities is to disobey federal immigration laws over the loss of federal funds they could always raise taxes in their cities to make up for the lost revenue (they chose to lose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I don't think asking sanctuary cities to obey federal law is too hard too ask. If they get a cut off of federal funds that is a decision they have made and the responsibility for the consequences of their actions are on them and them alone. And to harm the most vunerable of our society in the process? Is that the Christian thing to do? As if we could find no provision to avoid that in particular? Also, you're de-humanizing the process of the consequences it will bring upon children. Much like how you say "libs" dehumanize a fetus in the womb. Can you not draw the parallel here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 And to harm the most vunerable of our society in the process? Is that the Christian thing to do? As if we could find no provision to avoid that in particular? Also, you're de-humanizing the process of the consequences it will bring upon children. Much like how you say "libs" dehumanize a fetus in the womb. Can you not draw the parallel here? You seem to be missing the point that sanctuary cities control their own fate on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 You seem to be missing the point that sanctuary cities control their own fate on this. I get your point, but it's a shitty one at best. Is allowing children to suffer because of differing politics in government at its highest levels the Christian thing to do in this case? Can and should funds not be provision to avoid that scenario? Because if youre saying the city has made it's choice, children will be harmed but, hey, it's their own doing right?? - Then you need avoid any argument against the personal choice that is abortion because you've failed miserably. So for the last time, is it, (under an administration you believe to be the more beneficial to Christian America) the Christian thing to do or should there not be a provision in place to maintain funding for Childrens Services? Easy question in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I will not answer for old but from what I can tell some Christian doctrine, not giving everything you have to others is frowed upon. In some of these cases I would imagine that just the idea of borders between cities and countries shouldn't exist. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I will not answer for old but from what I can tell some Christian doctrine, not giving everything you have to others is frowed upon. In some of these cases I would imagine that just the idea of borders between cities and countries shouldn't exist. WSS Obviously putting modern context to that you require borders of a country simply to establish sovereignty and laws. What you do, exclusionary, humanitarian aid, etc etc then becomes another matter entirely. Christ said to give away your possessions and follow him. I'd like to think JC knows that really isn't possible for everyone in 2017. Still, what I'm contending doesn't really change with time or doctrine. It's bringing misfortune to children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Same thing as I see it. And I don't know why there are less need for boundaries in Jesus day than there are now? If everyone's sole purpose was to follow Christ I don't think those boundaries nor rules would be necessary. And I don't think that original view of Christianity was meant to change because people figure out they want a lot more shit and don't want other people to get it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 If everyone's sole purpose was to follow Christ I don't think those boundaries nor rules would be necessary. WSS A great thought, but that isn't plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Oh well. It's not plausible to not want to cheat on your taxes or fuck around on your wife. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Oh well. It's not plausible to not want to cheat on your taxes or fuck around on your wife. WSS I never cheat on my taxes, only my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Old, you're trying to look up scripture right now, aren't you? I'd bet my bottom dollar you're scrambling for anything, even the deep reaches of the Old Testament, to support what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 'Administration for Childrens Services'... So I trust the lot of you are comfortable with that? Well if we could only abort them all we wouldn't have to worry about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 I never cheat on my taxes, only my wife. Fair enough. If you tell us there's only one woman you've ever been attracted to in your life then maybe you should be our spiritual leader. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Well if we could only abort them all we wouldn't have to worry about it My god, that's brilliant! Fair enough. If you tell us there's only one woman you've ever been attracted to in your life then maybe you should be our spiritual leader. WSS Her name is Bernese and she is a handsome woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Are u guys also ok with telling church's they can no longer do "sanctuary" either? Remember thats a real thing the church still retains. And not just for immigrants. If they do not abolish that practice then all federal funding gets stripped from them. No discussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2017 Report Share Posted February 11, 2017 Old, you're trying to look up scripture right now, aren't you? I'd bet my bottom dollar you're scrambling for anything, even the deep reaches of the Old Testament, to support what you're saying. LOL...Mrs. OBF and I went out to lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.