|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:08:00 GMT -5
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:08:42 GMT -5
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:09:29 GMT -5
What is the cost? And what is the offsetting benefit? And is the cost higher than it used to be in the past? What about benefits? I was the one asking the cost question, hence the question mark after the word. What was the point of re-asking on the next post. Dodging ? I didn't get the cost point. Are you implying that the cost is high? It was just a clarifying question. If youthink that the cost is high, I would like to know how high, and with what offsetting benefit, and if it has changed from that past which would then be a ground for changing the law. If you think the cost is low, then of course there is no reason to change the law. So, what is it?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:12:12 GMT -5
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28 Dude, that's no law. You copied it from an anti-immigrant web site. It's plain BS. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt educational organization in the United States that advocates changes in U.S. immigration policy that would result in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:12:42 GMT -5
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 17, 2011 15:13:11 GMT -5
Do you konw what our immigration laws say? I do. They say that states have no rights to enforce immigration laws. Did you know that? Did you know that inscriptions on statues are not legislation?
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:16:44 GMT -5
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is “no extant federal limitation” on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28 Dude, that's no law. You copied it from an anti-immigrant web site. It's plain BS. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt educational organization in the United States that advocates changes in U.S. immigration policy that would result in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal. Please read original info is from INA , Dude
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:18:22 GMT -5
Dude, you are going to use a random Javascript app created by an anti-immigrant group to justify your points? I can create another app that shows you just the opposite. Show some real data here. Where the law about states' rights when it comes to immigration by the way? I am still waiting for it. Ar eyou in active duty?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:19:06 GMT -5
Dude, that's no law. You copied it from an anti-immigrant web site. It's plain BS. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt educational organization in the United States that advocates changes in U.S. immigration policy that would result in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal. Please read original info is from INA , Dude So the Web site claims. Show me the original.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:20:01 GMT -5
I do. They say that states have no rights to enforce immigration laws. Did you know that? Did you know that inscriptions on statues are not legislation? We were talking of the founding principles. You know, conservatives are always talking about the core foundations of the country, et f'ing cetra? But they don't follow those principles.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:21:12 GMT -5
So are we going to talk about costs or what?
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 17, 2011 15:24:01 GMT -5
If you know what our immigration laws are how can you defend those who refuse to follow the rules to coming into our country. Yes I know that if the Federal Government abdicates it's responsibility of defending border states from people illegally entering there states, they have a right under the 10th amendment of protecting themselves. Abdicate –verb (used with object) 2. to give up or renounce (authority, duties, an office, etc.), especially in a voluntary, public, or formal manner: King Edward VIII of England abdicated the throne in 1936. By doing nothing, leaving enormous swatches of border unguarded and unprotected for the past 50 years, you can defiantly make an argument that the Federal Government has given up the authority to the states in a voluntary manner. So go make the case in court. I support the "illegal" immigrants because the ancestors of most people in this country would have been "illegal" under current laws. This is a country of immigrants. This used to be a open door country. To cherish its ideals, it should once again be a open door country. I have no problem with that...if we also get rid of welfare, SS, food stamps, Medicare, medicaid, free meals for kids at school, and evey other giveaway program that we DIDN'T have back when we were an open door country. If you want us to go back, then we have to go ALL the way back, or we're screwed...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:25:29 GMT -5
So go make the case in court. I support the "illegal" immigrants because the ancestors of most people in this country would have been "illegal" under current laws. This is a country of immigrants. This used to be a open door country. To cherish its ideals, it should once again be a open door country. I have no problem with that...if we also get rid of welfare, SS, food stamps, Medicare, medicaid, free meals for kids at school, and evey other giveaway program that we DIDN'T have back when we were an open door country. If you want us to go back, then we have to go ALL the way back, or we're screwed... So you think 15M illegal immigrants will break the bank when 350M Americans are doing fine?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 1:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 15:25:36 GMT -5
I was the one asking the cost question, hence the question mark after the word. What was the point of re-asking on the next post. Dodging ? I didn't get the cost point. Are you implying that the cost is high? It was just a clarifying question. If you think that the cost is high, I would like to know how high, and with what offsetting benefit, and if it has changed from that past which would then be a ground for changing the law. If you think the cost is low, then of course there is no reason to change the law. So, what is it? Aliens should not be in this country unless they've gone through the normal processing/documentation on the way in. The "cost" of physically removing them by deportation is high. The laws are already in place that they shouldn't be here unless documented. Using the argument that "It costs to much to remove them" just give them amnesty. Is just an old trick to get votes on the cheap, regardless of which party does it.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:26:18 GMT -5
Not a single word about states' rights here.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:27:30 GMT -5
I didn't get the cost point. Are you implying that the cost is high? It was just a clarifying question. If you think that the cost is high, I would like to know how high, and with what offsetting benefit, and if it has changed from that past which would then be a ground for changing the law. If you think the cost is low, then of course there is no reason to change the law. So, what is it? Aliens should not be in this country unless they've gone through the normal processing/documentation on the way in. The "cost" of physically removing them by deportation is high. The laws are already in place that they shouldn't be here unless documented. Using the argument that "It costs to much to remove them" just give them amnesty. Is just an old trick to get votes on the cheap, regardless of which party does it. I am OK with the processing and documentation. Will you be OK with open borders as long as there is proper processing and documntation as it used to be about 110 years back?
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:27:51 GMT -5
Lunitic says "So you think 15M illegal immigrants will break the bank when 350M Americans are doing fine?" Yes but we legally have the right too!
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:30:35 GMT -5
Lunitic says "So you think 15M illegal immigrants will break the bank when 350M Americans are doing fine?" Yes but we legally have the right too! So it is not about cost after all. You just don't want to give anything to the new guys, even though they would be paying taxes.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 15:32:00 GMT -5
Did you know that inscriptions on statues are not legislation? We were talking of the founding principles. You know, conservatives are always talking about the core foundations of the country, et f'ing cetra? But they don't follow those principles. This was not a founding principle of our country, the Statue of Liberty was given to the US as a sign of friendship in 1884. the inscription was placed by an artist who originally did not want to be part of it in 1886.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 17, 2011 15:37:20 GMT -5
Lunatic, key words in your sentence negate your debate. Your hypothetical assumptions are just that. "So it is not about cost after all. You just don't want to give anything to the new guys, even though they .... (would be ).... paying taxes. " You have consistently said how wealthy you are, So Please take them in and give them your money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 1:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 15:49:43 GMT -5
Aliens should not be in this country unless they've gone through the normal processing/documentation on the way in. The "cost" of physically removing them by deportation is high. The laws are already in place that they shouldn't be here unless documented. Using the argument that "It costs to much to remove them" just give them amnesty. Is just an old trick to get votes on the cheap, regardless of which party does it. I am OK with the processing and documentation. Will you be OK with open borders as long as there is proper processing and documntation as it used to be about 110 years back? I will be OK with border crossings with the laws that are current to June 2011
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:21:47 GMT -5
I am OK with the processing and documentation. Will you be OK with open borders as long as there is proper processing and documntation as it used to be about 110 years back? I will be OK with border crossings with the laws that are current to June 2011 So it's not about processing and documentation for you. Thought so.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:22:41 GMT -5
Lunatic, key words in your sentence negate your debate. Your hypothetical assumptions are just that. "So it is not about cost after all. You just don't want to give anything to the new guys, even though they .... (would be ).... paying taxes. " You have consistently said how wealthy you are, So Please take them in and give them your money. Now you are just sulking.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:23:35 GMT -5
We were talking of the founding principles. You know, conservatives are always talking about the core foundations of the country, et f'ing cetra? But they don't follow those principles. This was not a founding principle of our country, the Statue of Liberty was given to the US as a sign of friendship in 1884. the inscription was placed by an artist who originally did not want to be part of it in 1886. No, the founding principle was whoever can get on a boat can come to the USA. The New World they called it.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 16:27:44 GMT -5
Do I get a scarlet letter, or maybe a number tattoo on my arm, why do all the new folks have all the fun?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 17, 2011 16:30:02 GMT -5
I have no problem with that...if we also get rid of welfare, SS, food stamps, Medicare, medicaid, free meals for kids at school, and evey other giveaway program that we DIDN'T have back when we were an open door country. If you want us to go back, then we have to go ALL the way back, or we're screwed... So you think 15M illegal immigrants will break the bank when 350M Americans are doing fine? You think the number will only be 15M if we have an open door policy and keep the giveaway programs?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 17, 2011 16:33:33 GMT -5
Lunitic says "So you think 15M illegal immigrants will break the bank when 350M Americans are doing fine?" Yes but we legally have the right too! So it is not about cost after all. You just don't want to give anything to the new guys, even though they would be paying taxes. And what taxes would that be? the taxes that 47% of the population don't pay? If they are receiving these giveaway programs then they will most likely be paying NOTHING in federal/state income taxes...nice try, though.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 16:34:38 GMT -5
And six years later Congress wrote the Naturalization act of 1870
The Naturalization Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 254) was a law passed by the United States Congress concerning immigration and immigrants. It was created to deal with two immigration issues: a system of controls for the naturalization process and penalties for fraudulent practices naturalization laws for aliens and for persons of African descent
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 16:35:26 GMT -5
Every consumer pays every tax in what they consume - List the give away programs? please.
|
|