America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

But it still makes you a criminal. Why is that so hard to understand, follow the rules, come here legally or go somewhere else.

Being a criminal or not being a criminal, in and of itself, is not particularly meaningful. I've already supplied you with the reason for that, and you've chosen not to dispute it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

How does describing a group of people that illegally cross your countries borders as invaders in itself target specific racial groups? How is it being racist if the only reason certain racial groups are the ones being arrested and deported because they are the majority of the ones committing that crime? Going after and arresting people that have illegally crossed your nations borders is not racist unless you capture a group and release certain detainees because they are of a different ethnic background.


But it is illegal and a blatant disrespect and ignoring of our laws and apparently that they think this countries laws and rules do not apply to them. You are now applying double standards to what a citizen and illegal alien are required to abide by. If anyone got the get off easier it should be the citizen not the illegal alien criminal.


Those refugees attempting to seeking asylum in the U.S. are not following the rules as accepted by world wide organizations. A person seeking refugee status should be seeking that status in the first country they enter away from their home of danger. When it comes to South Americans they should never be seeking asylum further north than Mexico. They want in the U.S. not because of danger to qualify them as refugees but because of economic reasons which are not acceptable reasons to be allowed into this country as a refugee.


I feel we have agencies which study these demands and have the numbers and are much more qualified to set those limits than anybody posting on this board.


But it still makes you a criminal. Why is that so hard to understand, follow the rules, come here legally or go somewhere else.

Read the answer above concerning refugee status.

I feel that once the vetting process is complete that there are reasons for other steps to be completed. Without knowing the whole process I cannot really give you a honest or reasonable response.
I will say that I feel that anyone that is considered for permanent residency should be able to document financial independence for their own support and should not be eligible for any government financial assistance for a set period of time of multiple years.
Look at the laws of other countries and they have requirements as well. I can remember reading something about Australia's requirements for a person wanting to move there and retire and the conditions were pretty brutal to meet the criteria. But most think the U.S. should admit anyone.

I think what most everyone is trying to say is that your position (The presence of undocumented immigrants in US cities is so perilous that it requires the redeployment of militarized assets from the US border where they perform drug/human trafficking interdiction to those cities) is not substantially supported by the arguments you've put forth.

Put another way:

Do you think "elite" tactical units are more useful along the southern border or in non-border cities? If the latter, please explain.

 

[Dotini]

Right now America's borders are more threatened by coronavirus infected people than anything else. This is mainly focused on 11 major airports, but also on land borders and shipping ports.

 

[Liquid]

Some of the logic over the last few years borders (heh) on a false syllogism akin to locking up surgeons because cutting people with knives is wrong.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Do you think "elite" tactical units are more useful along the southern border or in non-border cities? If the latter, please explain

If you are using elite tactical units to apprehend illegal aliens which are actually criminals here in this country then the actual geographical location of their use is of way less importance than the physical location of the people they are trying to apprehend. Criminals should not expect safe zones regardless of their physical location in this country.

I do not agree with having certain "safe haven sensitive buildings such as schools and church's being off limits to our enforcement people.

 

[Joey D]

I do not agree with having certain "safe haven sensitive buildings such as schools and church's being off limits to our enforcement people.

You seriously want "tactical units" to raid schools? Do you want children unexpectedly shot? Because that's how you get children unexpectedly shot.

I also feel like there are probably more pressing crimes that enforcement agencies should be focused on. Illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

 

[Danoff]

Illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

On our next episode of COPS, an elite tactical unit armed with military equipment takes down a non-violent offender. Watch as our SWAT team breaks into this apartment...


"POLICE SPECIAL NON-VIOLENT CRIMES UNIT!!!! OPEN UP!!! Break it down, break it down"
*battering ram smashes in door*
"POLICE!! Hands up!"
"I didn't do anything!"

"Oh yea? Tell that to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. We've caught you RHCP-handed downloading Californication 10 years ago."
*looks right into camera*
"Just is served. Another criminal locked up"

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If you are using elite tactical units to apprehend illegal aliens which are actually criminals here in this country then the actual geographical location of their use is of way less importance than the physical location of the people they are trying to apprehend. Criminals should not expect safe zones regardless of their physical location in this country.

I do not agree with having certain "safe haven sensitive buildings such as schools and church's being off limits to our enforcement people.

Do you understand the word "priority"? There are finite resources. You cannot deploy everyone everywhere at all times. If you are a good manager, you allocate resources to where they are best utilized. Serving deportation notices to non-dangerous immigrants with tactical units is not necessary and therefore a waste of that resources abilities, a point which I don't think you are disputing. Unless the actual purpose is to demonstrate overwhelming force. You could argue that. You could say "the display of force is the highest priority". That would be a consistent and internally sound argument! Is that the one you want to make?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You seriously want "tactical units" to raid schools?

I love the way everything is twisted around trying to get the maximum shock value for the flock.
I never said any such thing but the practice of a person that has been served deportation papers holing up in a church and the church is offlimits to enter to take such person into custody is B.S.
Same that an ice agent cannot apprehend a suspect or fugitive even in a school parking lot for being illegal. again total B.S.

 

[Northstar]

But yet many of you find that having millions of illegals in this country as acceptable.

Yes, in fact my only real issue is that there isn't any real way for them to change their status without jumping through a hundred barbed-wire hoops. Now, I'll be honest, there was a time where my stance on immigration was pretty similar to yours. However once I started actually digging into the reasons behind that stance I found none of my supporting arguments really held up.

Jobs? - As has already been mentioned illegal immigrants largely fill positions most American's feel they are above. It's also hard to really argue they are taking up jobs while unemployment is rather low.

Crime? - Sure some immigrants will cause issues, but if anything it's at a far lesser rate than U.S. citizens since they usually want to stay off the radar.

Taxes? - While they obviously don't pay income tax in most states, they still buy things so they still pay sales tax, which is where city and state governments get a good chunk of their funding from. And hey, if you supply them with an easy route to obtaining citizenship, or even just a permanent visa, they suddenly fully contribute to taxes! 💡

They're Illegal though!? - Why? It seems like being born somewhere other than where you would like to live is a pretty weak basis to make something illegal.

I'm not for open borders, but if you have a legitimate passport, a clean background report and at least a plan on how you're going to support yourself and family you should be able to live and work wherever you want to without a huge hassle.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

They're Illegal though!? - Why? It seems like being born somewhere other than where you would like to live is a pretty weak basis to make something illegal.

Because apparently they decided this nations laws do not apply to them and rather than enter this country the right way through our legal immigration and visa system and follow the rules of those programs they basically just thumb their noses at our entire legal and immigration system and expect us to make exceptions for them.
We have a legal system that is expressly to allow people not born here to relocate here, it is not too much to expect that anyone coming here that wants to stay use that legal system.

 

[Danoff]

Now, I'll be honest, there was a time where my stance on immigration was pretty similar to yours.

Me too.

Jobs? - As has already been mentioned illegal immigrants largely fill positions most American's feel they are above. It's also hard to really argue they are taking up jobs while unemployment is rather low.

Also, they fill jobs that might otherwise be outsourced to the country they originate from.

Taxes? - While they obviously don't pay income tax in most states, they still buy things so they still pay sales tax, which is where city and state governments get a good chunk of their funding from. And hey, if you supply them with an easy route to obtaining citizenship, or even just a permanent visa, they suddenly fully contribute to taxes! 💡

They're doing us a favor by not filing. They'd get paid by the IRS if they filed (earned income tax credit).

I'm not for open borders, but if you have a legitimate passport, a clean background report and at least a plan on how you're going to support yourself and family you should be able to live and work wherever you want to without a huge hassle.

I don't even require a plan for how they'll support themselves. If they get on the dole (which is not easy as an immigrant), that's an issue with the dole, not with immigration. Some countries require high powered jobs, skills, and degrees, but I think it's actually great to let in the poorest from these countries who are willing to do manual labor. It's good for our economy.

Because apparently they decided this nations laws do not apply to them and rather than enter this country the right way through our legal immigration and visa system and follow the rules of those programs they basically just thumb their noses at our entire legal and immigration system and expect us to make exceptions for them.
We have a legal system that is expressly to allow people not born here to relocate here, it is not too much to expect that anyone coming here that wants to stay use that legal system.

Law law law.... no real argument.

Great, let's change the law. Problem solved?

 

[Scaff]

I love the way everything is twisted around trying to get the maximum shock value for the flock.
I never said any such thing but the practice of a person that has been served deportation papers holing up in a church and the church is offlimits to enter to take such person into custody is B.S.
Same that an ice agent cannot apprehend a suspect or fugitive even in a school parking lot for being illegal. again total B.S.

You were advocating the use of elite tactical police units to arrest people suspected of misdemeanours.

 

[Danoff]

You were advocating the use of elite tactical police units to arrest people suspected of misdemeanours.

In schools.

 

[Joey D]

I love the way everything is twisted around trying to get the maximum shock value for the flock.
I never said any such thing but the practice of a person that has been served deportation papers holing up in a church and the church is offlimits to enter to take such person into custody is B.S.
Same that an ice agent cannot apprehend a suspect or fugitive even in a school parking lot for being illegal. again total B.S.

I mean, you were answering a question about "elite tactical units" and said you don't think schools or churches should be off-limits. What am I supposed to think? A tactical squad isn't going to merely serve papers, they're going to go in, with military-grade weapons to apprehend someone. If they're just going to serve papers, they're going to make Jeff the desk jockey do it.

Schools should be off-limits from any sort of tactical unit unless there's a direct reason to use tactical squads (like in the instance of a school shooting). I know I wouldn't want my kid sitting in class to have a bunch of dudes that wish they were Navy SEALs bust through the door to apprehend Jose because his parents brought him here illegally so they could work for a landscaping company and clean hotel rooms to better their lives.

Because apparently they decided this nations laws do not apply to them

Once again, just like your boy Donny J....errr sorry President Donny J. Seriously if you have such a problem with people not following the laws why on earth do you support Trump even an iota?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

but I think it's actually great to let in the poorest from these countries who are willing to do manual labor. It's good for our economy.

Then there will be outrage from the same sector of the population that is supporting the illegals are ok rhetoric about how they are being targeted with just low paying manual labor jobs and they should be getting free college as they are being discriminated against. This is starting to almost sound like the beginning and a repeat of another mistake we made in our countries history.

Same that an ice agent cannot apprehend a suspect or fugitive even in a school parking lot

You were advocating the use of elite tactical police units

I mean, you were answering a question about "elite tactical units" and said you don't think schools or churches should be off-limits

I believe if you were to read the actual section you guys are misquoting you would see very plainly within that quote it was stated "an ICE agent cannot apprehend". Now where I am from the reference to an agent surely does not meet the criteria to be a tactical assault team. Again you guys twist things for maximum shock value and to illicit the responses such as you have done with this post from your flock.

 

[Scaff]

I believe if you were to read the actual section you guys are misquoting you would see very plainly within that quote it was stated "an ICE agent cannot apprehend". Now where I am from the reference to an agent surely does not meet the criteria to be a tactical assault team. Again you guys twist things for maximum shock value and to illicit the responses such as you have done with this post from your flock.

Your exact words.

If you are using elite tactical units to apprehend illegal aliens which are actually criminals here in this country then the actual geographical location of their use is of way less importance than the physical location of the people they are trying to apprehend. Criminals should not expect safe zones regardless of their physical location in this country.

Quite clearly advocating the use of elite tactical units to arrest people suspected of a misdemeanor crime, regardless of location.

 

[Northstar]

This is starting to almost sound like the beginning and a repeat of another mistake we made in our countries history

You do realize that this country was formed by mass illegal immigration... right?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You do realize that this country was formed by mass illegal immigration... right?

And I guess that there is pretty decent evidence that the Native American Indians screwed up by not putting a stop to it when they could before they lost control of their country.
That should give you something to think about!

 

[TexRex]

Do you think "elite" tactical units are more useful along the southern border or in non-border cities? If the latter, please explain.

I do not agree with having certain "safe haven sensitive buildings such as schools and church's being off limits to our enforcement people.

You seriously want "tactical units" to raid schools?

I love the way everything is twisted around trying to get the maximum shock value for the flock.

Then there will be outrage from the same sector of the population that is supporting the illegals are ok rhetoric about how they are being targeted with just low paying manual labor jobs and they should be getting free college as they are being discriminated against.

That's okay, because only those of us in that particular sector of the population will have to endure our outrage. We'll be the only ones because the heads of everyone who opposes this will simultaneously explode.

You can't say it won't happen because the circumstances necessary for it to occur haven't actually transpired, just like the circumstances necessary for the outrage you posit haven't actually transpired.

Counterfactuals are fun.

 

[Northstar]

And I guess that there is pretty decent evidence that the Native American Indians screwed up by not putting a stop to it when they could before they lost control of their country. That should give you something to think about!

I find your lack of U.S. history knowledge to be rather worrisome.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

And I guess that there is pretty decent evidence that the Native American Indians screwed up by not putting a stop to it when they could before they lost control of their country.
That should give you something to think about!

I don't even...

 

[NotThePrez]

I love the way everything is twisted around trying to get the maximum shock value for the flock.

Umm, you do realize you're advocating for heavily armed, likely hair-trigger law enforcement to enter schools and churches of their own accord to forcefully arrest someone for, at best, suspicion of committing petty crimes, right? They're not going to calmly walk over and politely ask the person to come with them.

I never said any such thing but the practice of a person that has been served deportation papers holing up in a church and the church is
offlimits to enter to take such person into custody is B.S.

If an illegal immigrant is chilling in a church, doing their own thing and trying to make some kind of life for themselves and their family, who specifically are they harming? They're not harming the church, because not only does the church not GAF, the church is willingly providing, at minimum, shelter. They're probably not harming the common citizen, because they're likely trying to stay low-key so that they don't attract attention. And the citizen probably doesn't even know that the person is here illegally, because why should they honestly care if they're not causing trouble?

So, who are these immigrants actually harming, if they're staying out of the spotlight. No, laws don't count, because laws are (usually) not physical objects with actual feelings. Sometimes they're on paper, though.

Oh, and BTW, ICE can indeed enter churches currently, they just choose not to, because they know it'd be a PR disaster. So that means that ICE occasionally knowingly chooses not to go after illegal immigrants, because they know the risk and/or fallout is not worth the effort.

You might be also interested to know that a Reverend was arrested in the 80's for helping illegal immigrants enter the country, but was only given 5 years probation. His motive? The refugees in question were being hunted by U.S.-Backed death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Same that an ice agent cannot apprehend a suspect or fugitive even in a school parking lot for being illegal. again total B.S.

Today's Headline: ICE on Heat as Special Agent is Taken Off Duty for Shooting a Young Child

I could literally see this headline popping up within a week if ICE agents operated the way you want them to.

Also, a lot of y'all in this this thread type way too fast.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I find your lack of U.S. history knowledge to be rather worrisome.

What part of history have I got wrong?

Sort of funny that when England sent the white man to colonize the "new world" if the Indians had of never allowed the white man to get a foothold on this continent and killed them all to begin with as they arrived the history of this nation may be vastly different.

Just like the Spaniards in Mexico that conquered the Aztec Indians if the Aztec Indians had of defeated the spaniards again that nations history could be much different.
Funny though that it was all of the blokes from across the pond in GB and Europe that was initially stealing property and resources in the Americas.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sort of funny that when England sent the white man to colonize the "new world"

That bit of history is wrong... the reason the Pilgrim Fathers set out from Holland (and made that foothold) was because they weren't allowed to practice their separatist faith in England.

I'd love to see your "decent evidence" that the failure of the native peoples to stop the militarised advance of foreign occupation was somehow down to negligence or mistakes on their part, presuming I'm understanding "screw-up" correctly.

 

[Liquid]

Your implying that indigenous Americans simply failed to "control immigration" is a gross misunderstanding of the attitudes and practices involved in colonisation of the Americas and manifest destiny.

Assuming that you are not a pure-blooded native American of provable ancestry prior to 1492, it also seems that the irony that you yourself are not of native ethnicity and that you originate in "illegal immigration" has completely been lost.

And for what it's worth, the pilgrims on the Mayflower went to America to persecute and establish a zealous society rooted in control.

 

[Dotini]

And for what it's worth, the pilgrims on the Mayflower went to America to persecute and establish a zealous society rooted in control.

One out-of-control guy on the Mayflower spent most of the voyage in the brig - for fighting, drunkenness and larceny.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

That bit of history is wrong... the reason the Pilgrim Fathers set out from Holland (and made that foothold) was because they weren't allowed to practice their separatist faith in England.

Seems you have a different history that was not taught when I went to school.
Below it shows that the the Jamestown venture was financed in England, was granted a charter for the venture by the king of England,and departed from England as well.
No where do I see where Holland had their finger in the pie concerning Jamestown which was settled in 1607. The new American colonies after establishment were also English possessions.

I think you may be confusing your history with Plymouth Rock which did not occur until 1620, 13 years after the first English settlement in this country. Maybe you should study a bit more on the side of history.

"Jamestown Colony, first permanent English settlement in North America, located near present-day Williamsburg, Virginia. Established on May 14, 1607, the colony gave England its first foothold in the European competition for the New World,
The colony was a private venture, financed and organized by the Virginia Company of London. King James I granted a charter to a group of investors for the establishment of the company on April 10, 1606. During this era, “Virginia” was the English name for the entire East Coast of North America north of Florida. The charter gave the company the right to settle anywhere from roughly present-day North Carolina to New York state. The company’s plan was to reward investors by locating gold and silver deposits and by finding a river route to the Pacific Ocean for trade with the Orient.
A contingent of approximately 105 colonists departed England in late December 1606 in three ships—the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery—under the command of Christopher Newport."

 

[Joey D]

Sort of funny that when England sent the white man to colonize the "new world" if the Indians had of never allowed the white man to get a foothold on this continent and killed them all to begin with as they arrived the history of this nation may be vastly different.

You do know that the English weren't the first white people to colonize North America right? The Spanish and Portuguese were doing it a hundred-ish years before Jamestown and the first white European settlement goes back to around 1000. There are even some fringe theories that the Romans or Greeks might have made it here, but I don't believe there's any concrete evidence of that.

And the Pilgrim Fathers really did set off from the Netherlands. Leiden specifically.

 

[Dennisch]

And the Pilgrim Fathers really did set off from the Netherlands. Leiden specifically.

They actually jumped onto the boat in Delfshaven as Leiden doesn't have a seaport.

Also, it was a bit of news when Leiden found out that one of the Pilgrim families would later spawn that Yes, we can man. And a bunch of other presidents but eh.