All illegals deserve to be deported.

[newflesh]

USA can stop deporting and start accepting large masses of illegals under one condition: all social security must be cancelled and taxes need to be lowered to a minimum or cancelled. Because firstly, you cannot expect that hordes of foreigners comming for your free money (they get that citizenship eventually) can bring any fiscal sustainability. And secondly they would be net fiscal takers, when normal citizens are forever fiscal losers.

In the distant past, anyone could come to USA, but had to survive on his own. And he had to integrate, and fast, if he wanted to get a job and survive. And that was called a melting pot concept. This social security backed up multiculturalism that is the opposite, has fucked up EU (just try to be a woman in Berlin at night) and it's eventually going to fuck up USA too.

Common misconception about immigrants being scroungers, most of them are very hard working and end up paying more in taxes than they take in social security.

The idea that they're all coming here for 'free money' is just bullshit made up by the likes of Fox News.

[1713429316]

1713429316

[1713429316]

1713429316

[1713429316]

1713429316

[Mike Christ]

To deport or not to deport is a red herring; consider the following:

1. Immigration has not always been illegal; using the standard of today, the only people that would be in America, for example, would be the natives.

2. Immigration is made illegal as a result of nationalism and socialism: the nationalist wants to cultivate a society which adheres to similar beliefs, naturally that of a culture which submits to the sun god and no other sun gods, and of course immigrants coming from differing cultures "mix in" with that pool and dilute the once powerful all-hail-our-sun-god culture; whereas the socialist wants to be relieved of responsibility over his life and opts to advocate for programs and planning which help support his habit of blaming someone else for wrongdoing: the immigrant can take the freeloader's spot and eat up all the taxes to be spent on him, as many are attracted to free benefits (as, for example, many young Americans are attracted to the idea of "free college education" in other nations.)  Together, they agree, as national socialists, to keep out undesirable immigration, and so setup strict border rules and ensure the only people allowed in the nation are:

A. In agreement with the culture of the nation, including language, political affiliations, and so forth, to satisfy the nationalist
B. Educated, mild-mannered (see: complacent) and productive, so as to produce lots and lots of taxes, to satisfy the socialist

3. Immigration only needs to be illegal so long as the nationalists and the socialists are appeased; without the desire to cultivate people, and without the desire to "build great works" at the public's expense, there is no need to force immigrants out (or to keep emigrants in, which is another matter entirely); the only people attracted to said nation, lacking the national socialist desires, are those who want to make a better life for themselves, thereby naturally discouraging unwanted immigration as there's nothing to freeload from and nothing to demand adherence.

That, however, would necessitate the removal of said nationalists and socialists from the accepted norm; instead, they just call themselves by different names, and continue to evade scrutiny as people aren't principled enough to see the similarity between two same things using different guises; in America's case, it's Republicans and Democrats, but they also go by the name conservative and liberal.  Until that day, it doesn't really matter what you do with the illegals, whether you kick them out or keep letting them in to buy votes for your party; the fact that immigration is illegal at all is enough testament to just how fucked up people are.

[dKingston]

what about retrospective deportation of all families and relations not native to america, who once sailed in from some foreign land, like those mayflower fuckers for a start ...

The original colonists weren't breaking any laws since the indigenous tribes hadn't developed laws in the first place. The indigenous peoples of this continent couldn't even read or write until 200 years ago.

It does not mean that they don't have laws if it is not written. I'm sure they have oral laws. If your neighbor doesn't know how to read or white doesn't give you the right to kill him and stole his land.

I search on google, the anthropologist discovered that the natives use string and knot as a form of writing. The colonist could have seen it and have no idea it is a form of writing.

[Chef Ramsay]

Meanwhile...

[Fox News] Feds quietly dump hundreds of illegal immigrants in Tennessee without saying a word

Imagine you’re about to sit down for supper when suddenly 760 folks show up on your front porch wanting fried catfish and hushpuppies. You’d be fit to be tied as they say in Tennessee.

And Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam is fit to be tied.

The Obama administration recently released 760 illegal immigrant children to sponsors in the Volunteer State without any warning, the governor charged.

There was not so much as a text message or tweet.

“It is unacceptable that we became aware via a posting on the HHS website that 760 unaccompanied children have been released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to sponsors in Tennessee without my administration’s knowledge,” the governor wrote in a strongly-worded letter to President Obama.

Haslam, a Republican, said he still has not been contacted by the Obama administration – and has no idea where the illegals were resettled.

“I still have not been contacted and have no information about these individuals or their sponsors other than what was posted on the HHS website,” he wrote.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement says sponsors are typically a parent or relative who can care for the illegal immigrant child while their immigration case is processed. All sponsors are required to undergo background checks.

It’s also unclear why the ORR is handling the children – since they are illegal immigrants and not refugees.

It’s been the Obama administration’s standard operating procedure to release the illegals into states without notifying local or state government officials.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the illegal immigrant children have a right to privacy. He said privacy rights of the illegals are more important than the public’s right to know what’s happening.

Hubris, NSA style.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/28/feds-secretly-dump-hundreds-illegal-immigrants-in-tennessee/

[Daniel91]

Very strong statement.
If you think that illegals like just numbers, somebody who may still your job, bring criminal to your community etc. this statement can be understandable.
But, each of this people are humans, people who suffer and who took huge risk in order to come to their new countries, in order to support their families, so they should receive credits for this, not punishment.
I hope that all this people will be, soon or later, accepted in their new countries, not punished by the low and deported.

[bryant.coleman]

But, each of this people are humans, people who suffer and who took huge risk in order to come to their new countries, in order to support their families, so they should receive credits for this, not punishment.

If the immigration laws are implemented strictly, then very few illegals would consider travelling to the US, thereby reducing their "suffering". On the other hand, Amnesties, Sanctuary cities.etc actually encourage illegal immigration.

[sed]

Even the notion of "illegals" is a bit misinformed to me.  Many people are within the arbitrary boundaries of a political entity without documents through no fault of their own (for example, the borders of the country have changed, or the parents brought a minor child who is now an adult).  Sweeping all folks without documents into the class of "illegals" borders on xenophobia, for me.

[Chef Ramsay]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) denounced the House Republican border bill as a “surrender to a lawless president” because the legislation does not include any language to prevent President Obama from expanding his unilateral legalization of illegal immigrants.

Here’s the statement:

The Obama Administration has openly declared its plan to implement a unilateral executive amnesty for 5–6 million more illegal immigrants. This unlawful amnesty—urged on by congressional Democrats—would include work permits, taking jobs directly from millions of struggling American citizens.

Any action Congress might consider to address the current border crisis would be futile should the President go forward with these lawless actions. Congress must speak out and fight against them. It must use its spending power to stop the President’s executive amnesty.

That the House leaders’ border package includes no language on executive actions is surrender to a lawless President. And it is a submission to the subordination of congressional power.

After years of falling wages and rising joblessness, American workers are pleading for someone to hear them. How can it be that our President is brazenly advertising that he will nullify and strip away American workers’ immigration protections, and their own elected leaders will not rise to their defense? Or to the defense of our laws and our Constitutional order?

There are other grave concerns with the Granger package as well: because it does not fix our asylum rules and loopholes, the end result of the additional judges and hearings will be more illegal immigrants gaining asylum and access to U.S. welfare. It is a plan for expedited asylum, not expedited removal.

Nor will this package make our rogue President actively enforce anything, coming nowhere close to the kinds of reasonable enforcement activities needed to restore the interior application of our immigration laws.

And finally, a package that is silent on blocking amnesty creates an opportunity for Senate Democrats to add elements of their party’s open borders and mass immigration agenda.

This legislation is unworthy of support.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384062/jeff-sessions-house-border-bill-surrender-lawless-president-joel-gehrke

[tss]

you were once an "illegal" or at least your ancestors were.
freedom is the right to pursue happiness. 
today the government says you are illegal so you should leave.
tomorrow the government says bitcoin is illegal so you should not use it.  ohh wait.. that was yesterday..
YOU SHOULD LISTEN

[fdiini]

USA can stop deporting and start accepting large masses of illegals under one condition: all social security must be cancelled and taxes need to be lowered to a minimum or cancelled. Because firstly, you cannot expect that hordes of foreigners comming for your free money (they get that citizenship eventually) can bring any fiscal sustainability. And secondly they would be net fiscal takers, when normal citizens are forever fiscal losers.

In the distant past, anyone could come to USA, but had to survive on his own. And he had to integrate, and fast, if he wanted to get a job and survive. And that was called a melting pot concept. This social security backed up multiculturalism that is the opposite, has fucked up EU (just try to be a woman in Berlin at night) and it's eventually going to fuck up USA too.

Common misconception about immigrants being scroungers, most of them are very hard working and end up paying more in taxes than they take in social security.

The idea that they're all coming here for 'free money' is just bullshit made up by the likes of Fox News.

Not totally bullshit. Public sector and college, you will see "free money" going into son/daugther/newphew/niece of the immigrant faculty/professor.

[sdersdf2]

Meanwhile...

[Fox News] Feds quietly dump hundreds of illegal immigrants in Tennessee without saying a word

Imagine you’re about to sit down for supper when suddenly 760 folks show up on your front porch wanting fried catfish and hushpuppies. You’d be fit to be tied as they say in Tennessee.

And Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam is fit to be tied.

The Obama administration recently released 760 illegal immigrant children to sponsors in the Volunteer State without any warning, the governor charged.

There was not so much as a text message or tweet.

“It is unacceptable that we became aware via a posting on the HHS website that 760 unaccompanied children have been released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to sponsors in Tennessee without my administration’s knowledge,” the governor wrote in a strongly-worded letter to President Obama.

Haslam, a Republican, said he still has not been contacted by the Obama administration – and has no idea where the illegals were resettled.

“I still have not been contacted and have no information about these individuals or their sponsors other than what was posted on the HHS website,” he wrote.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement says sponsors are typically a parent or relative who can care for the illegal immigrant child while their immigration case is processed. All sponsors are required to undergo background checks.

It’s also unclear why the ORR is handling the children – since they are illegal immigrants and not refugees.

It’s been the Obama administration’s standard operating procedure to release the illegals into states without notifying local or state government officials.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the illegal immigrant children have a right to privacy. He said privacy rights of the illegals are more important than the public’s right to know what’s happening.

Hubris, NSA style.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/28/feds-secretly-dump-hundreds-illegal-immigrants-in-tennessee/

Rights, privileges and benefits of the doubt are granted to everyone *but* American citizens by this government. It no longer works for you. Don't you people realize that?

[Spendulus]

Even the notion of "illegals" is a bit misinformed to me.  Many people are within the arbitrary boundaries of a political entity without documents through no fault of their own (for example, the borders of the country have changed, or the parents brought a minor child who is now an adult).  Sweeping all folks without documents into the class of "illegals" borders on xenophobia, for me.

You mean, we can't call people without passports "illegal"?  Why?

[sed]

Even the notion of "illegals" is a bit misinformed to me.  Many people are within the arbitrary boundaries of a political entity without documents through no fault of their own (for example, the borders of the country have changed, or the parents brought a minor child who is now an adult).  Sweeping all folks without documents into the class of "illegals" borders on xenophobia, for me.

You mean, we can't call people without passports "illegal"?  Why?

Obviously you can.  My point is that it's a dehumanizing way to look at someone caught in an unfortunate situation with respect to turbulent and changing political winds.  I personally don't like the implication that is given by saying "you are an illegal" to a person.  It sounds like their existence is illegal.  For that reason, I prefer the term "undocumented".  It refers to the person's status as having no documents without dehumanizing.  My opinion.

[cinder]

Even the notion of "illegals" is a bit misinformed to me.  Many people are within the arbitrary boundaries of a political entity without documents through no fault of their own (for example, the borders of the country have changed, or the parents brought a minor child who is now an adult).  Sweeping all folks without documents into the class of "illegals" borders on xenophobia, for me.

You mean, we can't call people without passports "illegal"?  Why?

Obviously you can.  My point is that it's a dehumanizing way to look at someone caught in an unfortunate situation with respect to turbulent and changing political winds.  I personally don't like the implication that is given by saying "you are an illegal" to a person.  It sounds like their existence is illegal.  For that reason, I prefer the term "undocumented".  It refers to the person's status as having no documents without dehumanizing.  My opinion.

Immigrants should try to make their own country a better place. US didn't become successful over night and had to fight a civil war and face multiple economic depression to make it happen.

[countryfree]

I'm an illegal. Not currently in the U.S. (I'm in Switzerland right now) but I've been there, and I'll be back sometimes. I'm proud to be illegal and undocumented because I would be ashamed of being a legal citizen in most countries. I love America, several other countries too, but there isn't one country I like so much that I'd like to be one of its citizens. Every country has its dark side, so I don't want to support any. I believe a man has the right to live anywhere on the planet, providing he doesn't ask anyone help (welfare) to live, and that's what I do.