Posted on Jan 7, 2017
PE Trump's statements on immigration boil down to enforce existing law and secure the border. What's the possible objection to this?
6.93K
118
37
14
14
0
I fail to see how those who think it's fine to violate Federal law with sanctuary cities are aghast at enforcement of Federal immigration law. What's the legal and moral objection to the US having sovereign borders and enforcing the laws on the books?
Posted in these groups: 
Immigration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Immigration U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
DEFUND with all haste, every program and every single tax dollar from the Federal Government to each and every "Sanctuary City". SPEED UP the enforcement of the law. If I KNOW that you can get a dozen illegals at Home Depot at 0600 in the morning ICE can too. ICE can gather them up, and send them home. Chip their asses and if they come back again, chains on the legs and prison at hard labor.
To Stop Illegal Immigration do the following:
1) Fine Employers $10,000.00 PER Illegal worker on the first offense and seize their business and jail them on the second offense.
2) Fine those that rent them homes $10,000.00 for the first offense and seize the home or apartment and imprison the owner on the second offense.
3) Do not allow them to purchase or register an automobile. Fine the individual or dealership $10,000.00 for the first offense of selling a car to an illegal.
I learned in Field Sanitation if you deny habitat and sustenance, any infestation will leave.
If we deny Work, Homes and transportation, Illegals will leave and then apply for admission the legal and proper way.
To Stop Illegal Immigration do the following:
1) Fine Employers $10,000.00 PER Illegal worker on the first offense and seize their business and jail them on the second offense.
2) Fine those that rent them homes $10,000.00 for the first offense and seize the home or apartment and imprison the owner on the second offense.
3) Do not allow them to purchase or register an automobile. Fine the individual or dealership $10,000.00 for the first offense of selling a car to an illegal.
I learned in Field Sanitation if you deny habitat and sustenance, any infestation will leave.
If we deny Work, Homes and transportation, Illegals will leave and then apply for admission the legal and proper way.
(9)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
PO3 John Wagner - Thank you Petty Officer...I would be honored, but NO WAY would I ever get elected, because I am too plain spoken.
(1)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Me too. When I get speakin' it comes out short clipped and with no doubt who I am addressing.
(2)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
I learned that from senior enlisted...I was addressed in that fashion at least several times...with the promise of further private instruction if the point was unclear
(2)
(0)
9
9
0
The thing I object to is elected officials that fail to obey the laws after they took an oath to uphold and support the United States Constitution and uphold and obey those laws. Instead they aid violators of those laws and harbor people that broke those laws. Hard to believe an elected official can consistently disobey and actually interfere with the enforcement of these laws and nothing is done about it !
(9)
(0)
SSG William Bowen
He has also directed the Attorney General to take proper enforcement action on those that violate 8 USC Section 1373, such as mayors, city councils, police chiefs, sheriffs, etc.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373
8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and...
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Democrats and those on the left oppose this, and want blanket amnesty because they assume that all hispanic immigrants are going to vote Democrat. End of Story.
the Left wants to insure that the Conservative side of the aisle never wins again.
the Left wants to insure that the Conservative side of the aisle never wins again.
(8)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
They're only following the example left for us by Pres. Reagan and Congress in 1986: One time blanket amnesty for all that were here then (in 1986), and legislation imposing penalties on businesses who employ illegals. We're all still waiting for that Legislation.
Through Republican and Democrat Administrations, and all sessions of Congress since then... And still nothing of substance.
However, some of the real world consequences if we did enforce and/or strengthen the laws employing illegals might be things like prices for fresh fruits and vegetables being equal to or greater than meat. Perhaps not being able to find it even if you're willing to pay for it. Foreign grown produce getting an even bigger share of the market than it has now.
Those are just two examples of the possible unintended consequences. Like it or not, the reality is that there is an entire sub-culture/infrastructure built on the ready availability of inexpensive labor that can't - or hasn't been - able to stand up for itself. If all those illegals suddenly went away there would be a labor vacuum so big... it's hard to imagine how big it would be or what all the consequences would be.
I'm not saying leave it alone and let's just keep living with the status quo. I am saying that it's too complex to simply say "Round 'em up and deport 'em or lock 'em up." and expect the problem will be solved.
You said, "...(the Democrats) assume that all hispanic immigrants are going to vote Democrat." and that's why they supposedly oppose real legislation. I think you miss the mark with that thought. I submit that money is more important than blocks of votes. From that perspective, Coca Cola, Nestles, General Mills, Kelloggs, PepsiCo, et al. wield much more influence over legislation that would decrease the pool of cheap farm labor.
Through Republican and Democrat Administrations, and all sessions of Congress since then... And still nothing of substance.
However, some of the real world consequences if we did enforce and/or strengthen the laws employing illegals might be things like prices for fresh fruits and vegetables being equal to or greater than meat. Perhaps not being able to find it even if you're willing to pay for it. Foreign grown produce getting an even bigger share of the market than it has now.
Those are just two examples of the possible unintended consequences. Like it or not, the reality is that there is an entire sub-culture/infrastructure built on the ready availability of inexpensive labor that can't - or hasn't been - able to stand up for itself. If all those illegals suddenly went away there would be a labor vacuum so big... it's hard to imagine how big it would be or what all the consequences would be.
I'm not saying leave it alone and let's just keep living with the status quo. I am saying that it's too complex to simply say "Round 'em up and deport 'em or lock 'em up." and expect the problem will be solved.
You said, "...(the Democrats) assume that all hispanic immigrants are going to vote Democrat." and that's why they supposedly oppose real legislation. I think you miss the mark with that thought. I submit that money is more important than blocks of votes. From that perspective, Coca Cola, Nestles, General Mills, Kelloggs, PepsiCo, et al. wield much more influence over legislation that would decrease the pool of cheap farm labor.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google