Trumps nightmare just came true; An immigrant took his job

[ryoder 1,384]

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-named-host-of-celebrity-apprentice-20150914

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rushmc 18]

Your subject line is greatly misleading

It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

Therefore, the nightmare portion of your subject line is misleading too

BTW

Did you see where Homeland Security and the Obama admin have admitted that nearly all ILEAGALs coming into the US (through Mexico) have to pay the drug cartels to do so now?
The fee is usually carrying a backpack full of heroin across for them?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Did you see where Homeland Security and the Obama admin

Both?!?

Quote

The fee is usually carrying a backpack full of heroin across for them?

Is that really what they said?

- Dan G

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

It should say a LEGAL immigrant took his job

If I may humbly add "...who has been a US citizen for some time now,"

I hope that provides some added clarity.

[ryoder 1,384]

rushmc

Your subject line is greatly misleading

It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

Therefore, the nightmare portion of your subject line is misleading too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

ryoder

***Your subject line is greatly misleading

It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

Therefore, the nightmare portion of your subject line is misleading too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

Brilliant

[billvon 2,400]

>Your subject line is greatly misleading . . .It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

Why? Trump doesn't make that distinction; why should the media?

>Did you see where Homeland Security and the Obama admin have admitted
>that nearly all ILEAGALs coming into the US (through Mexico) have to pay the
>drug cartels to do so now?

Simple solution there - make it legal for them to enter. No more need of criminals to help them.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Your subject line is greatly misleading . . .It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

Why? Trump doesn't make that distinction; why should the media?

>Did you see where Homeland Security and the Obama admin have admitted
>that nearly all ILEAGALs coming into the US (through Mexico) have to pay the
>drug cartels to do so now?

Simple solution there - make it legal for them to enter. No more need of criminals to help them.

You would just make things worse
But it is not about the people after all
It is about a constituency

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

Did you know that trump is aggressivly for legal immigration. All he wants is those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,400]

>Did you know that trump is aggressivly for legal immigration. All he wants is
>those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the
>current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

That would be great! As soon as he states he is for that, he will finally have said something that _isn't_ idiotic. (Right now his website claims he is against that, and ridicules anyone trying to simplify the process.)

[Anvilbrother 0]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/27/trump-id-expedite-legal-immigration-process-for-good-illegals-after-getting-them-out/

Excuse the source it was the one I found with the video of him actually saying it. Although talk is cheap and politicians say a lot of shit they never do so grain of salt, but he is on record of wanting to fast track legal immigration.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>(Right now his website claims he is against that, and ridicules anyone trying to simplify the process.)

that's not fair - Trump ridicules ANYBODY that says ANYTHING just because he's not the one saying it. Hell, he ridicules people that says the same things he says - if he sees them as an opponent. Or someone that doesn't worship him. Or someone that might have called him a mildly insulting name at some time. Or a female. or a relative. or an employees.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

He added, “number two, you either — and these could be some great people. But you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back. I would get them back where they are, and I would try and work out a process where they can come in legally. But they’ve got — they have to come in legally, Sean. It’s about laws. It’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I’d get them out. And if they were really outstanding — because some of these people have been here for a long period of time. I’d let them back legally, they have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much greater. I want people to come into the country. I love the fact that people come into the country. They have to come in legally. Not only them, other people. We welcome people. I mean, my parents and my grandparents, they came from different parts of the world, too. We all sort of did.”

He continued, “I would expedite it [the process[ because some of these people are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I’d do is I’d expedite it. But, you have to have laws. If you don’t have laws, you don’t have a country. I would get them out and try and — the good ones. And the bad ones, they’re gone. They never come back. They’ll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.”

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,400]

>>>All he wants is
>>>those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the
>>>current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

>but he is on record of wanting to fast track legal immigration.

His words:

================
. . . these could be some great people. But you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back. I would get them back where they are, and I would try and work out a process where they can come in legally. But they’ve got — they have to come in legally, Sean. It’s about laws. It’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I’d get them out. And if they were really outstanding — because some of these people have been here for a long period of time. I’d let them back legally, they have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much greater. . ..I would expedite it because some of these people are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I’d do is I’d expedite it.
==================

So no, he doesn't want to keep anyone here and fast track them - he wants them all out. And he doesn't want to make any changes to immigration law, he just wants to make the system "faster and greater" for the "really outstanding ones." Which is exactly what we have now - fast tracks for critical skills and exceptional people, like athletes or doctors.

Interesting that he does not mention legal immigration for relatives of US citizens (exceptional or not) which is currently law. That means that, unless he rethinks his policy again, he would end up making the law more restrictive, not less.

But if he does change his stance, and come up with a drastically reduced process so that those who are here can become either legal immigrants or citizens, I'd be all for that.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>>>All he wants is
>>>those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the
>>>current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

>but he is on record of wanting to fast track legal immigration.

His words:

================
. . . these could be some great people. But you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back. I would get them back where they are, and I would try and work out a process where they can come in legally. But they’ve got — they have to come in legally, Sean. It’s about laws. It’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I’d get them out. And if they were really outstanding — because some of these people have been here for a long period of time. I’d let them back legally, they have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much greater. . ..I would expedite it because some of these people are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I’d do is I’d expedite it.
==================

So no, he doesn't want to keep anyone here and fast track them - he wants them all out. And he doesn't want to make any changes to immigration law, he just wants to make the system "faster and greater" for the "really outstanding ones." Which is exactly what we have now - fast tracks for critical skills and exceptional people, like athletes or doctors.

Interesting that he does not mention legal immigration for relatives of US citizens (exceptional or not) which is currently law. That means that, unless he rethinks his policy again, he would end up making the law more restrictive, not less.

But if he does change his stance, and come up with a drastically reduced process so that those who are here can become either legal immigrants or citizens, I'd be all for that.

I read it as he wants the law to be followed. Why are you a proponent of breaking the law?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

***>>>All he wants is
>>>those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the
>>>current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

>but he is on record of wanting to fast track legal immigration.

His words:

================
. . . these could be some great people. But you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back. I would get them back where they are, and I would try and work out a process where they can come in legally. But they’ve got — they have to come in legally, Sean. It’s about laws. It’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I’d get them out. And if they were really outstanding — because some of these people have been here for a long period of time. I’d let them back legally, they have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much greater. . ..I would expedite it because some of these people are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I’d do is I’d expedite it.
==================

So no, he doesn't want to keep anyone here and fast track them - he wants them all out. And he doesn't want to make any changes to immigration law, he just wants to make the system "faster and greater" for the "really outstanding ones." Which is exactly what we have now - fast tracks for critical skills and exceptional people, like athletes or doctors.

Interesting that he does not mention legal immigration for relatives of US citizens (exceptional or not) which is currently law. That means that, unless he rethinks his policy again, he would end up making the law more restrictive, not less.

But if he does change his stance, and come up with a drastically reduced process so that those who are here can become either legal immigrants or citizens, I'd be all for that.

I read it as he wants the law to be followed. Why are you a proponent of breaking the law?

STRAWMAN.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******>>>All he wants is
>>>those that are here to go through a drastically reduced process than the
>>>current one, and become a legal citizen and pay taxes.

>but he is on record of wanting to fast track legal immigration.

His words:

================
. . . these could be some great people. But you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back. I would get them back where they are, and I would try and work out a process where they can come in legally. But they’ve got — they have to come in legally, Sean. It’s about laws. It’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I’d get them out. And if they were really outstanding — because some of these people have been here for a long period of time. I’d let them back legally, they have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much greater. . ..I would expedite it because some of these people are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I’d do is I’d expedite it.
==================

So no, he doesn't want to keep anyone here and fast track them - he wants them all out. And he doesn't want to make any changes to immigration law, he just wants to make the system "faster and greater" for the "really outstanding ones." Which is exactly what we have now - fast tracks for critical skills and exceptional people, like athletes or doctors.

Interesting that he does not mention legal immigration for relatives of US citizens (exceptional or not) which is currently law. That means that, unless he rethinks his policy again, he would end up making the law more restrictive, not less.

But if he does change his stance, and come up with a drastically reduced process so that those who are here can become either legal immigrants or citizens, I'd be all for that.

I read it as he wants the law to be followed. Why are you a proponent of breaking the law?



STRAWMAN.

Is there something wrong with following the law until it is changed?

At the university you attend, do you not have rules to govern the students?
Do you simply refuse to enforce the rules?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DrewEckhardt 0]

rushmc

Your subject line is greatly misleading

It should say a LEAGAL immigrant took his job

An immigrant with a pen stroke, not one without. That trivial technicality doesn't merit a mention.

When the last of my ancestors showed up everyone was welcome except the Chinese and America was still the greatest nation on the planet.

Quote

Did you see where Homeland Security and the Obama admin have admitted that nearly all ILEAGALs coming into the US (through Mexico) have to pay the drug cartels to do so now?
The fee is usually carrying a backpack full of heroin across for them?

That's nice. I'm glad I live someplace so much better than the rest of the world people are willing to go through such great lengths to get here.

I'll worry when Americans leave en masse for Mexico and Canada.

[billvon 2,400]

>I read it as he wants the law to be followed. Why are you a proponent of
>breaking the law?

I'm not. I am a proponent of changing it.

Why do you hate immigrants?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>I read it as he wants the law to be followed. Why are you a proponent of
>breaking the law?

I'm not. I am a proponent of changing it.

Why do you hate immigrants?

Why do you hate Americans?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Why do you hate Americans?

I don't. I don't even hate you!

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Why do you hate Americans?

I don't. I don't even hate you!

Nor do I hate you (or Obama)

Nor do I think anybody here hates immigrants as you implied

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Nor do I think anybody here hates immigrants as you implied

I think you might be starting to understand the point of my statement!

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Nor do I think anybody here hates immigrants as you implied

I think you might be starting to understand the point of my statement!

And I think you dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>And I think you dont

OK, I take that back. My mistake.