https://x.com/henmazzig/status/1861343284452295075?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So, the actions of Israel in Gaza do not actually meet any actual definitions of genocide so the UN just fires the black, African, woman who refuses to say something other than what the facts tell her.
https://x.com/anncoulter/status/1861382115977232480?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
There's a trend among TDS types to equate Trump sensing illegal aliens back to where they came from with rich liberals losing the cheap lawn care labor. Well, look at what some liberals will expose themselves to for cheap lawn care help.
https://x.com/matt_vanswol/status/1861220961724334376?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The number of FEMA failure stories is growing (remember when the left loved to bash FEMA?) and this is one more to go along with the hundreds of empty dwellings built by the Amish that sit empty because they don't meet "code".
18 comments:
The UN is like Dan crying about the targeting of innocent children while defending abortion. Both choose words for effect, to push a narrative legitimizing bad behavior.
How many stories like this must we present before those defending migrants over Americans get a clue regarding the great danger their policies present? What ever happened to "do no harm"?
Ignore the feds and accept any protection against the elements when all one's possessions have been lost in a hurricane or other natural disaster. I remember how it used to be a stereotype to hear of "hillbillies" chasing out "revenuers". These displaced people need to do the same thing.
The fact that the only way for the UN to cry about it is to literally ignore the actual definition of the term (and it's well defined) and to fire the black African woman (racist, sexist) who refuses to kowtow to their agenda. Yes, the Dan parallels are amusing.
While the illegal alien story is a cautionary tale, it's probably not wise to broad brush all illegal aliens based on these incidents. Did the Biden/Harris administration fail massively in allowing these unsupervised criminals to run free in the US, absolutely. Does it represent the majority, no. It is interesting that the liberal response simply assumes that the US could not function without some number of illegal aliens doing certain jobs for minimal pay and no legal protection from exploitation. It's almost like they believe that the US still requires a "slave class" or people for certain jobs.
The idea of a federal agency charged with overseeing disaster response seems to be a reasonably good one, in the abstract. However when it is as politicized as FEMA currently is, it probably needs a major overhaul, or worse.
FYI, I updated the DEI posts with some relevant information from yesterday.
I don't worry about broad brushing illegals...because they're illegal, and that's enough. But I do fully support the notion that danger is elevated by allowing the current situation to persist, and presenting every such incident is necessary to drive home the point to those who pretend the point isn't valid. It most certainly is and there's no minimum number of victims of illegal aliens I find acceptable. Thus, if non-violent illegals are suspected by virtue of being illegal, I'm good with that.
I guess I've got a problem broad brushing anyone. I see Dan, and others on the left do it constantly and I find it incredibly shallow and annoying. I guess I'm a little out of touch in advocating for dealing with/judging people as individuals and based on their individual actions. When Dan tries to attribute something that some random "conservative" has said or done to me, it pisses me off. So, I try not to do it if at all possible. Obviously generalization has it's place, but I'm not sure this is it. FWIW.
I agree that these cases need to be publicized to show the need for vetting, and deporting those already charged with or convicted of a violent crime. I'm not suggesting that there is an acceptable number of victims at all (as they say in the anti gun talking points that one is too many), I am suggesting that tarring someone who's crime is a misdemeanor with the actions of a violent felon is something I try to avoid.
But we're talking about people who have already, or are attempting, broken our laws simply be entering illegally. It is they about whom I speak or broad brush. It's legitimate to do so. Are they all criminals? Well, they broke the law by entering illegally, and it is my understanding that the first time offense is treated as a misdemeanor for our convenience, so as not to clog the courts. But upon deportation, a second offense is a felony, so the act itself is indeed serious for a variety of reasons. I'm not as concerned with assuming they're all gang-banger and terrorists, but only that because they're clearly law-breakers, we're not obliged to sift through them to find which are the more serious kind. Thus, I'm saying my broad brush recognizes what we know...that they're all lawbreakers. That's enough to deport them.
We've been put into a bind due to the progressive stupidity of allowing the situation to get out of hand. WE are the concern which should be our government's focus and I don't care what their plans are when they cross illegally. I only care that they be made to leave. We still have a line of people seeking entry according to our laws and they are of greater concern than those sneaking in. ANY attempt to appease the law-breakers never results in anything less than more people thinking they can cross illegally and get away with it, too. Thus, the only logical and practical first step is to prevent and deter all attempts to enter illegally. Period.
So? I get it, it helps your point to broad brush people without regard to the type of crimes committed. Using your standard, it would be appropriate to broad brush everyone (likely including you) who's ever been convicted of speeding as a criminal as if that's their primary defining characteristic. The reality is that it's simply impossible to deport everyone all at once. The reality is that there will have to be some sort of priority established. It seems rational that focusing on those who've committed felonies (especially violent) might be the better place to start.
I'm curious, are you interested in applying the same standard of "justice" to the US businesses who violate US law by employing illegal aliens?
Again, I agree with your broad point here. I agree that, in so far as it is possible, that deporting everyone is the goal. Yet, I realize that it's likely impossible to do so and that it's not going to happen magically on January 21st. Therefore, I'm less concerned about Jose who snuck in 50 years ago and sells tacos on a street corner than I am about guys like the one who killed Lakin Riley. It's simply common sense that the ones who diminish the quality of life for everyone, be the priority.
Yes, securing the border is the single most important piece of the puzzle. If we can't stop future illegal immigration, then deporting people is just a revolving door.
Where the f**k do you see "broad-brushing" in any of my comments, Craig? Where? What the hell's your problem? We're talking about "ILLEGAL ALIENS"! Is that term itself, which you referenced as well, NOT "broad-brushing", or is it an appropriate term for all who are here contrary to our laws regarding entry or existing within our borders? It's got nothing to do with who goes first, but that eventually all must go.
"Using your standard, it would be appropriate to broad brush everyone (likely including you) who's ever been convicted of speeding as a criminal as if that's their primary defining characteristic."
If they broke the law, they are "criminals" technically. Criminals are those who break laws. We don't think of speeders as "criminals", but they break the law when they speed, so they are indeed criminals, regardless of how minor the infraction is. It's not "broad-brushing" to say so. Do I regard them as the worst people on the planet and deserving of attention as such? Don't be ludicrous. They aren't murderers, just as all illegals aren't murderers. Not the freaking point.
"The reality is that it's simply impossible to deport everyone all at once."
Don't believe I ever said such a thing, but it's not the reality. If we waited until we felt sure we had all illegals rounded up and detained, we could them gather as many modes of transport as needed to deport them all at once...at least theoretically. But why did you feel compelled to mention this as if I was making that argument?
"The reality is that there will have to be some sort of priority established."
Duh.
"I'm curious, are you interested in applying the same standard of "justice" to the US businesses who violate US law by employing illegal aliens?"
Yes. And if it could be determined that some sought out illegals in order to profit, I would go after them first and then deal with those who hired illegals inadvertently accordingly. If no one will hire illegals, illegals would not see coming illegally as beneficial to them. All part of the plan.
Of course the worst of the worst should be removed at once, and then go to the next group of nasties until Jose who sneaked in 50 years ago is held to account. (We dealt with nazis who lived here as "good" citizens. Why not Jose?)
Everything is up for consideration, including potentially granting welcome. But at this point, illegals are illegals and it's not "broad-brushing" to regard each of them as deportations-in-waiting.
Like most crimes under our US criminal code, there is a scale of seriousness. We don't treat murderers like jaywalkers. We generally don't refer to those who've committed "minor" offenses (misdemeanors) as "criminals" nor do we generally lump them in with violent felons. I'm a person with an above high school level ability to read, understand, and draw conclusions based on what others say. I believe that I have, at my blog, the ability to express my conclusions as freely as I want.
Thank you for making my point. You don't refer to speeders as criminals, because on the severity of their offense when measured against other offenses. Yet, as you note they are. By your standard, I suspect that we could safely refer to the majority of those in the US as criminals.
My issue is that to suggest that someone who's only crime is the misdemeanor of entering the country illegally, is somehow equivalent to someone who's committed a violent felony (in addition to entering the country illegally) seems a bit strange.
"at least theoretically."
So your argument against the reality that we can't deport every illegal all at once, is to make a theoretical argument. But it's a great basis for making policy. Even if your theory was feasible, it's still practically impossible.
I'm glad you say you're interested in applying the same standards to the criminals that employ illegal aliens as you do to the illegal aliens themselves. You are correct. If illegal aliens have no financial incentive to come to (or stay) the US illegally, they would not come or self deport. Likewise, if funds transfers across borders were taxed. I'm sure you'll start referring to those who employ illegal aliens as criminals as well.
Hell, we brought in NAZI's and lied about it because it helped the US.
You can refer to them however, you like. I can push back against how you do so. You can get all worked up when I disagree with you, if you like. I'll still post your comments and agree with you on many things.
"Like most crimes under our US criminal code, there is a scale of seriousness."
Like ALL crimes under our US criminal code, and the state codes and municipal codes, there are consequences to which offenders are held accountable. THIS is the issue here, not the severity. To say that illegals are lawbreakers, and thus criminals to any degree is not mitigated by the severity of the crime. There's no "broad-brushing" in stating this truth. Illegals are lawbreakers or they wouldn't be referred to as "illegal" aliens. The consequences MUST be deportation. If you want to talk about starting with the most dangerous among them, I have absolutely not problem with that plan whatsoever, so long as it doesn't mean we won't set aside for later deporting those who are known to have entered illegally and are easy to find. The main thing is to get started and do it.
"We generally don't refer to those who've committed "minor" offenses (misdemeanors) as "criminals" nor do we generally lump them in with violent felons."
Who's "we"? You and Dan? And who's lumping together minor offenders with murderers? I certainly never did.
" I'm a person with an above high school level ability to read, understand, and draw conclusions based on what others say."
You're also pedantic and unnecessarily argumentative over my accurate choice of words. You're projecting conclusions rather than drawing them, and you've been doing is quite a bit lately. I don't know why.
"You don't refer to speeders as criminals, because on the severity of their offense when measured against other offenses."
Only because there are synonyms which don't suggest murderers....like "lawbreakers", "scofflaws" or....uh..."speeders". But tell me...can one speed without exceeding the posted limit? Of course. But because of the posted limit, we're not likely to refer one as a "speeder" until one exceeds that posted limit. The words become idioms in the common lexicon, but they still retain their more accurate meanings. Both misdemeanors and felonies are considered criminal offenses. Thus, offenders of either are criminals.
"By your standard, I suspect that we could safely refer to the majority of those in the US as criminals."
Just as with many behaviors prohibited in Scripture, we have a hard time truly regarding ourselves as sinners. Yet...
"My issue is that to suggest that someone who's only crime is the misdemeanor of entering the country illegally, is somehow equivalent to someone who's committed a violent felony (in addition to entering the country illegally) seems a bit strange."
Who's done that? Did I do that? No. No, I don't believe I did. In actual fact, I NEVER did. It's more than bit strange if you're suggesting I have.
"So your argument against the reality that we can't deport every illegal all at once, is to make a theoretical argument."
No. It's to refute the claim we can't, but more to the point, it's a rebuttal to the unnecessary, irrelevant stating of what you say is impossible. It's yet another thing I hadn't suggested, yet you seem compelled to argue against what I've never said. I simply said we should be deporting all who are here illegally. THAT is the starting point. How we get there is another thing, but until we settle on the how, we can still deport those we know we can arrest for the purpose.
"Likewise, if funds transfers across borders were taxed."
I don't understand what you're referencing here.
"I'm sure you'll start referring to those who employ illegal aliens as criminals as well."
I don't feel personally obliged, as I don't feel obliged to call speeders criminal. But whosoever breaks the law is technically one who engaged in a criminal act, so...
"Hell, we brought in NAZI's and lied about it because it helped the US."
Irrelevant, except that it's the same as Biden swing wide the border gates because it helped him and his party to do so.
"You can refer to them however, you like."
Mainly, I refer to them as "illegals" or "invaders", but because they broke our laws, they are criminals as well, even if crossing illegally is their only infraction. You can push back, but here you're completely wrong, regardless of how "we" "generally" refer to those who commit low level crimes.
"You can get all worked up when I disagree with you, if you like."
I get "worked up" when you disagree in a clearly disagreeable manner, as you have again here by imposing meaning upon my words which my words themselves don't come close to implying.
" I'll still post your comments and agree with you on many things."
That's why I love you.
""we" is most of the population of the US. Do you refer to your self as a criminal because you've (presumably) committed some (minor) crime at some point in your life? Your insistence that all illegal aliens be treated the same seems to suggest that you are not drawing a distinction between those who've committed violent felonies and misdemeanors.
You're right, I do have a thing for accuracy, and pointing out things that I question. It seems like at least part of the "problem" you seem to think exists, is that anyone who questions your opinions is doing so out of malice or ill intent and responding based on your feelings.
Thanks for the unnecessary primer on crime, which merely agrees with what I've said. Unfortunately, I suspect that you've never referred to anyone who's gotten a speeding ticket as a "criminal". Where I see a problem is , as you note, that there are specific terms for various levels of crime (which you list). Your choice to use the absolutely most broad term "criminals" (while accurate on one level), to refer to every illegal alien blurs the distinction between the array of crimes committed. My point was that the deportation should prioritize those illegal aliens who've committed more serious crimes first. While you seem to agree with this, you seem committed to insisting that "criminals" is the most specifically accurate term to use.
I disagree. I'm not saying that I'm objectively correct, I'm saying that I disagree. That you seem to be so angry that I disagree with you and so determined to demonstrate that you are right on this one minor point seems strange. But I won't stop you from doing so if it makes you feel good.
It's a bit strange that you don't consider lumping together those who've only committed a misdemeanor with those who've done much worse to be a problem. But, you do you.
I understand that your theoretical construct that we could arrest tens of millions of illegal aliens, borrow vast sums of money to feed and house them for an indeterminate amount of time, just so we can deport them all at the "same time", was a "rebuttal". The fact remains that it was theoretical only.
I'm referencing the thought that cracking down on those who employ illegal aliens, and taxing remittances would be one way to encourage illegal aliens to self deport. It would be one way to avoid the US looking like South Africa, Germany, and the US, by putting people in what amount to concentration camps.
It's interesting that you insist on referring to an illegal alien who's (theoretically) committed only the misdemeanor of entering the US illegally as a criminal, yet don't feel compelled to refer to an ag company who employs hundreds/thousands of illegal aliens as "criminal" (or those who make the decision to employ illegal aliens). Seems like a bit of a double standard, but whatever.
Well, you brought it up so how can responding to something you brought up be irrelevant? Likewise, Roosevelt and Truman made the intentional decision to bring NAZI's in because it helped their party and to some extent the country.
Actually, the correct legal term is "illegal aliens", which is the term I choose to use. It has the benefit of actually being the correct term, being accurate, and being specific. It's also one that Dan can't really whine about, because it's the legal term in US code.
This notion that I'm "wrong" because I don't 100% agree with you is a bit strange, but whatever.
I apologize for imposing the common meanings of words on the words you use. My bad.
"I understand that your theoretical construct that we could arrest tens of millions of illegal aliens, borrow vast sums of money to feed and house them for an indeterminate amount of time, just so we can deport them all at the "same time", was a "rebuttal". The fact remains that it was theoretical only."
Of course it was theoretical! But it was only submitted in response to the unnecessary "no duh" comment that we can't remove all of them at one time. I followed one silly comment with one of my own. End of story.
"I'm referencing the thought that cracking down on those who employ illegal aliens, and taxing remittances would be one way to encourage illegal aliens to self deport. It would be one way to avoid the US looking like South Africa, Germany, and the US, by putting people in what amount to concentration camps."
Whatever gets them out is fine by me. But we have detention centers already, and while they might "amount" to concentration camps, I don't regard that term as appropriate. When apprehended, we've got to put them somewhere until transport is ready. But call it whatever you like.
"It's interesting that you insist on referring to an illegal alien who's (theoretically) committed only the misdemeanor of entering the US illegally as a criminal, yet don't feel compelled to refer to an ag company who employs hundreds/thousands of illegal aliens as "criminal" (or those who make the decision to employ illegal aliens). Seems like a bit of a double standard, but whatever."
I've made no such double-standard insistence. If it's illegal to hire illegals, then to do so is a crime. It's a crime to break a law. To break a law makes one a criminal. That we dislike using that term for misdemeanors doesn't change that fact. We used to use the term "petty criminals" for those who aren't among the worst of all possible degrees of criminality.
Here's an idea...let's call them what they are regardless of how it "feels" so that they themselves understand the truth of their behavior.
" Well, you brought it up so how can responding to something you brought up be irrelevant?"
Incorrect. I referred to discovering nazis in our midst, those who came here hoping to blend in and live their lives without being held accountable for their complicity in criminal acts. I was referring to Simon Wiesenthal and his dedicating of his life to hunt and prosecute nazis who evaded justice.
"Actually, the correct legal term is "illegal aliens""
I'm under not obligation to use only legal terms unless a specific situation compels me to do so. "Invader" is an accurate term as well, despite it not being a "legal term". Thus, it's appropriate to use and it makes Dan whine...which I find entertaining.
"This notion that I'm "wrong" because I don't 100% agree with you is a bit strange, but whatever."
It's not a matter of agreeing with me personally. It's what is true. Breaking laws are crimes. Committing crimes makes one a criminal. That you're uncomfortable using the word for everyone who breaks the law is a personal problem, but doesn't mitigate the truth of it.
"I apologize for imposing the common meanings of words on the words you use. My bad."
No worries, mate. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with actual meanings of words applied as I've applied them. That's your bad, too.
"Whatever gets them out is fine by me."
Well, that's a start.
When was the last time you said anything about going after the companies that hire illegal aliens? How often have you advocated going after the employers that illegally employ illegal aliens? If not, why not? Why shy away from a significant driver of illegal immigration? By all means, I'll eagerly await you referring to ag and construction companies as criminals regularly.
Given that the majority of NAZI's who made it to the US were brought he by the government, I guess getting all worked up about the few that got here otherwise makes sense. The majority of the NAZIs who got out went to countries that were not quite so antagonistic to the NAZIs and where they faced less risk.
You can use whatever terms you want. I choose to stick with the appropriate legal terminology, which also pisses Dan off. I choose to stick with the appropriate legal term because I don't find it necessary to piss Dan off any more than necessary.
If it didn't matter to you, why invest so much time and energy complaining about what are relatively minor disagreements on a topic we mostly agree on?
I'm not uncomfortable using the term criminal for one who breaks the law. I think it's lazy to use a term that spans conduct from jaywalking to mass murder, but it's technically accurate in a general sense so why not. I guess I'd hope for a less selective use of the term in this context, and an acknowledgement that the immigrants aren't the only criminals, and that drug dealers/rapists pose a greater threat than roofers.
Maybe that's the problem. That you consider your applications of words as the "actual meanings" and don't consider that there might be more accurate and appropriate words to use. Of course, choosing ones' words to piss off Dan as opposed to being as accurate and specific as possible might be a problem as well.
"When was the last time you said anything about going after the companies that hire illegal aliens?"
When was the last time the subject came up and how did I respond? I'm surprised you choose to assume that in a general conversation about illegal border crossings that I wouldn't include all incentives existing to draw more of it as points of concern. If the law prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens, why do you think I wouldn't want legal actions taken against those who hire illegal aliens? If such laws exist, then those who ignore the law and hire aliens are criminals. Breaking laws are crimes. Those who commit crimes are criminals. I would think that would be plain at this point and I'm not obliged to constantly repeat myself.
"Given that the majority of NAZI's who made it to the US were brought he by the government, I guess getting all worked up about the few that got here otherwise makes sense."
Who's "getting all worked up" besides yourself? And I've never heard the claim that the majority of nazis who made it to the US after WWII were brought here by our government. Please provide a source for this claim if you want to insist it means anything against the fact I presented...which was that when nazis were discovered in our midst, their deportation was sought. Also irrelevant was the choice of country destination of other nazis.
"Criminal" is appropriate legal terminology denoting someone who committed a crime, which is the breaking a law. So you're criticizing me for doing what you proudly claim to be doing with the use of another legal term. Seems rather contradictory.
I don't find it "necessary" to piss Dan off. I find it humorous...entertaining...and fun to do.
"If it didn't matter to you, why invest so much time and energy complaining about what are relatively minor disagreements on a topic we mostly agree on?"
Not sure what this is referencing. But I do like to clarify what you either didn't seem to understand or chose to misrepresent.
" I think it's lazy to use a term that spans conduct from jaywalking to mass murder, but it's technically accurate in a general sense so why not."
You certainly need to say so for the purpose of this conversation. You're a bit more insistent on using "illegal alien", which is also a legal term. So why is it "lazy" to use one proper legal term and not another, like "illegal alien"?
"I guess I'd hope for a less selective use of the term in this context, and an acknowledgement that the immigrants aren't the only criminals..."
WTF? If we're discussing illegal aliens, they're the only criminals to acknowledge! That's got nothing to do with which illegals are worse than others, but only acknowledging all who cross illegally have broken our laws, that breaking our laws are criminal acts and those who commit criminal acts are, by definition and civil law, criminals. Period. End of story. I've not objected to the notion of focusing first on the most dangerous of them. That's a distinct conversation apart from the general topic of ending illegal entry. Anytime you'd like to affirm which of the two is your focus would be appreciated, and then we can proceed. Will it be ending illegal crossings? Prioritizing who will be deported first? Penalizing hiring of illegals? Which would you prefer?
"Maybe that's the problem. That you consider your applications of words as the "actual meanings" and don't consider that there might be more accurate and appropriate words to use."
Nope. That's not a problem I have. I haven't been confused by the words either of us have used, and I don't really believe you've been at all confused by those I've used. The problem is that you somehow don't like how I've been using the appropriate and accurate words I've used because of some "common usage" of the word "criminal". You use "illegal aliens" to be precise. I use "criminal" in the same way. And I'm done with this semantic debate.
"Of course, choosing ones' words to piss off Dan as opposed to being as accurate and specific as possible might be a problem as well."
Not for me, because all the words I choose are accurate and specific as well. Dan is one of those who is likely opposed to using "illegal alien" because "no one is 'illegal'" or some such leftist crap. I once got crap for using the term "bastard" in referring to the illegitimate birth of my opponent's ancestor. "Bastard" is the accurate term, but then, not only was he fixated on my choice of that word because of it's more common usage as a "cuss word", but also I was reminded that no one is "illegitimate". Anyway, I strive to be accurate and specific at all times, and my choice of words from any size pool of options doesn't alter that one iota.
"When was the last time the subject came up and how did I respond?"
Given that the subject is illegal immigration, and that US companies violating US law to hire illegal aliens is a major component of the issue, I fail to see how it's somehow not part of the subject. Given your one sided focus on the illegal aliens, and no focus on the US companies that employ them, it seems reasonable to at least wonder. Great, thanks for referring to companies that employ illegal aliens as criminals from here on out.
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-nazis-were-rewarded-with-life-in-the-u-s
It's almost as if you are not aware of Operation Paperclip and other ways that the US invited NAZIs into the US after WW2. But that's neither here nor there, I assumed you were aware. My bad.
https://www.history.com/news/how-south-america-became-a-nazi-haven
The majority of NAZIs who escaped went to South America due to it's more tolerant attitude towards National Socialism. It seems strange to conclude that the safest place for NAZIs trying to escape justice would head for the countries that just defeated and were prosecuting them, but whatever...
FYI, I'm not worked up in the least. I'm just responding to your comments.
No, I'm pointing out that your use of the term criminal in this context is only limited to some of the criminals.
Hey if pissing Dan off floats your boat, go for it. I'm not Dan.
Its' referencing the multiple comments nitpcicking small differences in our approaches as opposed to the large areas we agree on.
I'm using the term illegal alien specifically in a conversation about illegal immigration. It seems appropriate to use the term in a conversation which focuses on illegal aliens. I choose not to use other terms for several reasons, which are irrelevant. While using the most broad, general, and vague term "criminal" when discussing a specific crime seems strange to me. It's not wrong, it's just a very broad term for a very specific crime, and its not a term I've heard you use in any other aspect of this subject.
It's interesting. My experience would suggest that the legal system would tend to use specific terms (convicted of murder. murder) as opposed to general terms when referring to a specific crime.
"WTF? If we're discussing illegal aliens, they're the only criminals to acknowledge!"
1. If this is True, then there's a more specific term to use when discussing illegal aliens. That's illegal aliens.
2. The illegal aliens are not the only criminals that are part of the discussion of illegal immigration/border security.
I was specific in another thread that you've been following, I assumed you'd read it. My priorities,
1. Control the border. Without this, no other measures will be successful.
2. Deport or jail those who've entered illegally and engaged in violent crimes, crimes against people, or drug crimes.
3. Crack down hard on US companies that employ illegals, immediately enforce EVerify and other appropriate measures to cut off avenues of employment. Fines against these companies can be used to fund the enforcement effort.
4. Heavily tax remittance payments from illegal aliens.
5. Assess how things stand after 1-4 have been implemented.
6. Deport those who might still be in the country.
My priorities are to protect US citizens from harm, remove the incentive to illegally immigrate, encourage self deportation, and punish US countries that financially incentivize illegal immigration as working against the interests of the US. Unfortunately, deportation isn't going to magically happen, so it only makes sense to prioritize the steps to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, until we close the border, we'll have a revolving door without shutting off the criminal companies that employ illegal aliens.
No, I don't believe that your usage of words defines their actual meanings. You clearly use words to mean particular things or elicit certain reactions for your own reasons, and that's fine. But to make the lead to assert that those usages are the "actual meanings" seems a bit much.
If you say so.
Post a Comment