The Many Faces of US Politics...

[RadioGAAGAA]

deport them to where Mexico so they can try cross the border next day ? Or should they be all flown back to their place of origin how much would that cost and how many times would it be done ?

It costs somewhere between $30k and $60k per year to keep someone in prison in the US.

That's quite a few flights.

[J70]

if u  cross border and surrender to border patrol u are released in the us and are given a court date to show up to court and plea your case (10% of people show up)for amnesty , if you enter illegally and are caught u are locked up and deported which is proper order , only a sick imbecile would be hoping the corona virus would be the reason a president lost an election.

If "u" could read - you'd clearly have seen that deporting the person has nothing to do with it being a criminal offence. That was the very thing I was drawing attention to in the post you quoted - but it obviously still sailed right over your head.
It would be a lot less expensive if the US justice system could immediately deport the illegal immigrant rather than have to house them in a jail (at considerable expense) for a period of up to 2 years.

What is your reasoning for keeping it a criminal offence rather than restricting it solely to a civil offence? [Note that I don't believe its possible to commit a crime and not be subject to penitentiary punishment - particularly in lieu of fiscal punishment - in the US justice system - thus I don't believe deportation can be an option for a criminal offence where the offender cannot pay a fine]



Furthermore - where did I ever say or hint at being hopeful the virus would be a reason for The Donald to lose the election? It was an observation that it may influence the election, no more, no less.

I'm not an immigration attorney but here's what Jeh Johnson had to say in the matter

"when we talk about deprioritizing the deportation of those apprehended at the border or decriminalizing illegal immigration ... That just simply incentives more illegal immigration."

That is something that can be debated on its merits without false labels and scaremongering like "open borders".

[easytiger95]

take a look at what are common diseases in Guatemala and see what u think,  but there should be a revolving door at the border according to eamon j70 and his fellow Democrats

Only an imbecile would be unable to grasp there is a vast swath of grey between a closed border and an open border.

Did you realise that by making it solely a civil, rather than also criminal offence - the US borderland security could more quickly remove illegals from US soil?

Doubt Fox News told you that.


What Castro is referring to is Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, which stipulates that anyone caught crossing the border illegally is to be tried before a judge and fined, imprisoned for up to two years, or both. At no point does it provide for deportation. Deportation is the penalty for the civil offense of illegal immigration. The criminal offense outlined in Section 1325 simply puts illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system and imprisons them for up to two years.

if u  cross border and surrender to border patrol u are released in the us and are given a court date to show up to court and plea your case (10% of people show up)for amnesty , if you enter illegally and are caught u are locked up and deported which is proper order , only a sick imbecile would be hoping the corona virus would be the reason a president lost an election.

Only 10 percent show up for hearings?

As soon as I read this, I knew it was completely wrong. And I haven't lived in the States for nearly 25 years.

It literally took me 10secs on Google to find this link - by using the search terms "percentage of illegal immigrants who attend hearings following catch and release"

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/10/21059924/trump-asylum-seekers-show-up-court-hearing

So if you're basic premise is wrong, why should anyone believe anything else you say re immigration? The vast majority of people who cross the border want to be there legally, want to obey laws and pay taxes (which they do whilst illegal and percentage wise are more law abiding than citizens) and are an economic boon to the communities they live in.

The information to educate yourself is keystrokes away. You should try it.

[whitey]

if u  cross border and surrender to border patrol u are released in the us and are given a court date to show up to court and plea your case (10% of people show up)for amnesty , if you enter illegally and are caught u are locked up and deported which is proper order , only a sick imbecile would be hoping the corona virus would be the reason a president lost an election.

If "u" could read - you'd clearly have seen that deporting the person has nothing to do with it being a criminal offence. That was the very thing I was drawing attention to in the post you quoted - but it obviously still sailed right over your head.
It would be a lot less expensive if the US justice system could immediately deport the illegal immigrant rather than have to house them in a jail (at considerable expense) for a period of up to 2 years.

What is your reasoning for keeping it a criminal offence rather than restricting it solely to a civil offence? [Note that I don't believe its possible to commit a crime and not be subject to penitentiary punishment - particularly in lieu of fiscal punishment - in the US justice system - thus I don't believe deportation can be an option for a criminal offence where the offender cannot pay a fine]



Furthermore - where did I ever say or hint at being hopeful the virus would be a reason for The Donald to lose the election? It was an observation that it may influence the election, no more, no less.

I'm not an immigration attorney but here's what Jeh Johnson had to say in the matter

"when we talk about deprioritizing the deportation of those apprehended at the border or decriminalizing illegal immigration ... That just simply incentives more illegal immigration."

That is something that can be debated on its merits without false labels and scaremongering like "open borders".

So Johnson is now scaremongering and using false labels? Interesting

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/3/jeh-johnson-obama-homeland-security-secretary-rips/

"That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders," he said. "That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress."

[J70]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

[whitey]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

[J70]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

And McCaskill, at least in the one you posted a couple of days back, was more concerned with appealing to voters i.e. optics (and thus labeling), than the actual pros and cons of such policies.

[whitey]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

And McCaskill, at least in the one you posted a couple of days back, was more concerned with appealing to voters i.e. optics (and thus labeling), than the actual pros and cons of such policies.

How about Harry Reid then

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywadgw/exclusive-harry-reid-of-course-medicare-for-all-and-decriminalizing-border-crossings-are-bad-ideas


"People want a fair immigration system. They don't want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once," argued Reid"


If you guys want to die in this hill, knock yourselves out, but seeiminglt it's something even 2/3 of Democrats are against

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/politics/cnn-panel-clashes-with-castro-over-decriminalizing-illegal-border-crossings/amp/


"Less than a third of Democrats support what you're talking about. You just said before it's not that popular. It's really unpopular,"

[J70]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

And McCaskill, at least in the one you posted a couple of days back, was more concerned with appealing to voters i.e. optics (and thus labeling), than the actual pros and cons of such policies.

How about Harry Reid then

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywadgw/exclusive-harry-reid-of-course-medicare-for-all-and-decriminalizing-border-crossings-are-bad-ideas


"People want a fair immigration system. They don't want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once," argued Reid"

He's not calling it "open borders", with its implications of unprotected frontiers and zero control, oversight, vetting and inspections.

What is so difficult about this for you to understand?

[Gabriel_Hurl]

New drinking game: take a shot every time Whitey says "Jeh Johnson"

As least he's moved one from sex change operations in prison.

Has Johnson been on Fox News recently - is that why he's whitey's new talking point?

[whitey]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

And McCaskill, at least in the one you posted a couple of days back, was more concerned with appealing to voters i.e. optics (and thus labeling), than the actual pros and cons of such policies.

How about Harry Reid then

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywadgw/exclusive-harry-reid-of-course-medicare-for-all-and-decriminalizing-border-crossings-are-bad-ideas


"People want a fair immigration system. They don't want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once," argued Reid"

He's not calling it "open borders", with its implications of unprotected frontiers and zero control, oversight, vetting and inspections.

What is so difficult about this for you to understand?

And that is why Johnson called it "de facto" open borders.

[J70]

You can post that link as many times as you want.

It doesn't change the point.

If you want to argue that the various Dem proposals are "open borders", then go ahead and lay it out. You've already stated that its one of your major motivations in giving your de facto vote to Trump, along with your "hatred" for the Dems for their apparently uniquely despicable conduct.

Doesn't change which  point?  Are you saying that's  it's false, misleading and scaremongering to say that it will lead to open borders?

Because if that's what you're saying-both Claire McCaskill and Jeh Johnson would vehemently disagree with you

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

And McCaskill, at least in the one you posted a couple of days back, was more concerned with appealing to voters i.e. optics (and thus labeling), than the actual pros and cons of such policies.

How about Harry Reid then

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywadgw/exclusive-harry-reid-of-course-medicare-for-all-and-decriminalizing-border-crossings-are-bad-ideas


"People want a fair immigration system. They don't want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once," argued Reid"

He's not calling it "open borders", with its implications of unprotected frontiers and zero control, oversight, vetting and inspections.

What is so difficult about this for you to understand?

And that is why Johnson called it "de facto" open borders.

So decriminalizing illegal entry is essentially the same as abandoning the frontiers with Mexico and Canada and shutting down all the CBP entry points in the airports and sea ports.

Gotcha.

[whitey]

Ask the former head of Homeland Security under the last Democratic President what he thinks

They are his views not mine

[J70]

Ask the former head of Homeland Security under the last Democratic President what he thinks

They are his views not mine

Well you're posting them over and over again, so one would have to assume you agree. You've also said "open borders " are one of the reasons you want Trump to win in November.

So feel free to make the argument that a vote for the Dems is a vote to abandon any control or oversight of the border and the entry of people into the country. Because that is what " open borders " means.

[whitey]

You and Eamonn are claiming that they're some right wing talking points -they're not

I,  speaking as an independent voter,  expect a full blown crisis at the southern border with millions of people flooding in should a Democrat who holds these views get elected