Donald Trump: We Will Have a ‘Deportation Force’

For those who disagree with Trump, go to any foreign country illegally and get caught and see what happens. EVERY country will deport you , if your lucky. But the U.S. we are racist and mean for doing it. I say get rid of them now!

originally posted by: Foderalover
For those who disagree with Trump, go to any foreign country illegally and get caught and see what happens. EVERY country will deport you , if your lucky. But the U.S. we are racist and mean for doing it. I say get rid of them now!

Those disagreeing with trump are mostly not disagreeing about deporting illegals which should happen.

They are disagreeing with the idea of setting up ANOTHER Alphabet agency with extra judicial powers.


Why not just use the police and Border force you do have?

Why spend hundreds of billions (come on you know any new agency well cost that much like always, and 90% will be "lost") for a another AJNSNDWD agency consisting of a bunch of vegetables who likely were to dumb/lazy/fat/aggressive to even get into the TSA when there are most efficient ways to deal with the problem........like just enforcing current laws.

Surely the last 15 years of Bush II and Obama the (not) Great have shown just throwing money at a problem and creating new agencys doesn't sort the issue and in fact just makes it worse. why will Trump doing the same thing be any different?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: anon72

So Trump's plan to get rid of the immigrants is to expand the government?

Well - it did work for Bush II - Homeland Security - LOL

Oh yeah. And we can't forget about everyone's FAVORITE government department ever! The TSA!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: anon72

So Trump's plan to get rid of the immigrants is to expand the government?

Well - it did work for Bush II - Homeland Security - LOL

Oh yeah. And we can't forget about everyone's FAVORITE government department ever! The TSA!

With the TSA taking the "cream" of the employment crop I dread to think who Trump will find for his new Agency.

If the candidates are even breathing I will be surprised.

I actually half expect 100 billion to be spent on scarecrows in official looking uniforms placed along the Mexican border

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny, I never mentioned our current, fearless leader. And so what if he did? Them numbers are still to low! This is what it boils down to. Libs want, Socialist minded folk at thier voters base. Screw things up enough that the laws can't be enforced, even if they tried. Nothing is done by our government, without the solution being the cause. Goes for every "party". It's against the "law" to be illegal in this counry. Pure and simple. All I said was we already have Federal LEOs supposed to be showing illegals the door. Don't need another tax sucking acronym to do the same job.

So you are saying that the most successful President at deporting illegals isn't doing enough? Were you complaining this fiercely about Bush not doing enough when HE was President? I mean he didn't put up the numbers that Obama has put up.

a reply to: crazyewok

No No, don't forget the wall. The scarecrows will be manning the turrets on the wall.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

No No, don't forget the wall. The scarecrows will be manning the turrets on the wall.

O yes! I forgot the wall Mexico will be building

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
We already have a "deportation force" and all the laws necessary already exist. The only thing we're missing a President and administration that would actually follow and enforce the existing laws using the existing govt resources.

I asked someone else this, but I'm really curious. How can Obama's deportation numbers be at an all time high but he isn't following the laws on the books?

Does that mean that Bush and other conservative Presidents that came before him didn't follow the laws either since their deportation numbers were much lower?

Simple. There's more illegals coming across the border than ever. Obama can deport 25% of the illegals coming across and still have higher numbers than any previous administration who deported 50%.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
We already have a "deportation force" and all the laws necessary already exist. The only thing we're missing a President and administration that would actually follow and enforce the existing laws using the existing govt resources.

I asked someone else this, but I'm really curious. How can Obama's deportation numbers be at an all time high but he isn't following the laws on the books?

Does that mean that Bush and other conservative Presidents that came before him didn't follow the laws either since their deportation numbers were much lower?

Simple. There's more illegals coming across the border than ever. Obama can deport 25% of the illegals coming across and still have higher numbers than any previous administration who deported 50%.

Fewer immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally, and that’s changed the border security debate

As the Department of Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at least two decades. The nation’s population of illegal immigrants, which more than tripled, to 12.2 million, between 1990 and 2007, has dropped by about 1 million, according to demographers at the Pew Research Center.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mikell
Excuse me but as an AMERICAN I think my RIGHTS TRUMP an ILLEGALS rights by a long shot.

Excuse me, but as an American you should know that our Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that no one person's rights trump any other person's rights.

Well does a citizen of the usa have more rights than a illegal immigrant?

No.

That is what is being said that those not here legally do not have the same rights that were granted to the citizens by our creator via the constitution.

You tell me. Does this say that ALL men are created equal or just legal American men are created equal?

United States Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

great non answer

you know that when this question is answered then the debate will start to end.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I thought the Constitution is supposed to exist to protect the natural rights of humans? So why wouldn't illegal immigrants have rights? Are they not humans?

The United States Constitution doesn't protect the natural rights of humans. It protects the natural rights of United States citizens.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mikell
Excuse me but as an AMERICAN I think my RIGHTS TRUMP an ILLEGALS rights by a long shot.

Excuse me, but as an American you should know that our Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that no one person's rights trump any other person's rights.

Well does a citizen of the usa have more rights than a illegal immigrant?

No.

That is what is being said that those not here legally do not have the same rights that were granted to the citizens by our creator via the constitution.

You tell me. Does this say that ALL men are created equal or just legal American men are created equal?

United States Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

great non answer

you know that when this question is answered then the debate will start to end.

Actually, your response just now is a non-answer. MY answer was clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I thought the Constitution is supposed to exist to protect the natural rights of humans? So why wouldn't illegal immigrants have rights? Are they not humans?

The United States Constitution doesn't protect the natural rights of humans. It protects the natural rights of United States citizens.

Really? Can you point out where it says that in the Constitution then? Because I can't seem to find that anywhere in it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I thought the Constitution is supposed to exist to protect the natural rights of humans? So why wouldn't illegal immigrants have rights? Are they not humans?

The United States Constitution doesn't protect the natural rights of humans. It protects the natural rights of United States citizens.

Really? Can you point out where it says that in the Constitution then? Because I can't seem to find that anywhere in it.

Its next to the part that bans cannabis and allows waterboarding.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is quite simple to solve. IS it possible for a non-citizen to use the US constitution to protect them if they are in another country? Well if not then obviously those protections are meant for US citizens.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is quite simple to solve. IS it possible for a non-citizen to use the US constitution to protect them if they are in another country? Well if not then obviously those protections are meant for US citizens.

Yea it is quite easy to solve. ALL men are created equal. There is no caveat in the Constitution that says it only applies to US citizens, no matter how much you want to pretend there is one. It doesn't exist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You did not answer my question you just restated your previous point. Can a non-citizen claim protections under the US constitution when in another country? If not then legally you are incorrect. We can mince words about the "spirit" or intent but when it comes down to nuts and bolts it is just words. If the law wont protect a non citizen under clauses within the US constitution while in another country then clearly it only applies to US citizens.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Your question is irrelevant, these people aren't outside of the United States. They live within it. Therefore they fall within the bounds of the Constitution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well it starts out with:
"We the People of the United States"
Note it's not Earth's constitution or the Mexican constitution, it's the United States constitution.

Then there is Article IV of the Constitution, the purpose of which is to outline the relationship between each state and other states, as well as between each state and the federal government, as well as between the citizens and the states. Section two states that the privileges and immunities granted to them by a state shall be granted to them in every state.

In court people have tried to use this to mean that any rights they have in their home state should be granted to them in other states (concealed carry for instance) however the Supreme Court typically hasn't upheld that interpretation of it. However it could also be interpreted to mean that only a citizen would granted privileges and immunities by the United States constitution, since it specifically states that you must be a citizen of a state to be granted privileges and immunities, and not a "person" which is a more ambiguous term.

If in the event that Trump gets in and starts mass deportation of illegals, it would be interesting to see if he uses Article IV Section 2 to support that action, since this interpretation of it would mean that the illegals wouldn't be entitled to any rights granted by our constitution.

This is IMO the most literal interpretation of Article 4 Section 2.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Well now I've seen everything. Someone just used the Constitution to try to justify why non-citizens are less equal than citizens. Awesome. Oh by the way, I don't agree with a word you just said. I'm just remarking on the gall you have to try to find justification in a document that is supposed to establish freedoms for everyone so that you can avoid honoring someone's rights just because he isn't a citizen.

PS: Where does the Constitution SPECIFICALLY deny rights to non-citizens? Don't link me parts of the Constitution that enforce the rights for citizens. If non-citizens don't get the rights, then it must be specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Something like this: "Non-citizens are not afforded the rights and privileges of citizens".