Why do you support #MexicanPrivilege ?

originally posted by: RomeByFire


Then you deflect the FACT that Obama has deported more illegals than any other president in the history of this nation, and tell me "I've been lied to." Okay, bud - enlighten me, then. Source me up, fam.

For being so sure one would think you actually researched this, but if you had you would have learned it's a lie.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

www.latimes.com...

High deportation figures are misleading

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is why we used to compromise in this country, but these days the right seems to think that compromising is a betrayal to their party. Obviously some people go too far in their rhetoric, that's why we are supposed to seek a happy middle ground. Not bitch and whine until you get 100% everything you want.

If I could never hear the acronym "RINO" again I'd be a happy camper. The idea of ejecting someone from your party because they dared to compromise with a liberal is one of the most un-American things I've ever heard of.

Lets not act like just the right won't compromise. I have already pointed out how Hillary and many leftists claim anyone who wants to deport any illegal a racist. How can you compromise with that.

Secondly, there has been compromise. Both the establishment Republican and Democratic party's have compromised to allow illegals in, for cheap labor. To now demand that the people in this country that want to get a handle on tis immigration policy when they have been lied to by both parties for decades seems unfair.

But I do agree with you that we can find a middle ground, and that all sides need to tone done the vitriol.

I'm just trying to make it clear here that I'm not looking to have a political mud battle. You look like you are trying to give me an intelligent discourse here so I'd like to keep it that way. Not trying to offend either.

No offense taken. I am enjoying this discussion a lot, and I definitely concede you are making ssome good points.

BTW, I want to anwer your post about illegals helping the economy, but I may start another thread on it. I got to run for a while though.

originally posted by: Grambler
First, I did not criticize Obama for anything until you brought it up. I was merely stating (as you have agreed) that even if we disagree with laws, if your caught you have to be held accountable. If Obama is doing this great, but that doesn't mean Trump or Hillary or anyone else still can't try to solve the problem better.

Fair enough. I agree.

Regardless of how compassionate his executive actions were, my point was he made actions that went against federal laws about illegals. Read my previous posts, I don't agree with kicking out hard working non criminal illegals either.

As far as sanctuary cities. I know these aren't created by Obama. But he hasn't done anything to enforce the laws there, he has ignored this and allowed these cities to refuse to comply with federal law.

Well this is hard for Obama to do. He can send federal troops to a city and try to force them to cooperate, but if the city resists still it can figure out tons of ways to do so.

I mean it is the same thing as the DEA sending federal agents to raid dispensaries or grow operations in states before the marijuana experiment started. If a state didn't want to comply, they could just refuse to provide any police support to the DEA when they do their raids and there is nothing the federal government could do there. Besides, I guess, withhold federal funding from them, but that is a decision Congress has to make not the President.

So here's a thought. Congress can always withhold funding from these sanctuary cities. With the Republican lead Congress, why haven't they tried to do this yet, instead opting to blame all of this on Obama? It's not like Congress is powerless here either.

As far as border agents, maybe Obama did increase the number of them, I will take your word for it. But these agents are largely upset with Obama because they claim he is telling them to release illegals or not bother arressting them in the first place.

politifact

Wasserman Schultz said, "President Obama has the most border patrols and border security deployed at the border of any previous president."

She is correct that the highest number of border patrol agents has been under Obama: there were 21,444 in 2011. Wasserman Schultz was careful here and said "most" and didn’t talk about the growth rate. But it’s worth noting that the big growth was during Bush’s tenure: between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents posted nationally rose from about 9,800 to a little more than 20,000.

Other border security measures are not as simple to quantify. The key piece of infrastructure -- the fence -- was launched under Bush. Work on the fence and other border security improvements continued under Obama.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Even dangerous criminal illegals are allowed to go free.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Are you aware that this has to do with prison overcrowding? Obama doesn't do it because he likes it. It's necessary because we don't have the space to hold them. In fact, Obama isn't the one responsible for this even happening. SCOTUS is because they ruled it cruel and unusual punishment to put all those illegals together in overcrowded prisons. (Source)

California has been ordered to release nearly 10,000 inmates by the end of the year to resolve a notorious overcrowding problem that's been brewing for decades.

The Golden State's prison crisis reached a fever pitch in 2011 after the Supreme Court said the overcrowding amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment." Now all eyes are on liberal Gov. Jerry Brown, who insists the public's safety will be jeopardized if he releases the inmates.

The mass release would only bring prisons down to 137% of their capacity.

And who can forget the mass child immigrant crisis, with children coming alone and claiming they heard Obama would let them live in America if the got there.

www.ibtimes.com...

And also, why is Obama given a free pass for his deportations, and yet the MSM and others like HIllary (not you) call other people who want to deport illegals racist?

How can you hold Obama responsible for people south of the border being misinformed? Even your source claims that the Obama admin was trying to prevent that from happening again in 2015 (and since we are halfway though 2016 I guess it worked)

The Obama administration has fired on all cylinders to ensure that it can respond to another surge, but critics say one of the most crucial aspects of dealing with the crisis -- namely, getting immigrants access to lawyers -- still hasn’t been settled.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But at the same time he IS enforcing them for violent criminals and repeat border hoppers. Selective enforcement isn't non-enforcement. I hope you understand this.

You are mixing two separate situations to logically justify your point here. The enforcement has to be seen in a case-for-case basis. Either you enforce the law in all of the cases, or the law does not have judicial validity. In law, a double standard of this nature renders the law meaningless due to the fault of objectivity.

So what happens to the children that are citizens of the US but not citizens of their parent's country? Do we break up the families or send the children home with them, thus making them illegals in that country?

Here I agree that some new processes have to be put forth to deal with this uncharted area. Personally, I do think that some sort of compromise should be done.
1. The illegals in these situations could be granted some sort of legal process to fast-track them to citizenship.

2. BUT I would eliminate the "anchor baby" loophole for new children from illegal immigrants. Note that a constitutional amendment (or a redefinition) may have to be done here.

With the above, the issue could be dealt with legally and future immigrants will be discouraged to come illegally.

originally posted by: efabian
You are mixing two separate situations to logically justify your point here. The enforcement has to be seen in a case-for-case basis. Either you enforce the law in all of the cases, or the law does not have judicial validity. In law, a double standard of this nature renders the law meaningless due to the fault of objectivity.

Well as we all know most laws are enforced selectively. How often do we hear about someone getting off for affluenza and other stuff? Sure in a perfect world all the laws would be applied equally to everyone, but that isn't the case and you know. I'm kind of glad that our current system allows for nuance. Not everyone deserves to have the book thrown at them.

Here I agree that some new processes have to be put forth to deal with this uncharted area. Personally, I do think that some sort of compromise should be done.
1. The illegals in these situations could be granted some sort of legal process to fast-track them to citizenship.

Agreed.

2. BUT I would eliminate the "anchor baby" loophole for new children from illegal immigrants. Note that a constitutional amendment (or a redefinition) may have to be done here.

With the above, the issue could be dealt with legally and future immigrants will be discouraged to come illegally.

I'm sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE idea.
For one you are wrong and this won't discourage people from coming here illegally. Fleeing desperate situations has little to do with gaining citizenship for you or your children.

For two, these children would become stateless people. They would have no citizenship anywhere and would end up being a legal nightmare. Don't believe me? Just look at the other countries that have applied this boned-headed idea.
Here's an article about it:
Born Stateless
and here is another article on how ending birthright citizenship would vastly expand government and government bureaucracy:
Why Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Create A Nightmare For Everyone

a reply to: kaylaluv

Illegal immigrants shouldnt be allowed guns. The constitution is to protect American rights. For the rest there are human rights.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: kaylaluv

Illegal immigrants shouldnt be allowed guns. The constitution is to protect American rights. For the rest there are human rights.

Illegal immigrants are not allowed to own guns in the US. That has been established for a while now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well this is hard for Obama to do. He can send federal troops to a city and try to force them to cooperate, but if the city resists still it can figure out tons of ways to do so.

I mean it is the same thing as the DEA sending federal agents to raid dispensaries or grow operations in states before the marijuana experiment started. If a state didn't want to comply, they could just refuse to provide any police support to the DEA when they do their raids and there is nothing the federal government could do there. Besides, I guess, withhold federal funding from them, but that is a decision Congress has to make not the President.

So here's a thought. Congress can always withhold funding from these sanctuary cities. With the Republican lead Congress, why haven't they tried to do this yet, instead opting to blame all of this on Obama? It's not like Congress is powerless here either.

Why couldn't Obama pass executive orders to stop these cities from getting federal funding? He passed other immigration orders, so why not this?

As far as congress, 100% agree with you, they are terrible. The truth is like I said, the Democrats do not want to deport illegals or punish them (most of them) and the Republicans like the cheap labor. They are certainly to blame. My criticism of Obama by no means take away from the fact I feel congress has been worthless on this issue.

Wasserman Schultz said, "President Obama has the most border patrols and border security deployed at the border of any previous president."

She is correct that the highest number of border patrol agents has been under Obama: there were 21,444 in 2011. Wasserman Schultz was careful here and said "most" and didn’t talk about the growth rate. But it’s worth noting that the big growth was during Bush’s tenure: between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents posted nationally rose from about 9,800 to a little more than 20,000.

Other border security measures are not as simple to quantify. The key piece of infrastructure -- the fence -- was launched under Bush. Work on the fence and other border security improvements continued under Obama.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Fair enough. I still think though that the border agents are upset at Obama, hence there support of Trump. If Obama is deporting as many people as is suggested, why are they upset with him? They seem to claim that the administration is telling them to release people, and not even bother arresting them in the first place. What good is a huge amount of agents if they are told not to dteain people?

Are you aware that this has to do with prison overcrowding? Obama doesn't do it because he likes it. It's necessary because we don't have the space to hold them. In fact, Obama isn't the one responsible for this even happening. SCOTUS is because they ruled it cruel and unusual punishment to put all those illegals together in overcrowded prisons.

But even if the prisons are overcrowded, why not deport them? To just release them into the country is ludicrous. Even if this isn't Obama's fault, it is still a serious issue that needs resolved, hence why its a bad idea for people like HUllary to clame anyone suggesting deportations is a racist.

Secondly, Obama or congress could end the war on drugs, and release non violent drug offenders. This would free up tons of space. And why are places like California choosing to release dangerous illegals instead of non violent drug offenders. This makes no sense.

Again, one of my points is that trying to answer these tough immigration questions doesn't make one a bigot. Does it upset you that Hillary and many others on the left and in the MSM call people on the right that want to deport people racist but don't levy that accusation at Obama?

How can you hold Obama responsible for people south of the border being misinformed? Even your source claims that the Obama admin was trying to prevent that from happening again in 2015 (and since we are halfway though 2016 I guess it worked)

Again, it doesn't matter if Obama was responsible, it shows the need to make strong immigration action. If there were more deportations and a clearer stance that these people would not be left in, they would come. The article I cited also shows that many politicians wanted to give these children amnesty. This, combined with the fact that ICE agents are saying the Obama administration is telling them to let people go would help lead to the perception that these kids thought they could stay.

And the part you quoted said Obama was trying to prevent another surge, which is of course true, but that doesn't mean he wasn't partially responsible for it in the first place. I am willoing to spread the blame around, all of the politicians that encouraged illegal immigration for whatever reason, both Republican and Democrat, helped send the message that these kids thought they could stay.

originally posted by: Grambler
Why couldn't Obama pass executive orders to stop these cities from getting federal funding? He passed other immigration orders, so why not this?

Because Obama doesn't control federal funding. Congress does.

As far as congress, 100% agree with you, they are terrible. The truth is like I said, the Democrats do not want to deport illegals or punish them (most of them) and the Republicans like the cheap labor. They are certainly to blame. My criticism of Obama by no means take away from the fact I feel congress has been worthless on this issue.

At least we agree on something. Congress IS worthless.

Fair enough. I still think though that the border agents are upset at Obama, hence there support of Trump. If Obama is deporting as many people as is suggested, why are they upset with him? They seem to claim that the administration is telling them to release people, and not even bother arresting them in the first place. What good is a huge amount of agents if they are told not to dteain people?

Like I said, the overcrowding prison thing is the issue. If you catch someone and don't have space to put them anyways SCOTUS says we can't keep them. Unfortunately these border agents are merely blaming Obama, who is following SCOTUS' ruling, instead of looking deeper at the reasons for these executive actions and orders.

But even if the prisons are overcrowded, why not deport them? To just release them into the country is ludicrous. Even if this isn't Obama's fault, it is still a serious issue that needs resolved, hence why its a bad idea for people like HUllary to clame anyone suggesting deportations is a racist.

Deportation costs money. You need to process and catalog them (for cases of repeat offenders), you need to pay someone to ship them over there, transportation costs, you need to arrange for the receiving country to pick these people up, and you need a place to hold these people until all these things are done. It's not a simple matter of "just deport them". That is too simple of a way to look at it.

Secondly, Obama or congress could end the war on drugs, and release non violent drug offenders. This would free up tons of space. And why are places like California choosing to release dangerous illegals instead of non violent drug offenders. This makes no sense.

I agree. I'm not going to sit here and say I agree with everything Obama has done or is doing. There certainly are places for improvement.

Again, one of my points is that trying to answer these tough immigration questions doesn't make one a bigot. Does it upset you that Hillary and many others on the left and in the MSM call people on the right that want to deport people racist but don't levy that accusation at Obama?

You keep bringing this red herring up again and again. I. DON'T. CARE. what people call you. The right seems to have new and colorful slurs for anything liberal every other day and I deal with it just fine. You can deal with people calling you or other right wingers racist. Hell why are you complaining about being called racist? Where's your complaints about right wingers and all their demeaning slurs towards leftists?

So forgive me for the callousness here, but you need to police your own camp before you should start leveling accusations at the other side for argumentative misconduct.

Again, it doesn't matter if Obama was responsible, it shows the need to make strong immigration action. If there were more deportations and a clearer stance that these people would not be left in, they would come. The article I cited also shows that many politicians wanted to give these children amnesty. This, combined with the fact that ICE agents are saying the Obama administration is telling them to let people go would help lead to the perception that these kids thought they could stay.

And the part you quoted said Obama was trying to prevent another surge, which is of course true, but that doesn't mean he wasn't partially responsible for it in the first place. I am willoing to spread the blame around, all of the politicians that encouraged illegal immigration for whatever reason, both Republican and Democrat, helped send the message that these kids thought they could stay.

You know what I think should be done instead of trying to actively punish people (since I don't believe punishment is an adequate deterrent towards criminality)? I think we should be actively improving our legal immigration avenues. Reducing the costs of immigrating, not making it a nightmare to do so (why do potential immigrants have to go to the US embassy in their home country to process their immigration paperwork?)

We should maybe work with the countries that all these people emigrate from to improve the standard of living there. If they like it in their home country, they won't want to leave. Things like that.

I tire of always "fixing" our problems like a hammer hitting a nail. I'm for nuanced approaches, but nuanced approaches require knowledge, critical thought, and being informed. Unfortunately it is easier to just go with the simple approaches so here we are again fighting the "immigration battle" for the umpteenth time in our country because we haven't learned from the last times we've done this song and dance.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well as we all know most laws are enforced selectively. How often do we hear about someone getting off for affluenza and other stuff? Sure in a perfect world all the laws would be applied equally to everyone, but that isn't the case and you know. I'm kind of glad that our current system allows for nuance. Not everyone deserves to have the book thrown at them.

Tricky slope indeed with the subjectivity while enforcing laws here. But immigration laws do affect regular citizens, ergo, no law should be enforced in a way that it negatively affects the regular citizens of the US. By negative I mean issues like the increased tax burden, wage stagnation due to oversupply of workforce, etc..

I'm sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE idea.
For one you are wrong and this won't discourage people from coming here illegally. Fleeing desperate situations has little to do with gaining citizenship for you or your children.

It will eliminate any means for the illegals to gain citizenship through their children, ergo making it harder to force the hand of the legal system.

For two, these children would become stateless people. They would have no citizenship anywhere and would end up being a legal nightmare. Don't believe me? Just look at the other countries that have applied this boned-headed idea.
Here's an article about it:
Born Stateless
and here is another article on how ending birthright citizenship would vastly expand government and government bureaucracy:
Why Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Create A Nightmare For Everyone

About the first article, if you read through it you would see that even the judge in Poland stated that if the parents kept pushing this citizen issue, she would end up deported to Romania. Ergo, there are means for her to be a Romanian citizen. But conveniently, the article does not give details about the so-called Romanian laws that does not let her be a citizen under the circumstances.

This leads me to believe that the article is more of a biased presentation of the facts to further the issue that the parents want Poland citizenship for her, not Romanian. No objective argument is done.

Now, the second one does bring some interesting points. I concur with the bureaucratic issue and it does indeed make the redefinition a nightmare, so I'll desist from my initial position.

But if a process to fast-track the illegal parents of children already in the US is to be put forth, there has to be another way to limit the availability to future illegals. If another solution to do this is not found, well there is no way to make a compromise with the parents of illegals and if they are deported they'll be leaving orphans here in the US sadly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Because Obama doesn't control federal funding. Congress does.

First, Obama has vowed to veto any crackdown on sanctuary cities.

www.washingtontimes.com...

And second my point is he did the action with Dreamers, why couldn't he come up with an action to end sanctuary cities.

But we both agree, congress is too blame also.

Like I said, the overcrowding prison thing is the issue. If you catch someone and don't have space to put them anyways SCOTUS says we can't keep them. Unfortunately these border agents are merely blaming Obama, who is following SCOTUS' ruling, instead of looking deeper at the reasons for these executive actions and orders.

Ridiculous, these agents know what the administration is telling them. So now i am just to believe that the very people that are emplyed to control the border do not know how the policies work. They know Obama's administration has asked them to let people go and not arrst them in the first place, and this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS ruling just said that overcrowded prisons weren't allowed, it was the Obama administration that said to stop arresting illegals. They chose the target of who not to arrest.

Also, why has Obama wasted money then on the border patrol increaes if he knows the SCOTUS won't let him enforce the law?

Deportation costs money. You need to process and catalog them (for cases of repeat offenders), you need to pay someone to ship them over there, transportation costs, you need to arrange for the receiving country to pick these people up, and you need a place to hold these people until all these things are done. It's not a simple matter of "just deport them". That is too simple of a way to look at it.

Imprisoning people costs much more money. Should we not arrest anyone then, because it costs money? This also runs counter to the argument you made about the child immigrants. So apparently according to this logic, they do know they can stay if they come, because we don't want to waste money deporting them.

You keep bringing this red herring up again and again. I. DON'T. CARE. what people call you. The right seems to have new and colorful slurs for anything liberal every other day and I deal with it just fine. You can deal with people calling you or other right wingers racist. Hell why are you complaining about being called racist? Where's your complaints about right wingers and all their demeaning slurs towards leftists?

So forgive me for the callousness here, but you need to police your own camp before you should start leveling accusations at the other side for argumentative misconduct.

That fine you dont care. But then don't come on here yelling that the very people that are being called racist for their stance won't compromise. You lose all credibility on that front.

I don't care who calls me any name. My point is that I want to have a real discussion about these serious problems. When one of the two people running for president, and a huge portion of her party and the MSM calls anyone who wants to have any deportations a racist, how can the problem ever be solved. It is a way of silencing debate, which supposedly you are all for. Yet you come on here criticizing the right for not compromising, all the while ignoring that the are silenced before they even begin by accusations of racism.

I am not talking about internet chat people or trolls, I am talking about people with political power silencing anyone who disagrees with them by shouting racism.

As far as my side I guess you mean conservatives. I do condemn personal attacks, especially if they are used to avoid discussing issues. Give me an example of a Republican politician shouting racism to refuse to debate an issue. When you find one, I will condemn it.

You however will not condemn it from your side, and instead demand that the right compromise with people that call them racist.

You know what I think should be done instead of trying to actively punish people (since I don't believe punishment is an adequate deterrent towards criminality)? I think we should be actively improving our legal immigration avenues. Reducing the costs of immigrating, not making it a nightmare to do so (why do potential immigrants have to go to the US embassy in their home country to process their immigration paperwork?)

We should maybe work with the countries that all these people emigrate from to improve the standard of living there. If they like it in their home country, they won't want to leave. Things like that.

I tire of always "fixing" our problems like a hammer hitting a nail. I'm for nuanced approaches, but nuanced approaches require knowledge, critical thought, and being informed. Unfortunately it is easier to just go with the simple approaches so here we are again fighting the "immigration battle" for the umpteenth time in our country because we haven't learned from the last times we've done this song and dance.

I don't disagree we can nuanced discussions. However, there will always be struggling countries, no matter how hard we try. Neocons try to fix these countries all of the time, like Afghanistan, and it doesn't work out. That is why we need a solution to getting rid of the violent illegals here now, and in securing our border.

what i dont understand is why liberals hate the death penalty because someone innocent might get executed but believe in open borders where illegal aliens kill innocent people in droves

makes no gat dan sense

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's more of a push for an EU-type of structure here in the Americas.

which one? there's three in europe.
common market, schengen and then britain have a separate border control.

a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

It's because most who come over here don't kill anyone.

Maybe since white males tend to be the ones who do the mass shootings of innocent people, we should just imprison all white males - just to be safe?

a reply to: kaylaluv

lol that logic, illegal aliens dont have the same rights as americans, white, black, brown or any



also there are mass shootings every weekend in chicago not done by evil whitemen

a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

What logic is that - that most people coming over here don't kill anyone?

a reply to: kaylaluv

agreed i didnt say that LOL, but one death by illegal is too many and easily preventable


and to bring it back to my original comment, if most executions are done to who deserve it then why hold that to a higher standard than illegals?

originally posted by: efabian
Tricky slope indeed with the subjectivity while enforcing laws here. But immigration laws do affect regular citizens, ergo, no law should be enforced in a way that it negatively affects the regular citizens of the US. By negative I mean issues like the increased tax burden, wage stagnation due to oversupply of workforce, etc..

This country is HUGE. There are 300 million people living within it. It's rather hard to make sure that laws are carried out this way. A law very well could be carried out a certain way that results in the people benefiting from that, but then carried out the same way elsewhere in the country and the people be effected negatively. And this is especially true for federal enforcement.

It will eliminate any means for the illegals to gain citizenship through their children, ergo making it harder to force the hand of the legal system.

It still won't act as a deterrent. I know what it will do, but your VASTLY underestimating the reasons people immigrate here illegally if you think that citizenship for their children is the sole carrot on a stick that entices them to come here.

About the first article, if you read through it you would see that even the judge in Poland stated that if the parents kept pushing this citizen issue, she would end up deported to Romania. Ergo, there are means for her to be a Romanian citizen. But conveniently, the article does not give details about the so-called Romanian laws that does not let her be a citizen under the circumstances.

This leads me to believe that the article is more of a biased presentation of the facts to further the issue that the parents want Poland citizenship for her, not Romanian. No objective argument is done.

Now, the second one does bring some interesting points. I concur with the bureaucratic issue and it does indeed make the redefinition a nightmare, so I'll desist from my initial position.

But if a process to fast-track the illegal parents of children already in the US is to be put forth, there has to be another way to limit the availability to future illegals. If another solution to do this is not found, well there is no way to make a compromise with the parents of illegals and if they are deported they'll be leaving orphans here in the US sadly.

Why do solutions need to necessarily be found? Statistically there are less people entering the country from Mexico than leaving it. True it is hard to gauge illegals because they don't count themselves, but that still doesn't take away from the accuracy of statistical sampling.

The reason for this is that Mexico' economy is finally starting to improve where the citizens don't need to flee the country all the time. Sure it isn't perfect yet and they have a LONG way to go, but things HAVE improved. Plus the Mexican government also helps with preventing illegals from entering our country.

a reply to: kaylaluv

www.gunviolencearchive.org... heres a list of mass shootings this month, weird they havent been in msm probably because they weren't white males.

a reply to: thinline

I don't. Close the borders, and I mean to everyone, not just Mexicans, NOW. America is full, no room at the Inn, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here, the "no vacancy" sign needs plugged in.