Fearing deportation, undocumented mother of four takes refuge

i wish they would stop using this newspeak

>Meyer said he blames President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, which he says eliminated due process.

>“She’s not a danger to the United States. She’s a mom,” Meyer said told ABC News on Wednesday. “We need to protect the community from Trump’s deportation machinery.”

>ICE spokesman Neudauer did not say if Vizguerra's request for an extension was denied due to a change in policy.

What I don't understand is how can you spend 20 years in a country without getting citizenship or whatever. Like, how do you not pursue this course of action, not once, over a period of 20 years? But she sure has time to get pregnant 3 times and be an immigrant rights activist.

>>112451
>eliminated due process

i mean, what

stop breaking the law, assholes

>>112452

Yeah, I have no idea what due process he's talking about when the law has been broken repeatedly and she flees from said law when it's about to be actually enforced.

>>112451
>Like, how do you not pursue this course of action, not once, over a period of 20 years?
> But she sure has time to get pregnant 3 times and be an immigrant rights activist.

These were my first two thoughts. Mental damage explains a lot in this world.

>>112451
There isn't a meaningful path to citizenship right now. Conservatives fight it to keep from incentivizing people from coming.

I agree with the idea that no one should be deported after 20 years for sure.

>What I don't understand is how can you spend 20 years in a country without getting citizenship or whatever. Like, how do you not pursue this course of action, not once, over a period of 20 years? But she sure has time to get pregnant 3 times and be an immigrant rights activist.>

>>112488
Not right now sure I'll go ahead and give you that I guess. What about the other 19 fuckings years anon. She had all the years she was here before Trump to do it. Personally if she pays taxes and whatnot I don't think she should go but your argument is next level bad. Like, she had 20 years anon. Like I can understand immigrant rights, I can understand not agreeing with Trump ban, I can see liking immigrant but for fucks sake anon she had twenty (20) years to get her shit together and simply did not do that.

>>112488
>Illegally hack into FBI database
>Don't get discovered until 20 years later
>WHOA YOU CAN'T PUT ME IN JAIL NOW. I'VE BEEN IN THERE FOR TOO LONG. IT'S MY RIGHT TO BE IN YOUR SERVERS.

Fuck you nigger. If you came here illegally, you're an enemy invader and you should feel absolutely blessed by the heavens that you are simply sent back to your shithole instead of executed on the spot.

You don't get a right to live here because you evaded deportation for a long time and spit out kids hoping we wouldn't separate you from them. Fuck you and fuck them.

>has three fucking kids AND actively advocates for her illegal activity

She has to go back

>>112488
How long do I have to hide in your house before you'll let me live there?

>>112495

You can try and fail to gain legal status for 20 years. The system didn't change last year, it's always been pretty difficult to obtain legal status, especially once someone has rolled into illegal territory (either initially via illegal entry or over time by overstaying a visa). Not to mention it's extra difficult for anyone who was initially illegal, since merely revealing one's illegal state is grounds for deportation.

>>112731

1. Did you pay your part of the utilities?
2. Did you commit any crimes (beyond the given of breaking into my house or overstaying your welcome, depending on method of entry)?
3. Will you pay rent in the future?

I mean I'd be pretty upset that you were there the whole time, but if you answered Y/N/Y to the above then you have a chance to keep living there if the authorities can verify your answers.

Even better if I can get rent back-pay from you, that's literally free money.

>>112739
As a immigrant to America I can tell you the process is hard, but not Twenty Years hard. The hardest part is renewing my greencard in college but even that some online digging and phone calls sorted right out. The process is complicated for sure, but visa extensions, greencards, and citizenship isn't as hard as this horrid women makes it sound like.

She can rot, three children, hiding from ICE, preaching the impossible as I go and do it anyways. She makes all immigrants look awful. There is ways in, through legal channels, that are easy and the moment you try the hard way you lose the right to preach how hard it is.

>>112496
>hoping we wouldn't separate you from them. Fuck you and fuck them.
Well I agree that illegal is illegal but it's also a priority not to cause harm to children.
I know it's possible some folks had children just to have a reason to be able to continue life in this land and one doesn't want to set a precedent where if one hides for long enough one can stay forevermore because that's a bit arbitrary.
Both answers are imperfect. We need a creative solution as soon as feasible and until then pursue the strategy that does least collective harm long-term.
Maybe that means national self-interest first. But these decisions should never be informed by our emotions and instead a sort of cold compassion for collective long-term interest.

>>112739
So you would actually let a home invader live in your house?

Because if you're serious you have totally convinced me to support open borders and the death of America

jk you fucking idiot

>>112743

Yeah but I assume you came here legally to begin with, and as far as I can tell from the article greentext this lady appears to have not (but obviously I could be wrong, since it's simply not mentioned). That initial arrival makes all the difference, I think, to the probability of getting through the process. I also have relatives who never bothered to get citizenship and instead update their green-card/legal resident status every time it expires, so I also know that the process isn't difficult if you already had legal entry (on a personal note, I find it weird that these relatives have been here longer than I've been alive, have children and grandchildren who are natural-born US citizens, but still haven't bothered to get citizenship).

Also, if it was that easy to get legal status as an illegal, we wouldn't have 11 million of them since they would have all applied for legal status long before now. And regardless of the actual difficulty, I think there's also a fear that coming forward with one's illegal status will lead to deportation before the legal process can even begin.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong and she came here legally and overstayed her visa, then yes she's an idiot for sitting on her ass for 20 years.

>112758

Even if she immigranted illegally, she doesn't deserve to be here. You can "bump" via a passport hop to become legal anytime you want. If you came here illegally you can obtain a passport, leave to your home country, then turn around and go through legal channels. It isn't as hard as it sounds.

>>112753

See the problem with analogies of this difference in scale is that some things don't work in one scale vs the other. The house to nation analogy compresses the scale too much, sort of like how people try to argue that a property fence is the same as a border wall. Some of the issues at the national scale don't apply well to the personal scale very well, as well as the reverse where personal scale problems don't apply to a national scale problem. This makes any argument about the macro problem seem ridiculous when reduced to that micro scale, and vice versa.

Here the house analogy makes the scale too personal, with an unclear time frame. Was this person somehow able to live in your house for years without you noticing, and having literally zero affect on your life? How big is your home for such a person to remain unnoticed this whole time? The analogy makes the encounter far more intimate than the real world equivalent by leaving out factors of time and space.

You would have to frame it more like, "If you own an apparent building and you find that one of the unoccupied apartments had squatters in it for years, would you let them stay?" It reduces the intimacy of the analogy and gives it a proper timescale. It also allows for more arguments to be applied, since now you can bring in other factors such as the opportunity cost of letting them stay, the effect of the squatters on the rest of the apartment residents, the effect on the building infrastructure, and so on. You could further modify the analogy to include visa overstays as well ("renters stayed past their contract, wat do?").

tl;dr That was a bad analogy, and I was giving an answer to the original problem. Obviously I would be calling the fucking cops if there was a dude hiding in my house.

>>112766
>BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
>Obviously I would be calling the fucking cops if there was a dude hiding in my house.

A country is a shared house. And many of us don't want invaders to stay here.

What makes you so morally superior to the rest of us?

Americans are dead because people like you.

>>112763

>Even if she immigranted illegally, she doesn't deserve to be here. You can "bump" via a passport hop to become legal anytime you want. If you came here illegally you can obtain a passport, leave to your home country, then turn around and go through legal channels. It isn't as hard as it sounds.

First of all you can't get a US passport unless you are a US citizen (or a national of a US territory). Obtaining one without citizenship is a crime, which would not reflect well on you during immigration proceedings. Second of all there's a strong possibility of your illegal status being uncovered during the US passport acquisition process. Third is the economic issue of traveling back and forth between the US and the home country, since that may not be affordable for some people. Finally, even in the best case scenario and you somehow start the legalization process, you are essentially starting from scratch: anything that would increase your odds of getting through the process, namely US-born children, would probably reveal your current illegal status and have you thrown out. Remember that those who came here illegally probably would never have passed the legal process to begin with, since there are caps on immigration, so without those boosters their odds are low.

Like I said, if it's that easy, why do we have 11 million illegals then? It can't literally be that all 11 million of them are too dumb or too lazy to try this if it was so easy.

>112770#
You do know you can apply for your country of origin's passport inside the US? You do have a right to apply for that passport by being a citizen of your birth country, and by international law, you can return to the country that issued that passport so long as you don't have any pending crimes, a voluntary deportation where afterwards you can legally enter the country through proper channels

>>112747
My emotions only entered the fray because I'm sick of hearing the same liberal garbage since they know illegals vote almost exclusively liberal knowing that will allow them to continue breaking our laws.

My calm and reasoned thought makes the answer very clear. As a nation, we have absolutely 0 obligation to these people and they are very literally an invading force. They already massively sway California elections leading the state to be complete garbage for everyone else.

If it were my call, I wouldn't just send the parents back. I'd send their kids with them. If you were illegal when you crossed, then as far as I'm concerned, your kids are illegal too.

Now the kids and parents aren't separated and we don't have to deal with either one and that's a humanitarian kindness they don't actually deserve. They really should be killed on sight. They wouldn't dare cross the border if the penalty was death instead of the worst thing that can happen is they get free handouts for years and maybe even get to become citizens without ever even learning the fucking language.

>>112770
> Like I said, if it's that easy to buy a car, why do we have millions of illegal car thefts?

So we shouldn’t have ANY laws at all, seeing as someone somewhere will find obeying that law inconvenient?

>>112768

The house is enormous and you don't even know who most of your housemates are, let alone be related to or have anything in common with them besides living in the same house and following the same rules. Hell, some of your (legal) housemates might be related to the squatter. It's a lot more like an apartment building than a house. I'm fighting your analogy because I think it doesn't work nearly as well as you think it does. It slants the issue too much.

>What makes you so morally superior to the rest of us?

You asked a question, I gave my opinion, you then attacked me for that opinion, I tried to break up my answer between the one given for the analogy and the one for the real issue, and then you attack me for that answer and claim that I'm self being morally superior. Nowhere in that did I say my answer was "THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER, YOU MERE PLEBEIANS BE SILENT BEFORE THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT" nor was there any implication. I gave what I thought would be the most reasonable solution for illegals already in the country, namely the removal of the ones who are criminals (beyond the obvious illegal entry or overstay) and maybe a path to legal status (not citizenship) for those willing to pay taxes. I just think you're oversimplifying the issue to make it very black and white when there is plenty of grey zone and individual elements worthy of debating.

>>112772

Thanks for clearing that up, it was unclear to me that you meant a non-US passport. It's still not much of a shot, since not only does it require you to leave (economic expense, disruption of work and family for duration of leave), there's no guarantee that you'd be let back in. If one started out as an illegal, they probably had bad odds of getting in via legal means to being with, so going back to the legal route will not likely yield better results, even with US-born children. It's a risky proposition that I'm not sure every illegal immigrant would be willing to take.

>>112773
> If it were my call, I wouldn't just send the parents back. I'd send their kids with them.

I agree, but this would inevitably require a Supreme Court ruling overturning the court’s previous (wrong) position, that has turned immigration into a game of tag, where if the mom can avoid the authorities long enough to have a baby, not only do they both get to stay forever but she can then import her entire family….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

>>112776

You analogy actually plays right into my hands: if cars were easy to legally acquire, there would be no thefts. But there are car thefts, therefore acquiring a car isn't easy. Similarly, if legal-status was easy to acquire, there would be no illegal immigrants. Therefore, acquiring legal status is not easy.

>So we shouldn’t have ANY laws at all, seeing as someone somewhere will find obeying that law inconvenient?

That's not even my argument, you are literally making up something to fight against. My argument was against the idea that gaining legal status is easy (when it is clearly not), not that the process needs to be easier or that it's okay to ignore the law.

>>112784
>You analogy actually plays right into my hands: if cars were easy to legally acquire, there would be no thefts. But there are car thefts, therefore acquiring a car isn't easy.

So then according to you, I have some kinda "right" to just steal any car I please and drive off.

After all, complying with the law is so difficult...

>>112782

It will take more than a Supreme Court ruling, it will take a Constitutional amendment.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There is no specification of parentage of the person being born, as such the amendment would have to be changed for the Court to rule differently.

The "game of tag" is pretty ridiculous, but I don't think you'll have much luck changing the constitution. Instead your best bet is a change in immigration priority for families, though that may require some detailed wording to weed out the problem without nullifying the original point.

>>112785

Are you being deliberately retarded? Where did I say anything to the effect of "because something is hard, it's okay to commit a crime?"

No, my entire point was "because people do a thing illegally, it must mean doing it legally is hard." Nowhere in there is "and that is okay." It is merely an argument that the process is difficult, without adding my own opinion if the process is too difficult or too easy.

>>112787

You don't have to overturn the 14th Amendment, only the current interpretation of how it applies.

"As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded."

>>112788
>No, my entire point was "because people do a thing illegally, it must mean doing it legally is hard."

Or simply that it's easier to do it illegally, especially when there is an entire system in place that not only encourages you to break the law, it actually helps you break the law and defends you from the law if you're caught.

Why file the necessary legal papers and wait your turn to do it legally, when you can just walk over the border?

>>112785
lol

open border fag is kill

>>112792
>>112793

Both of you are acting like me stating that "gaining US legal status isn't easy" means I endorse making it easier or circumventing the legal process entirely.

I don't.

I am merely stating a fact, which is that this process takes time and doesn't accept everyone. As a consequence, people cross illegally, because they have a higher chance of making it in than the legal alternative. That is also a fact. Stating these two facts does not indicate a side, these two facts are neutral. These two facts can be used for both arguments, "we need to make crossing illegally harder" and "we should make legal status easier."

I did not make a case for "open borders" (nor do I plan to). Nor did I make a case that everyone who's already here should easily gain legal status (and I don't plan to). I merely wanted to say that I thought the original guy who I responded to was wrong in saying that "obtaining legal status is easy." Because if it was easy, we wouldn't be in this argument to begin with. We wouldn't be talking about fences or walls. In fact we wouldn't even be talking about illegal immigration at all. Instead we would be arguing about legal immigration, and whether or not it's too easy to get legal status.

>>112790
The constitution is pretty explicit that they are citizens the moment they're born or naturalized in the US. I don't know the details of the case being cited but I can't imagine it would be difficult for a court to overturn that precedent.

I tend toward the logic that illegal is illegal. And if that produces a harmful outcome, then we must change the law ASAP instead of ignore it. But in the same token, of one can stretch interpretation of laws so far that the constitution has no bearing on outcomes of cases that amendments are pretty explicit regarding, then what's the point of having laws. Just have judicial dictatorship with a book of suggestions instead of law.

>>112790

I think the Court setup needed to overturn the previous ruling is unlikely. First of all, any strict constructionists will reject any overturn, since the amendment's text makes no mention about the parentage of the citizen being born, only that they need to be born in the United States. Second, you would need enough judges who believe that the original intent of the 14th was to apply only to legal residents who were effectively should have been citizens to begin with (the 14th was passed as a response to former slaves being denied citizenship based on the fact their parents weren't citizens) and therefore does not apply to immigrants. The problem with original intent is that it opens the thing up to many different interpretations of the original intent, so you might not even get unity even if the majority of the Court believes in original intent.

This isn't even taking into account that the Republicans are big into judicial restraint (who will select at least one future justice, if not more), so any replacement judge are unlikely to be for big reinterpretations of the 14th amendment.

>>112800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

>>112449
>refuge
lol, sorry what century is it, is Sanctuary still a thing? Okay Quasimodo that isn't how it works anymore, you cucks voted to defang the church, now reap the whirlwind.

t. Two generations of my family on both sides died in the Cristero rebellion. Viva Cristo Rey, Republican scum, you get what you deserve, and what you deserve is a shitty nonfunctional godless "democracy" that is run by criminals.

>>112800
>the constitution
You mean the 14th Amendment which was written in haste to naturalize black ex-slaves.

It was never intended to allow Demoshits to import in millions of retarded 80 IQ garbage-pickers and have their kids be citizens so that they could win the welfare vote. I give it until about 2019 before we repeal that one. All immigration should be qualified people of good standing. Period. This "hurfadurr come here long enough to shit out a kid and you can stay" shit is retarded. Nobody, NO other country in the world does this. Nobody is that stupid.

>>112805

> NO other country in the world does this. Nobody is that stupid.

Not the fella you're replying to, but I think France does.

>>112796
Ok, but they have to go back.

>>112808
Not a good argument.

>>112822

It's not an argument to begin with, I was just pointing out a fact.

>>112805
>Nobody, NO other country in the world does this.

In pretty much every new world country, kids become citizens by birth.

>>112844
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

Wikipedia would disagree with you there, the Americas are one of the few total navy blue countries left.

The US is one of the few places you can say your gonna visit family for two weeks, give birth, and stay practically indefinitely. Thus leading to the rise of birth hotels.

>>112863
Just a quick update, yes most NEW WORLD Countries allow for this but this isn't a precicident shared worldwide. I jumped the gun by a smidge.

>>112739
You are correct that you can try and fail for twenty years but there is way more to this discussion than that, but current political climate makes it hard to discuss but I will try anyway. First thing first she came here illegally, and trump aside, illegal is illegal and does not become some special thing because she tried to become legal after the fact. This is the crux of the issue, the fact that she committed a crime we are supposed to ignore. It's a pretty big issue, trump aside once again, because since she had children it would be splitting up a family and all that but we cannot just ignore our own laws which are important enough that neither dems or repubs have been like "fuck it let em in we can sort it out later". Another thing is something you yourself said, it is even more difficult when they roll into illegal territory, but despite whatever they were fleeing to america for it's rather easy to avoid this by just not doing the illegal act in the first place. I do have sympathy and wish to help these people (at least the ones actually trying to get away from oppressive regimes) but we can't just make special rules to just ignore the law. A lot of times, by the way, it takes so long for these people because of just how many the courts have to deal with. The more illegal immigrants seek legal status the longer it is going to take which is a problem we can't realistically get rid of (not even attempting a background check or to see if they have criminal records or have done anything during their illegal status is not the right thing to do) and this hurts the system for sure. All in all it can take up to twenty years anon, but if you do things on time when you are supposed to it usually will not. This story actually even shows something wrong with it with her skipping a scheduled check in for literally the dumbest reason ever, she was afraid that if she did she would be deported. Doesn't sound dumb till you realize that's the way to get deported.

I hope every single one gets deported.

Also to the whole house argument the problem here is once again laws. No matter how you equate it to a big house it simply isn't due to complexity. A big issue you will hear, and have heard time and time again, is legal Americans pay taxes. In this case the person in question has a work permit so they do which makes this case one you can't just throw the basic argument at (which is why it made news). This specific case is a weird piece designed to hit them feels, but looking at it objectively she did not do what she was required to do (the thing that kept her here for 20 years) and is paying the price for it. Sounds edgy I'm sure, but it's not altogether wrong. The courts kept her from being deported six times, either due to children, attempting to obtain legal status, or working with a work permit and what does she do? She does not follow procedure. She does not do the thing she was supposed to do. Now she is gaming the system to not get deported, which does nothing but keep ICE from doing their job and costing us money.

Also it says right in it she used a fake SSN as well as another misdemeanor plus the whole here illegally thing so I don't know how this is an issue other than simply being a feels piece to feed the current political ongoings.

>>112800
The Constitution is pretty explicit that right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed and yet we see all kinds of regulation and control of firearms all over the place.

The Constitution is just an anchor at this point. They aren't following it properly. It just keeps them from completely losing it.

>>112825
I know I'm just saying france is crap

>>112800
>The constitution is pretty explicit that they are citizens the moment they're born or naturalized in the US.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ** subject to the jurisdiction thereof **, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That is; the moment they’re born to _LEGAL_ immigrant parents (either naturalized or resident aliens) who are legally subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they become Americans.

But if the parents are foreign nationals, here either legally or illegally, any baby born to them automatically assumes the parent’s nationality.

The Supremes simply got it wrong.

There is no way in hell the 14th Amendment should be interpreted so that anybody simply born on American soil by hook or crook, is automatically an American citizen with all the rights and duties that entails.

Or are you suggesting that for example, a baby born to foreign national who is on a vacation in the U.S. and then returns to their native country, would then have to pay American income tax for the rest of his/her life, register for the American draft, etc., even if they lived the rest of their entire life in their native country?

>>112802
>I think the Court setup needed to overturn the previous ruling is unlikely. First of all, any strict constructionists will reject any overturn, since the amendment's text makes no mention about the parentage of the citizen being born

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ** subject to the jurisdiction thereof **, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

A strict constructionist judge would in fact vote to overturn the previous ruling, based on the strict (and blatantly obvious...) construction of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

If the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (i.e. naturalized or legal residents) then the baby cannot be either.

>>112805
>All immigration should be qualified people of good standing
Do you understand what our immigration process looks for?

>>112449
get legal or go home

i think the real problem is just that a bunch of trumptards don't like foreigners at all, legal or not. notice how the words being tossed around, "okay but they have to go back" "go back to their country" "i hope every one of them is deported" "she has to go back" and of course the lovely anon who said "fuck you nigger" and "they should really be killed on sight".
the problem isn't "illegal" aliens, because of course the solution would be to make it less difficult and particularly less expensive to obtain legal citizenship. the problem in the eyes of trumptards is that there are "aliens" at all in a country literally, LITERALLY made up of immigrants. why not make all the white people go back? if you can't trace your family history directly back to a pure line of a native american tribe, maybe you should be kicked out of this country, in my opinion, if you're someone who is advocating kicking out or shooting immigrants, illegal or otherwise. really, where is the "danger" that you guys love to speak of? where are the "rapists and murderers"? because if you look at the data, most of the crimes in america are being committed by natural born citizens. these "illegal immigrants" are doing shitty jobs, being paid shitty under the table wages (directly supporting american businesses), doing shit jobs no americans want to do, and just barely scraping by to support their familes. i am friends with many of these "illegal immigrants" and they are some of the hardest workers I know (and they all pay their taxes - unlike pedigree natural born american CEO's - or trump himself). in fact, statistically first and second generation immigrants work much harder than third gen americans or higher. and for the record, my family goes back six generations in this country.

>>113253
Your blanket statement is just as bad as the blanket statements of those you oppose. I was gonna type out a big todo how the issue is more complicated and not everyone voted on immigration but I don't think it matters. /news/ is so bent on being /notpol/ that discussion has been stifled to the point that it doesn't matter. The article even says she committed crimes but no one even cares. I'm sure we forced her to do them despite giving her six stays on her deportation over the 20 year time she was here.

>>113253
> ”aliens" at all in a country literally, LITERALLY made up of immigrants.

Almost exclusively EUROPEAN immigrants.

I have a right to preserve my culture and society as much as anybody.

I don’t want to live in fucking Mexico or the MidEast.

>>113253
>and they all pay their taxes

How does this work when they're illegal?

>>113046
>get legal
Most literally can't

>>113271

1066 employment, usage of someobe elses ssn, IRS issued TIN to illegal aliens

>>113267
>I have a right to preserve my culture and society as much as anybody.
Here's the problem with that.

Cultures change and american culture is a melting pot.

You scoff at this but it's most assuredly true. I mean really, what "culture" are you talking about? The americanized observance of st. Patrick's day and cinco de mayo? The amercanized Chinese and Italian food you find in every food court? The german inspired highway system you drive on every day? The african inspired pop music everyone listens to(that you probably hate)? That culture? The US has had so much injected into it even the American culture of 100 years ago would be completely alien to the founding fathers.

In America, if you want to "preserve" your culture you do so by promoting its values in the face of opposition and changing minds. Not by making everyone that is in any way different go away.

Fuck off

>>113271

Sales tax, gas tax, food tax, or any other tax that's built into the purchase of a good or service.

Obviously they don't pay income tax (not that the average illegal would earn enough to qualify for federal income tax) unless they have a faked work permit (>>113291). They also probably don't pay property tax, though again the amount of taxable property a low-income illegal immigrant would own is minimal.

Both of these combined means they probably pay only a little less in taxes than a low-income native-born worker.

>>113291
>>113319
So basically they don't pay taxes like everyone else? This is funny to me because quite a few years ago I had to work a shitty job across the state line and pay taxes for two states that they do not have to pay. Doing this really hurt my already pitiful paycheck, so I don't know how you are calling that negligible when native born workers who end up with the same jobs suffer. Look, I'm all for making immigration easier but this obsession with the illegals here that are not trying to become legal (note- this is not all illegal immigrants) needs to fucking stop.
>>113292
The problem here, I assume since I am largely unaffected by it, is not having a voice at all. If someone thinks that things need to be "Americanized" they are shit all over for not respecting cultures when those cultures are otherwise not respecting us. I don't give a shit if there is a halal meat section or whatever, I do care if I all of a sudden can no longer do things I could before. Another thing is your shitty assumption that Americanized things are not our culture. We are a melting pot of all different kinds of bullshit, and have been for a very long time. Parts from every single culture that jumped into our melting pot found its way into our own culture and that's fine. The melting pot is no longer being used and we must allow them to be the exact same way even if it goes against values we have had until this literally became a thing. Forced (THE FORCED ONES) hijabs are now a-okay (NO NOT ALL HIJABS ARE BAD DONT SPERG), we can have no opinion on law practices that others wish to bring in, etc etc. It isn't that America has no culture, it's that we are not allowed to continue it by not putting those who come here into the melting pot, instead choosing to place their culture over our own by not making it part of our own and instead putting it on a pedestal.

>>113288
>>get legal
>Most literally can't

Then they shouldn't be here.

>>113292
>
> > I have a right to preserve my culture and society as much as anybody.
>
> Cultures change and american culture is a melting pot.

Sure, but _I_ as an American have the right to control those changes to my culture (to whatever extant).

Hordes of ass-backward third world foreign peasants do not.

> I mean really, what "culture" are you talking about?

“hurr, durr, ‘murricans are so dumb and fat!”, amirght?

> In America, if you want to "preserve" your culture you do so by promoting its values

And one of our values (like everybody else’s on the planet) is the preservation of our unique culture.

Just because someone want to live in the U.S. does NOT mean we have to let them.

>>113292
can you die as soon as possible thanks

>>113319
Yeah that sales tax sure does offset public education, ER visits, legal and law enforcement spending and public assistance

Durrrrr~~~

>>113447
Not to mention that my kid can already speak english.

She's getting less education because she shares a school with people WHO DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH

>>113447

Didn't say that it did, just that they do pay taxes when applicable.

Minimum wage people in general consume more in tax dollars in services than they provide in taxes, regardless of legal status, due to their exemption from federal income tax. They pay even less in taxes in states without sales tax (a tax which affects the poor more than the rich).

I simply don't care anymore. My goodwill and intent to hear sob stories is exhausted. Partly because the feel-good image of these people has been destroyed by the reality that many of them are some of the shittiest people on the planet and partly because I know the only reason anyone is even entertaining this bullshit is so Democrats can keep the rapid demographic shift of inner cities going on until they have a permanent lockdown on regional elections.

I simply do not fucking care one tiny iota anymore. Your children being put in a unstable position is entirely your fault for squeezing them out when you knew damn well you were a felon with no legal status to live in the country you were. Enough of leftwing pussies excusing the complete lack of personal responsibility here. I don't care if it means I have to pay twice as much for strawberries. I don't care if it means a shortage of cheap labor. I don't care if it means less authentic Mexican food. None of those things are worthwhile trade-offs for this shit anymore.

Send them all packing and immediately revoke the tax-exempt status of any church that decides to pull this shit.

>>113319
>Obviously they don't pay income tax
They can, you dont need a green card to pay taxes, the IRS doesn't care if you're an illegal they just want money. They're perfectly happy to give people tax ID numbers for 1066 employment and companies are perfectly happy to take taxes out of peoples salaries regardless of whether or not they think their ssn actually belongs to someone else.

>>113344
>Another thing is your shitty assumption that Americanized things are not our culture.
How did you get that?

>We are a melting pot of all different kinds of bullshit, and have been for a very long time
I know i fucking literally said we were. That was my whole point.

>>112451
It's is not a simple process, where you just fill out an application. You must first meet said requirements before even thinking of starting the process and even then depending on which way you go. It can take years before your turn to even get a chance at been legal.

>>113356
>Sure, but _I_ as an American have the right to control those changes to my culture (to whatever extant).

No you fucking dont. What you are attempting to do is dictate what will be/is american culture and what isn't. Culture changes, it lives on its own, what you do is influence it. You do this peacefully and within the melting pot or nit at all. You stand up and promote your values and hope they resonate within the multitude, not sit down and try to authoritatively decide what the multitude will be.
>Hordes of ass-backward third world foreign peasants do not.

No they dont and they wont all they can do is influence it.
>“hurr, durr, ‘murricans are so dumb and fat!”, amirght?

No faggot, what I'm saying is you're picking and choosing what "american culture" is. You likely mean some fake ass mom & pop 1950's quasi constitutionalist hypothetical culture and not some inner city black kid rapping on a street corner about crooked cops despite both are american.

I'm saying you're probably an out of touch hypocrite.

>And one of our values (like everybody else’s on the planet) is the preservation of our unique culture.
No it isnt, our culture has always been an ever changing melting pot.
>Just because someone want to live in the U.S. does NOT mean we have to let them.
No it doesn't, however saying fuck off we're full will not work either and neither will telling 12 million to leave.

What will work is a path to citizenship and immigration policy that stresses familial relations, community service, civic responsibility and self improvement. That however would make too much sense.

But every time anyone wants to change the retarded immigration system you xenophobic SOB's scream about how evil everyone that wants to come here is.

Newsflash, we listened to you cunts before, we gave millions of people no way to ever immigrate here legally and now there's 12 million illegals, mission accomplished right?

>inb4 that's y we gotta built dat wall mang

>>113438
You can come to my town and try to hurry things along faggot. I will gladly shoot you if you set foot on my property.

>>113353
Well they are, have fun going bankrupt trying them all.

>>113487
You're being as much of a hypocrite as he is given you're as much in favor of influencing and dictating what American culture is or should be.

Also the illegals are the fault of corporatists and Democrats building voter blocs. If people were serious about this problem instead of dragging their feet to make a show of it it wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is. Fact is, America owes absolutely nothing to people outside it. There is no right to live in America or a path to citizenship. America is not obligated to provide someone with an avenue to citizenship just because they want it.

>>113492
I'd rather America collapse while enforcing its laws than roll over and survive as Mexico 2.0.

>>113493
>you're as much in favor of influencing and dictating what American culture is or should be.
In no way am i advocating anything similar. I'm saying our culture changes and is changed by new arrivals, always has and always will. Trying to preserve some nonexistent ideal americana is an exercise in futility and just a dishonest lie.
>America is not obligated

Take your head out of your ass for a second. You cannot force foreign bodies to enact and back America's will by anything short of military violence.

And in this case military violence will not be used and any affirmation to the contrary is a dellusional lie.

The united states is at the end of a failing continent. You cannot stop this flow and trying to dam it will simply end in a flood. What you can do is seperate the chaff while making the wheat improve their own country.

But no, we dont have "obligations" so lets build an expensive wall, double down on this system that gave us 12 million illegals, fractured our populous and is threatening to literally bankrupt us as a nation.

The strongest defence against illegals is not a wall but making sure all places south do not suck.

>>113494
Spoken like a true failure. It is not a zero sum game jackass, it never was/is.

>>113494
>I'd rather America collapse while enforcing its laws
>we gotta enforce the law!
>thats all this is
>we just want the law enforced!
I bet you think Rosa Parks should have gotten her black ass to the back of the bus, I mean, it was the law afterall.

>>112449
She needs to go, to Canada

>>113491
it is much more convenient if you die on your own. thank you. hurry up now.

>>113524
That's right, be a lazy unprincipled fuck.

>>113503
yes

>>113543
That says a lot

>>113500
>>you're as much in favor of influencing and dictating what American culture is or should be.
>In no way am i advocating anything similar. I'm saying our culture changes and is changed by new arrivals, always has and always will.

And America, like every other country on the planet, has the legal right to control the numbers of those new arrivals and which new arrivals we let in (if any at all).

And specifically, this power over immigration belongs to the executive branch (President Trump).

NOBODY has any right to immigrate to another county (legally or illegally) and force that country to take them in, then demand that country change it's laws and culture to suit the immigrants that it doesn't need and never wanted in the first place.

>>113492
>Well they are, have fun going bankrupt trying them all.

Nonsense, the only thing preventing effective immigration control in the U.S. are the Democratic Party and the self-hating Useful Idiots on the Internet who support them.

>>113552

>what is due process
>what is a limited number of courts + judges

"He looks like a beaner so he needs to go" might be simple and expeditious, but it's certainly not constitutional.

And before you argue that "they're not citizens, the constitution doesn't apply to them" the 14th amendment explicitly states:
>...nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...and even if you argue that interpretation is wrong, realize that, regardless, you need to legally prove that a person is a non-citizen and does not have the proper paperwork to be a legal immigrant before you can remove them (in addition to securing a deportation drop off point) which takes, you guessed it, court time and money.

>>113555
>"He looks like a beaner so he needs to go" might be simple and expeditious, but it's certainly not constitutional.

They're not American citizens, they don't get to sue the American government and by extension, the American People and claim some kinda "right" to live in this country anymore then an American sue Mexico and demand they allow him to live there and provide him with welfare and bi-lingual schools for his kids, etc.

If they're here illegally, they get booted out on their ass. It's that's simple.

>>113562

Again, read the rest of my post, you need to prove that they are not citizens and that they are not here legally. This is not about "suing" (civil court), this is about criminal prosecution, and literally everyone is entitled to their day in court (6th amendment, 14th amendment) and you need probable cause to even bring them to court in the first place (4th amendment).

This is not arguing that "they get to sue and stay." This is saying that it takes time and money to remove 11 million people, because each and every one of them is constitutionally required to have evidence and a trial before they can be removed. Eliminating this requirement would be a massive change in US law, and would give the government such tremendous power that would destroy the US as we know it.

The only legal way to speed this process up is to hire more judges and open more courtrooms, again, costing more taxpayer money. In effect, what's actually "blocking effective immigration control" (>>113552) is the constitution's requirement for due process. It doesn't matter how many you round up with new enforcement policies when the bottleneck is the court system. Furthermore, Democrats under Obama upped the pace of illegal removal (beyond any previous administration), and there are Republicans who are for more compassionate solutions (specifically about "dreamers") so laying this at the feet of one party and their "useful idiots" is disingenuous and distracts from the real problem of an overloaded justice system.

>>113502
The left made it apparent to me that it was by framing everything designed to uplift others with a need to tear down Americans, men, whites, etc.

>>113503
I don't actually, because Rosa Parks was born in America and her demographic was brought here against their will. She as an American citizen has every right to enjoy as much as anyone else.

People who think they are owed a slot in any country's immigration policy simply because they want it or they'll end up breaking the law to get in anyway are not in the same position. Nice try on the sentimental appeal to emotion analogy though.

>>113575
The only reason Republicans support it is because they're a mouthpiece for corporate interests that want cheap labor and Latino immigrants happen to be very religious.

>>113551
>has the legal right
The legal right is a nonsense argument. The american government has a legal right to rewrite the constitution and strip everyone of their rights, they have a legal right to do a lot of unsavory unjust things. They're a government dumb dumb, they decide their pwn legal right. They also have a legal right to do what I'm suggesting.

>And specifically, this power over immigration belongs to the executive branch (President Trump).
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're just gloating like a child ir have some actual point i'm failing to see. Someone having tgevright to something does not make the right unchallenged, neither does it make it just, and it certainly does not make any choice they make the correct or pragmatic and practical one.

>>113604
>has every right to enjoy as much as anyone else.
Not at the time she didn't.

> simply because they want it or they'll end up breaking the law to get in anyway
That's literally what she did though. The law and system disagreed that they deserved the same rights as everyone else and they broke the law, numerous laws, until the laws were changed.

>Nice try on the sentimental appeal to emotion analogy though.

It's not a sentimental appeal you dumbass. It's a very direct comparison. Laws do not merit adherence on basis of their existence as a law and hiding behind their blind enforcement is simply done out of ignorance, hypocrisy or bigotry.

>>112496
Those in control are counting on people like you

>>113678
It's not a direct comparison because you're comparing an unfair and racist law that negatively impacted natural born Americans versus the laws dictating who is allowed to even come to the country in the first place.

No, they don't get to just hop the border and play Rosa Parks with a sob story. They were not dragged here. They were not legitimately oppressed. They were not subject to unjust laws or societal mistreatment. The American government and nation does not owe citizenship to outsiders just because they want it and you drawing a false equivalence between that and someone standing up to break their status as a second-class citizen in their native country is bullshit and exactly the kind of heart-tugging nonsense people like you use to shut down people's logical reasoning and arguments.

>>113682
And one could just as easily say the corporatist assholes running every scummy conglomerate are counting on people like you to institute open borders and facilitate a lot of cheap dog-eat-dog labor to eviscerate the middle class and line their coffers.

>>113604
>The only reason Republicans support it is because they're a mouthpiece for corporate interests that want cheap labor and Latino immigrants happen to be very religious.
That is completely asinine. So in your world view there is no room whatsoever for anything other than race politics and self serving conspiracy's?

It is entirely impossible, as far as you're concerned, for them to see that maybe uprooting 11 million people that have built their lives here isn't the most just thing in the world and would also be prohibitively expensive and more productive means can be found.

>>113684
The only reason Reagan allowed it in the first place was because they were religious and he thought they would be GOP voters. The Democrats got there first and used their patented "blame whitey," campaigns that worked so well with Blacks and turned them into another voting bloc.

That's the underlying reason Democrats support illegal immigration and the reason the Republicans never shut it down is because it provides lots of cheap labor for the corporations they've become a front for. The Democrats have started emulating that too.

They have no problem letting international conglomerates move business overseas or look the other way when the cheap labor is used, both of which destroys the lives of Americans all the time, why the fuck would they suddenly care about the well-being of 11 million people who broke the law and reside in legal limbo?

>>113683
>>113683
>that negatively impacted natural born Americans
That wasn't how they saw it when framing that law. The point that it was still a law, a legally binding one passed through all the right channels, still stands.

After that we're just arguing semantics and opinions on what is just and fair. You support one law being followed but not the other and your only justification is more laws and rights.

>They were not subject to unjust laws or societal mistreatment.
That's a matter of opinion. And while it's true that they can go back "home" for a good long while Africans could go to liberia.

>>113690
Your only argument is "I think this law is unfair and I should be able to break it."

That's the end point of any relevant comparison between this and your pathetic attempt to bring the civil rights into this. America does not owe these people anything just because they want in.

>>113683
>counting on people like you to institute open borders
You insane faggot. Not wanting to deport 12 million people that have lived in the US for decades and have built lives here does not mean they want open borders.

I want you to undrrstand something. You are making irrational connections and non sequitur's, you are not an intelligent person and you should consider rethinking all of your positions and percieved moral alignment.

>>113694
12 million people who are here illegally. I don't care about your whiny statute of limitations. Letting 12 million people who jumped the line stay just because of sob stories and moralistic pretenses is essentially saying it's OK to do as long as you don't get caught for a few years.

To your last point. No.

>>113691
>Your only argument is "I think this law is unfair and I should be able to break it."
I have a plethora of reasons for thinking so that range from economics to ethics and yes, laws that don't work and don't meet society's needs should be disregarded.

Besides, i hardly see what youre complaining about your only argument seems to be, "I think this law should be followed because it's the law."

>>113699
Just go to mexico/Europe and leave America in peace asshole.

>>113699
I think the law should be followed because allowing illegal immigration undermines everything about the host nation. Its labor laws, its middle-class wellbeing, it facilitates rapid demographic shift that builds ethnic strife and poisons civic health, it puts a large strain on local resources, etc.

The fact Democrats only support it to turn inner cities into voting machines is a big cherry on top to say fuck no to it.

>>113698
>stay just because of sob stories and moralistic pretenses
You hand waving away peoples lives does not keep them from existing and their lives from mattering to those with more compassion and the intelligence to use it.
>is essentially saying it's OK to do as long as you don't get caught for a few years.
It is in no way the same thing. To differentiate between those coming and those here is no obstacle.

>To your last point. No.
Dumb dumbs tend to lack an ability to accurately evaluate themselves, not surprising you would refuse.

>>113703
>The fact Democrats only support it
This is a lie though.

>>113705
Your compassion is nothing but an argument based around emotion, every bit as much of it as an argument based around fear, hate, or love. I'm done with your compassion. It doesn't matter to me anymore because I've actually lived in areas where the effects of uncheck immigration has ruined local economies. These people are just as capable of bad as they are of good. I know Democratic white savior complexes blind people to that reality, but it's a reality all the same and I don't think a group of people who broke the law by default deserve to stay because you can highlight the sob stories. It's just as easy to highlight the felons and monsters among them, and yet you will ignore those examples as much as someone on my side will ignore yours.

Anyone using the phrase "dumb dumb," isn't in a position to lecture anyone about intelligence. That shit is childish. You might as well call people meanieheads while you're at it.

>>113706
It's a lie when you truncate off the rest of the sentence to make it fit what you wanted it to. I didn't say Democrats are the only ones to support it, I said they generally only support it for reason X.

>>113703
>I think the law should be followed because allowing illegal immigration
By definition you cannot "allow" illegal immigration.
>undermines everything about the host nation. Its labor laws,
Well yes, undermining the law undermines the law, glad you're firing off all 5 brain cells for this one.
>its middle-class wellbeing,
Actually improves it by letting the middle class focus on more educated jobs however this bit is irrelevant. Classes fluctuate and rectify all the time.
>it facilitates rapid demographic shift that builds ethnic strife
As is this argument has merit only because they are disenfranchised, motivating them to be insular and create a society within a society.
>and poisons civic health
Meaningless buzzword unless you can expound on it.
>it puts a large strain on local resources
They contribute more than they take in public resources.


>The fact Democrats only support it to turn inner cities into voting machines is a big cherry on top to say fuck no to it.
This is tin foil hat tier and ignores facts, keep your opinions to yourself.

>>113710
>By definition you cannot "allow" illegal immigration.
Classic start to a bullshit liberal argument. State some irrelevant fact, adds a lot of credibility.

>>113709
>Your compassion is nothing but an argument based around emotion, every bit as much of it as an argument based around fear, hate, or love.
There is nothing wrong with emotional arguments, we are emotional animals.You dislike them though because you always lose them in the end as your end is always dominated be fear and hate.
>These people are just as capable of bad as they are of good.
Everyone is, the existence of the bad does not merit the removal of the good.
>I don't think a group of people who broke the law
If this does not matter to you in *every* instance you need to stop using it. The law is the law is the law is an argument that logically, and historically, counts for almost nothing.
>by default deserve to stay because you can highlight the sob stories.
They're lives not sob stories.
>It's just as easy to highlight the felons and monsters among them, and yet you will ignore those examples as much as someone on my side will ignore yours.
I dont understand why you would think so, oh wait no i remember now, you're an idiot.

I mean I understand why you ignore all outside information that does not support your ideas, you're a dogmatic moron.

>Anyone using the phrase "dumb dumb," isn't in a position to lecture anyone about intelligence.

Lol, sure thing dumb dumb.

>>113713
Would you feel better if i had put it at the end?

>>113720
I'd feel better if you DIED.

>>113721
What a miserable little shit you are.

>>113710
Looking the other way while a breach of legality is happening is exactly what allowing illegal behavior is. I have no clue why you think it's an impossibility. A major indicator of corruption for instance is this happening in widespread and systemic ways, like with sanctuary cities as an example.

And no, allowing the breaking of one law undermines others. Did you think I was referring to the same laws just by using the word?

Illegal immigration does not benefit the middle-class more, because it undercuts the labor market and floods communities with poor, desperate, and easily exploitable people. Even if it did do what you say it does, how the fuck do you reconcile that with your so-called compassion? It astounds me how often so-called liberal progressives who argue from a point of compassion echo the sentiments of blatant corporatists when they advocate for permanent underclasses of exploitable, vulnerable people. "We can't heartlessly kick them out, they're all our manual labor wage slaves!"

Rapid demographic shift is never a good thing. It's destabilizing and retards the process of proper assimilation that allows immigration to work at all. You're going to get a parallel society no matter what if you allow large scale immigration at all.

Civic health is not a meaningless buzzword. People who do not relate to each other are not going to discuss political ideas with one another. They're not going to imbue each other with trust or the benefit of the doubt. Diversity for its own sake is often counter-productive to an open society by putting up more and more walls.

I'm sorry you can't confront the fact Democrats are corporatists who only support illegal immigration because it facilitates a growth in their captured voting bloc. They're not doing it through compassion, they only pretend to because more poor, exploitable people who all vote for one party is a boon to them.

>>113723
>Democrats
Its not just party democrats tho

>>113717
I don't think you leftwing fuckheads realize how goddamn annoying your snippet fisking is. Properly formating a few paragraphs is so much easier to read than this fucking mess. This shit is barely above textwalls in readability and is a lousy crutch to have.

Sob. Stories. I don't fucking care anymore. My goodwill is spent. I've seen too many relatively decent places go to shit because of the compassion of people who never live with the effects or even bother to listen to people who don't wring their hands crying over everyone with a sob story.

Lives are just as often destroyed by this as they are enriched and yet you do not care because it's not politically convenient for you. Find some better insults that don't revolve around middle-schooler nonsense.

>>113724
How many times does it need to be said in this thread? Yes, the Democratic party isn't the only corporatist front, but the GOP isn't supporting illegal immigration for a group of people that regularly vote 70% or so for their opposition. That would be really fucking stupid.

>>113723
I find it humorous that you would try and equate the diregarding of one very particular set of laws with systematic general corruption. As if the general person was somehow incapable of differentiating between taking bribes and ignoring visas.

Technically you are correct, from a practical standpoint you are wrong. San Francisco's civil servants are not holding out their hands for envelopes filled with money nor are services denied to those that don't grease the right palms. It is a very particular case stemming from a very particular disagreement regarding a very particular set of laws that society is at odds with.

It is not a simple case of corruption.

>>113727
>My goodwill is spent.
You have never used any of it.

>>113727
>I don't think you leftwing fuckheads realize how goddamn annoying your snippet fisking is
Thiscis how deranged you are:
>you literally believe only people that are your political opposite do this shit on 4chan

>>113733
Being technically correct is the best kind. San Francisco isn't the only sanctuary city either. They're all over the country, hence the criteria mentioning widespread as a qualifier.

San Fran is rather corrupt (though not in the old school sense that is extremely hyperbolic) given the absolute corporate welfare it gives to major tech firms to keep their roots planted there. It's utterly gentrified the inner parts of the city itself. Different cities have different problems, but to suggest some of them aren't doing it for reasons that would be completely identifiable as corruption is naive.

>>113735
You can believe that all you want in your leftwing arrogance of assuming you and only people like you have a monopoly of it or even know the concept. That's just another symptom of why I'm utterly disgusted with the contemporary left.

>>113736
No, that's what you think I said. The only people building walls of fisked quotes in this thread are those arguing from a leftwing perspective. I said nothing about it being a leftie only thing on 4chan.

Deporting a few gorillion people is no small undertaking. Whether or not you think it's cool to uproot people is another matter entirely.

>>113739
Don't even need to deport all of them. Deport the recent ones (say 10-15 years or under), anyone who's a felon, anyone who has failed to acquire a meaningful education, failed to learn English, failed to contribute in some way through enlisting or giving back to their community. Doesn't need to be everyone, but a major portion definitely need to go and allowing it to happen at all in the future needs to be nipped at the bud. Enough is enough, the problem was allowed to balloon too much and now it's going to take getting hands dirty to fix it.

>>113723
Those poor desperate easily exploitable people were never part of the middle class. They enter the workforce and compete largely amongst themselves. Legalizing them would not seriously impact wages as you're largely eliminating the advantage they had in the market, the fact they could be exploited for fear of deportation.

There is no "rapid demographic shift", they are already here, the changes that would occur already have.

>Civic health is not a meaningless buzzword

When you do not explain what you mean, it is. In your case, you are wrong. The US is filled with all manner of cultures and ethnicities some exceedingly different. Someone from Queens might have no relatable position with someone from rural Wyoming and yet theyre still of the same nation. Your objection in this case is rather meaningless.

>Democrats are corporatists
Disregard conspiracy theory

>>113740
>anyone who has failed to acquire a meaningful education
You cant graduate without a valid state issued ID which you can't get being illegal.
>in some way through enlisting
You cant enlist without a greencard unless youre a doctor/engineer/genius or know a rare language even then there less than 2k slots a year. The army is not the foreign legion, if it was it would be the largest army on the planet.

>>113740
>Don't even need to deport all of them. Deport the recent ones (say 10-15 years or under), anyone who's a felon, anyone who has failed to acquire a meaningful education, failed to learn English, failed to contribute in some way through enlisting or giving back to their community.
No

>>113722
Says the guy advocating the death of a country. Eat shit asshole.

>>113741
A lot of those jobs they compete for used to be middle-class jobs but aren't anymore precisely because of that dog-eat-dog competition among people who are happy to work for peanuts. Not only that, they compete against natural born Americans for those same jobs. Do you honestly think America has some shortage of poor people for those kinds of jobs that it can just afford to keep importing super cheap labor to undercut its lower classes?

Yes, there is a demographic shift and denying it is denying reality. One look at the very recent demographics of the South West is enough to contradict you.

Those people from Queens having no relatability to someone from Kansas is part of the reason our country is become rife with echo chambers and people who sympathize with foreigners over their own countrymen. It's not a good thing, not by a long shot.

Take one look at Clinton's largest donors and say with a straight face the democrats aren't corporatists. They have the ear of the likes of Google, Apple, Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, etc. They are corporatism personified as much as the GOP is, only they pathetically pretend not to be.

>>113743
Yes, they don't have the right to be here just because they want to be. It's sad, but it's tough. Enough with the coddling.

>>113745
Those jobs aren't middle class jobs anymore because the middle class got better jobs. Illegals don't compete with americans for jobs they do work no one else will do and/or are self employed.

Again, the demographic shift has alreadt occurred, giving 12 million a pathway to residency and then citizenship will not change anything.

And no, people from a city being unable to relate to people from a farm is not alarming. It happens to the same extent in every nation across the globe. It is fine.


>Take one look at Clinton's largest donors and say with a straight face the democrats aren't corporatists.
Trump is literally at the head of a corporation.

>>113746
We can change that though.

>>113738
>You can believe that all you want in your leftwing arrogance
Ok, what "goodwill" have you used? What exactly did YOU do to welcome those filthy beaners over here and make them feel at home?

>>113750
That's such a simple minded way to put it. "They got better jobs." Christ. What "better," jobs did they get that they didn't have exactly? Are you implying the entire construction industry retrained itself to work in IT to make way for a wave of cheap foreign-born labor? Give me a fucking break.

Illegals do jobs for very little pay. Of course Americans aren't going to want to do those jobs on unlivable wages. It's not that that they don't want to, it's that they simply can't while employers and consumers value cheap labor above everything. Stop perpetuating this silly talking point that has no basis in reality and is only propagated among middle-class leftists who have no clue what the lower working classes used to look like anyway.

The demographic shift is still occurring and deporting illegals who have no basis to be here along with curtailing the behavior in the future is a good way to make sure that shift isn't rapid and destabilizing.

And you know damn well the differences go deeper than simple rural vs urban points of view. When groups like Antifa enjoy widespread public support in parts of California, or less than half of NYC is comprised of natural born Americans it's a much bigger divide than what you're implying.

Trump being what he is is not relevant to the fact the Democrats are corporatists.

I love how this guy equates accuses us of being leftists while simultaneously agreeing that the GOP, the political right, is every bit as likely to disagree with him on immigration.

>>113759
Classic nonsense post

What the fuck point is made here? Lol

>>113759
I've said both parties are corporatist. The GOP supporting it for that reason is not popular with its constituents. The Democrats are corporatist and support it for that reason in addition to facilitating the voting blocs mired by identity politics that they love to exploit.

>>113757
The entire construction industry is not populated solely by illegals, the US job market moved away from manufacturing and low skilled menial labor so those jobs no longer pay liveable wages. Simple as that.

Obviously illegals have an unfair advantage, but when you want the advantage removed you throw a bitch fit. Citing some needful adherance to the law that has no logical or historic basis.

The demographic shift has already happened numb nuts. Legalizing them will not change it while deporting all of them would be too expensive and immoral to boot. Even your compromise disgusts me with its ignorance and wanton disregard for human labor.

>Trump being what he is is not relevant to the fact the Democrats are corporatists.
Its relevant when you support Trump but hate the other guys for the same reason.

>>113761
So why keep saying we're leftists?

>>113764
If you keep geting called a leftist you're a leftist.

if that bothers you, drop your insane philsophy and enter the Earth.

>>113764
Because the only people who tend to pull the appeal to compassion nonsense are leftists. Rightwingers don't like it at all and the GOP establishment only goes with it because of their corporatist backers. The party itself is barely anything but a front for them at this point.

>>113763
I support a strong stance on illegal immigration, not Trump. If the man is aligning with my interests on that issue then I'll be as happy as I am displeased when he goes against other things I support. The environment for instance being a major point of contention.

Illegals form enough of local construction, landscaping, maintenance crews, etc, that their presence drives down the wages of others to remain competitive anyway. It doesn't need to be comprised entirely of cheap labor for that effect to be felt. Those jobs used to pay living wages for middle-class Americans and they're not the kind that can be shipped overseas like manufacturing.

I don't fucking care what disgusts your sensibilities. The shift is ongoing and making pussy-footed excuses for those who broke the law to help it happen is not going to change that. What makes you think I'm at all happy about how many illegals are already in the country? The only reason you're going anywhere with this is because you've arbitrarily decided that breaking the law twenty years ago doesn't matter as much.

Without strong immigration laws you cannot maintain a stable society, a worthwhile welfare state, or keep track of who is or isn't inside your country. Disregarding those very practical laws for the sake of sob stories is not a good enough argument for me. The only one with wanton disregard for human labor is the one advocating for policy that would empower those importing cheap exploitable masses at the expense of the native labor market.

>>113770
>appeal to compassion
It isn't though dumb dumb. You have yet to give a single good reason as to why all 12 million should be deported other than it was the law and when presented with the fact that it was illogical circular reasoning with a historically shaky foundation you called that an appeal to emotion too. So once again, a law being broken is in and of itself not enough of a reason to be outraged.

The only place illegals work for slave wages is the farming sector, landscaping and the like still pay well. No idea what you are talking about there. Middle america still moved on to greener pastures, the middle class didn't shrink because less than 5% of the population (a disenfranchised percentage at that) gutted everything. That is stupid.

For most of human history strong immigration laws did not exist and states were stable regardless. SSN's, e-verify, secure birth certificates are all modern conventions that states did without for centuries. This Trumpist insistence that you cannot have a nation without borders is utter nonsense. I suppose you do well to amend it with the caveat that you need these borders for a welfare state for it adds credence to your otherwise nonsensical affirmation. This begs the question though, do the illegals contribute to the state and if so at what levels?

Well the answer is they do, they contribute almost 12 times as more than they recieve in aid from the state. They do this as disenfranchised individuals and i see no reason this state would reverse with their properly handled enfranchising.

>>113782
Wtf I hate America now

>>112488
Liberals are just as bad, anon.

the problem is Liberals want to just give citizenship to every last illegal on US soil, while Conservatives want stricter screening of who can stay, AND want increased border funding, and want that FIRST, because the last time they did a huge amnesty bill, border security was supposed to be part of it and fuckall happened.

also, liberals benefit from there being noconcrete path. if there are too few illegals, because they were all legalized and/or deported, they have no perpetual underclass class they can turn into 'poor oppressed victims" of the "mean bad republicans"

>>112784
>if cars were easy to legally acquire, there would be no thefts. But there are car thefts, therefore acquiring a car isn't easy.
..are you retarded..? Not all car theft is because someone 'can't afford" a car.. in fact, most people who steal because they 'can't afford" something, simpluy dont want to put in the work and inconvenience it might take to get it.

>>113292
>american culture is a melting pot.
this is mostly a myth. American culture is specifically anglo saxon.

AKA predominantly German/English, with a small smattering of other European nationalities, but still largely European in origin.

>>113741
>When you do not explain what you mean, it is.
the burden is on you to figure out what it means, not him to explain it

>>113742
>You cant graduate without a valid state issued ID which you can't get being illegal.
you can though. NY for example has the IDNYC program, which gives you a Ny issued ID card regardless of who you are. it's advertised as an easy id if you dont drive or have any other ID, but it's true purpose is to give illegal immigrants an ID they can use for city services. as proven by them trying to destroy their records when Trump was elected, so he couldn't get them. The city is currently in court over this issue.

It wouldnt surprise me if states like CA have similar shit, considering the recent shitstorm over a girl who posted her graduation day picture on twitter, boasting about how she was top of her class, x.x GPA, etc, etc, "and by the way, I'm undocumented."

>>113763
>US job market moved away from manufacturing and low skilled menial labor so those jobs no longer pay liveable wages.
it doesnt work that way you little shit.

so why do we have /news/ again? becasuse i feel like im on /pol/, just without the nationality flags

>>113832
/news/ is for news.

this is news. are you complaining because people have different opinions?

>>113834
no, I mean we used to post news on /pol/. why did we need an exclusively news board, when it apploes to /pol/ stuff anyway

it just feels redundant

>>113839
It is redundant but the good thing about /news/ is that it is slower so people can catch up on the news but right now it is too slow. Though /news/ seems to be attracting some major autists.

>>113839
>stop talking about these things!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH SUCC IT

>>113820

>"if cars were easy to legally acquire"

>but you're wrong, they just don't want to work for it

You literally just said the same thing as me with different wording and called me retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS83HdpzxDU

Video related, it's what you're doing.

>>113825
>you can though. NY for example has the IDNYC program
Same exact difference. The state, in this case NYC, simply provided another ID for people that happened to live there. The requirement is still there in academic institutions across the country there's just an asterisk for certain cities. Not really sure what you meant to prove with this post, doesn't really change anything.

>>113831
Demand moved away from manufacturing and menial jobs and that's where the money went.

>>113782
>This begs the question though, do the illegals contribute to the state and if so at what levels?
>Well the answer is they do, they contribute almost 12 times as more than they recieve in aid from the state

Complete bullshit. 75% of illegal Mexicans are receiving some kinda welfare, the highest percentage of any ethnic group in the U.S. and they make up the majority of the prison population in the Southwest.

Mexico is dumping the dregs of their society onto the U.S. for American tax payers to take care of.

>>114056
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

>>113842
>reading comprehension

>>113875
that clearly you CAN graduate without a valid state issued ID, when the state isn't even enforcing the law.

>>112449
mr president
deport them, get them all the fuck out i beg you.

>>113876
>Demand moved away from manufacturing and menial jobs
no it didn't, you still buy cars, right? you still buy goods, right? where do you think that package of oreos was made? In a factory.

the demand is there, what happened is it became cheaper to hire illegals who work for peanuts, or ship jobs out of the country to other countries where they are willing to work for peanuts too.

the people didn't change, the industry and the protections the government offered the people against the industry bending them over, are what changed.

We stopped enforcing immigration laws and started considering illegals "poor disenfranchised """"undocumented"""" immigrants" and allowed businesses like construction, to become overwhelmed by them, and we stopped enforcing protectionism and domestic production, allowing car manufacturers to move to mexico or canada, and every single small shit producer to move to china, all while selling the millennial generation since birth, the myth that labor jobs and manufacturing are for squares, and "poor people", and generally "uncool". you have to go to college so you can be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs! You don't want to flip burgers your whole life, do you? (notwithstanding the fact that "flipping burgers used to be a job a high school student could buy a fucking car with and which Boomers will go on and on about how they paid for college by working at McDonalds)

>>114096
to clarify, the "demand" moved 'away" because the jobs stopped paying as much as they used to. It's impossible to offer a decent wage for a construction or landscaping job when the other local companies pay slave wages to their illegal immigrants.

the wages were driven down, that's why the "demand" changed.

>>114097
>>114096
this. allowing your businesses to leave so they can get around human rights / environmental laws was a huge mistake. FOR EVERYONE. that includes chang driven-to-suicide hanging off a FOXCONN factory, by the way.

>>114096
>what happened is it became cheaper to hire illegals who work for peanuts
Doesnt actually happen at significant levels.
>ship jobs out of the country to other countries where they are willing to work for peanuts

This does happen and as a result there is less demand for manufacturing jobs in the US job market.

>allowed businesses like construction, to become overwhelmed by them
Not true either, alarmist buffoonery on your part. Construction is not falling apart and neither are their wages at subsistence levels. The thing that hurt construction most was 2008, which had domestic homegrown roots (i.e. we did it). Again, we're talking about less than 5% of the population, probably actually closer to 3.8something% or 4.1something% , that give 12 times more in taxes than they collect in services. With what? 1% of that maybe going towards construction? Their impact on the $18 trillion american economy and the flow of that money is not going to be all that great.

>>114093
>that clearly you CAN graduate without a valid state issued ID
No see they made a new ID. You still need to be able to prove you are the guy on the diploma and tge guy that went to all the classes. They just made a new state issued ID (as empowered be the state and federal government to issue), and they accept that. You still cannot graduate without a valid stat issued ID.

Again this is a small inconsequential asterisk that doesn't matter. That Chicago, NY and some other cities have local ID that functions as a state issued ID doesnt change the fact you're asking a large body of people to do something they're not allowed by the system they're in to do.

>>114056
>Complete bullshit. 75% of illegal Mexicans are receiving some kinda welfare
Prove it

You cannot get welfare without a ssn, you cannot even apply without ID, for somethings you even provide a BC. All documents get checked.

Frankly if they manage to get any kind of welfare with the hoops they need to clear I would almost think they earned it.

>some kinda welfare
For the record I don't like these weasel words you're using, what specific programs do they have their hands in? Or what you mean some ER type deal where they go when they think they might die?

>>114118
And i did see your link however there is no mention in it of "illegal Mexicans". I saw a statistic for Hispanics. Is that what you mean? All Hispanics are illegal Mexicans?

I live in TX. I'm damn ready for a border wall to go up. I'm tired of feeling like I'm the minority to illegal immigrants. This country was founded on Lawd. Laws that we should protect. Respect the country WE AS NATURAL US BORN CITIZENS live in and look for work daily because jobs are given to illegals because they will work for far less pay and many more hours. The US should have closed borders to EVERYONE. This woman had to have done something a little bit more illegal than be a border hopper to not try anything to become a citizen or get a greencard/visa. And I'm sorry. We don't owe yall a damn bit of our resources, social security, welfare (get that back where you came from) Everyone in the world thinks America owes them. Well Guess What?? We don't
We need to learn how to protect our own. Our own homeless, hungry, & families and especially our Vets. So lady you special activist. (You should be in jail for that too.) I'm going to give you a big shout out... GTFH

>>114121
>This country was founded on Laws

It was literally founded on breaking established laws, both the US and Texas. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are examples of nations founded solely through judicial means.

>>114121
Well a yeehaw to you too. Is this post intentionally reeking of retarded redneck? Is this a joke?

>>114121
Amen brother preach it

Bout time someone told the HONEST and the TRUTH!

>>114122
Wow you really inspired me to hate America

>>114124
>i am a racist leftist

How interesting... and fresh...

>>114121
>This woman had to have done something a little bit more illegal than be a border hopper to not try anything to become a citizen or get a greencard/visa.
No, you are factually wrong. Entering the country illegally immediately disqualifies you from the immigration procedure. There's a few exceptions like children.

>>114127
Oh you can be any race and still be a retarded redneck.

>>114130
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you fucking faggot ass loser

>>114126
The fuck do you want? Thats what happened, revolts have a tendency to be illegal. Saying the US is founded on laws is silly, we are founded on a certain disregard of laws.

>>114126
strictly speaking a revolution isn't the most """"""""legal"""""""" way to start things off now is it?

>>112449
>muh broken up families

Should have though about that for the 20 fucking years you illegally leeched off Americans and where too shitty to get citizenship. Fuck right off.

>>114131
Ouch muh feelfeels

>>114135
I'm not even hwite.

It's hilarious when liberals reveal their hateful nature. Racist peice of filth.

>>114132
>The fuck do you want

I want you to stop shitting on America for no reason. You don't understand anything about what we're founded on.

>>114139
>I want you to stop shitting on America for no reason.
The guy said we were founded on laws, we weren't though.

>>114141
We are founded on many values, one of them is that all men are equal under the law.

That's the point of what he said. I understood it immediately. People say that a lot, ya know.

You'd get this if you weren't sliming around looking for every opportunity to attack America.

Just gtfo of my country, you don't deserve liberty.

>>114142
>>114142
>one of them is that all men are equal under the law.
Except for (back then) the poor and the non-white and now, if some of you are to be believed, those without proper documentation who should be rounded up and deported without due process.

>>114145
>Revisionist history...America used to be NAZIS srsly

>I hate America!!!

Do you have anything else yo say?

>>114147
>Revisionist history
When america was founded you had to be white, male and a land owner to be enfranchised. This is not revisionist and is far from everyone being equal under the law when you have an entire group with different rights and obligations to which others can be excluded solely by virtue of birth.

I'm not revising anything you simply have been pushing a myth.

>>114148
It's reassuring that traitors always have a warped view of history.

Maybe you can change.

>>114149
Normal people look at history and accept it. That's just how things were. Every country had slaves because that's how society functioned.

Others see history and OMG RACISTS WE NEED TO SELECTIVELY BLAME AND PUNISH THEIR OFFSPRING. These people want to control others.

>>114150
>OMG RACISTS
Heres the problem, I'm not saying that. You're saying I'm saying that. You're no different than leftist pundits chiming in with their "So you're saying-" strawmen.

>>114077
>>114118
>>Complete bullshit. 75% of illegal Mexicans are receiving some kinda welfare
>Prove it

Entire article at:
http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

Among the findings:

Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

>>114148
>When america was founded you had to be white, male and a land owner to be enfranchised.
>This is not revisionist and is far from everyone being equal under the law

True, but this isn't a legal point as much as the nature of society back then.

As White land owning males were all that mattered socially, they were in fact "everyone" in the context of the law.

You can't impose modern sensibilities on past societies who simply didn't think the way we do now.

For example, it was perfectly legal AND morally right to enslave Blacks in oldy timey days, as everybody back then knew Blacks weren't really human, so it was ok.

>>114153
You just accused America of being a racist state.

Why do liberals do this? You attack then feign ignorance/innocence immediately upon being challenged.

>>114162
See here is my problem and why I highlighted the weasel words earlier. "Some kinda welfare" in this case meant "welfare going to legitimate us citizens not to illegal aliens", in this case the children of illegal immigrants.

When you originally wrote it you made it seem like illegal immigrants were themselves recipients of welfare when that isn't the case at all. In fact:
>Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance.

So even though they are paying into the system they themselves don't get much payback, their American children do. Furthermore your own source freely admits to lumping legal and illegal immigrants into the same statistical bin at various instances not least of which is your bogus "75% of illegal Mexicans " claim.

>>114178
I made the factual claim that the US of having racism prevalent within their founding organization.

This was preceded by the factual assertion that it broke several laws to come into existence.

There is no error in any of what I wrote.

"""""Undocumented"""""

>>114196

>>I made the factual claim that the US of having racism prevalent within their founding organization.

That's a lie.

>This was preceded by the factual assertion that it broke several laws to come into existence

Misleading. It has nothing to do with the values we were founded on.

100% erroneous posts

>>114203
>That's a lie.
> perfectly legal AND morally right to enslave Blacks
>they weren't racis brah, if everyone is racis they can't be racis
Right.

>It has nothing to do with the values
The claim was we were founded on laws not what values were supposedly espoused by the founders of the state. If anything you should be bitching at that anon for phrasing things awkwardly.

>>112451
(((Meyer))) Kike

>>114178
Dude stop winning about a term invented by Far-Left Jew Trotsky just give it up.

>>114205
>morally right to enslave Blacks

Nigger should had never been brought in,that was mistake.Irish would do fine

>>114205
You have a purposefully anti American view of history.

Slavery has routinely been established and abolished since the beginning of time.

And you have the audacity yo blame America, the country that rid the civilized world of slavery!

Here's a history lesson.

Pre-1665 - no slavery, only indentured servants granted 50 acres after 7 years.

1665 - A BLACK MAN sues and the judges decide blacks are now slaves

1776 - AMERICA IS HERE TO SAVE THE PLANET

1800 - American citizens banned from investment and employment in the international slave trade in an additional Slave Trade Act.

This is the beginning of the end of slavery. 24 years after America gained it's independance it begins to actively rid the world of slavery. Is that not soon enough?

Fucking retard doesn't know shit about his own country. Incredible.

>>114194
>legitimate us citizens not to illegal aliens", in this case the children of illegal immigrants.

The welfare is not JUST for the anchor baby, it's for the whole family and now that there is an anchor baby, all the rest of the clan can be legally imported from Mexico and join in on the welfare.

Mexicans are a huge weight around the neck of America, they make our society shittier by refusing to fix their own shitty society and dragging their shit here and transplanting it whole cloth.

>>114194
>Furthermore your own source freely admits to lumping legal and illegal immigrants into the same statistical bin at various instances not least of which is your bogus "75% of illegal Mexicans " claim.

"We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children."

Is English perhaps a second language for you?

>>114235


>the country that rid the civilized world of slavery!
You were not the first or the last to get rid of slavery.

>>114255

>i REFUSE to read

>>114235
>You have a purposefully anti American view of history.
Because i said two truths you don't like? Faggot, i love America, I'm just not dishonest.
>have the audacity yo blame America
How the fuck am I blaming us for slavery?
>the country that rid the civilized world of slavery!
No we fucking didn't
>This is the beginning of the end of slavery. 24 years after America gained it's independance
That's the beginning of the end of slavery IN AMERICA, not the world.

>>114261
>i love America BUT...

lol

The timeline does not lie. America began to end slavery right after becomming a country.

Yet traitors like you pretend this country is founded on white supremacy. That's probably the biggest lie being told right now.

>>114239
>Is English perhaps a second language for you?
Is it yours dumb dumb? Does 71 now mean 75? Is "household" now "every individual in the house"? So if a mother/father who is an illegal and "used at least one welfare program" in this case we'll say WIC, and they get coupons for baby formula and diapers for their American child. They now factor into that "at least one welfare program", right?


So because of shitty framing and crappy statistical organization America is supposed to be outraged?

Fuck off.

>>114263
>BUT
You literally had to add in the "but"...I'm getting trolled aren't I?

>>114265
>America didn't lead the world to end slavery stop being patriotic ;_;

>>114266
It didn't tho, we didn't end slavery in 1800 and we didn't end slavery in the world in 1865.

>>114268
I said 1800 was the beginning the end of slavery.

Do you think that was easy?

Democrats fought hard for their slaves.

Thank God the republican party formed and succeeded in ending slavery.

Remember that "the big switch" is a lie. Democrats used blacks to pick cotton, now they use them for votes and political leverage.

>>114269
>I said 1800 was the beginning the end of slavery.
In America jackass, the rest of the world moved along as if nothing happened.

Here is the full list you revisionist jackass:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

>>114270
You really are stupid. Why did you post evidence for my case?

Scroll down to "contemporary timeline"

America is first to act in against slavery in 1800. Similar anti-slavery action follows in other countries.

1800, America
1803, denmark-norway
1804, new jersey
...list goes on naming 20+ countries

America clearly set the trend, and the world is better off with its leadership.

>>114274
>contemporary timeline
There's 3 sections before that.

>>114278
I already said that slavery has been enacted and abolished routinely throughout history.

Can't you read?

In our era, America is responsible for abolishing it.

>>114285
You just arbitrarily decided this era started in 1800.

>>114287
There's nothing arbitrary about American influence.

>>114288
You arbitrarily decided this cycle started when America started to move towards abolition of slavery and then said "look, we started it".

Of course we would start it if you arbitrarily decide our starting point was THE starting point.

>>114290
Actually it was not in 1800, my mistake. America was anti-slavery from before its birth.

1775 - Pennsylvania
Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.

1775-1783
United States Atlantic slave trade banned or suspended.

And the Earth lived happily ever after.

>>114292

1549
Spanish Empire

Encomiendas banned from using forced labor.


1723 Russia

Slavery abolished but serfdom retained.

1723-1730 Qing Dynasty

The Yongzheng emancipation seeks to free all slaves to strengthen the autocratic ruler through a kind of social leveling that creates an undifferentiated class of free subjects under the throne. Although these new regulations freed the vast majority of slaves, wealthy families continued to use slave labor into the twentieth century.
1772 United Kingdom

Somersett's case rules that no slave can be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.

>none of these are an arbitrary starting point because reasons.

>>114297
>
>1549
>Spanish Empire
>Encomiendas banned from using forced labor.
>banned from using forced labor.
>banned

lol

>>114264
> > Is English perhaps a second language for you?
> Is it yours dumb dumb? Does 71 now mean 75?

Sorry, Paco but nobody is buying the SJW bullshit myth that illegal Mexicans somehow “contribute” to the economy and that they’re not in fact massively sponging off welfare and committing a shit load of crimes to boot.

The illegal mass migration of Mexicans to the U.S. is wholly economic and wholly driven by our ridiculously generous welfare benefits, (none of which they can get back home in Mexico) which are supplemented by under-the-table jobs and organized crime.

Mexico’s 2nd largest source of income is American dollars sent back to Mexico by illegal Mexicans in the U.S.

If Mexicans were such magically hard working and law abiding people as self-hating White Leftists claim, Mexico wouldn’t be the perpetual shithole it’s always been and Mexicans wouldn’t be illegally running off to America to suck up our tax dollars.

>>114297
1. Spain was another era.

2. Nobody even knew Russia had slaves.

3. The UK knew America was going to rid the Earth of injustice. This was an attempt to stay relevant.

>>114304
>paco
So you're finally breaking out the "everyone that disagrees with me on the internet is a minority" card. Neat, well I guess if you can't refute the logic insult the guy trying to reason with you eh dumb dumb?

Everyone exchanging money in a nation contributes to it moron, it isn't some magic spell it just logically follows if you know what a nations economy is.

I can only surmise that you confused the nations economy with the taxes collected by the state, you're an idiot, so that's understandable.

What kind of jobs do illegals do? Well they range wildly, the maintenance man at my mother's retirement home is an illegal, he's employed through 1066, it essentially means he is a private contractor. He has a tax ID # and has to file taxes every year, if he doesn't he gets audited and eventually probably deported so he dots every i. Those brown guys at five guys? Don't speak much english yet somehow want guys to think they're anything other than illegals, they're on payroll, they get state and federal taxes taken right out of their checks every 2 weeks. They however are using someone else's SSN and fake ID's, only way to get a corporate gig like that. Those gardeners that go house the house? If they have bank accounts they get IRS Issued tax ID numbers because having tax problems is a good way to get deported.
Furthermore I explained why the reasoning behind your study was fundamentally flawed and why you were wrong for coming to the conclusion you did. Either explore a fault with the reasoning or stfu. Fuck, now you're literally attacking shit no one in the thread is saying, for no other reason than looking for shit to troll with.

>>114304
>>114306
>Spain was another era.
You arbitrarily started an era at 1800 for no fucking reason

>Nobody even knew Russia had slaves
But they're slavs

>The UK knew America was going to rid the Earth of injustice. This was an attempt to stay relevant.

Nigga go to sleep. You're tired.

>>114312
Well, it is difficult to pin point exactly when this era began. It's not an exact science.

>>114314
Then stop looking for significance when it suits your argument.

>>114318
I don't even remember what we're fighting about.

>>114238
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>112451
>(((Meyer))) said he blames President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, which he says eliminated due process.
go figure

>>114374
>being this ignorant of how welfare works around the ENTIRE WORLD
google some of your stupid away

>>114465
So you have nothing, good job.

>>114467
Not that guy just popping in to say fuck you retard

>>114467

I’m not that guy, I’m the other guy and no, I’m not going to waste my time wandering the Internet to find citations for you, (there are plenty in this thread to get you started) that you’ll just reject or ignore as they don't fit the narrative you've been brainwashed into believing.

Only a moron would believe that importing millions of third worlders into the U.S. (or into Europe with Arabs and N.Africans) is somehow a good thing.

The fact is, Mexico is a shithole (even Mexicans don’t want to live there) and now we’re bringing that shit here to the U.S.

But what do I care? I’m 49 years old and won’t live to see the ultimate horror when the U.S. descends into 3rd world status itself.

Enjoy your legacy, SJW.

I got a question. According to that one anon the Democrats want illegal immigration because >corporations+votes,
while the GOP allows it because >corporations.
So my question is if both parties don't want to fix this problem because Joe Moneybags tells them not to fix it then what do we do then? Wait until we get enough of the right people in congress to solve this problem? Violent uprising?

>>114694
The economy should benefit from itself, immigrants are generally high skilled or poor, so more taxes or more poors that pump most of their money back into the system for the sake of surviving.

USA LOVES IMMIGRANTS

Word of the day: intersectional

>>114705
Make a Facebook post so viral that it makes a Facebook post powerful enough to make Facebook post to inspire our true community leaders to make civil engagement #trending.

>>114707
>intersectional
A synonym for dysfunctional, paralysis, neurotic, and self-defeating when it comes to the progressive use of the term.

>>112739
In California all they have to do is live there for a while and improve the place a little and then woo boy, good luck evicting them. They don't owe you jack shit, either. In fact, you are now obligated to pay their utilities if they can't and will recieve no rent money. Ever. Welcome to squatters law. If this sounds retarded, imagine that kind of policy on a national level and no wonder people want illegals out.

>>113292
Accepting a change in culture induced by an influx of individuals willing and able to break the law instead of those who willingly underwent a screening process sounds completely retarded, I'm sorry.

>>113667
>The american government has a legal right to rewrite the constitution and strip everyone of their rights, they have a legal right to do a lot of unsavory unjust things. They're a government dumb dumb, they decide their pwn legal right. They also have a legal right to do what I'm suggesting.
But you're wrong, you retard.

>>113717
>There is nothing wrong with emotional arguments, we are emotional animals.You dislike them though because you always lose them in the end as your end is always dominated be fear and hate.
Blind naivete isn't a superior alternative.

>>112743

You're a globalist elite shill not of North American origins. Probably the top crop of some other country. No one cares about your shaming story. The lady looks like a Native American to me. You have to understand that only white people are obsessed with countries. This lady isn't even a representation of the Mexican government given that it's all white. Also, she is not Muslim or is speaking a non-Western tongue. That must really trigger you. It thus forces you to resort to racism and yet she is a North American Amerindian. You're the hypocrite.

>>114707
>USA LOVES IMMIGRANTS

The vast majority of immigration to the U.S. is illegal and is predominantly made up of Mexicans and other Hispanics and the vast majority of them are dirt poor, ass backward peasants.

Whatever they may “contribute” to the nation, is more than off-set by the massive costs incurred by the American tax payers in welfare, crime, violence, run down neighborhoods and driving down wages and benefits for legal American citizens.

And of the legal immigrants who do have skills, most of them are imported by Wall Street corporations via H1B visas _specifically_ to under-cut wages and benefits for American workers.

Which leaves a tiny fraction of immigrants (mostly from Europe) who arrive in the U.S. with valuable and marketable skills and who easily assimilate into the overwhelmingly European-American culture of America.

Immigration to the U.S. over all is a net loss and illegal immigration is a complete fucking disaster.

>>114719
> You're a globalist elite shill not of North American origins.

(different guy here, and) you have no idea what you're babbling on about, it's the Globalists who want uncontrolled borders and mass migration of 3rd worlders into the West.

> You have to understand that only white people are obsessed with countries.

Indeed, as it's only White people who have livable countries and they want to keep them that way.

>>114714

good thing the world isn't black and white, eh? what if I told you humans are able to express a multitude of emotions, and often with a variety of magnitudes.

>>114879

provide some sources, or fuck off back to /pol/ or reddit

I don't fucking care.

Go back home and apply for citizenship. It doesn't matter if one does it or a million. It encourages illegal behavior.

>>114968
Feel free to cite your own sources that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not the media-confused 'immigrants' contribute as much as you say they do, Paco. Can't just make baseless accusation then when responded to, ask for sources.

>>114719
Mexican here.

>You're a globalist elite shill not of North American origins. Probably the top crop of some other country. No one cares about your shaming story.
Do you even know what globalism is?

>The lady looks like a Native American to me.
That's racist isn't it? She's not, by the way

>You have to understand that only white people are obsessed with countries.
Pretty sure that's also racist. And wrong.

>This lady isn't even a representation of the Mexican government given that it's all white.
What in the fuck do you mean. Do you know the first thing about my country? Do you even care? Are our authorities or ourselves not mexican enough for you? Or is it just when we're not supporting your retarded ideals?

>Also, she is not Muslim or is speaking a non-Western tongue. That must really trigger you. It thus forces you to resort to racism and yet she is a North American Amerindian. You're the hypocrite.
It's not racism. Not once he mentioned race. YOU DID.

>>114968
> expecting a doctoral thesis on a Tibetan finger-painting board

Plenty of references and citations have already been provided in this very thread and all have been ignored by delusional suburban SJWs who continue to insist it’s all about White “racism”.

Do your own leg work and try reading something other then Huffington Post and Salon.

>>114966
What you offered holds no nuance. It's purely feelz over realz so good job being a living meme.

>>115016
Read the $900 billion question on scribd, i'm on my phone.

Akso ypur "sources" were wrong and not saying what you thought. I explained why.

>>112449
>Bohoo, the consequences of breaking the law of another country scare me
How about NOT breaking the law ?
How about respecting it?

>bohooo, i'm a mum, i'm gonna use my chilluns as a shield against the authorities
Will they sell any bit of morality and common sense just to get more welfare?

>>115137
>
> 75% of illegal Mexicans are on welfare
> Ah ha! It's only 71%.
> ypur "sources" were wrong and not saying what you thought