Didn’t say he conceptualized it, just brought it to the forefront.[quote=“anon50325502, post:2841, topic:212571”]
Me: there really wasn’t any imitative by the ruling classes to do anything about excess, illegal, or common sense immigration.
usmccds: Wait a sec while I prove your statement for you with wikipedia -
The bill also received heated criticism from both sides of the immigration debate. The bill was introduced in the United States Senate on May 9, 2007, but was never voted on, though a series of votes on amendments and cloture took place. The last vote on cloture, on June 7, 2007, 11:59 AM, failed 34-61 effectively ending the bill’s chances. A related bill S. 1639, on June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM, also failed 46-53
[/quote]
That qualifies in my mind as ruling parties making no effort, but if you think several failed attempts to vote from 2005-2007 are earth shattering,
This makes you look small to be so condescending, but if that’s your style (and for about the last year, it has been) continue on.
It’s been an ongoing issue in the United States since the Unites States was created. You’re free to believe he brought this to the forefront. It’s completely ridiculous, but whatever.
And 2013…, but Trumps will pass his radical plan because he’s amazing.
You came in here, didn’t read the thread, started calling people White Knights, and accused people of not being familiar with the situation, but I’m the one that’s condescending/small.
Yes I read those things you have highlighted. They were from 9-11 years ago and never even got to the voting stage.
While I agree that there was some effort by our elected officials, the “ruling classes” were not interested. One of them said Reid was the lone bill sponsor.
I voted Cruz in primary and I have never said Trump was a savior. However in 9 presidential elections, I have voted 3rd party 3 times. I won’t do that this year, because I think HRC is worse of a choice even than Trump.
PS I have been in this thread since Dec and have posted maybe 10 times in it, but haven’t read all 2843 posts.
No real qualms with your other points in the first paragraph but this is a bit superficial in my opinion, for the following reason: The level of corruption, lack of infrastructure, and overall complete FUBAR mess that they live in doesn’t really lend itself to success for ANYBODY, except the politically connected or the drug cartel. Shit plenty of people who are otherwise intelligent would get bulldozed in an environment like that.
Person B: Trump’s not Hitler, the comparison is just stupid.
Person A: Okay fine, but the idea of rounding up millions of people and deporting them will be very expensive and would be very difficult and time consuming.
Person B: Do you know who did a great job of rounding people up? The Nazi’s. They were very efficient at rounding up the Jews, gypsies, and homos. Imagine what the U.S government could do today? Not to kill them, though. Definitely not to kill them.
Sounds to me like you’re arguing since the Nazi’s were able to do it 70 years ago the U.S. government can use their blueprint to do the same thing to illegals immigrants here except better. Is that not accurate? So, again, how did the Nazi’s manage to be so efficient at rounding the Jews, Gypsies, and homos up? I would certainly like to know since you’re advocating we do the same thing here.
My argument is that if the Nazis were able to round up people en masse using technology that would by modern day standards considered crude, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume the US should have no problem rounding up illegals using modern technology.
We have the NSA, iPhones, electronic paper trails etc.
I mean you have sloth posting articles stating how much illegal immigrants contribute to taxation, how much welfare they collect and yet rounding them up is some highly impossible, expensive task?
I want to make sure I have this clear. You’re advocating for the federal government to direct the NSA and other resources to utilize advanced technologies to locate 11-35 million people to then, I have to assume, send federal, state, and local authorities to forcibly remove the people the NSA says are illegals, in the same fashion as the Nazi’s, to then deport them. Is that about right?
Lets set aside the obvious constitutional issues for now. You’re in favor of the chief executive ordering the various agencies under his authority to spy on Americans, on U.S. soil no less, in order to locate between 3%-12% of the population to then have men and women in uniform drag these folks from their home based solely on the word of bureaucrats in these various organizations to then deport them to what ever country said bureaucrats deem appropriate.
That’s insane. If that doesn’t define authoritarianism then it’s pretty damn close. The unilateral rounding up and deporting of a group of people based on the word of big brother is one of the honest to God scariest things I’ve read on here.
Not to mention it would be very costly and would require surrendering more power and resource to the federal government growing it, the debt, and the deficit.
This is a prime example of why many people feel Donald Trump is just as bad if not worse than Hillary Clinton.
Probably the most head scratch worthy part of all this Trump non-sense, which you’re a strong advocate for, is the idea that you, an immigrant, won’t be next on the list.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
