The Third Option

[FakeNewsSux]

Option 1: Reopen the Federal Government and hope that in exchange, Chuck and Nancy would fund the wall.
Option 2: Declare nation emergency and begin to build the wall using existing federal funding. This would result in months of court challenges until the Supreme Court finally confirms the President's right to do so. This would put us right up against the 2020 election cycle so expect weak kneed Republicans to begin wavering in their support of the wall.
Option 3: Declare national emergency and immediately deploy the military to begin boarder reinforcement.

Oath Keepers: POTUS should deploy military along border to ‘STOP the invasion’https://i1.wp.com/thenationalsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/us-troops-border-concertina-wire.jpg?resize=620%2C413&ssl=1

Oath Keepers is urging the commander-in-chief to order the “U.S. military (the Army Corps of Engineers and military combat engineer units) to build the necessary layered system of wall/steel fencing, patrol roads, and surveillance systems – all backed up by ongoing military, National Guard, and militia … that are needed to finally and fully secure the entire 2,000 mile border with Mexico.”
The statement made several observations about conditions along the border that warrants a military response:
— In addition to a humanitarian crisis, there is a “military invasion by international terrorists, an insurrection against the laws of the union,” and “Mexican drug cartels” waging “unconventional warfare” in order to smuggle illicit drugs into the country.
— “…[B]rutal drug cartels, their violent street gang allies, and the violent aliens they bring in,” are killing Americans in greater numbers, with “Newman, CA., police Cpl. Ronil Singh being the most recent victim.”— The cartels are “taking over U.S. territory (https://www.invasionusa.news/) just as they have taken over Northern Mexico.”
— The “humanitarian crisis goes hand-in-hand with the terrorism, unconventional warfare, and invasion of our nation” across our international boundary with our southern neighbor.
— Tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year “because of the illegal drug trade that the Mexican drug cartels run and supply.” Further, many more Americans are killed by illegal alien drivers who are drunk or otherwise impaired.

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/01/10/oath-keepers-potus-should-deploy-military-along-border-to-stop-the-invasion/

[pete311]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.

[aboutime]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.


We Military peeps believe in what our OATH said. Defending The Nation, and Constitution. If you break LAWS....no matter whether you are a child, woman, or man. YOU ARE A LAWBREAKER, and, in this case. They Become ILLEGAL for breaking our Laws.
MILITARY PEOPLE "DEFEND" THE NATION.

Not something YOU seem to respect, or be aware of at all. We are amazed that you brag about being so totally IGNORANT.

[Drummond]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.

Either people crossing the border do so legally, or illegally. One or the other.

Until the US officially, formally, recognises those 'migrants' as legal ... then, they're NOT.

This 'illegals are legal' equivalence argument of yours, Pete, is totally perverse. You have to see that (?).

Perhaps you think that all the fuss about building a wall across the US-Mexico border is about keeping LEGAL migrants out ???

But never mind. Maybe, Pete, you think there are 'acceptable' levels of illegal immigration, versus non-acceptable levels ?

If so ... tell us what they are !! How many illegal immigrants per year should the US tolerate, before the authorities begin to see there's a problem to be tackled ? Come on ....

.... tell us all where you draw the line. How many ILLEGALS should be ACCEPTED, before their illegality is actually, ahem, ILLEGAL ?

Can you cite us a law, statute, anything, which defines these limits ??

[Elessar]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.

Yes, if done legally. This movement is not even an attempt at being legal.

Oaths Taken: "To Protect and Defend The Constitution of the United States of America",
something you have never done, and an Oath that the liberal whiners in The Congress took but tend to
ignore when it suits them - which is quite often the last two years especially.

Who put those women and children in jeopardy, Pete? They were warned when they assembled in Honduras and
Guatemala that they would not be let in...but onward they came. Whose fault is that? THEIRS!

Put the blame where it belongs...the marchers! Plus the liberals in D.C. that turned their backs on the issue, going away
from statements they made 10 years ago.

Don't pile it on us, you worm.

[Abbey Marie]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.

Economic problems are not just-cause for asylum.

[STTAB]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.

It most certainly is not legal to cross into this country illegally .

Why tell such an obvious lie?

[jimnyc]

It most certainly is not legal to cross into this country illegally .

Why tell such an obvious lie?

And mentioning "women and children" as well. While of course some of them coming are - most are young aged males - and this has been covered endlessly.

[STTAB]

And mentioning "women and children" as well. While of course some of them coming are - most are young aged males - and this has been covered endlessly.



And it isn't even relevant. The law doesn't say "women and children may enter the US any way in which they choose"

Imagine if children were robbing banks and the FBI was told "Don't go after them,they are just children"

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Just to be clear there is no "invasion". Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. I'm kind of a amazed none of you are demanding we change that law. And frankly that you military peeps think it's a good idea to divert military personal and money to stopping women and children.
Asylum seekers, according to international law, are supposed to seek asylum in the FIRST nation they encounter outside their own, that would Mexicans the ONLY ones LEGALLY eligible for asylum in America, and since we know they're not suffering religious persecution of any other truly horrid oppression, their chances are slim. So all those coming from South America LEGALLY are not eligible for asylum in America.

Now I ask myself... why did I take the time to explain all that when I know damn well you know it all already? I don't know... you're a leftist cuck and you like to LIE and act STUPID... because no one can actually be as STUPID or IGNORANT as you like to portray yourself here... can they? Are you really that STUPID, little pete, or do you like to PLAY stupid and lie?

[pete311]

Next dem pres will declare a national emergency on guns or climate. See how this works? Dangerous precedent.

[pete311]

It most certainly is not legal to cross into this country illegally .

Why tell such an obvious lie?

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-


(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html#0-0-0-192

[pete311]

Economic problems are not just-cause for asylum.

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

[pete311]

Asylum seekers are SUPPOSED to seek asylum in the FIRST nation they encounter outside their own, that would Mexicans the ONLY ones LEGALLY eligible for asylum in America, and since we know they're not suffering religious persecution of any other truly horrid oppression, their chances are slim. So all those coming from South America LEGALLY are not eligible for asylum in America.

This is some made up bullshit. Source please. Show me the law.

[jimnyc]

Next dem pres will declare a national emergency on guns or climate. See how this works? Dangerous precedent.

Let them try, and see if the SC allows it. I'll bet $500 right now, and let someone of YOUR choice on the board hold the money...

And hell, by the time the Dems get the presidency again, Ginsburg may no longer be around, but there may be a replacement!!

[jimnyc]

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-


(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html#0-0-0-192

And they can go the proper route - so a wall would have no bearing on those wanting to come in legally.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

This is some made up bullshit. Source please. Show me the law.
I do realize you know all about MADE UP BULL SHIT, so when someone presents you with the TRUTH, you have a hard time recognizing it, but, sorry to burst your little leftard fake news bull shit bubble... and you could have just as EASILY looked this up as I did, you just LOVE to play your little STUPID game...

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

[Drummond]

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-


(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html#0-0-0-192

The issue of 'recognising' any 'legal' status isn't relevant to those who cross the border, at the time that they do. It's only relevant when such an application HAS BEEN MADE, THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS, and ASYLUM IS GRANTED.

Until that point, there's no way you can claim that these would-be immigrants have legal status to be on US soil.

I know that you want to. But, you actually can't.

This means that you're trying to defend the presence of illegal aliens ... which brings me back to my earlier post. I'd like for you to quantify for me how many illegal aliens the US should do nothing at all about, before this becomes a problem you feel should be meaningfully addressed.

My post of before, which you've so far dodged, said:


... tell us what they are !! How many illegal immigrants per year should the US tolerate, before the authorities begin to see there's a problem to be tackled ? Come on ....

.... tell us all where you draw the line. How many ILLEGALS should be ACCEPTED, before their illegality is actually, ahem, ILLEGAL ?
In short ... how many illegals does it take to equal 'illegal', in the Leftie mindset ... ? H'mm ... ??

Who else but a Leftie would be content to defend illegality, on so-called 'moral' grounds ??

[STTAB]

This is some made up bullshit. Source please. Show me the law.


What the fuck? Are you seriously this uneducated as to international law and opining on the topic anyway? Or are you just being dishonest?

Pete, I'm a little feller like you's worse nightmare.

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

Here you go dipshit, the exact document that defines the concept of first country which is the international law, to which both the US and Mexico are signatories.

In reality the US can deport EVERYONE who came here through Mexico and requested asylum right back to Mexico without granting them an asylum hearing, because under international law MEXICO would be required to grant them asylum under international law (unless of course Mexico wasn't the first safe country they entered)

That we have been generous and done MORE than the law calls for doesn't mean they have a right.

[pete311]

I do realize you know all about MADE UP BULL SHIT, so when someone presents you with the TRUTH, you have a hard time recognizing it, but, sorry to burst your little leftard fake news bull shit bubble... and you could have just as EASILY looked this up as I did, you just LOVE to play your little STUPID game...

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

I take my comment back as there is something to this, but I've found it's not clear cut, because that appears to only apply when a country is deemed a "safe third country". Trump is currently trying to label Mexico that, but I don't think it's happened yet.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06/01/asylum-seekers-mexico-safe-third-country/

[jimnyc]

I take my comment back as there is something to this, but I've found it's not clear cut, because that appears to only apply when a country is deemed a "safe third country". Trump is currently trying to label Mexico that, but I don't think it's happened yet.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06/01/asylum-seekers-mexico-safe-third-country/

Even if - WHY does the wall even harm those wanting to come legally, or seeking asylum?

[STTAB]

Let them try, and see if the SC allows it. I'll bet $500 right now, and let someone of YOUR choice on the board hold the money...

And hell, by the time the Dems get the presidency again, Ginsburg may no longer be around, but there may be a replacement!!

False Jim, the Supreme Court , nor any lower court, should be allowed to tell the President that he needs to justify a national emergency. Elections have consequences. If the man elected says "This is a national emergency" well that's why he was elected, to make that call. We shouldn't want any court over ruling him simply because a minority disagrees.

Leave being inconsistent to the liberal shit bags.

[jimnyc]

False Jim, the Supreme Court , nor any lower court, should be allowed to tell the President that he needs to justify a national emergency. Elections have consequences. If the man elected says "This is a national emergency" well that's why he was elected, to make that call. We shouldn't want any court over ruling him simply because a minority disagrees.

Leave being inconsistent to the liberal shit bags.

But it wouldn't just be because the minority disagreed - but rather because those in favor of the 2nd amendment would be correct in that instance, and it would rightfully get challenged and rejected.

Now, they will likely try similar if Trump were to do this trying to get funding for a wall. But from what he would be doing - to immediately thinking it would be therefore OK to then take guns, would be a stretch, IMO.

But I agree on the inconsistency or aka hypocrisy from the left. And personally, I'm of the belief that they should avoid congress and any emergency by using already funded money from the defense somehow.

[Abbey Marie]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

Ah, so you are in favor of ignoring/breaking any laws if it suits you. That’s wonderful.
How about I say I want to murder someone. Don’t like it? Change the law. What a ridiculously specious argument.

At least now you admit that these people have no right to asylum. That’s good.

[STTAB]

But it wouldn't just be because the minority disagreed - but rather because those in favor of the 2nd amendment would be correct in that instance, and it would rightfully get challenged and rejected.

Now, they will likely try similar if Trump were to do this trying to get funding for a wall. But from what he would be doing - to immediately thinking it would be therefore OK to then take guns, would be a stretch, IMO.

But I agree on the inconsistency or aka hypocrisy from the left. And personally, I'm of the belief that they should avoid congress and any emergency by using already funded money from the defense somehow.

Now if we're talking like a liberal President said "Guns are national emergency" and tried to confiscate guns, well then that would of course end up in court, and is entirely different than what I was getting at.

For one that would end up in court, becuase of the gun issue, for another it would end up in court because Presidents do not make laws. They enforce them.

So in order for Noir's statement to be accurately compared you would have to imagine a Democrat President declaring a national emergency to build something required to enforce existing federal law, not something that would create federal law itself.

For example, let's take the same issue and reverse it a little bit. Suppose a Democratic President said "we need more immigration courts and judges, it's ridiculous that these people are having to wait 3-5 years for a hearing" and a Republican Congress refuse to give him funding for those additional courts he wanted and he just said "to hell with Congress" and declared a national emergency.

Now, let's go a step further with that. Imagine this Democratic President had ran on that platform and was elected with everyone knowing that if elected he was going to one way or the other add those courts .

Should THAT end up in court ? I think not. A President has the authority to say "this is a national emergency, we NEED more assets to enforce federal law" and no court should be able to say "Sorry President, but you must convince US that there in a national emergency"

[STTAB]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

False moron. International law determines who qualifies for asylum and why.

I told you Petey, I'm a moron such as yourself's worst nightmare.

https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/

Do some research kid.

[jimnyc]

Now if we're talking like a liberal President said "Guns are national emergency" and tried to confiscate guns, well then that would of course end up in court, and is entirely different than what I was getting at.

That's the exact scenario I was defending - and assuming what liberals are talking about, as I've heard this several times now. "If Trump declares this, then what's to stop the next Dem president from declaring similar and taking all guns away".

[STTAB]

That's the exact scenario I was defending - and assuming what liberals are talking about, as I've heard this several times now. "If Trump declares this, then what's to stop the next Dem president from declaring similar and taking all guns away".

That is an ENTIRELY different scenario. Because Presidents do not make law, well unless they are named Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, or Obama anyway.

[Black Diamond]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.
The courts. I guess OJ was innocent.

[Black Diamond]

Ah, so you are in favor of ignoring/breaking any laws if it suits you. That’s wonderful.
How about I say I want to murder someone. Don’t like it? Change the law. What a ridiculously specious argument.

At least now you admit that these people have no right to asylum. That’s good.
I love it when leftists say it is up to the courts. There are many Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s they must think were spot on. :laugh:

[STTAB]

I love it when leftists say it is up to the courts. There are many Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s they must think were spot on. :laugh:



He's wrong anyway. Courts don't make laws.

The US , along with most other countries, have signed treaties that define who is and who isn't a refugee and thus who qualifies for aslyum and who doesn't. People who are looking to sneak into a country to make some money don't qualify by treaty.

[pete311]

You guys are aware that every asylum seeker gets a court date to determine if they qualify right? I don’t know what else you guys think I meant. If you don’t like how the asylum laws work you need to move to change them.

[STTAB]

You guys are aware that every asylum seeker gets a court date to determine if they qualify right? I don’t know what else you guys think I meant.



And do you understand that is a generosity on our part, and goes beyond what international law and treaties calls for? According to treaties we have signed we should send those people right back to whichever country they first found safe harbor in and let THAT country give them an asylum hearing. But we as Americans are more generous than international law calls for.

And in return for our generosity we get called racist , selfish, mean assholes.

And of course 80% of those who actually bother to show up for such hearings are found to NOT qualify anyway, or do you deny that fat as well Petey?

As long as we're discussing how generous Americans are , and by generous I actually mean stupid. If Trump were such a racist person why isn't he working to deport all 11-30M illegal aliens who are here , as the law actually would allow him to do? No one ever addresses that point instead acting as if the law only calls for the deportation of those who have been convicted of some other crime when no that isn't true at all, what is true is that our country has for decades simply been more than generous and allowed these folks to stay even though they have and continue to be here illegally and the law allows for them to be deported.

[pete311]

And do you understand that is a generosity on our part, and goes beyond what international law and treaties calls for? According to treaties we have signed we should send those people right back to whichever country they first found safe harbor in and let THAT country give them an asylum hearing. But we as Americans are more generous than international law calls for.

And in return for our generosity we get called racist , selfish, mean assholes.

And of course 80% of those who actually bother to show up for such hearings are found to NOT qualify anyway, or do you deny that fat as well Petey?

As long as we're discussing how generous Americans are , and by generous I actually mean stupid. If Trump were such a racist person why isn't he working to deport all 11-30M illegal aliens who are here , as the law actually would allow him to do? No one ever addresses that point instead acting as if the law only calls for the deportation of those who have been convicted of some other crime when no that isn't true at all, what is true is that our country has for decades simply been more than generous and allowed these folks to stay even though they have and continue to be here illegally and the law allows for them to be deported.

i don’t understand your point here considering my line of discussion. I would like to see your source of the 80% don’t show up for the court date.

[pete311]

This claims the majority do show up
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/

[STTAB]

i don’t understand your point here considering my line of discussion. I would like to see your source of the 80% don’t show up for the court date.

My point is, maybe Americans are sick of being fucking spit on no matter how generous we are simply because we want our laws enforced

As for the stat, it's actually 90% , according to oh yeah the USG

https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4960850.jpg

You don't seem to know any facts about this topic, Pete. Making your opinion pretty worthless. Educate yourself son.

[pete311]

My point is, maybe Americans are sick of being fucking spit on no matter how generous we are simply because we want our laws enforced

As for the stat, it's actually 90% , according to oh yeah the USG

https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4960850.jpg

You don't seem to know any facts about this topic, Pete. Making your opinion pretty worthless. Educate yourself son.

justice dept says 60-75 show up.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download#page=49

keep using memes, really makes you look smart, like. 13 year old

[STTAB]

justice dept says 60-75 show up.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download#page=49

keep using memes, really makes you look smart, like. 13 year old

First, I didn't post a meme, I posted a link to a reputable news source

Second, your stats are 3 years old and are ONLY discussing those immigrants who were never detained. In other words, the "catch and release" immigrants don''t count into that stat.

Those are no the people we are discussing in this thread Pete. Those are the people who are tying to do things the legal way We're not talking about those. We are talking about the people who have been detained for being in this country illegally, and arrested for such and released with a court date. And for THOSE people , yes the number is 90% don't bother showing up for court.

You see Pete, I tried to tell you. I'm a nightmare for someone like you. I don't make stats up, I don't hide, and I'm not gentle in my rebuke.

You're an idiot, and dishonest to boot . You want to bring all aliens into a discussion about illegal aliens in order to lie about the numbers

And even if we ONLY discussed your numbers on the face of them, let us ask this

Why would you possibly be okay with "only" 25-30% of them not coming to court? Imagine if only 75% of everyone who was accused of murder showed up to court, I mean that would only be 25% of accused murderers running around out there, wouldn't it.

[pete311]

First, I didn't post a meme, I posted a link to a reputable news source

Second, your stats are 3 years old and are ONLY discussing those immigrants who were never detained. In other words, the "catch and release" immigrants don''t count into that stat.

Those are no the people we are discussing in this thread Pete. Those are the people who are tying to do things the legal way We're not talking about those. We are talking about the people who have been detained for being in this country illegally, and arrested for such and released with a court date. And for THOSE people , yes the number is 90% don't bother showing up for court.

You see Pete, I tried to tell you. I'm a nightmare for someone like you. I don't make stats up, I don't hide, and I'm not gentle in my rebuke.

You're an idiot, and dishonest to boot . You want to bring all aliens into a discussion about illegal aliens in order to lie about the numbers

And even if we ONLY discussed your numbers on the face of them, let us ask this

Why would you possibly be okay with "only" 25-30% of them not coming to court? Imagine if only 75% of everyone who was accused of murder showed up to court, I mean that would only be 25% of accused murderers running around out there, wouldn't it.


Look at your post, it’s a jpg from memecreator. Still waiting for your source.

[STTAB]

Look at your post, it’s a jpg from memecreator. Still waiting for your source.



Well crap, my mistake that was copied from another time. My bad

As for the claim that 60-75% of those who are "catch and release" go to court LOL come on mman that defies common sense. Why are liberal so god damned dishonest?

Why does your report, along with every other liberal generated report on the topic, leave those folks out of the equation? Why because including them would make the data appear less favorable to the idiotic public at large.

Do you really believe that with a 3 - 5 year backlog on asylum hearings that ANYONE is going to ANY hearings? I mean My God man, once again our government has fucked something up so badly that it barely functions at all. We literally have no way of knowing who's going to what hearings in fact. Once they are given a summons, we don't track them , we can't. The 90% number I gave is completely based on estimates that are based on estimating how many people we THINK are still in the country and how many we know have had hearings. The reaility is we don't even know who or how many are in this country and we definately aren't getting anyone through our system quickly so how could we possibly know who's attending hearings they are supposed to attend?

Here's another reality, If you dishonest liberals REALLY cared about "women and children who just want to be safe" you would say "hey this is bullshit that we are letting our system get so clogged up, let's only allow hearings for those who do things the right away and deport those who aren't, and actually help some people" but you do NOT care , in fact you don't even understand the situation, all you know is that you were told to be against anything Trump wants.

[aboutime]

A long time ago. I came here and asked 'petey' to show is his Diploma from "Pre-School". But he never replied. Which I guess...was because petey hasn't reached that Milestone in his desperate, unqualified life as a member of the Human Race...as of yet.

Has anyone seen petey's proof that he is anything higher than a pre-schooler, with access to a computer?

[Drummond]

I get so very tired of those from the Left who invent a 'bleeding heart' argument to defend people who don't deserve, don't merit, don't even legally qualify for, any degree of special consideration. From what I can follow of Pete's hopes and wishes, somehow it's .. ahem .. 'America's humanitarian duty' to look the other way when mass illegality is perpetrated.

Since when can laws be ignored on a whim ? Since when did EVERYBODY ELSE'S interests matter, to the cost of the ordinary, law-abiding citizen ??

Illegal immigrants are just that. They possess NO rights under US law, if present on US soil illegally. When you start thinking otherwise, the rule of law begins to break down.

The thing of it is, IF by some miracle the law was bent to favour illegals, that itself wouldn't be enough. Why ?

... because, IT NEVER IS.

The Left would then find other ways to undermine, subvert. After all ... what stops them ? They, by self-illustration, have ZERO respect for any law they don't like.

Where does the rot stop ? Does it stop .. ?

I say: high time it did. The law is the law. Lawbreakers know what they're doing. They should be properly accountable for it.

[FakeNewsSux]

I get so very tired of those from the Left who invent a 'bleeding heart' argument to defend people who don't deserve, don't merit, don't even legally qualify for, any degree of special consideration. From what I can follow of Pete's hopes and wishes, somehow it's .. ahem .. 'America's humanitarian duty' to look the other way when mass illegality is perpetrated.

Since when can laws be ignored on a whim ? Since when did EVERYBODY ELSE'S interests matter, to the cost of the ordinary, law-abiding citizen ??

Illegal immigrants are just that. They possess NO rights under US law, if present on US soil illegally. When you start thinking otherwise, the rule of law begins to break down.

The thing of it is, IF by some miracle the law was bent to favour illegals, that itself wouldn't be enough. Why ?

... because, IT NEVER IS.

The Left would then find other ways to undermine, subvert. After all ... what stops them ? They, by self-illustration, have ZERO respect for any law they don't like.

Where does the rot stop ? Does it stop .. ?

I say: high time it did. The law is the law. Lawbreakers know what they're doing. They should be properly accountable for it.

Further evidence that we are entering the post legal era of Democrat governance (see my post under the "Liberal Priorities......" thread)