The Democrats had my support

[StoneByStone]

so you don't think the bill of rights is logical or just?

The Bill of Rights is a lot more clear cut than muh constitution and, for the most part, I'd say it's logical. But the point is that we should be basing laws entirely on logic, not on what some piece of paper says. If someone comes up with a good law, we shouldn't dismiss it because it contradicts muh constitution.

We should be profiling Mexicans to find illegal immigrants. Maybe that's unconstitutional, but I don't care. It's a logical policy that would greatly benefit the country. Whether or not it was written down on a piece of paper decades ago is irrelevant.

 

[Flash]

I was a Democrat until the Democrats became super liberal.

Who is the last Democratic president you voted for?

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

The Democrats had my support when they condemned the police killing of George Floyd.

The Democrats lost my support when they allowed the looting and firebombing of our cities.

And now the Democrats condemn the president for wanting to send troops to protect our cities and people.

The Democrats? HAHAHAHAHA!

Now who is using identity politics?

YOU HYPOCRITE REPUBLICANS ARE! THAT'S WHO!

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

I don't care for Trump, but what choice do I have. Biden wants to open the boarders and allow millions of Mexicans and Muslims into our nation. I do not think that would be wise to do so.

You just proved you are a Republican- Because that is a God Damn Lie! And Republicans are God Damn liars!

GOT YOU!

 

[CherubRam]

Who is the last Democratic president you voted for?

I voted for Hillary.

 

[Nordberg]

Who is the last Democratic president you voted for?

Don't bother. He thinks he came up with a clever way to form threads that pretending Dem and moving right is a surprise move. He is a righty. This is about his 4th thread with the same theme. He was lefty and turned righty. BS

 

[Micawber]

. If anyone is allowed to migrate here without any repercussions, then that is open borders.

Yes, but they aren't.

 

[Micawber]

The Bill of Rights is a lot more clear cut than muh constitution and, for the most part, I'd say it's logical. But the point is that we should be basing laws entirely on logic, not on what some piece of paper says. If someone comes up with a good law, we shouldn't dismiss it because it contradicts muh constitution.

We should be profiling Mexicans to find illegal immigrants. Maybe that's unconstitutional, but I don't care. It's a logical policy that would greatly benefit the country. Whether or not it was written down on a piece of paper decades ago is irrelevant.

Then we should profile all white people to find skinheads in the meth trade and crooked accountants and bankers laundering the drug money.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The Bill of Rights is a lot more clear cut than muh constitution and, for the most part, I'd say it's logical. But the point is that we should be basing laws entirely on logic, not on what some piece of paper says. If someone comes up with a good law, we shouldn't dismiss it because it contradicts muh constitution.

We should be profiling Mexicans to find illegal immigrants. Maybe that's unconstitutional, but I don't care. It's a logical policy that would greatly benefit the country. Whether or not it was written down on a piece of paper decades ago is irrelevant.

the bill of rights is in the constitution.

 

[StoneByStone]

Then we should profile all white people to find skinheads in the meth trade and crooked accountants and bankers laundering the drug money.

Or we can just make drugs legal because this is supposed to be a free country.

 

[StoneByStone]

Yes, but they aren't.

Not yet. But the entire Democratic Party is now against deporting illegal immigrants.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

Or we can just make drugs legal because this is supposed to be a free country.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay, how do you deport millions of illegals? Spell it out for me. I can't wait to hear this one. Address the financial implications, and tell me what should be done with Dreamers.

The point is that just because we cannot practically deport every illegal, that does not mean that we are inviting more in. In fact, border crossings are WAY down from a decade ago.

Actually, that's an easy one.

You make it illegal for them to get a driver's license or other official ID...PERIOD. That makes it damn near impossible to do anything else.
You make it illegal to do out-of-the-country wire money transfers without official ID like the above. That ends their sending money home that way. Major hit.
You require legal ID to get a job. Sure, they could still work under the table but that increases the difficulty of them working and keeping a job.
You make it mandatory that if arrested or stopped for anything by police they are held for ICE to get them and deport them.
You require legal ID to rent an apartment, buy a home, etc.

When you make day-to-day life for illegals hard to impossible to manage many will self-deport. They can't stay here and make a living so they leave. Arizona did that back in the 90's and about half the state's illegal population left for home or California...

You also make busting employers that knowingly hire them a serious threat. Make raids on employers a regular thing. Employers won't hire them if they're scared they'll end up in prison themselves.
Make "sanctuary" cities, states, etc., pay for that choice by ending federal funding for virtually everything to them. Flood them with federal agents regularly to do immigration sweeps.

Again, if illegal immigration is taken seriously, most illegals will get out ASAP because it's no longer safe and comfortable for them to stay.

"Dreamers" should blame their criminal parents for bringing them to the US and now they're being deported to some country they've never seen. That's their problem, not ours. There is no reason for us to coddle them when it was their law breaking parents that caused the problem.

 

[Concart]

Actually, that's an easy one.

You make it illegal for them to get a driver's license or other official ID...PERIOD. That makes it damn near impossible to do anything else.
You make it illegal to do out-of-the-country wire money transfers without official ID like the above. That ends their sending money home that way. Major hit.
You require legal ID to get a job. Sure, they could still work under the table but that increases the difficulty of them working and keeping a job.
You make it mandatory that if arrested or stopped for anything by police they are held for ICE to get them and deport them.
You require legal ID to rent an apartment, buy a home, etc.

When you make day-to-day life for illegals hard to impossible to manage many will self-deport. They can't stay here and make a living so they leave. Arizona did that back in the 90's and about half the state's illegal population left for home or California...

You also make busting employers that knowingly hire them a serious threat. Make raids on employers a regular thing. Employers won't hire them if they're scared they'll end up in prison themselves.
Make "sanctuary" cities, states, etc., pay for that choice by ending federal funding for virtually everything to them. Flood them with federal agents regularly to do immigration sweeps.

Again, if illegal immigration is taken seriously, most illegals will get out ASAP because it's no longer safe and comfortable for them to stay.

"Dreamers" should blame their criminal parents for bringing them to the US and now they're being deported to some country they've never seen. That's their problem, not ours. There is no reason for us to coddle them when it was their law breaking parents that caused the problem.

You cannot prohibit states from providing a Drivers License to whomever resides in their state. They are under no obligation to verify citizenship. Good luck trying to change that. The courts would laugh DOJ out of the courtroom. It is already required that employers verify citizenship status. You didn't know this? Trump already tried to end federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. The court bitch slapped him. Of course. Because that is also unconstitutional. I guess what you want to see is a huge show of force to scare everyone of Latino origin, citizen or not. You want to use this force to raid legitimate businesses with no predicate. Once again, good luck with that. We don't live in a tin pot dictatorship.

With respect to Dreamers, pretty much everyone disagrees with your position. Because it's stupid.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Or we can just make drugs legal because this is supposed to be a free country.

That is simply an idiotic generalization. There are some drugs that need to be illegal. But legalizing some drugs might be acceptable if we couple that with a system that regulates AND stigmatizes them. Both are necessary. Regulation to ensure safety and limit use to only those who are authorized. Stigmatized to make use unpopular and discouraged.

The regulation part is you license manufacturers / growers of drugs and raw ingredients. The quality side of things is equivalent to "veterinary" grade. That's way above illegally manufactured ones. These are safe enough for users and would keep the price down so those using them don't have to commit crimes to buy their drugs.
You then license dealers. The dealers will sell a user the drugs the user is licensed for. Prices are reasonable and the dealers are regulated. They can't sell you quantities beyond what you personally would use in a reasonable time period.
Users would have to get an "Drug Abuse License." This would be public information. Having one would be grounds for an employer to terminate an employee or deny someone being hired on its face. Otherwise it is up to an employer if they want to hire a "Drug Abuser." Such a license could also be a problem if stopped by police for say a driving violation. The officer could assume you are DUI. Health insurers might deny coverage of claims arising from your drug use.
Anyone caught using drugs outside this system faces a minimum of 10 years + in prison so there's every reason to get licensed. The drugs are far cheaper, you can get them easily. The downside is everybody knows you are a drug abuser.

Some drugs would still be illegal as they are simply too unsafe to allow for use say like PCP or bath salts. Some might have additional conditions on them due to the effects they have such as requirements you use the equivalent of an opium den (with better hygiene and safety) to prevent you doing crazy stuff in public.

For marijuana, its just a marijuana card that isn't treated at the same level as the drug abuse card. However, it is required and could be used to deny employment. The only reason for this is that THC can stay in your system for up to 30 days. So, while the effects would be minimal in a much shorter time, there is the problem of say use by a bus driver or pilot on Saturday and a crash on Monday. Better to just avoid that problem by banning use in such jobs.

That would be a reasonable system.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

Actually, that's an easy one.

You make it illegal for them to get a driver's license or other official ID...PERIOD. That makes it damn near impossible to do anything else.
You make it illegal to do out-of-the-country wire money transfers without official ID like the above. That ends their sending money home that way. Major hit.
You require legal ID to get a job. Sure, they could still work under the table but that increases the difficulty of them working and keeping a job.
You make it mandatory that if arrested or stopped for anything by police they are held for ICE to get them and deport them.
You require legal ID to rent an apartment, buy a home, etc.

When you make day-to-day life for illegals hard to impossible to manage many will self-deport. They can't stay here and make a living so they leave. Arizona did that back in the 90's and about half the state's illegal population left for home or California...

You also make busting employers that knowingly hire them a serious threat. Make raids on employers a regular thing. Employers won't hire them if they're scared they'll end up in prison themselves.
Make "sanctuary" cities, states, etc., pay for that choice by ending federal funding for virtually everything to them. Flood them with federal agents regularly to do immigration sweeps.

Again, if illegal immigration is taken seriously, most illegals will get out ASAP because it's no longer safe and comfortable for them to stay.

"Dreamers" should blame their criminal parents for bringing them to the US and now they're being deported to some country they've never seen. That's their problem, not ours. There is no reason for us to coddle them when it was their law breaking parents that caused the problem.

Absolutely fantastic post. Thank you.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

That is simply an idiotic generalization. There are some drugs that need to be illegal. But legalizing some drugs might be acceptable if we couple that with a system that regulates AND stigmatizes them. Both are necessary. Regulation to ensure safety and limit use to only those who are authorized. Stigmatized to make use unpopular and discouraged.

The regulation part is you license manufacturers / growers of drugs and raw ingredients. The quality side of things is equivalent to "veterinary" grade. That's way above illegally manufactured ones. These are safe enough for users and would keep the price down so those using them don't have to commit crimes to buy their drugs.
You then license dealers. The dealers will sell a user the drugs the user is licensed for. Prices are reasonable and the dealers are regulated. They can't sell you quantities beyond what you personally would use in a reasonable time period.
Users would have to get an "Drug Abuse License." This would be public information. Having one would be grounds for an employer to terminate an employee or deny someone being hired on its face. Otherwise it is up to an employer if they want to hire a "Drug Abuser." Such a license could also be a problem if stopped by police for say a driving violation. The officer could assume you are DUI. Health insurers might deny coverage of claims arising from your drug use.
Anyone caught using drugs outside this system faces a minimum of 10 years + in prison so there's every reason to get licensed. The drugs are far cheaper, you can get them easily. The downside is everybody knows you are a drug abuser.

Some drugs would still be illegal as they are simply too unsafe to allow for use say like PCP or bath salts. Some might have additional conditions on them due to the effects they have such as requirements you use the equivalent of an opium den (with better hygiene and safety) to prevent you doing crazy stuff in public.

For marijuana, its just a marijuana card that isn't treated at the same level as the drug abuse card. However, it is required and could be used to deny employment. The only reason for this is that THC can stay in your system for up to 30 days. So, while the effects would be minimal in a much shorter time, there is the problem of say use by a bus driver or pilot on Saturday and a crash on Monday. Better to just avoid that problem by banning use in such jobs.

That would be a reasonable system.

Exactly. But not TOO surprising, because our SOMETIMES adorable little Stoney IS an idiot, unfortunately.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

You cannot prohibit states from providing a Drivers License to whomever resides in their state. They are under no obligation to verify citizenship. Good luck trying to change that. The courts would laugh DOJ out of the courtroom. It is already required that employers verify citizenship status. You didn't know this? Trump already tried to end federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. The court bitch slapped him. Of course. Because that is also unconstitutional. I guess what you want to see is a huge show of force to scare everyone of Latino origin, citizen or not. You want to use this force to raid legitimate businesses with no predicate. Once again, good luck with that. We don't live in a tin pot dictatorship.

With respect to Dreamers, pretty much everyone disagrees with your position. Because it's stupid.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You cannot prohibit states from providing a Drivers License to whomever resides in their state. They are under no obligation to verify citizenship. Good luck trying to change that.

Ever hear of Real ID?

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/license-id/nc-real-id/Pages/:~:text=Identity & Date of Birth,... ​

It already is a requirement unless you turn this down for one that doesn't allow for things like air travel, etc.

The courts would laugh DOJ out of the courtroom.

The courts have already signed on and it's current law.

It is already required that employers verify citizenship status. You didn't know this?

E-verify is not mandatory. Employers don't have to use it. Employers also don't have to report persons who come back as unemployable on that system.

Trump already tried to end federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. The court bitch slapped him. Of course. Because that is also unconstitutional. I guess what you want to see is a huge show of force to scare everyone of Latino origin, citizen or not. You want to use this force to raid legitimate businesses with no predicate. Once again, good luck with that. We don't live in a tin pot dictatorship.

I guess you don't follow this too closely. The courts have said Trump / the feds can't force cities and states to report illegals, etc. What I proposed is the feds cut off funding to such locations when they choose to do that. That the courts have upheld, and the glaring example is the Carter era 55 mph national speed limit. So, while a state or city can not cooperate with federal law enforcement, the feds could withhold all sorts of funding from such a location because they chose to do that. That is what I suggested.
Businesses do get raided, just not very often. All I suggested is that happen more frequently, and preferably in states and cities that are "sanctuaries." The feds would still have to follow the law for such raids getting warrants and the like. But, hitting businesses more frequently would definitely discourage hiring illegals.

With respect to Dreamers, pretty much everyone disagrees with your position. Because it's stupid.

That's just an ad hominem. And, no everyone doesn't disagree with my position. About 2 in 3 would disagree. That's hardly "everyone." And, my position isn't "stupid" it's an alternative one.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

Ever hear of Real ID?

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/license-id/nc-real-id/Pages/:~:text=Identity & Date of Birth,... ​

It already is a requirement unless you turn this down for one that doesn't allow for things like air travel, etc.



The courts have already signed on and it's current law.



E-verify is not mandatory. Employers don't have to use it. Employers also don't have to report persons who come back as unemployable on that system.



I guess you don't follow this too closely. The courts have said Trump / the feds can't force cities and states to report illegals, etc. What I proposed is the feds cut off funding to such locations when they choose to do that. That the courts have upheld, and the glaring example is the Carter era 55 mph national speed limit. So, while a state or city can not cooperate with federal law enforcement, the feds could withhold all sorts of funding from such a location because they chose to do that. That is what I suggested.
Businesses do get raided, just not very often. All I suggested is that happen more frequently, and preferably in states and cities that are "sanctuaries." The feds would still have to follow the law for such raids getting warrants and the like. But, hitting businesses more frequently would definitely discourage hiring illegals.



That's just an ad hominem. And, no everyone doesn't disagree with my position. About 2 in 3 would disagree. That's hardly "everyone." And, my position isn't "stupid" it's an alternative one.

Thanks for another fantastic post. I believe our "buddy", Concart, is losing THIS battle. But it IS fun to see the mentally challenged one attempt to win an argument.