Yet ANOTHER Trump Supporter Surprised That He is Doing What He SAID He Would Do...

[dank69]

And then do you also want to prosecute the countless homeowners who lied on mortgage applications, conducted "strategic defaults," squatted in their in default homes for months or years, and otherwise negatively affected other people in a major way?

You do realize that you could basically express your point in a simpler and more honest way if you corrected your criteria "protect people against people who negatively affected other people" to "people who are rich enough for me to want to enforce the laws on them unlike the poor, illegal immigrants, and others who shouldn't have the laws enforced against them."

No, that would be a strawman. If you have evidence that people lied on legal documents, prosecute away chief.

 

[glenn1]

No, that would be a strawman. If you have evidence that people lied on legal documents, prosecute away chief.

Doesn't that statement directly refute your seeming desire to not bother to enforce our immigration laws? Or is when someone fakes a SSN or work authorization (legal documents) it's OK but someone fakes a paystub to buy a house that's different?

 

[dank69]

Doesn't that statement directly refute your seeming desire to not bother to enforce our immigration laws? Or is when someone fakes a SSN or work authorization (legal documents) it's OK but someone fakes a paystub to buy a house that's different?

No. If someone fakes a SSN or whatever they should be prosecuted. What gives you the idea I think otherwise?

 

[Linux23]

I'm not shedding any tears here.

 

[BoomerD]

The number of people that voted for Trump even though his "policies" will directly affect them negatively is pretty astounding. It seems they simply didn't believe that he was talking about them, people they know, or their businesses. Just watched a segment on farmers in CA who were pissed at "regulation" and that the Feds didn't help them get nonexistent water to help with the drought so they voted Trump. Now they stand to loose their workforces, and thus their businesses, since they rely on undocumented workers to be viable. Pretty smart.

Non-existent water? You should watch this: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/water-and-power-a-california-heist/

Yes, CA was in a major drought, and this winter's rain and snow HELPED, but the REAL drought is in the loss of groundwater because of pumping...something that can take decades to replenish.

 

[Jhhnn]

So why do you keep harping on about duration? The financial crisis was 10 years ago and yet you still want to have show trials for the bankers who you think are enemies of the state. If anything duration should be an aggrevating factor rather than mitigating, they've had plenty of time to attempt to seek legal status and did not.

I haven't advocated that at all. Illegal immigrants generally can't apply to immigrate while they're in the country, anyway. That's a non-sequiter.

 

[K1052]

Non-existent water? You should watch this: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/water-and-power-a-california-heist/

Yes, CA was in a major drought, and this winter's rain and snow HELPED, but the REAL drought is in the loss of groundwater because of pumping...something that can take decades to replenish.

I'll take a look at it later.

I think the implication of the farmers in the piece I saw was that the Feds should have gotten water from elsewhere (out of state) to help relive the drought. I can't think of any neighboring state that wouldn't meet that idea with torches and pitchforks in hand through.

 

[Jhhnn]

And then do you also want to prosecute the countless homeowners who lied on mortgage applications, conducted "strategic defaults," squatted in their in default homes for months or years, and otherwise negatively affected other people in a major way?

You do realize that you could basically express your point in a simpler and more honest way if you corrected your criteria "protect people against people who negatively affected other people" to "people who are rich enough for me to want to enforce the laws on them unlike the poor, illegal immigrants, and others who shouldn't have the laws enforced against them."

Please. We all know what happened during the Ownership Society- Lenders jettisoned any sort of fiduciary duty to their investors, enabled & encouraged dishonesty on the part of buyers in order to push ticking bomb MBS & other securities out the door. Finally seeing that, Investors panicked, got liquid & locked up credit markets, particularly the Repo market.

The rest? A great quote from Anatole France-

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

 

[BoomerD]

I'll take a look at it later.

I think the implication of the farmers in the piece I saw was that the Feds should have gotten water from elsewhere (out of state) to help relive the drought. I can't think of any neighboring state that wouldn't meet that idea with torches and pitchforks in hand through.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8gImHCvWFjysc8vvA&sig2=dbdUocWg74KzZgrEMsyGIg

 

[Jhhnn]

Anybody paying attention can find lots of articles like this-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/...k-at-trump-budget-cuts-but-still-loyalty.html

Billionaires need tax cuts & we obviously need to bury more Death in the desert, so, uhh, you Losers! get to bite the pillow.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8gImHCvWFjysc8vvA&sig2=dbdUocWg74KzZgrEMsyGIg

That's the "Keep your hands off of my pile & beat the cash out of the little people" kind of taxation Repubs generally like.

 

[glenn1]

I haven't advocated that at all. Illegal immigrants generally can't apply to immigrate while they're in the country, anyway. That's a non-sequiter.

So basically you want to reward all those who broke the law by giving them amnesty and confirming to any future person thinking of immigration "don't be a sucker and do it through legal channels"? I guess the rule of law truly means nothing to you except when a rich guy is breaking it.

 

[BoomerD]

BA-HA-HA-HA!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rested-by-ice/?ref=yfp&utm_term=.0cba1eab5c2c

Leandro Arriaga has been in the United States illegally since 2001.

He stayed despite a deportation order and over the past 16 years has made a living fixing and remodeling homes. He also started a family. But the father of four had grown tired of “living in the shadows,” his attorney said.

So last week, he went to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office for his marriage petition interview — the first step to legalize his presence in the United States through his wife, a naturalized citizen. The process, called an I-130 visa petition, is a common way for foreigners to gain legal residency through their relatives or spouses.

But Arriaga was arrested that day, along with four others who also showed up at the USCIS office in Lawrence, Mass. All five have deportation orders, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

11,000,950 to go... (presuming the estimate of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants is accurate)

 

[ivwshane]

I'll take a look at it later.

I think the implication of the farmers in the piece I saw was that the Feds should have gotten water from elsewhere (out of state) to help relive the drought. I can't think of any neighboring state that wouldn't meet that idea with torches and pitchforks in hand through.

Also look into farmers investing in almond crops to grandfather themselves into being able to use ungodly amounts of water. Fuck big agro!