Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

Technically, isn't it protect us from invasion? Great now we'll need to go back and study how the word "invasion" was defined in the 18th century and whether that jives with an army of Guatemalan 4 year olds....

Guatemalan 4-year-olds become Guatemalan 24-year-old drug cartel members. Might as well keep them out now.

Baldy wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK. Good quote to live by.

It's pretty amazing how much some of you have evolved to trust the government in the last two years. Or maybe it's just trust when convenient. #TrustTheTrump

So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

Trip doesn’t give a fuck about the Constitution. That much is readily apparent.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Technically, isn't it protect us from invasion? Great now we'll need to go back and study how the word "invasion" was defined in the 18th century and whether that jives with an army of Guatemalan 4 year olds....

Guatemalan 4-year-olds become Guatemalan 24-year-old drug cartel members. Might as well keep them out now.

Decriminalize.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Guatemalan 4-year-olds become Guatemalan 24-year-old drug cartel members. Might as well keep them out now.

Decriminalize.

Doesn’t solve the problem. They’d just become human smugglers instead. Big profits in the “asylum” trade. Keep ‘em out.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Decriminalize.

Doesn’t solve the problem. They’d just become human smugglers instead. Big profits in the “asylum” trade. Keep ‘em out.

It solves the cartel problem which you brought up.

Baldy wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK. Good quote to live by.

It's pretty amazing how much some of you have evolved to trust the government in the last two years. Or maybe it's just trust when convenient. #TrustTheTrump

So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

I'm fine with stopping and returning illegal immigrants, although I think they should go through proper hearings in order to make their case. Parents and children should be kept together at this time.

I'm not ok with separating kids from their parents and putting them in detention facilities run by the state.

93henfan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Except immediate family is called to pick up the child, and they aren't put in holding facilities for weeks on end in some foreign nation.

Did the Bush/Obama administrations do it? Yes, but separation times were minimal. Immigrants would be processed, reunited with children, and either deported or allowed in the country while the legal process played out. The Trump administration is separating children and prosecuting parents which in addition to the legal process, is up to a 6 month prison sentence.

I don't even have children and think it's completely **** up, so it's pretty amazing how parents can justify this. But I guess when you continually de-humanize people, this is what you get. At least poll after poll is showing the majority of Americans is against this sort of policy.

Again, don’t break into our country and it’s not an issue.

#TrustTheProcess

Bingo. So SIMPLE..

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

I'm no constitutional scholar but technically, isn't it protect us from invasion? Great now we'll need to go back and study how the word "invasion" was defined in the 18th century and whether that jives with an army of Guatemalan 4 year olds....

Technically, if it were about a military "invasion" by a foreign power, the military would be stationed at the border. Since the definition of "invasion" includes, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity OR, an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain, you can quit the pearl clutching.

∞∞∞ wrote:

93henfan wrote:Again, don’t break into our country and it’s not an issue.

#TrustTheProcess

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK. Good quote to live by.

It's pretty amazing how much some of you have evolved to trust the government in the last two years. Or maybe it's just trust when convenient. #TrustTheTrump

So our immigration laws are unjust?

I have a few thoughts on this

1) If this policy was meant to serve as a deterrent (per the AG, but not per DHS) then we did a bad job of getting the news out (if we did at all).

2) Anyone entering illegally should be detained. Anyone breaking out laws should suffer the consequences. But we have to recognize that these immigrants are a unique situation and require a unique resolution. Separating an child from its family is atrocious. And no - it's not the same thing as me losing my kid b/c I kept her in a locked car. The difference is that I have family that can be called to take my child. This isn't the case. This is just inhumane. It goes against our CHRISTIAN heritage and our so called - "American values". It also goes against the GOPs so called "Family Values."

3) Separating children from families only exacerbates the problem and hardens animosity against the US. So it's really and lose-lose situation.

4) Trump needs to the STFU. The democrats and Obama own Catch & Release - but this is his gov'ts policy. He needs to step up. He won't thought b/c he's crap.

5) If these people want asylum, then let's make it easier for them to request it in their home country instead of embarking on a dangerous journey. We are absolutely shocked that these immigrants don't fully understand our immigration laws when I would wager 2/3 of our own citizens don't fully understand our immigration laws. This may be a softball question/comment for CID. We are really expecting a lot from these people.


Overall - I don't see how anyone could defend this policy. It could end today if Trump would get off his ass and actual do something.

Baldy wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK. Good quote to live by.

It's pretty amazing how much some of you have evolved to trust the government in the last two years. Or maybe it's just trust when convenient. #TrustTheTrump

So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

To the open border, anyone in the world who wants to come here, free for all wingnuts like Trip, borders are so 20th Century and racist, and anyone who wants border enforcement is a Nazi..

Did I get that right?

93henfan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Except immediate family is called to pick up the child, and they aren't put in holding facilities for weeks on end in some foreign nation.

Did the Bush/Obama administrations do it? Yes, but separation times were minimal. Immigrants would be processed, reunited with children, and either deported or allowed in the country while the legal process played out. The Trump administration is separating children and prosecuting parents which in addition to the legal process, is up to a 6 month prison sentence.

I don't even have children and think it's completely fucked up, so it's pretty amazing how parents can justify this. But I guess when you continually de-humanize people, this is what you get. At least poll after poll is showing the majority of Americans is against this sort of policy.

Again, don’t break into our country and it’s not an issue.

#TrustTheProcess

I typically would agree.

However, we're asking a lot of the typical immigrant who more than likely doesn't speak any English.

Are we to expect Juan who only speaks Spanish to study on US Immigration laws before deciding to risk life and limb to make it here? Seems pie in the sky. I'm sure there are a litany of loopholes that can be closed.

At the very least, I expect these people to know that the right thing to do is going to a formal border crossing. Swimming across the Rio Grande, packing yourself into a quad-con, etc.. are not acceptable and anyone caught that way should be immediately deported.

I have no problem with immigration - just do it legally.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm no constitutional scholar but technically, isn't it protect us from invasion? Great now we'll need to go back and study how the word "invasion" was defined in the 18th century and whether that jives with an army of Guatemalan 4 year olds....

Technically, if it were about a military "invasion" by a foreign power, the military would be stationed at the border. Since the definition of "invasion" includes, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity OR, an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain, you can quit the pearl clutching.

It was a joke you humorless schmuck!

BDKJMU wrote:

Baldy wrote: So, laws protecting our southern border from infiltration from non-citizens are unjust?

Protecting our borders is one of the duties of the government. It's right there in the Constitution.

To the open border, anyone in the world who wants to come here, free for all wingnuts like Trip, borders are so 20th Century and racist, and anyone who wants border enforcement is a Nazi..

Did I get that right?

No, you didn't. As always.

I'm not for open borders. I'm also not a dick to people 'cause they're not 'MURICAN.

Btw, if we really want to give it to Obama, then Trump and Republicans should bring up ATEP.

That's smart - let's take Miguel who illegally crossed into Texas on a flight then bus trip to the California/Mexico Border and put him BACK into Mexico (even if he's not from there). That way, Miguel won't return. Let's hope, now that he's in a new, strange environment, that he can survive without caving into a life of crime or at the very least, despair.

CID1990 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Precisely. If I break into my neighbors house and set up a tent in his living room, do I get to bring my sons with me to central booking and county correctional when the cops arrive?

Hell, if you leave your kid unattended in a car the state will take them away if you aren't careful

But give them to a coyote to pack into a box truck or march them across the high desert and you're just fine as a parent

This is one of the biggest manufactured outrages I've seen in a long time - and it would be really easy to fix- in fact, Ted Boobs has introduced an emergency bill to solve the issue (speeding up asylum and deport proceedings) but guess who won't vote for it?

Conks need to hammer home the point that donks are blocking that simple solution right there of expedited removal..

BDKJMU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Hell, if you leave your kid unattended in a car the state will take them away if you aren't careful

But give them to a coyote to pack into a box truck or march them across the high desert and you're just fine as a parent

This is one of the biggest manufactured outrages I've seen in a long time - and it would be really easy to fix- in fact, Ted Boobs has introduced an emergency bill to solve the issue (speeding up asylum and deport proceedings) but guess who won't vote for it?

Conks need to hammer home the point that donks are blocking that simple solution right there of expedited removal..

Aren't the CONKS in control of the Gov't? Seems like the ball is really in their court.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Conks need to hammer home the point that donks are blocking that simple solution right there of expedited removal..

Aren't the CONKS in control of the Gov't? Seems like the ball is really in their court.

How many votes does it take to get something passed in the Senate?

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Conks need to hammer home the point that donks are blocking that simple solution right there of expedited removal..

Aren't the CONKS in control of the Gov't? Seems like the ball is really in their court.

The conks have 60 Senate seats? Who knew..

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Again, don’t break into our country and it’s not an issue.

#TrustTheProcess

I typically would agree.

However, we're asking a lot of the typical immigrant who more than likely doesn't speak any English.

Are we to expect Juan who only speaks Spanish to study on US Immigration laws before deciding to risk life and limb to make it here? Seems pie in the sky. I'm sure there are a litany of loopholes that can be closed.

At the very least, I expect these people to know that the right thing to do is going to a formal border crossing. Swimming across the Rio Grande, packing yourself into a quad-con, etc.. are not acceptable and anyone caught that way should be immediately deported.

I have no problem with immigration - just do it legally.

Word spreads fast in any language. Treat people firmly and consistently and they will respond accordingly. I am ALL IN FAVOR of keeping these family units together, all the way back across the fence to Mexico. Keep them right together throughout their deportation. It’s cruel to separate them before that, I agree. And give them a pamphlet in their native language explaining the legal immigration process for the US. Get in line with everyone else.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Aren't the CONKS in control of the Gov't? Seems like the ball is really in their court.

How many votes does it take to get something passed in the Senate?

Assuming all 100 senators are present - 51 votes.

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Aren't the CONKS in control of the Gov't? Seems like the ball is really in their court.

The conks have 60 Senate seats? Who knew..

It takes 60 votes to proceed to a vote following a filibuster - which has become the status quo.

Really - you want to bitch about immigrants not knowing the rules and you don't know how many votes it takes to pass a bill in the senate?

Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explain ... ve-process

In case you forgot -

Senate - 51/49/2 - Advantage Republicans
HoR - 235/193 - Advantage Republicans (there are 7 vancant seats)
White House - Republican


So. let's see, a majority in the HoR, the Senate and a Republican in the White House. Hm...what does that mean? Hm....hmmm.........

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I typically would agree.

However, we're asking a lot of the typical immigrant who more than likely doesn't speak any English.

Are we to expect Juan who only speaks Spanish to study on US Immigration laws before deciding to risk life and limb to make it here? Seems pie in the sky. I'm sure there are a litany of loopholes that can be closed.

At the very least, I expect these people to know that the right thing to do is going to a formal border crossing. Swimming across the Rio Grande, packing yourself into a quad-con, etc.. are not acceptable and anyone caught that way should be immediately deported.

I have no problem with immigration - just do it legally.

Word spreads fast in any language. Treat people firmly and consistently and they will respond accordingly. I am ALL IN FAVOR of keeping these family units together, all the way back across the fence to Mexico. Keep them right together throughout their deportation. It’s cruel to separate them before that, I agree. And give them a pamphlet in their native language explaining the legal immigration process for the US. Get in line with everyone else.

This I agree with.

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I typically would agree.

However, we're asking a lot of the typical immigrant who more than likely doesn't speak any English.

Are we to expect Juan who only speaks Spanish to study on US Immigration laws before deciding to risk life and limb to make it here? Seems pie in the sky. I'm sure there are a litany of loopholes that can be closed.

At the very least, I expect these people to know that the right thing to do is going to a formal border crossing. Swimming across the Rio Grande, packing yourself into a quad-con, etc.. are not acceptable and anyone caught that way should be immediately deported.

I have no problem with immigration - just do it legally.

Word spreads fast in any language. Treat people firmly and consistently and they will respond accordingly. I am ALL IN FAVOR of keeping these family units together, all the way back across the fence to Mexico. Keep them right together throughout their deportation. It’s cruel to separate them before that, I agree. And give them a pamphlet in their native language explaining the legal immigration process for the US. Get in line with everyone else.

So we're all on the same page, more or less.

∞∞∞ wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Precisely. If I break into my neighbors house and set up a tent in his living room, do I get to bring my sons with me to central booking and county correctional when the cops arrive?

Except immediate family is called to pick up the child, and they aren't put in holding facilities for weeks on end in some foreign nation.

Did the Bush/Obama administrations do it? Yes, but separation times were minimal. Immigrants would be processed, reunited with children, and either deported or allowed in the country while the legal process played out. The Trump administration is separating children and prosecuting parents which in addition to the legal process, is up to a 6 month prison sentence.

I don't even have children and think it's completely **** up, so it's pretty amazing how parents can justify this. But I guess when you continually de-humanize people, this is what you get. At least poll after poll is showing the majority of Americans is against this sort of policy.

No problem! We don’t have to separate families, we can just kick them all back across the border and then they remain together, right?

∞∞∞ wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: To the open border, anyone in the world who wants to come here, free for all wingnuts like Trip, borders are so 20th Century and racist, and anyone who wants border enforcement is a Nazi..

Did I get that right?

No, you didn't. As always.

I'm not for open borders. I'm also not a dick to people 'cause they're not 'MURICAN.

Well if you aren’t for open borders, you’re a dick. That’s the narrative boiled down to its simplest terms. Because you can’t house juveniles with adults - that’s also the law

Just face it - you say you aren’t for open borders, but you oppose anything short of that