(March 9, 2018 at 9:20 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If all of those hard-working illegal aliens moved to Venezuela and started businesses there and paid taxes there they could get Venezuela out of the doldrums.  That's a real land of opportunity.

You act like it's not a hell of a lot easier to get to America (where minimum wage laws allow them to earn more than in an hour than many of them have to live on in a day) than Venezuela. And I'm not sure things would be a lot easier for illegal immigrants in Venezuela than in America, except maybe they'd have to deal with less bullshit from xenophobes like you. Maybe.

You should thank Trump because he's so soft on illegal aliens.  Ferdinand & Isabella got rid of theirs in about a year.

The question still remains.  Does California want to restrict immigration or just open the boarder and let everyone in?  The government of the state lacks a coherent policy in this regard.  What does California want?  So far they haven't come out and said that they just want to open the boarder up.  It they want to control immigration how are they going to do it?  Just trying to inhibit Federal enforcement efforts without offering an alternative doesn't get it.  California is just wandering aimlessly in this regard with no real immigration policy as illegals continue to stream over the boarder.  No one in this forum has come out and said that we should not restrict immigration into the country.  So if you don't want to enforce our immigration laws then how do you want to do it?

(March 9, 2018 at 9:38 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:20 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: You act like it's not a hell of a lot easier to get to America (where minimum wage laws allow them to earn more than in an hour than many of them have to live on in a day) than Venezuela. And I'm not sure things would be a lot easier for illegal immigrants in Venezuela than in America, except maybe they'd have to deal with less bullshit from xenophobes like you. Maybe.

You should thank Trump because he's so soft on illegal aliens.  Ferdinand & Isabella got rid of theirs in about a year.

Looking up the Fall of Granada (which would appear to be what you're talking about), It looks like not a word of what you just said is accurate. It took Ferdinand and Isabella almost a decade for them to take Granada, and for a brief time, they were actually allowed to live and practice their own religion (a state of affairs which ended in 1501). They were not all removed like you suggest.

However, now I think you may be referring to the Alhambra Decree, which forced practicing (non-converted) Jews to leave Spain in 1492. That's still not accurate since the Jews who converted were allowed to stay (and for centuries afterward were subject to obscene degrees of scrutiny to make sure they weren't still practicing.)

 And naturally, such an attitude is frowned upon in the present days due to the massive increase in understanding of human rights in the five-and-a-quarter centuries since then, which was first put into practice in the very nation Trump is running now. Granted, we've historically fallen far short of the ideals we've been going on about, but at least we've tried.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:38 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You should thank Trump because he's so soft on illegal aliens.  Ferdinand & Isabella got rid of theirs in about a year.

Looking up the Fall of Granada (which would appear to be what you're talking about), It looks like not a word of what you just said is accurate. It took Ferdinand and Isabella almost a decade for them to take Granada, and for a brief time, they were actually allowed to live and practice their own religion (a state of affairs which ended in 1501). They were not all removed like you suggest.

However, now I think you may be referring to the Alhambra Decree, which forced practicing (non-converted) Jews to leave Spain in 1492. That's still not accurate since the Jews who converted were allowed to stay (and for centuries afterward were subject to obscene degrees of scrutiny to make sure they weren't still practicing.)

 And naturally, such an attitude is frowned upon in the present days due to the massive increase in understanding of human rights in the five-and-a-quarter centuries since then, which was first put into practice in the very nation Trump is running now. Granted, we've historically fallen far short of the ideals we've been going on about, but at least we've tried.

How about a national referendum on the issue.  "Should all illegal aliens be deported upon apprehension?"

Human/Civil rights should never be up for a popular vote.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:42 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Human/Civil rights should never be up for a popular vote.

Human/civil rights have always been up for a popular vote in America.  It's the American way.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm)Lek Wrote: The question still remains.  Does California want to restrict immigration or just open the boarder and let everyone in?  The government of the state lacks a coherent policy in this regard.  What does California want?  So far they haven't come out and said that they just want to open the boarder up.  It they want to control immigration how are they going to do it?  Just trying to inhibit Federal enforcement efforts without offering an alternative doesn't get it.  California is just wandering aimlessly in this regard with no real immigration policy as illegals continue to stream over the boarder.  No one in this forum has come out and said that we should not restrict immigration into the country.  So if you don't want to enforce our immigration laws then how do you want to do it?

What is a "boarder"? How does one stream over it? How does one open or close such a thing? A "boarder" is typically a person at a residential school. I cannot see how this applies.

ETA: Or possibly a pirate invading another ship. Still not seeing it.

ETA2: Or possibly the acts of torture perpetrated by a rogue state at an off-shore facility? Still not seeing it.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm)Lek Wrote: The question still remains.  Does California want to restrict immigration or just open the boarder and let everyone in?  The government of the state lacks a coherent policy in this regard.  What does California want?  So far they haven't come out and said that they just want to open the boarder up.  It they want to control immigration how are they going to do it?  Just trying to inhibit Federal enforcement efforts without offering an alternative doesn't get it.  California is just wandering aimlessly in this regard with no real immigration policy as illegals continue to stream over the boarder.  No one in this forum has come out and said that we should not restrict immigration into the country.  So if you don't want to enforce our immigration laws then how do you want to do it?

What is a "boarder"? How does one stream over it? How does one open or close such a thing? A "boarder" is typically a person at a residential school. I cannot see how this applies.

ETA: Or possibly a pirate invading another ship. Still not seeing it.

ETA2: Or possibly the acts of torture perpetrated by a rogue state at an off-shore facility? Still not seeing it.

You're really funny!  Now why don't you answer my question?

I bet Jeff Sessions lives in a tree with other elves making cookies

California doesn't want to waste any of their own time or resources on the "problem" of browns existing in their midst, RR.  It's really that simple.  

They've flatly stated that the fed can and will do whatever the fuck they want. It's their lynching party, they can do the gruntwork themselves. Sort of like how you'd probably insist that someone else service all the gay males in your vicinity. No skin off your back...someone will, it just wont be you. So, if the fed is looking to delegate for either task..perhaps they should stick to excited homosexuals and committed bigots?