Trump has Univision anchor removed from news conference

[NeverSure]

The 2016 election is over? That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. It has barely begun. DUH!

LOL.

[NeverSure]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The post hasn't any depth nor does it have context so let's take a closer look at the federal immigration laws. Specifically, illegal entry or unlawful presence of an immigrant, because an undocumented immigrant is very likely to be one or the other. The following legal presentation even uses the Right's terminology of "illegal alien."

Improper Entry Is a Crime

The most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor. Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must have committed improper entry. This simply isn't the case. Many foreign nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons.

But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal. An illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. (Emphasis added.)

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The Trump Republicans and the rest of the Right have long declared undocumented immigrants per se to be criminals. This is 100% wrong in the law and the Constitution.The Republican Right has done this regardless of whether the "illegal immigrants" are actually charged with a crime. To the Right, and they are wrong in the law and the Constitution, being an undocumented immigrant is per se a crime.

The law is and always has been that the 'unlawful presence' of an immigrant is a civil violation, not a violation of criminal law or of the Constitution.

After the Trump Republicans and the Right criminalise all undocumented immigrants per se, then the documented immigrants will be set upon. The Republican Right hasn't yet used the term, but they want a Fortress America. To wall out the Latino "hordes."

Who cares if they are criminals? They are unlawful trespassers who can and should be deported yesterday.

(You sure use a lot of words.)

[Publicus]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The post hasn't any depth nor does it have context so let's take a closer look at the federal immigration laws. Specifically, illegal entry or unlawful presence of an immigrant, because an undocumented immigrant is very likely to be one or the other. The following legal presentation even uses the Right's terminology of "illegal alien."

Improper Entry Is a Crime

The most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor. Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must have committed improper entry. This simply isn't the case. Many foreign nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons.

But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal. An illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. (Emphasis added.)

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The Trump Republicans and the rest of the Right have long declared undocumented immigrants per se to be criminals. This is 100% wrong in the law and the Constitution.The Republican Right has done this regardless of whether the "illegal immigrants" are actually charged with a crime. To the Right, and they are wrong in the law and the Constitution, being an undocumented immigrant is per se a crime.

The law is and always has been that the 'unlawful presence' of an immigrant is a civil violation, not a violation of criminal law or of the Constitution.

After the Trump Republicans and the Right criminalise all undocumented immigrants per se, then the documented immigrants will be set upon. The Republican Right hasn't yet used the term, but they want a Fortress America. To wall out the Latino "hordes."

Who cares if they are criminals? They are unlawful trespassers who can and should be deported yesterday.

(You sure use a lot of words.)

That's you in there Donald !!! I know it cause I recognize the style and I know it immediately, the bumper sticker policy positions

Welcome to the forum not that it needed any spicing up...

[NOC]

Some people need to learn that hispanics are NOT a majority or a plurality of voters in the US. Americans are supporting Trump because every other person in the race, Republican and Democrat, is a timid wimp.

Politically speaking that's a very good attitude so keep running with it because there's a brick wall straight out ahead called the election.

Hispanics are the second largest group in the US and they vote accordingly. In 2012 Prez Obama got 72% of the Hispanic vote, which is more than enough for the Democrat to slay the Republican candidate for prez. In this election more Hispanics than ever will vote and it may go to 80% or more for the D candidate for prez.

Very good so keep at it over there on the Trump margins of society and politics.

As is obvious from your post, you are agitated and fearful. Trump is winning. Trump will be president precisely because the majority of Americans despise and hate the mainstream media and their so-called experts who keep trying to scare everybody about the so-called hispanic "colossus," most of whose "members" actually hate each other's guts. Cubans hate Mexicans and vice versa. Nearly every Central American hates people from neighboring Central American countries AND Mexico. The hispanic monolith is nothing more than another dream of you and yours which is about to pop and vanish into thin air.

The next president will be whomever is approved by the Bilderberger group, just like the last president, and the one before that.... Anger, hate and popularity, etc., have FA to do with it.

Edited August 26, 2015 by NOC

[cookee68]

I agree with Trump, why should they be given automatic citizenship, if the parents are illegals, doe;s not happen in the UK if the parents are not legal or at least one british

[MaxYakov]

It is Trumps nomination of lose...if he loses it will because he can not control outbursts of anger...

Ben Carson is a viable candidate with a calm, cool, and controlled demeanor...

He seemed to control his anger with Ramos, if there was any. He even stated that he didn't know who Ramos was and, later, let him back in.

It seemed to me to be a slightly overdone of acting on Trump's part if you listen carefully to how almost apologetic he was was w/r Ramos' ejection.

It was an obvious attempt by Ramos to commandeer, give a speech and bait Trump into saying something untoward which, obviously, backfired on him.

I'm glad Ramos didn't have a microphone.

[HeijoshinCool]

It's still early and the republicans have a lot of Bozos on their roster and this early the chances of The Donald actually being nominated (much less elected) are not that great. So why waste time worrying about that? I do see the entertainment value and that is fabulous. Enjoy it while it lasts! I still expect a realistic republican (and competitive) ticket: KASICH RUBIO.

.

You know, a few elections ago I would have agreed with you. But one of the reasons Trump is so popular is he is a polar opposite to the PC run-of-the-mill politician. The only polar opposite.

Many, many people are sick and tired of politics as usual. They are sick of politicians. Really, really sick. We see the future under politicians, and it is depressing and frightening, and while a future with Trump is unsure, he gives hope for real change, and any future is better than business as usual.

So while I would not be surprised if Trump falls off as we get closer to the conventions, I also would not be surprised if he cunningly uses current events, combined with the people's strong emotions, to drive his limo all the way to 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[stevenl]

It is Trumps nomination of lose...if he loses it will because he can not control outbursts of anger...

Ben Carson is a viable candidate with a calm, cool, and controlled demeanor...

He seemed to control his anger with Ramos, if there was any. He even stated that he didn't know who Ramos was and, later, let him back in.

It seemed to me to be a slightly overdone of acting on Trump's part if you listen carefully to how almost apologetic he was was w/r Ramos' ejection.

It was an obvious attempt by Ramos to commandeer, give a speech and bait Trump into saying something untoward which, obviously, backfired on him.

I'm glad Ramos didn't have a microphone.

So he did not know who he was but did tell him to go back to Univision.

[MaxYakov]

It is Trumps nomination of lose...if he loses it will because he can not control outbursts of anger...

Ben Carson is a viable candidate with a calm, cool, and controlled demeanor...

He seemed to control his anger with Ramos, if there was any. He even stated that he didn't know who Ramos was and, later, let him back in.

It seemed to me to be a slightly overdone of acting on Trump's part if you listen carefully to how almost apologetic he was was w/r Ramos' ejection.

It was an obvious attempt by Ramos to commandeer, give a speech and bait Trump into saying something untoward which, obviously, backfired on him.

I'm glad Ramos didn't have a microphone.

So he did not know who he was but did tell him to go back to Univision.

Yes, I wonder how many noticed this seeming contradiction. He could have known he was from Univision, but not known who he was (which seems implausible to me).

Or he was just acting "innocent" to soften the appearance of the ejection? I think Trump may be more cagey than he comes across. Of course, he wouldn't have been successful were he not?

Overall, I think he handled it well - at least he yell at Ramos: You're fired!

Edited August 27, 2015 by MaxYakov

[sammygood]

he can refer to thailand

even farang parents legally residing & working in this country, the children born from non thai will not get anything

[HeijoshinCool]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

[MaxYakov]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

Was she an "anvil baby" (courtesy Ann Coulter)? If she wasn't, she is now.

Edited August 27, 2015 by MaxYakov

[HeijoshinCool]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

Was she an "anvil baby" (courtesy Ann Coulter)? If she weren't, she is now.

.

Well, no.

Since she is the daughter of a Univision on-air "reporter," she really is an anchor baby.

[stevenl]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

So?

Unless you're claiming he does not like Trump because of his daughter's political convictions this remark is totally irrelevant. And to be honest, I don't think he dislikes Trump because of his daughter's political ideas.

[PHP87]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The post hasn't any depth nor does it have context so let's take a closer look at the federal immigration laws. Specifically, illegal entry or unlawful presence of an immigrant, because an undocumented immigrant is very likely to be one or the other. The following legal presentation even uses the Right's terminology of "illegal alien."

Improper Entry Is a Crime

The most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor. Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must have committed improper entry. This simply isn't the case. Many foreign nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons.

But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal. An illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. (Emphasis added.)

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The Trump Republicans and the rest of the Right have long declared undocumented immigrants per se to be criminals. This is 100% wrong in the law and the Constitution.The Republican Right has done this regardless of whether the "illegal immigrants" are actually charged with a crime. To the Right, and they are wrong in the law and the Constitution, being an undocumented immigrant is per se a crime.

The law is and always has been that the 'unlawful presence' of an immigrant is a civil violation, not a violation of criminal law or of the Constitution.

After the Trump Republicans and the Right criminalise all undocumented immigrants per se, then the documented immigrants will be set upon. The Republican Right hasn't yet used the term, but they want a Fortress America. To wall out the Latino "hordes."

The post doesn't require any context or explanation as it is self-explanatory.

A child could see that. Sorry you couldn't.

It is in fact a crime to enter the US illegally and not a civil case as you incorrectly stated earlier.

Nothing that your illegal immigration web site links can refute.

Regardless of your spinning, entering the country illegally is a crime as stated in the code listed above.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Edited August 27, 2015 by PHP87

[PHP87]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

So?

Unless you're claiming he does not like Trump because of his daughter's political convictions this remark is totally irrelevant. And to be honest, I don't think he dislikes Trump because of his daughter's political ideas.

So he has an inherent bias.

His daughter works for the candidate that may be running against Trump and you don't see how that might skew his opinion and his advocacy journalism?

Ramos isn't a journalist. He's an Immigration activist.

[Publicus]

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

Univision is a Spanish language media organization that specialises in a viewer audience predicated in the language, which also means the ethnicity, the culture in every respect, to include the interests of Hispanic people in the United States under the Constitution of the USA. An important part of the interests of the audience/constituency is politics and government.

Univision is not the NYT or the LA Times nor is it Fox, CNN etc.

This is an entirely new period in First Amendment "press" and mass media but there is no doubt the First Amendment applies to Univision in terms that are equal to the three I've mentioned and all of the information/entertainment media.

Trump has been slandering Hispanic people of all kinds with his focus being on Hispanic immigrants. He is especially strident in his opposition to undocumented immigrants. The fact places Trump and Univision in a direct adversarial relationship, politically, socially, culturally, in respect of entertainment as well, under the Constitution.

It is likely most people who work at Univision if not all of 'em find Trump to be a nativist and racialist, and that most of 'em are Democrats who vote for Democrats. Nothing un-American about it to include Ramos' daughter working professionally in the electoral campaign of Mrs Clinton. It very likely can be said a number of the offspring of a lot of media people are politically involved and active in one way or another.

No problem.

[maewang99]

Trump is using the Bible now. Great, of course he is. And maybe he's just as Christian as any American. But everyone I hope will stay off of this sensitive private issue.

Another guy fell into this formula. He needed to gain support of his party's biggest faction, which was also it's most militant. He needed more muscle to win... he had learned the "hard" way. Even though he was merely average in sharing their beliefs.... as his own big beliefs were that of being an ultra nationalist (read: patriot) and “ardent” (as we say) anti-communist.

So he wrote a book ahead of his campaign.

At that time, writing while in prison, he was probably no more of an anti-Sem.......

Please. I don't want to be reading or hearing Bible versus everyday for the next 9 years.

Edited August 27, 2015 by maewang99

[arjunadawn]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Yes, this is the logically retarded point proponents of cultural demise avoid- being undocumented is a civil crime and ipso facto evidence of crossing illegally, a criminal crime. Crossing the border without proper papers, avoiding detection, etc., is a criminal offense. People who come across the border are criminals. It does not matter if you are a woman, a child, hungry, or poor- you are a criminal when you enter the US illegally (Irrespective of the rationales applied). This is true is nearly every country on earth- well, at least every country on earth that does not self loathe and promote chaos.

[Publicus]

"You cannot deny citizenship to children born in this country."

"Why do you say that?" Trump replied. "Some of the great legal scholars agree that's not true."

Trump - name one. And, no, Justice Scalia does not count, because he is nowhere close to being a legal scholar, nevertheless "great".

While legal scholars will decide such issues primae faciae opinions are equally important, and Americans reject this born of soil nonsense; it is increasingly realized to be a suicide pact. One should not hold to laws or the interpretations of such whereby doing so injures the nation. In an age of endless debt, scarce resources, and few jobs, it is disastrous to have a policy whereby someone arrives, has a baby, that baby receives your money, and then that baby competes for work and a future with your child. Would that America had endless resources perhaps yes, but charity runs thin when it is coerced. Liberal polices like this that are designed to inflict good upon americans under penalty of law are all the rage- this is why America is dying.

In fact, whereas our entire legal heritage is largely devolved from common law the born of soil rather than born of blood is not part of that. And of course it would not. Born of soil was an invention extrapolated from a constitutional amendment aimed at addressing US black- heritage, not perpetual application to anyone who dropped blood on the soil. Born of blood and its variations are hardly objectionable. The majority of the world has laws based on this concept. It is roughly only the western hemisphere that has reversed this concept into a born of soil issue.

German citizenship has recently been expanded beyond the previous requirement of a German blood line. A person no longer needs to be German to become a German citizen and this is an historically wise decision by the German elites.

The wild stories from the Republican right against undocumented immigrants are a part of the Right's conscious campaign to make a radical change of America's immigration laws, precepts, principles that have existed since the first successful settlement in 1620 in what became and is Massachusetts.

The present campaign is to criminalise immigration. Presently and historically, immigration is a matter of civil law. An overstay or an undocumented entry is a civil matter and it always has been a civil mattyer. Consequently there is no punishment, only deportation. The criminal laws apply to immigrants too, but not as immigrants per se.

Republicans and the Right want to criminalise immigration and have concocted wild stories about immigration and immigrants in their campaign to stop the past 40 years of conscious US immigration policy that favors Latin America over Europe.

This born of the blood stuff has become recognized in Germany and in Europe for what it in fact is.

Wild stories about "undocumented immigrants"?

They are "Illegal Aliens" and not "undocumented immigrants"

And these "wild stories"?

They're true.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/liberal-study-unintentionally-reveals-nationwide-illegal-alien-crime-spree/

Illegals are committing crimes, including murder and rape and it's a real problem and people are sick of it.

Obama does nothing but talk while people waltz across the border.

That won't happen once a wall is built and laws are put in place to punish employers that hire illegals.

No jobs, illegals will self-deport.

It won't take some massive effort, other than denying them jobs and government freebies.

And no, you can't have your baby here. Go to a hospital in your country.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

Republicans and Trump will enforce those laws and not allow millions of illegal aliens to waltz into the US like some people would like to see.

Sorry, but Trump is not going to allow the Colonization of America if he can help it, despite people like you.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

The statement is wrong as it is presented.

The statement has no context, no distinctions, presents no knowledge of immigration law, ignores "unlawful presence" which is a matter of civil law and not of criminal law. It summarily and arbitrarily dismisses that the history of immigration is almost entirely under civil law.

The statement presents the anti-immigrant and anti-immigration view of the right sector of American society and politics. The statement taken on its own would criminalize all undocumented immigrants, which is wrong, contrary to immigration law and antithetical to the Constitution, immigration precepts, principles, the values of the United States and of the mainstream people of the USA.

The statement is central to the attitude that the "hordes" of immigrants from Latin America need to be stopped by building a wall that turns the United States into a self-destructive Wasp Fortress America (for old male political extremists only).

All of this right sector disrespect of law and the Constitution is very easy to recognize, understand, expose, oppose.

[arjunadawn]

Trump is using the Bible now. Great, of course he is. And maybe he's just as Christian as any American. But everyone I hope will stay off of this sensitive private issue.

Another guy fell into this formula. He needed to gain support of his party's biggest faction, which was also it's most militant. He needed more muscle to win... he had learned the "hard" way. Even though he was merely average in sharing their beliefs.... as his own big beliefs were that of being an ultra nationalist (read: patriot) and “ardent” (as we say) anti-communist.

So he wrote a book ahead of his campaign.

At that time, writing while in prison, he was probably no more of an anti-Sem.......

Please. I don't want to be reading or hearing Bible versus everyday for the next 9 years.

Your talking about Obama, Dreams of my Fathers- right? He did not write this in prison (a former prisoner wrote it for him in Chicago) but you are correct, he coopted religion which is in fact apparently lacking in his life choices, policies, and actions. Obama did run to the center after the nomination and grasp the semi center American vote by his farce of being called to god. Yes, he is quite militant. Lastly, his beliefs were that of being an ultra leftist, not nationalist, but I can see the confusion- in a circle they both appear at the same place in political action.

Note: He wrote in Chicago, not prison- but I can see the ease where one could confuse the two.

[wwest5829]

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

Edited August 27, 2015 by wwest5829

[wwest5829]

Trump is using the Bible now. Great, of course he is. And maybe he's just as Christian as any American. But everyone I hope will stay off of this sensitive private issue.

Another guy fell into this formula. He needed to gain support of his party's biggest faction, which was also it's most militant. He needed more muscle to win... he had learned the "hard" way. Even though he was merely average in sharing their beliefs.... as his own big beliefs were that of being an ultra nationalist (read: patriot) and ardent (as we say) anti-communist.

So he wrote a book ahead of his campaign.

At that time, writing while in prison, he was probably no more of an anti-Sem.......

Please. I don't want to be reading or hearing Bible versus everyday for the next 9 years.

Your talking about Obama, Dreams of my Fathers- right? He did not write this in prison (a former prisoner wrote it for him in Chicago) but you are correct, he coopted religion which is in fact apparently lacking in his life choices, policies, and actions. Obama did run to the center after the nomination and grasp the semi center American vote by his farce of being called to god. Yes, he is quite militant. Lastly, his beliefs were that of being an ultra leftist, not nationalist, but I can see the confusion- in a circle they both appear at the same place in political action.

Note: He wrote in Chicago, not prison- but I can see the ease where one could confuse the two.

Gott mit uns!!

[Usernames]

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. Its GDP is 15th in the world, ahead of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Indonesia, Turkey, Belgium. Shouldn't we let all those people from those countries below Mexico come into the US first?

[PHP87]

Wild stories about "undocumented immigrants"?

They are "Illegal Aliens" and not "undocumented immigrants"

And these "wild stories"?

They're true.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/liberal-study-unintentionally-reveals-nationwide-illegal-alien-crime-spree/

Illegals are committing crimes, including murder and rape and it's a real problem and people are sick of it.

Obama does nothing but talk while people waltz across the border.

That won't happen once a wall is built and laws are put in place to punish employers that hire illegals.

No jobs, illegals will self-deport.

It won't take some massive effort, other than denying them jobs and government freebies.

And no, you can't have your baby here. Go to a hospital in your country.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

Republicans and Trump will enforce those laws and not allow millions of illegal aliens to waltz into the US like some people would like to see.

Sorry, but Trump is not going to allow the Colonization of America if he can help it, despite people like you.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

The statement is wrong as it is presented.

The statement has no context, no distinctions, presents no knowledge of immigration law, ignores "unlawful presence" which is a matter of civil law and not of criminal law. It summarily and arbitrarily dismisses that the history of immigration is almost entirely under civil law.

The statement presents the anti-immigrant and anti-immigration view of the right sector of American society and politics. The statement taken on its own would criminalize all undocumented immigrants, which is wrong, contrary to immigration law and antithetical to the Constitution, immigration precepts, principles, the values of the United States and of the mainstream people of the USA.

The statement is central to the attitude that the "hordes" of immigrants from Latin America need to be stopped by building a wall that turns the United States into a self-destructive Wasp Fortress America (for old male political extremists only).

All of this right sector disrespect of law and the Constitution is very easy to recognize, understand, expose, oppose.

Keep tapping away at that keyboard, but it doesn't change the fact that entering the US without the proper visa is a criminal act.

Also, being in the US without proper authorization is evidence of a criminal act, entering without a proper visa.

Try it in the LOS and see what happens as well.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Edited August 27, 2015 by PHP87

[PHP87]

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

Mexico and countries further south in Central America need to figure it out for themselves.

In the meantime, the US should secure its borders to otherwise risk further Balkanization of the US

Of course a wall will help stop illegal immigration.

Without it, people are waltzing across the border at the weakest points.

[chuckd]

Jorge Ramos is a talking head enamored with the sound of his own voice. As are most people with journalism backgrounds.

Watch him dominate the interview with Kelly with his unceasing agenda responses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY78axxXq1I

[Scott]

I think we stop splitting hairs on the civil and criminal differences as it relates to the immigration issue.

There is a difference between illegally entering the country and legally entering the country and overstaying the visa.

[PHP87]

Ann Coulter smacks around the little Chihuahua;

[arjunadawn]

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

You are primarily correct in that the reasons must be addressed. The primary reason is incentive. This is a basic observation of operant conditioning- provide reward and you induce the desired behavior. Behavior is relative to its consequences. Provide free meals, equality in outcomes, and the fruit of what otherwise took the host generations to muster and you provide the entire fabric of the underlying reason.

Walls? Fences? They have been a staple of human protection for all times and there is a reason humans see this as archetypal solutions- they work!