US Supreme Court ruling means illegal immigrants with US born children will be deported

[Scott]

It is always difficult to deal with immigration issues when minor children are involved. It is not a good idea to allow people to live in a country illegally. Doing so acts as a magnet to others.

Parents of minor children born in the US are eligible to reside in the US, but they have to go through the proper channels to do so, and they are given priority processing.

[augustwest]

Thailand is asking for account numbers of us accounts. Screw them I'll leave this country and my Thai wife before they get a bit of info from me.

[Buzzz]

Thailand is asking for account numbers of us accounts. Screw them I'll leave this country and my Thai wife before they get a bit of info from me.

Just give Thailand and your wife fake numbers.

[losworld]

Department of Homeland Security is on record that the maximum of mass deportations it could conduct annually under present resources is 400,000.

With 11 million the raw number, either everyone endures 20 or more years of ongoing mass deportations or the US cranks up a deportation police state as has been presented in the thread above.

Nothing like this has ever been done because it is beyond severe and drastic. Scotus has done nothing to authorise or encourage any such actions to include in its stalemated non-decision of today.

The far right and the wild radical Donald Trump driving the Republican party nationally would reduce the Constitution and its Bill of Rights to an honorary document at best, if not just shred it outright.

BS Eisenhower deported a huge amount of illegals. About 1.5 million in no time. He also made prison sentences to anyone employing them. It can and should be done.

[Buzzz]

Department of Homeland Security is on record that the maximum of mass deportations it could conduct annually under present resources is 400,000.

With 11 million the raw number, either everyone endures 20 or more years of ongoing mass deportations or the US cranks up a deportation police state as has been presented in the thread above.

Nothing like this has ever been done because it is beyond severe and drastic. Scotus has done nothing to authorise or encourage any such actions to include in its stalemated non-decision of today.

The far right and the wild radical Donald Trump driving the Republican party nationally would reduce the Constitution and its Bill of Rights to an honorary document at best, if not just shred it outright.

BS Eisenhower deported a huge amount of illegals. About 1.5 million in no time. He also made prison sentences to anyone employing them. It can and should be done.

What's the problem with the illegals? Every country has some 'darkies' that do the grunt work.

Alright, occasionally there is a criminal but in comparison, American citizens are committing more crimes.

Statistically, the crime rate would rise if they left the country.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Buzzz

[Publicus]

Department of Homeland Security is on record that the maximum of mass deportations it could conduct annually under present resources is 400,000.

With 11 million the raw number, either everyone endures 20 or more years of ongoing mass deportations or the US cranks up a deportation police state as has been presented in the thread above.

Nothing like this has ever been done because it is beyond severe and drastic. Scotus has done nothing to authorise or encourage any such actions to include in its stalemated non-decision of today.

The far right and the wild radical Donald Trump driving the Republican party nationally would reduce the Constitution and its Bill of Rights to an honorary document at best, if not just shred it outright.

BS Eisenhower deported a huge amount of illegals. About 1.5 million in no time. He also made prison sentences to anyone employing them. It can and should be done.

What was "in no time" concerning the 1.5 million mass deportations of the 1950s Trump wants to replicate.

That was the 1950s and this is more than 50 years later in the 21st century. The popular opinion of President Eisenhower the War Hero Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was immense. The only immense thing about Donald Trump is the widespread contempt of him as an ignoramus.

From the conservative National Review....

A mass deportation effort would be exponentially more difficult than during the Eisenhower era. For starters, the 1950s effort focused almost entirely on the four states that border Mexico. Illegal immigrants are more dispersed today than decades ago: New Jersey is estimated to have about 550,000 illegal immigrants in 2010; Illinois, 525,000; New York, 625,000; Georgia, 425,000; North Carolina, 325,000; Washington state 230,000.

Even more importantly, today there’s a large, well-organized, well-funded effort opposing the deportation of illegal immigrants that includes some state and city governments. Any perceived or real brutality or human rights abuses in the deportation process would be given saturation coverage that would make Abu Gharib look like a one-day story.

Considering the sorts of protests we’ve seen at Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson and college campuses today, there’s a significant risk of a violent resistance to the deportation efforts. A mass deportation effort from coast to coast would be the most controversial government policy since the Iraq War. A Trump Administration would need to be prepared to weather a firestorm of public criticism that would make the Bush administration’s bad days look mild.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426993/trump-eisenhower-and-challenges-mass-deportation-jim-geraghty

Donald Trump is a recipe for chaos and anarchy. We see it already in his campaign and in his business dealings. It's only the rightwingnoids that love Trump.

[sirineou]

What's the nonsense? You claim we need them because they are there. Why don't you argue that the US needs even more people instead of we need the illegals we have? Why don't you argue foreigners who overstay in Thailand obviously are wanted? Why are these folks different? Location of a person may not mean anything.

It is nonsense because you said

"Terrorist are in the US because we want them. Drug dealers are in the us because 'we' want them. I get it. Racists are in the US because we want them. Murderers are in the US because we want them. We should just let them all be."

We are talking about illegal aliens and the concept that we are as culpable in the crime, and as such both parties need to contribute toward a solution,you on the other hand is talking about terrorists, drug dealers, racists murderers.

Why you did not throw in to the mix, extraterrestrials hell bent in to enslaving the human race is beyond me

.If there is party in this sorted affair that is innocent, it is the children of these illegal aliens , yet they would be made to suffer the most. I find it grossly unfair, don't you?

So back in to the argument, was there tacit agreement between both parties, (you come here illegally and work cheap, and we will turn a blind eye) , and if so does it create an "implied in fact contract"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract.

and does that create an "Unjust enrichment situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

If these illegal aliens who (arguable) entered in to an "implied contract" were expelled , would that create an "Unjust enrichment" situation benefiting the US?

Much more nutritious Food for thought . than the junk food of " "Terrorist are in the US because we want them. Drug dealers are in the us because 'we' want them. I get it. Racists are in the US because we want them. Murderers are in the US because we want them. We should just let them all be." "

[Alive]

What's the nonsense? You claim we need them because they are there. Why don't you argue that the US needs even more people instead of we need the illegals we have? Why don't you argue foreigners who overstay in Thailand obviously are wanted? Why are these folks different? Location of a person may not mean anything.

It is nonsense because you said

"Terrorist are in the US because we want them. Drug dealers are in the us because 'we' want them. I get it. Racists are in the US because we want them. Murderers are in the US because we want them. We should just let them all be."

We are talking about illegal aliens and the concept that we are as culpable in the crime, and as such both parties need to contribute toward a solution,you on the other hand is talking about terrorists, drug dealers, racists murderers.

Why you did not throw in to the mix, extraterrestrials hell bent in to enslaving the human race is beyond me

.If there is party in this sorted affair that is innocent, it is the children of these illegal aliens , yet they would be made to suffer the most. I find it grossly unfair, don't you?

So back in to the argument, was there tacit agreement between both parties, (you come here illegally and work cheap, and we will turn a blind eye) , and if so does it create an "implied in fact contract"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract.

and does that create an "Unjust enrichment situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

If these illegal aliens who (arguable) entered in to an "implied contract" were expelled , would that create an "Unjust enrichment" situation benefiting the US?

Much more nutritious Food for thought . than the junk food of " "Terrorist are in the US because we want them. Drug dealers are in the us because 'we' want them. I get it. Racists are in the US because we want them. Murderers are in the US because we want them. We should just let them all be." "

Your argument applies to all people around the world, not just in the US. Should parents of foreigners or Thais born in Thailand get residency because of their poor children? Under your argument they should. I hope you get out on the street in downtown Bangkok and protest for the rights of the foreigners here who have kids here. You fight for change in America, do you have that voice for change in other nations too?