kevkev1888 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, Jingthing said: CULINARY fallout from the trump immigration crackdown -- http://www.eater.com/2017/2/17/14649202/trump-immigration-policy-food The Associated Press reported made up a story today that President Donald Trump is considering mobilizing up to 100,000 National Guard troops in pursuit of unauthorized immigrants. The White House immediately issued a denial. Because it was a totally made up story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 38 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said: The Associated Press reported made up a story today that President Donald Trump is considering mobilizing up to 100,000 National Guard troops in pursuit of unauthorized immigrants. The White House immediately issued a denial. Because it was a totally made up story! People are afraid with good reason because trump ran an insane, racist campaign of hate and division so they don't really know exactly what he will do. Another reason a strong, persistent, and visible RESISTANCE makes sense. Perhaps the more extremist of the potential trumpist policies can be nipped in the bud before they even happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said: The Associated Press reported made up a story today that President Donald Trump is considering mobilizing up to 100,000 National Guard troops in pursuit of unauthorized immigrants. The White House immediately issued a denial. Because it was a totally made up story! I just looked this up and it's not quite the way you described it. Trump was in fact considering it and the document was real. But when asked to explain, his people flatout refused. [President Donald Trump’s administration labeled The Associated Press’s reporting on a leak “100 percent false” on Friday morning, only to acknowledge less than an hour later that the story was based on a real document.] [An AP reporter responded that the news organization had sought comment “multiple times before publication,” according to the pool report.] [Journalists have complained recently that the Trump administration, which frequently decries “fake news,” often fails to respond to requests for comment that would allow reporters to include the administration’s perspective or denials in the original story.] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-associated-press-national-guard_us_58a73fa6e4b045cd34c15611 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Indeed, it is not rational to take a white house denial (any white house denial but ESPECIALLY trump's white house denial) as necessarily representing truth. That is why we have and MUST continue to have a FREE PRESS. As far as trump's immigration plans, there aren't many people that are against deporting undocumented violent criminals. Also there is correctly mainstream support for border security though the great ego wall of trump is obviously not necessary to do that. It's also encouraging that trump seems open to letting law abiding DREAMERS stay. But what's really needed is a PATH for law abiding undocumented people that are contributing to society to have some kind of long and difficult path to legalization. Edited February 21, 2017 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, Jingthing said: Indeed, it is not rational to take a white house denial (any white house denial but ESPECIALLY trump's white house denial) as necessarily representing truth. That is why we have and MUST continue to have a FREE PRESS. As far as trump's immigration plans, there aren't many people that are against deporting undocumented violent criminals. Also there is correctly mainstream support for border security though the great ego wall of trump is obviously not necessary to do that. It's also encouraging that trump seems open to letting law abiding DREAMERS stay. But what's really needed is a PATH for law abiding undocumented people that are contributing to society to have some kind of long and difficult path to legalization. Trump's denials have about as much credibility as Putin's denials. Trump is becoming more like his hero every day. I just hope his political opponents and critics don't start dropping dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I think anti-immigration trumpists have a tendency to wildly exaggerate the views of more mainstream American's feelings about immigration. There are a few loud voices calling for open borders and instantly legalizing everyone that crosses, such as we used to do for CUBANS. They are not representative. Reasonable Americans value immigrants and the diversity they bring and realize that SCAPEGOATING them for economic stresses is irrational and hateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 On 20/02/2017 at 4:13 PM, buick said: i saw a segment on TV (that's television not thai visa !!!) about farms in the US and somewhat near the border. mexican nationals work the fields and they arrive via bus in the am and then depart by bus in the pm (back to mexico). i like that program. what i don't like much is an illegal comes over the border (whatever the nationality may be) and then has a child a couple years later. then, a bunch of people whine and cry about the illegal potentially being deported as their child is an american citizen. i think that 'law' (born is USA gives citizenship) is part of the constitution but it sure seems outdated. their needs to be a caveat of some sort, saying they must be here legally in order for that to apply. Children being entitled only to the citizenship of their parents applies in quite a few countries, including Australia and Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 2/15/2017 at 0:51 AM, smotherb said: The Obama administration chose not to enforce the law? Did you read the article, " Obama was criticized for being the "deporter in chief" after he deported over 400,000 people in 2012, more than any president in a single year. " There are 11 million illegals in the US. He didn't deport enough, and he definitely didn't uphold the law ( even though he swore on the Bible to do so- liar, liar ) in all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 7:29 PM, 55Jay said: It's not BS. It's the correct, obvious answer. The hypocrisy is from BOTH main political parties saying they'll get it done but don't. And that includes Obama, who was in an awesome position to get it (one of his campaign pledges) done and didn't. Even left leaning pundits wonder why he walked away from it. IMO, Obama didn't do it because he was owned by the rich, and they want illegal workers to exploit. That is one reason why American politics stink. Time to ban the lobbyists and stop politicians taking people's money to get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 2/19/2017 at 4:06 AM, thai3 said: If they cannot get in legally they should stay at home and not break the law, their illegal labour is not needed. The rest of your post does not make any sense. As long as Americans want cheap food illegal workers will be exploited for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: IMO, Obama didn't do it because he was owned by the rich, and they want illegal workers to exploit. That is one reason why American politics stink. Time to ban the lobbyists and stop politicians taking people's money to get elected. Agree with the sentiment. Trump went in with a handicap, a lot of it from his repetitive, self-inflicted gun shot wounds, but I believe he "could" get this done. In the mean time, his penchant for talking out of his bunghole isn't doing him any good; or anyone else for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: There are 11 million illegals in the US. He didn't deport enough, and he definitely didn't uphold the law ( even though he swore on the Bible to do so- liar, liar ) in all cases. Oh my, a flaming conservative; liar liar pants on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 11 hours ago, halloween said: Children being entitled only to the citizenship of their parents applies in quite a few countries, including Australia and Thailand. On 2/20/2017 at 0:13 PM, buick said: i saw a segment on TV (that's television not thai visa !!!) about farms in the US and somewhat near the border. mexican nationals work the fields and they arrive via bus in the am and then depart by bus in the pm (back to mexico). i like that program. what i don't like much is an illegal comes over the border (whatever the nationality may be) and then has a child a couple years later. then, a bunch of people whine and cry about the illegal potentially being deported as their child is an american citizen. i think that 'law' (born is USA gives citizenship) is part of the constitution but it sure seems outdated. their needs to be a caveat of some sort, saying they must be here legally in order for that to apply. I seriously doubt any supreme court would make that adjustment. The constitution is clear. Born the U.S. you are a citizen. END OF STORY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 20 minutes ago, Jingthing said: I seriously doubt any supreme court would make that adjustment. The constitution is clear. Born the U.S. you are a citizen. END OF STORY. So how many amendments are there? When any decision is used for purposes far from its original intent, there must be possibility for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, halloween said: So how many amendments are there? When any decision is used for purposes far from its original intent, there must be possibility for change. How do you know it wasn't the original intent? I think it was the original intent. I also think the vast majority of even conservatives that respect the constitution would also agree it was the original intent which is why I don't see any supreme court ever making such a ruling otherwise. Yes, there can be amendments but the process is very difficult and I would say unlikely for this issue. But citizens are welcome to try. Edited February 22, 2017 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Jingthing said: How do you know it wasn't the original intent? I think it was the original intent. I also think the vast majority of even conservatives that respect the constitution would also agree it was the original intent which is why I don't see any supreme court ever making such a ruling otherwise. Yes, there can be amendments but the process is very difficult and I would say unlikely for this issue. But citizens are welcome to try. What leads you to believe the original intent was for illegal immigrants to circumvent immigration law by having a child born in US territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, halloween said: What leads you to believe the original intent was for illegal immigrants to circumvent immigration law by having a child born in US territory? The original intent was clear. Born in the U.S. Instantly a citizen. Simple and without conditions. You're dreaming if you think SCOTUS would EVER go against that. BTW, if right wingers actually thought they could pass an amendment on this issue, I wonder why they haven't even tried to do that yet? My guess is that they think it would fail. BTW, there are laws in place on such matters that are constitutional. For example, many Chinese come to the U.S. to have babies so their children can have a U.S. option later. That isn't illegal. But lying on your visa application about your intent is illegal. Very few people would be against cracking down on that! Edited February 22, 2017 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Jingthing said: The original intent was clear. Born in the U.S. Instantly a citizen. Simple and without conditions. You're dreaming if you think SCOTUS would EVER go against that. BTW, if right wingers actually thought they could pass an amendment on this issue, I wonder why they haven't even tried to do that yet? My guess is that they think it would fail. BTW, there are laws in place on such matters that are constitutional. For example, many Chinese come to the U.S. to have babies so their children can have a U.S. option later. That isn't illegal. But lying on your visa application about your intent is illegal. Very few people would be against cracking down on that! Where did that intent take into account the current situation of abuse? You want to stop Chinese abusing your system, then you change the system or tolerate the abuse. Or do you agree that those Chinese children should be automatically entitled to citizenship by their parents illegal actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) I agree with better border security (a big wall not needed, can be done electronically) and screening pregnant Chinese ladies better. But for babies born in the USA, I say respect the constitution, and I'm sure SCOTUS will continue to agree. I don't think the right wing really even wants to make "anchor babies" go away. They inflate the extent of the problem for political racist reasons, almost always directed at LATINOS, and that serves their political purposes. If they managed to change the interpretation of the constitution on this, they would lose one of their big xenophobic talking points. To add, the DREAMER program has nothing to do with so called anchor babies. Dreamers are undocumented Americans brought in by their parents. They weren't born in the U.S. (in which case they would be citizens) but they were RAISED in the U.S. so are basically Americans without the paperwork. Edited February 22, 2017 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funandsuninbangkok Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 2/14/2017 at 11:11 AM, anotheruser said: I am not understanding all the outrage over rounding up illegals. Especially when a substantial amount of them had criminal records. Only 10,999,320 more to go! get on with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Latest is trump is calling for open season on undocumented with "crimes" as minor as traffic tickets. This is going to be ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Where did that intent take into account the current situation of abuse? You want to stop Chinese abusing your system, then you change the system or tolerate the abuse. Or do you agree that those Chinese children should be automatically entitled to citizenship by their parents illegal actions?One of many examples where one realises the constitution was designed a long time ago, and the present reality requires a change. But due to (partisan) politics it is almost impossible to realise those changes. It is difficult for a good reason, but IMO it is sometimes too difficult.sent using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 One of many examples where one realises the constitution was designed a long time ago, and the present reality requires a change. But due to (partisan) politics it is almost impossible to realise those changes. It is difficult for a good reason, but IMO it is sometimes too difficult.sent using TapatalkCuts both ways. Like the part about guns for a militia. They clearly didn't mean open carry in shopping malls for the mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Cuts both ways. Like the part about guns for a militia. They clearly didn't mean open carry in shopping malls for the mentally ill. Yes, totally agree.sent using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 No papers = No rights (except the most basic). Carry on Mr Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn0000 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 (edited) On 2/14/2017 at 11:11 AM, anotheruser said: I am not understanding all the outrage over rounding up illegals. Especially when a substantial amount of them had criminal records. You see no potential for outrage over breaking up a family by deporting someone for drink driving? Edited February 25, 2017 by Shawn0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn0000 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 On 2/22/2017 at 9:00 PM, JHolmesJr said: No papers = No rights (except the most basic). Carry on Mr Trump. 75% of them had papers but were deported for having committed criminal offenses, some as minor as drink driving, generally those people retain some rights, at least in the civilized world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Shawn0000 said: 75% of them had papers but were deported for having committed criminal offenses, some as minor as drink driving, generally those people retain some rights, at least in the civilized world. If you are not a citizen you serve at the pleasure of the government in power. Good behaviour as a guest in a country is a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn0000 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said: If you are not a citizen you serve at the pleasure of the government in power. Good behaviour as a guest in a country is a must. Perhaps, luckily for many an expat, Thailand does not deport drink drivers, have you ever driven in Thailand after having a drink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now