This is a great site:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/prog...gration-trends
Seems migration patterns have ebbed and flowed.
|
This is a great site:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/prog...gration-trends
Seems migration patterns have ebbed and flowed.
I don't care about migrant patterns from the past . All I ask is that immigration law gets enforced . You want to change the law ? Let's discuss. That is why I have been asking what level of enforcement of the border would you accept IF you are not an open border person. I don't believe most progressives have any level of enforcement that they find acceptable . That is why they designate their towns ,cities ,States "sanctuary" . Let's have it . If there are MS13 members in the caravan should they be let in ? If there are child sex traffickers in the group should they be let in ? If Jimmy Morales decided to empty his prisons like Castro did during the Mariel boat lift should they be let in ?
If they are coming here and their claim is asylum and in fact they are coming here for the economic opportunity then they are not entitled to asylum status . That is just the way it is . My ancestors came here legally under whatever law at the time applied .
Mine did too during the mid 1800s. There were very few immigration laws back then.Quote:
My ancestors came here legally under whatever law at the time applied .
P.S. That's a terrific site, Tal!
Most of mine did too, but some didn't want to come, but chains are pretty convincing.Quote:
My ancestors came here legally under whatever law at the time applied .
https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-a-new-reality
Quote:
Many people assume that their family immigrated to the United States legally, or did it “the right way.” In most cases, this statement does not reflect the fact that the U.S. immigration system was very different in the past and that their families might not have been allowed to enter had today’s laws been in effect. When many families arrived in the United States, there were no numerical limitations on immigration, no requirements to have an existing family or employment relationship with someone in the country, and no requirement to obtain a visa prior to arriving. The definition of who is “legal”—and who is not—changes with the evolution of immigration laws. In some cases, claiming that a family came “legally” is simply inaccurate—unauthorized immigration has been a reality for generations.
like I said . They came here legally under the law of the land at the time . I have no interest in the law of the past . I want the laws of today enforced .
Me too! You can unlock these damn chains now!
The only chains on now are the self-inflicted ones.Quote:
Me too! You can unlock these damn chains now!
Show me yours I will show you mine but don't be offended if I don't take your word for it.
This is what my ancestors caravan looked like, as they came to America legally, respectfully, and were processed, vetted, given medical examinations and registered at a very orderly Ellis Island:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqiZXMAX0AESPPB.jpg
Nice pic but what's your point?
They did not come in a mile long mob brandishing their native flag . That's what invaders do. They have been offered asylum in Mexico . Why haven't they taken up that offer ?
As of today . Mueller has yet to charge a Trump associate with anything resembling election interference . I doubt that his charge against Concord will stand up either . Judge may dismiss outright. But then again Mueller never really thought this case would go to trial .He thought the Russians would be a no show .
What a load of, how would you describe it? B/S,
Some very well might eventually but Euros immigrated under some very different circumstances to be sure, to this Euro dominated land. You weren't worried about being deported because you had peeps here already.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I got two words for ya' PLEA BARGAIN. They ALL take it on the condition of cooperation with the Mueller team. Gates faced similar charges that Manafort did, and PM has already been CONVICTED. Let Concord fight the charges against them, they can afford it, and are innocent until proved guilty. We will see what happens after silly season is over, and the states get their shots in.Quote:
As of today . Mueller has yet to charge a Trump associate with anything resembling election interference . I doubt that his charge against Concord will stand up either . Judge may dismiss outright. But then again Mueller never really thought this case would go to trial .He thought the Russians would be a no show .
Mueller isn't the only investigation going.
"Mueller isn't the only investigation going."
Yep. Maybe some day he will actually come up with some evidence against Trump.
Yeah, I guess nailing Russians means nothing. Nailing dufus campaign workers means NOTHING.
Basically, that's right. No evidence against Trump means no evidence against Trump. You democrats kind of struggle with that "evidence" thing.
There was no evidence against anyone until they found it through a well run investigation... which is ongoing.
But none against Trump. None. Zero. Nada. After 18 months and millions of dollars, nothing.
Ask Trey Gowdy about his years of investigations that resulted in millions of taxpayers dollars with NO results. At least Mueller banked 46 million confiscating Manafort's ill gotten gains. That should cover expenses rather nicely, as we await to find out if the dufus is implicated in conspiracy, obstruction or criminal activities, or NOT!
You can't say Mueller has nothing until he says he has NOTHING!
Indeed.Quote:
as we await
https://vtdigger.org/2018/10/31/verm...smear-mueller/
I know you hate smearing a good mans reputation JL, so I thought this would interest you.
Check out
http://sportspeedia.com/
I have no sympathy for those who smear Mueller, even though I do fault him for selecting a staff almost completely composed of left wing investigators. Still, let the man do his job. If I did smear him, I would be like the pathetic demos who smeared Kavanaugh with no evidence at all. Remember how critical you were of them? No, wait. Actually, you were not critical at all.
It's all about politics, and not about honor.
Welcome aboard, Sharm!!
I never smeared Kavanaugh, but I blasted the repubs for the way they handled things. I have little doubt they limited the scope of that sham investigation though it wasn't surprising at all. However the deed is done isn't it?
Quote:
Maybe dude was a party animal and a drunk and did a lot of stupid stuff back in the day, but you cannot ignore he may have traumatized a few people along the way with bad behavior, even if he can't remember or even cares.
No, you didn't smear him. Not you. Right.Quote:
Wonder who the next woman to come out will be to smear the GOP virgin golden boy's sterling reputation (When he wasn't incoherently DRUNK that is)?
That wasn't a smear, it was a commentary based on anecdotal testimony of people he went to school with, or his own words. Were there links supplied? I'm sure there was, with highlights in quotes as well. Unlike the dufus and his sycophants who just plain lie and corrupt the whole system. The Mueller investigation continues seemingly with Roger Stone as his next target.
It always amuses me how you redefine terms to make it more convenient for you. There was no evidence the man was guilty, yet you said, "even if he can't remember or even cares." So you claimed the man did not care with no evidence at all to support that. That is what is known to practically everyone as a "smear".Quote:
That wasn't a smear, it was a commentary based on anecdotal testimony of people he went to school with
I redefined NOTHING. Surely you are not saying he wasn't a hard drinking teen who did some dumb stuff, and evolved into a hard drinking frat boy? By definition a smear is a FALSE accusation. I said nothing false.
You said he didn't care. That is a false accusation for which you have no evidence.
"You believe Kavanaugh had a beer after the game? Probably had a case before and during."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you are going to parse my words please include the qualifiers like probably... maybe... may have... even if... or! Or is it my Texas accent via Indiana that throws you off.Quote:
Maybe dude was a party animal and a drunk and did a lot of stupid stuff back in the day, but you cannot ignore he may have traumatized a few people along the way with bad behavior, even if he can't rememberor even cares.
I'm also qualified to evaluate drunks and addicts by the way.
PS.
Sorry I am not as qualified to evaluate your project pictures, but you seem to have done good so far without my help. Very nice fence surrounding your deck/porch. You have great skills.
Thanks. I just go REAL slow and try to think it all out carefully.Quote:
Sorry I am not as qualified to evaluate your project pictures, but you seem to have done good so far without my help. Very nice fence surrounding your deck/porch. You have great skills.
I don't think you engaged is some great smear of Kavanaugh, but neither did you stand up for him and acknowledge that the "evidence" against him was flimsy.
I could not after hearing the ALLEGATION against him which was CREDIBLE enough for a full investigation. The investigation in my opinion, was not extensive so it was not a credible investigation to find evidence. A statement of innocence is not evidence, more so an allegation isn't either. This was no court case so the standards are much lower than in a court of law, but a preponderance of the circumstantial admittedly anecdotal evidence far outweighed Kavanaugh's statements in my mind, but the kicker for me was my having prior knowledge of Kavanaugh's statements regarding past incidences with his mentor/sponsor and previous congressional interviews made the possibility of deception for whatever reason more likelier than a confused accusers (Ms. Ford) allegation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That in no way precludes, despite his admitted and proven history as a youth and college guy, that he turned himself around and got on a more responsible path. I must point out though the specter of deception was while he was an adult professional. In addition his impassioned rant at the opening of his statement before the most recent senate judicial committee hearing was so filled with innuendo of conspiracy and revenge on his part that he turned me completely off by showing me a less than savory side for one being interviewed for such high office as SCOTUS. A great dufus imitation, but a nail in his coffin for me.
Bottom line is the CREDIBILITY of the senate investigation by the FBI sucked! I cannot in good conscious support any of this surrounding this nominee. The evidence of Kavanaugh's veracity left me wanting in to big of a way. Hope that explains my point of view.
This is all you need to know about the Kavenaugh hearing .
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...enclosures.pdf
And that means ALL the other testimonies they investigated are false?
Hello again,
Here's my uninformed prognostication.. As soon as practical after the midterm, Trump will FIRE Jeff Sessions, and FORCE Ron Rosenstien to resign.. That effectively passes the responsibility for the investigation to the Solicitor General, who is a Trump ally, and he'll KILL the investigation..
Mueller, knowing that he's gonna be nuetered, will file a boatload of indictments and/or subpoenas on Tuesday or Wednesday..
Or, the investigation gets burried, and Trump gets away with it all.. And, my beloved country will be resigned to the dustbin of history..
excon
Or, the truth comes out which is there is nothing to the allegations. Now liberals kind of have a problem with accepting that an accusation is not the same as proof. Check out the Kavanaugh hearings to see evidence of that.
Just amazing. Turns out that she lied for political purposes. That will come as a shock to some on this board. It's why that nagging little thing called "evidence" is kind of important.Quote:
This is all you need to know about the Kavenaugh hearing .
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...enclosures.pdf
Everybody included Ms. Ford called for an investigation and what we got was a complete SHAM only the stupid would fall for. That's okay, take your judge pick, for now. Enjoy it while it lasts.
We got an investigation which revealed that Dr. Ford's witnesses disputed her account. Not a single person was found to lend credibility to her story. Again, you are being led by your hatred of Mr. Trump. It is the same brand of politics practiced by the birthers, except that they at least had some small amount of evidence. You have none.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 AM. |