Chris Christie

[natstew]

 Chris Christie says he'll reconsider due to the number of people calling for him to jump in the race.
 I think he'll be in the race by Monday night, jump to the top, then it depends on what we learn about his political ideology. I've heard he leans left of center. The American people are right of center.

We'll see..............

[jafo2010]

I read somewhere that Christie is soft on ILLEGAL ALIENS in the USA....and if that is true.......He is not my candidate!!!

Best not run if that is the case, because the economy and jobs are the number one issue in this election.....and no one will vote for a candidate soft in the head on ILLEGAL ALIENS>

I want EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN deported.....and I am a 100% believer in LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

We are a country of laws, and everyone coming to this country should understand there is no exception for those whose first act on USA soil is to break the law.

NO EXCEPTION!

If we fine employers $1,000 per day per ILLEGAL ALIEN, they all go home on their own steam.

We also need to amend the Constitution and eliminate the anchor baby B*LLSH*T!

[JohnBrowdie]

deporting every illegal in the country is a metaphysical and financial impossibility.  that's why control of the borders is so important.

and turning employers into agents of the state is not only not conservative, it's unamerican.  you want 7-11 to be an enforcement agency?  what about bob's roofing company?  who prosecutes the violators, the federal government?  when you have a hyper liberal administration in office, and they only prosecute companies that support republicans (see: gibson guitars), are you prepared to live with that?

that's just an utterly unworkable idea.  in fact, it's not an idea at all, it's a reflex.

I read somewhere that Christie is soft on ILLEGAL ALIENS in the USA....and if that is true.......He is not my candidate!!!

Best not run if that is the case, because the economy and jobs are the number one issue in this election.....and no one will vote for a candidate soft in the head on ILLEGAL ALIENS>

I want EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN deported.....and I am a 100% believer in LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

We are a country of laws, and everyone coming to this country should understand there is no exception for those whose first act on USA soil is to break the law.

NO EXCEPTION!

If we fine employers $1,000 per day per ILLEGAL ALIEN, they all go home on their own steam.

We also need to amend the Constitution and eliminate the anchor baby B*LLSH*T!

[GeronL]

I am so tired of those who claim to be anti-illegal immigrant but are...

1. opposed to a border wall.

2. opposed to deporting.

3. opposed to cutting off the benefits.

If you oppose all of this, you are in no way anti-illegal

[JohnBrowdie]

the uncomfortable truth of the matter is that deporting every.single.illegal would require the creation of the type of central government that neither of us would be comfortable with.

I am totally in support of measures such as SB1070, which would have the effect of massively increased and accelerated deportation, but creating a federal law with a stated goal of finding, detaining, and deporting every illegal in the country would require measures that I simply can't abide.  I like my liberty too much, and care more about not having to prove my citizenship 50 times a day  -- and make no mistake, that is exactly what it would require -- than I do about not getting the remaining 30% of the illegals back across the border.

much more prudent : seal the border, and pass an SB1070-like bill in every state.  sooner or later, you will get virtually all of them.  but the whole notion of every.single.one sacrifices more than I am willing to lose.

I am so tired of those who claim to be anti-illegal immigrant but are...

1. opposed to a border wall.

2. opposed to deporting.

3. opposed to cutting off the benefits.

If you oppose all of this, you are in no way anti-illegal

[natstew]

deporting every illegal in the country is a metaphysical and financial impossibility.  that's why control of the borders is so important.

and turning employers into agents of the state is not only not conservative, it's unamerican.  you want 7-11 to be an enforcement agency?  what about bob's roofing company?  who prosecutes the violators, the federal government?  when you have a hyper liberal administration in office, and they only prosecute companies that support republicans (see: gibson guitars), are you prepared to live with that?

that's just an utterly unworkable idea.  in fact, it's not an idea at all, it's a reflex.

Employers are already agents of the State by that reasoning. They already collect taxes for the State. (local, state, and Federal) They are regulated by so many laws they have to hire a CPA to operate legally. One check of an employee's SS number to find out if they are legal is minute (as in very small) compared to what they already have to do to operate legally.

[Miss Mia]

Employers are already agents of the State by that reasoning. They already collect taxes for the State. (local, state, and Federal) They are regulated by so many laws they have to hire a CPA to operate legally. One check of an employee's SS number to find out if they are legal is minute (as in very small) compared to what they already have to do to operate legally.

I don't understand the objections to using E-Verify.  When a new employee is hired you're supposed to fill out an I-9 form already - you know when you presented your Driver's License & Social Security, though other forms of identification are allowable as well.  Now, when I worked at the car dealership I know there was a folder with all current employees I-9 and the copy of whatever identification was given. 

E-Verify is free to employers and only takes another minute to actually check that the identification through the system. 

[natstew]

I don't understand the objections to using E-Verify.  When a new employee is hired you're supposed to fill out an I-9 form already - you know when you presented your Driver's License & Social Security, though other forms of identification are allowable as well.  Now, when I worked at the car dealership I know there was a folder with all current employees I-9 and the copy of whatever identification was given. 

E-Verify is free to employers and only takes another minute to actually check that the identification through the system. 

I'm in total agreement

[JohnBrowdie]

there is a massive difference between e-verify and/or I-9's and placing the primary responsibility for policing and controlling illegal aliens on every employer in the country, and THAT is what was described upstream in this thread.

it's so different in degree that it is different in kind.

[JohnBrowdie]

not to mention the fact that the reason this administration wants to put the burden of deporting illegal aliens on someone else is so they can deny that it was them during the next election --- the hispanic vote being critical to their survival . . .

[natstew]

the uncomfortable truth of the matter is that deporting every.single.illegal would require the creation of the type of central government that neither of us would be comfortable with.

I am totally in support of measures such as SB1070, which would have the effect of massively increased and accelerated deportation, but creating a federal law with a stated goal of finding, detaining, and deporting every illegal in the country would require measures that I simply can't abide.  I like my liberty too much, and care more about not having to prove my citizenship 50 times a day  -- and make no mistake, that is exactly what it would require -- than I do about not getting the remaining 30% of the illegals back across the border.

much more prudent : seal the border, and pass an SB1070-like bill in every state.  sooner or later, you will get virtually all of them.  but the whole notion of every.single.one sacrifices more than I am willing to lose.

So, if we don't think we can find all illegals we shouldn't even try? We can't find and jail all murderers so we shouldn't even try? Same with all rapist, robbers, burgulars, child motesters, etc........


From your post I'd think maybe you're using illegal labor No one's sayin the employers should arrest them and transport them back to the border. Just effin use e-verify and don't hire them if they are not on the legal list.

[GeronL]

natstew starting to sound like me,  , scary

 

SE Cupp thinks Christie is a conservative. Strange.

[JohnBrowdie]

you're arguing my point.  if we burden law enforcement to the point that it could round up every single illegal in the country, then there would be no one left to catch the rapists, robbers, murderers, child molesters, & etc.  not unless we created a central government with the sort of awesome authority that real conservatives couldn't live with.

also, your crime comparison falls further apart because we put murderers in jail, and they don't generally get out the next day and commit the very same offense.

and, mind you, my argument was to seal the border, and then, sooner rather than later, reasonably stepped up immigration enforcement from existing law enforcement agencies will round them all up.

the point is that my argument gets there faster than yours, and requires no further expansion of governmental authority.

mine is the conservative approach.  yours is reactionary.  there is a significant difference.

So, if we don't think we can find all illegals we shouldn't even try? We can't find and jail all murderers so we shouldn't even try? Same with all rapist, robbers, burgulars, child motesters, etc........


From your post I'd think maybe you're using illegal labor No one's sayin the employers should arrest them and transport them back to the border. Just effin use e-verify and don't hire them if they are not on the legal list.

[GeronL]

Simply cutting off their bennies rerquires LESS government. 

When do we start?

[JohnBrowdie]

tomorrow, for all I care.  but if "anchor babies" are, by federal law (right or wrong), citizens, then what are the options?

Simply cutting off their bennies rerquires LESS government. 

When do we start?