Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Immigration: have you ever thought about the actual cost?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

    How does your Trump wall stop people who fly in as tourist and decides to stay. You can count on Trump to come up with the stupidest idea for any problem like arming teachers. Of course we could ban all air travel from foreign countries. That's an idea so stupid I'm surprised Trump hasn't thought of it yet.
    To fly in takes money, a passport, and a visa. That eliminates most illegals. The ones who do come in legally but overstay are for ICE to deal with.

    ?


    • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

      To fly in takes money, a passport, and a visa. That eliminates most illegals. The ones who do come in legally but overstay are for ICE to deal with.
      No, it does not eliminate most illegal immigration. Link:
      Mexico City (CNSNews.com) Foreigners living in the U.S. after overstaying their visas are most likely to be Mexicans, and visa overstays are more common than illegal entries across the southern border, according to a report by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS).

      The report found that individuals overstaying their visas accounted for 66 percent of the undocumented people living in the U.S. who arrived in 2014.
      https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-mexicans-most

      This is typical of the immigration debate. Too many people who rely on one pitiful source (their favorite politician) for their information on the issue. Build the wall, but fix corrupt politicians as well. A single solution won't fix this problem, B. I'm starting to like that CICIG program in Guatemala even more -the group of travelling prosecuting attorneys are shipping more scumbags to the can. Wonder if they could make a stop up here in the US when they are done sending G's worst political parasites into the concrete hole.

      ?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        No, it does not eliminate most illegal immigration. Link:

        https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-mexicans-most

        This is typical of the immigration debate. Too many people who rely on one pitiful source (their favorite politician) for their information on the issue. Build the wall, but fix corrupt politicians as well. A single solution won't fix this problem, B. I'm starting to like that CICIG program in Guatemala even more -the group of travelling prosecuting attorneys are shipping more scumbags to the can. Wonder if they could make a stop up here in the US when they are done sending G's worst political parasites into the concrete hole.
        The wall is certainly not going to stop all illegals. A lot of the fly-ins that overstay are not from the south anyway, so the wall was never meant to deal with them. For sure let's deal with the corrupt politicians, like the ones in California who are doing everything they can to protect illegals and those who employ them. It is crucial that ICE be able to do its job, and it needs the cooperation of all police forces.

        ?


        • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          The wall is certainly not going to stop all illegals. A lot of the fly-ins that overstay are not from the south anyway, so the wall was never meant to deal with them. For sure let's deal with the corrupt politicians, like the ones in California who are doing everything they can to protect illegals and those who employ them. It is crucial that ICE be able to do its job, and it needs the cooperation of all police forces.
          Sure, but let's start with the truth, which is a critical tool used by law enforcement. When you claim that "A lot of the fly-ins that overstay are not from the south anyway, so the wall was never meant to deal with them", we have a "truth impaired" issue. Please read my previous post, quoting how many overstay their visas and where they originate. It's about 2/3 of currently undocumented (if the 2014 stats hold for other years), and most of them came from south of the border. When someone overstays a visa, that means they are able to drive across, through an opening or gap in a wall while presenting the visa and other documents to US Customs.

          So, in short, the wall cannot deal with that issue, but your claim that it "was never meant to deal with them" is either naive or disingenuous. Building your wall will be a "better than nothing' barrier for those attempting to cross illegally. The wall is practically useless for dealing with the majority of the undocumented (or "illegals" for Big Wall Supporters). Why? Because they fly, walk or drive right through the border area, after their documents are approved by US Customs, the organization of which ICE is included.

          ?


          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Sure, but let's start with the truth, which is a critical tool used by law enforcement. When you claim that "A lot of the fly-ins that overstay are not from the south anyway, so the wall was never meant to deal with them", we have a "truth impaired" issue. Please read my previous post, quoting how many overstay their visas and where they originate. It's about 2/3 of currently undocumented (if the 2014 stats hold for other years), and most of them came from south of the border. When someone overstays a visa, that means they are able to drive across, through an opening or gap in a wall while presenting the visa and other documents to US Customs.

            So, in short, the wall cannot deal with that issue, but your claim that it "was never meant to deal with them" is either naive or disingenuous. Building your wall will be a "better than nothing' barrier for those attempting to cross illegally. The wall is practically useless for dealing with the majority of the undocumented (or "illegals" for Big Wall Supporters). Why? Because they fly, walk or drive right through the border area, after their documents are approved by US Customs, the organization of which ICE is included.
            The article does not say that most of the overstays came from south of the border.

            When you look at the population of people who have overstayed their visas, Mexico is the leading country, said the reports co-author Robert Warren. But China and India are not that far behind when you look at numbers.

            That doesn't say that "most" came from south of the border. It say that more came from Mexico than either China or India, but more of that 2/3 could have came from China and India combined than from Mexico.

            So, the article doesn't tell us what percentage of illegals from the south are overstays who entered the country legally and would not be affected by a wall.

            "Undocumented" is just a PC euphemism for illegal. Whether they crossed the border illegally or came in legally and overstayed their visa they are in the country illegally. Their status is correctly identified as illegal.

            ?


            • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

              The article does not say that most of the overstays came from south of the border.

              When you look at the population of people who have overstayed their visas, Mexico is the leading country, said the reports co-author Robert Warren. But China and India are not that far behind when you look at numbers.

              That doesn't say that "most" came from south of the border. It say that more came from Mexico than either China or India, but more of that 2/3 could have came from China and India combined than from Mexico.

              So, the article doesn't tell us what percentage of illegals from the south are overstays who entered the country legally and would not be affected by a wall.

              "Undocumented" is just a PC euphemism for illegal. Whether they crossed the border illegally or came in legally and overstayed their visa they are in the country illegally. Their status is correctly identified as illegal.
              Let's do some math. Link:
              As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.43 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population. 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico...
              https://immigration.procon.org/view....ourceID=000845
              To get an accurate number, or percentage of the 11.5 million total residing illegally in the US as of 2012, a table is provided below a world map in this article. Add up the countries listed which are south of the border. This includes Central America and Ecuador, in addition to Mexico. That is 74% of the total, from around the world. We can conclude that most of the overstays come from south of the border.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                Let's do some math. Link:
                https://immigration.procon.org/view....ourceID=000845
                To get an accurate number, or percentage of the 11.5 million total residing illegally in the US as of 2012, a table is provided below a world map in this article. Add up the countries listed which are south of the border. This includes Central America and Ecuador, in addition to Mexico. That is 74% of the total, from around the world. We can conclude that most of the overstays come from south of the border.
                I can't get to your link. I get this This site cant provide a secure connection

                ?


                • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  I can't get to your link. I get this This site cant provide a secure connection
                  T he link worked for me. A quick look through the list of jobs being grabbed up by illegals are not what I would be considered anyone's dream job. Except for Brexx who has dreamed of becoming a grape picker his whole life.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    T he link worked for me. A quick look through the list of jobs being grabbed up by illegals are not what I would be considered anyone's dream job. Except for Brexx who has dreamed of becoming a grape picker his whole life.
                    Grape picking is woman's work. The thing is why do the grape pickers need to be illegals? We can bring in all the grape pickers we need legally.

                    ?



                    • It's time to start arresting these people who are aiding criminals. There is simply no excuse for it.

                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      On Saturday, the liberal mayor of Oakland Libby Schaaf took to Twitter to warn illegal immigrants that multiple credible sources told her Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland."

                      As a result of the Oakland mayor's illegal acts only 150 criminals were arrested. Countless criminal aliens ran and hid throughout the state of California. This mayor of Oakland collaborated with criminals, with drug dealers and let them escape before ICE could arrest them. For this reason, I call upon the Department of Justice to arrest the mayor of Oakland for charges of aiding and abetting criminals.

                      ICE was not coming to arrest the ordinary, hard-working immigrant legal or illegal; their intent was to arrest those who had committed felonies and were on watch lists of various jurisdictions. After this warning, agents went around the state knocking on doors, detaining people on these watch lists. These were not ordinary bus boys or gardeners; they were criminals. These are the same people who killed Kate Steinle, who drive drunk, who deal drugs. The people who smuggle drugs and this liberal mayor took unprecedented measures to warn them. Now of course, Mayor Libby Schaaf says she was trying to protect families. She couched her criminality with liberalism, saying that she was trying to keep families together. That's the standard line for liberals. It's always about children, isn't it?


                      [ that's always one of the lies they use to cover the crimes they commit against America ]

                      ICE director Thomas Homan said what the mayor did was no better than what a gang member would have done playing lookout. She blew the whistle on a federal operation that was coming for these criminals. Schaaf violated federal law. What she did was endanger ICE officers. She alerted criminal targets, a reckless action based on her left-wing fanaticism and a political agenda. Now, her actions will lead to the escape of felons that could result in robberies, rape, or murder.

                      If they do not arrest this rogue mayor, the Department of Justice is sending a statement out to the world that it is acceptable to break the law in California.


                      [ that's nothing new. Par for the course in Cali. ]


                      https://www.newsmax.com/michaelsavag.../01/id/846204/

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        Grape picking is woman's work. The thing is why do the grape pickers need to be illegals? We can bring in all the grape pickers we need legally.
                        Actually we can't. The demographics are against it You white guys just don't raise enough grape pickers these days to meet demand.the fertility rate not there.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                          Actually we can't. The demographics are against it You white guys just don't raise enough grape pickers these days to meet demand.the fertility rate not there.
                          I said we can bring in legally all the grape pickers and such that are required.

                          ?


                          • Some folks in California are very pissed off at their politicians who protect illegal immigrants, even criminal ones.


                            The fallout continues over Oakland's Democratic mayor's decision to warn illegal immigrants about an impending raid by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Not only has she received harsh criticism from federal officials, but now the family members of victims of crimes by illegal immigrants are speaking out.

                            Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son was killed in 2008 by illegal immigrant Pedro Espinoza, did not mince his words while speaking with Fox & Friends.

                            Shaw said Mayor Libby Schaaf's behavior was disgusting and she now has blood on her hands.

                            You know, it was just disgusting. Her job is to protect the citizens, the American citizens, you know. And for her to take a stand like that, shes allowing Americans to be murdered, he said.

                            She has blood on her hands because she could have easily just let them go into the jail system and capture those criminals, but she allowed them to come out, and then for people to be murdered and raped and robbed and identity theft; thats all on her and people like her.

                            Win McNamee/Getty Images

                            When asked what Shaaf should be prosecuted for, Shaw had a list of exactly what ready at hand.

                            For aiding and abetting, for putting our lives in danger, Shaw replied. Right now, youre hearing everybody demanding to be safe in their schools and their communities. When our kids are murdered, and we demand to be safe, were all racists and were all bigots, and because Trump supports us, were all bad people.

                            But when their kids are dead, theyre all of a sudden shutting down the city and they want all these gun laws and stuff like that. The guy who killed my son was on his third gun charge. But they dont care if illegal aliens carry guns and kill our kids, he added.


                            https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/03/1076...-on-her-hands/

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                              Some folks in California are very pissed off at their politicians who protect illegal immigrants, even criminal ones.


                              The fallout continues over Oakland's Democratic mayor's decision to warn illegal immigrants about an impending raid by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Not only has she received harsh criticism from federal officials, but now the family members of victims of crimes by illegal immigrants are speaking out.

                              Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son was killed in 2008 by illegal immigrant Pedro Espinoza, did not mince his words while speaking with Fox & Friends.

                              Shaw said Mayor Libby Schaaf's behavior was disgusting and she now has blood on her hands.

                              You know, it was just disgusting. Her job is to protect the citizens, the American citizens, you know. And for her to take a stand like that, shes allowing Americans to be murdered, he said.

                              She has blood on her hands because she could have easily just let them go into the jail system and capture those criminals, but she allowed them to come out, and then for people to be murdered and raped and robbed and identity theft; thats all on her and people like her.

                              Win McNamee/Getty Images

                              When asked what Shaaf should be prosecuted for, Shaw had a list of exactly what ready at hand.

                              For aiding and abetting, for putting our lives in danger, Shaw replied. Right now, youre hearing everybody demanding to be safe in their schools and their communities. When our kids are murdered, and we demand to be safe, were all racists and were all bigots, and because Trump supports us, were all bad people.

                              But when their kids are dead, theyre all of a sudden shutting down the city and they want all these gun laws and stuff like that. The guy who killed my son was on his third gun charge. But they dont care if illegal aliens carry guns and kill our kids, he added.


                              https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/03/1076...-on-her-hands/
                              Who doesn't care that illegal immigrants are carrying guns? How about some direct quotes from people saying I am not at all bothered by illegal immigrants toting guns. I have an idea lets take guns away from everyone. I realize that violates your second amendment right to shoot school children.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                                Who doesn't care that illegal immigrants are carrying guns? How about some direct quotes from people saying I am not at all bothered by illegal immigrants toting guns. I have an idea lets take guns away from everyone. I realize that violates your second amendment right to shoot school children.
                                The man who said that was referring to the fact that the illegal who killed his son had three gun charges against him but was still free and still in the country.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X