Thread: Trump: I'll have 11 million illegals gone in 2 years

Judy the link you have is only a link to a brief summary from Santorum's web site not a full policy position for Santorum. I would suggest you review his NPC Immigration Policy news conference for starters to even attempt to compare apples to apples. http://www.press.org/news-multimedia...-rick-santorum Beyond that I will put Santorum's expertise on the issue up against Trump any day, so who is Trump to listen to in the White House? Santorum has the expertise on Immigration to know what is BS and what is not, as well as the expertise in most every other issue. Beyond that I would put my trust in Santorum any day, he has been consistent, thorough, steadfast, and hits the issues head on for years not by playing games. I'll go with the Pro not a Beginner who has just evolved on the issue, Santorum says what he believes and his word is one that can be trusted, he is a Man of his Word. WE (you and I don't know that about Trump) especially in light of his unexplained Touch Back Amnesty Talk.

To Goldenaze: Interpret Trump's strategy as you wish but I take him at his word and his word is consistent with Amnesty and a Touchback Policy not a Gimmick or a Ploy to Trick American Society to go along with him by using another Gimmick on a Gimmick to Trick the American People into thinking he is not actually doing Amnesty as you would describe his trick on a trick. If your idea of Trump's strategy is correct Trumps not what I'd call honest or trustworthy to his word. I'll take the Person I can trust not to deceive me and who will still do the job. By the way go to Trumps website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ and click Positions, his only Position is on Immigration, so are we just to Trust somebody (who you say is tricking us) on every other issue out there. That Position Page tells me one thing exactly Trump is running just on the issue of Immigration because there are plenty of people willing to just trust him regardless, not me and not with my Country. Goldenaze I'd challenge you to listen to Santorum for as many hours of viewing as you have Donald Trump and you would really find sincere and an unwavering message by somebody who really knows the issues inside and out and who is true to his word and to the American Citizens and Worker's future not to some special interest.

Originally Posted by United States First

Judy the link you have is only a link to a brief summary from Santorum's web site not a full policy position for Santorum. I would suggest you review his NPC Immigration Policy news conference for starters to even attempt to compare apples to apples. http://www.press.org/news-multimedia...-rick-santorum Beyond that I will put Santorum's expertise on the issue up against Trump any day, so who is Trump to listen to in the White House? Santorum has the expertise on Immigration to know what is BS and what is not, as well as the expertise in most every other issue. Beyond that I would put my trust in Santorum any day, he has been consistent, thorough, steadfast, and hits the issues head on for years not by playing games. I'll go with the Pro not a Beginner who has just evolved on the issue, Santorum says what he believes and his word is one that can be trusted, he is a Man of his Word. WE (you and I don't know that about Trump) especially in light of his unexplained Touch Back Amnesty Talk. To Goldenaze you interpret Trump's strategy as you wish but I take him at his word and his word is consistent with Amnesty and a Touchback Policy not a Gimmick or a Ploy to Trick American Society by using another Gimmick to Trick the American People into thinking he is not actually doing Amnesty as you would describe his trick on a trick. If your idea of Trump's strategy is correct Trumps not what I'd call honest or trustworthy to his word. I'll take the Person I can trust not to deceive me and who will still do the job. By the way go to Trumps website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ and click Positions, his only Position is on Immigration, so are we just to Trust somebody who you say is tricking us on every other issue out there. Well just trust in Trump on Everything regardless of the issue. That Position Page tells me one thing exactly Trump is running on the issue of Immigration because there are plenty of people willing to just trust him regardless, not me and not with my Country. Also Goldenaze I'd challenge you to listen to Santorum for as many hours of viewing as you have Donald Trump and you would really find sincere and an unwavering message by somebody who really knows the issues inside and out and who is true to his word and the American Citizens and worker as his primary concern not some special interest.

I'm very familiar with Rick Santorum. This isn't the first time he's run for President, and I was familiar with him when he was a US Senator in Pennsylvania. There's no problem with you or anyone else supporting Rick Santorum.

Thanks Judy right back at you.

Originally Posted by United States First

Judy the link you have is only a link to a brief summary from Santorum's web site not a full policy position for Santorum. I would suggest you review his NPC Immigration Policy news conference for starters to even attempt to compare apples to apples. http://www.press.org/news-multimedia...-rick-santorum Beyond that I will put Santorum's expertise on the issue up against Trump any day, so who is Trump to listen to in the White House? Santorum has the expertise on Immigration to know what is BS and what is not, as well as the expertise in most every other issue. Beyond that I would put my trust in Santorum any day, he has been consistent, thorough, steadfast, and hits the issues head on for years not by playing games. I'll go with the Pro not a Beginner who has just evolved on the issue, Santorum says what he believes and his word is one that can be trusted, he is a Man of his Word. WE (you and I don't know that about Trump) especially in light of his unexplained Touch Back Amnesty Talk.

To Goldenaze: Interpret Trump's strategy as you wish but I take him at his word and his word is consistent with Amnesty and a Touchback Policy not a Gimmick or a Ploy to Trick American Society to go along with him by using another Gimmick on a Gimmick to Trick the American People into thinking he is not actually doing Amnesty as you would describe his trick on a trick. If your idea of Trump's strategy is correct Trumps not what I'd call honest or trustworthy to his word. I'll take the Person I can trust not to deceive me and who will still do the job. By the way go to Trumps website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ and click Positions, his only Position is on Immigration, so are we just to Trust somebody (who you say is tricking us) on every other issue out there. That Position Page tells me one thing exactly Trump is running just on the issue of Immigration because there are plenty of people willing to just trust him regardless, not me and not with my Country. Goldenaze I'd challenge you to listen to Santorum for as many hours of viewing as you have Donald Trump and you would really find sincere and an unwavering message by somebody who really knows the issues inside and out and who is true to his word and to the American Citizens and Worker's future not to some special interest.

My interpretation of Trump never included the word "tricking" or "trick". I took the time to quote your words accurately and would appreciate the same consideration from you in the future as opposed to putting words in my mouth.

I have made no attacks on your preferred candidate Santorum, but you seem to take an offensive position with my preferred candidate. I like the conservative views of Santorum very much. When Santorum was asked if he'd deport illegals that have legal (legal depending on how the 14th amendment is viewed) children, he said yes. Just as Trump has said. Santorum has vowed to with hold Federal funds from sanctuary cities. Just as Trump has said. Santorum is in favor of mandatory e-verify. Just as Trump is. Sadly though, Santorum is favored in polls at less than 2%. Not like Trump who is at 32%.

The contents of threads and forums on the ALIPAC site are dedicated to immigration. Any other topics or issues should be directed elsewhere. The fact that Trump's site has only one policy, at this time, is irrelevant. I hold a strong position on public indoor smoking bans. I believe in freedom and capitalism. I am against any government entity be it local, state or federal, dictating any business owner's policies. If a restaurant, airline, barbershop, hospital, hotel or wherever decides to allow indoor smoking and that business thrives or fails due to the populous, then so be it. Capitalism at its finest. The ban on smoking has opened the doors for government to seek bans on what and how much one can drink and eat (NYC's attempts to ban trans fat and sugar drinks). Hello George Orwell's 1984. Oops, the movie included many scenes of the oppressed smoking cigarettes. Churchill and FDR smoked tobacco, Hitler banned it. The war was won in part from discussions in what was dubbed "the smoke filled room". And let's not forget that Jamestown owes its success to tobacco. One may throw John Wayne and Lucille Ball at me, and to that I respond with Sinatra and Don Adams whom both smoked intensely and lived into their 80's. JFK smoked and did not die of any tobacco related diseases. True Christians know that when your work is done on Earth, our Lord will take you. Have faith, have a Marlboro. As you can see, the issue is close to my heart. No candidate currently running has brought this issue of the pursuit of happiness to the table. But as I've tried to convey, the freedom of smoking is not appropriate for this site. USF, after reading Trump's written policy and disregarding any candid remarks made to the media on immigration alone, and with his surging poll approval (vs. Santorum's almost non-existent approval) who would you vote for? Rubio? Bush? Carson? Clinton?

"Stop the invasion with mass deportation"

I hold a strong position on public indoor smoking bans. I believe in freedom and capitalism. I am against any government entity be it local, state or federal, dictating any business owner's policies. If a restaurant, airline, barbershop, hospital, hotel or wherever decides to allow indoor smoking and that business thrives or fails due to the populous, then so be it. Capitalism at its finest. The ban on smoking has opened the doors for government to seek bans on what and how much one can drink and eat (NYC's attempts to ban trans fat and sugar drinks).

Have faith, have a Marlboro.

I AGREE 100%! These people who want these smoking bans by law have ruined everything! It is no fun to go out any more. And guess what? When the smokers don't want to go out, guess what?! NO ONE GOES OUT. Look at all the restaurants and bars that open one day and close the next. Look at their menu prices, they can't drop them low enough to survive off the "non-smokers".

The solution to cigarette smoke bothering others in the restaurant is hidden within EPA regulations, which all the restaurants and office buildings are violating, because they're trying to save money on ambient air circulation which costs them a little more in utility costs, but the advantage is cleaner air to breathe for everyone plus the fans pull the cigarette smoke up and out so it doesn't bother anyone else in the restaurant, store or office building. Cigarette smoke is like the canary in the coal mine, if it's not being pulled out, then you know you're breathing recirculated dirty, filthy air, because the establishment owners aren't running the fans to the proper safe air standards set by EPA, and when they aren't running the fans, whether you have smokers or not, you're breathing in toxins and bacteria that make you sick.

Originally Posted by Judy

I AGREE 100%! These people who want these smoking bans by law have ruined everything! It is no fun to go out any more. And guess what? When the smokers don't want to go out, guess what?! NO ONE GOES OUT. Look at all the restaurants and bars that open one day and close the next. Look at their menu prices, they can't drop them low enough to survive off the "non-smokers".

The solution to cigarette smoke bothering others in the restaurant is hidden within EPA regulations, which all the restaurants and office buildings are violating, because they're trying to save money on ambient air circulation which costs them a little more in utility costs, but the advantage is cleaner air to breathe for everyone plus the fans pull the cigarette smoke up and out so it doesn't bother anyone else in the restaurant, store or office building. Cigarette smoke is like the canary in the coal mine, if it's not being pulled out, then you know you're breathing recirculated dirty, filthy air, because the establishment owners aren't running the fans to the proper safe air standards set by EPA, and when they aren't running the fans, whether you have smokers or not, you're breathing in toxins and bacteria that make you sick.

Judy you are a wonderful, reasonable and passionate woman. Before the bans of 2006 in my area, I was on top of the world having a ball. Many office buildings had designated indoor smoking break rooms, hospitals had designated, covered outdoor smoking areas and restaurants and bars offered recirculated air smoke eaters. There used to even be a few transatlantic flights that allowed smoking on the plane. What a wonderful world, what a wonderful time. Hence "Goldendaze".
I'd like to make mention though that even if an establishment does not participate with air re-circulation machines, whiny patrons have the freedom to chose not to support the establishment or to be content to sit on the rusty chairs of the outdoor deck. It's all about choice, not force!

I must now digress. I've strayed from the intended topic of removing 11 million immigrants in 2 years or less.

Wait! I can tie this to illegal immigration! It burns me up to know that my bus boy whom can't speak a lick of English is allowed in a place where my cultural traditions are banned! HA!

But thank you Judy. Today, I feel less alone.

"Stop the invasion with mass deportation"

-and just this once..."Smoke 'em if you got 'em"

Yes, it was a wonderful time. I miss it terribly. So has asthma gone down? No. Have health costs gone down? No. It was all a lie. The 70's were the best decade, and it's been going downhill ever since.

Dec., 2010 - By request of several Senators, the DHS found: ICE would require a budget of about $135 BILLION to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire ILLEGAL alien population.

July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) held a study on costs of ILLEGAL aliens. Results showed states and locals doled out $84.2 BILLION ANNUALLY; feds spent $29 BILLION more in various services, schools, social services, law enforcement, etc., with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 BILLION on ILLEGAL aliens every year.
So, a one-time fee of about $135 BILLION to deport every single ILLEGAL alien in the country is actually a bargain considering that it already costs $113 BILLION for just ONE year to keep them here.
Trump says TWO years to get rid of ALL ILLEGAL aliens; a raging bargain indeed, not to mention the 4,000 lives saved, and 14,000 more not molested or abused.

Originally Posted by The Old Chip

Dec., 2010 - By request of several Senators, the DHS found: ICE would require a budget of about $135 BILLION to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire ILLEGAL alien population.

July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) held a study on costs of ILLEGAL aliens. Results showed states and locals doled out $84.2 BILLION ANNUALLY; feds spent $29 BILLION more in various services, schools, social services, law enforcement, etc., with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 BILLION on ILLEGAL aliens every year.
So, a one-time fee of about $135 BILLION to deport every single ILLEGAL alien in the country is actually a bargain considering that it already costs $113 BILLION for just ONE year to keep them here.
Trump says TWO years to get rid of ALL ILLEGAL aliens; a raging bargain indeed, not to mention the 4,000 lives saved, and 14,000 more not molested or abused.

If we authorize state and local law enforcement to enforce US immigration law as Trey Gowdy's bill HR 1148 does, we don't even need that much of an increase in the ICE budget. State and local law enforcement are already paid by states, cities and counties to enforce the law. We just need ICE to verify the status, and state courts to be deputized as federal courts for the purpose of deportation hearings, and move them on to the borders and ports for pick up by their home countries. If the home countries don't want to pick them up, we'll stop remittances until they do. Very simple, very cheap.