Trump Planning to Mobilize the National Guard to Arrest Illegal Immigrants

[Kujako]

Ironically the press is complaining about Trump. Yet where were they when Obama deported more immigrants than any other PotUS before him? I guess it didn't fit the agenda at that time.

Weird, I saw a LOT of coverage of Obama's deportations. Lots of discussions, arguments and name calling. Deporter in Chief comes to mind, which is still the first google recommendation when you type in "deport".

[Dug]

He called it ironic, just 2 posts ago. Was there even 15 min between?

That's usually how it goes with Ally

[lockedout]

That's the reason trump is talking about muslims all the time?

Illegal immigrants or refugees from these countries. Not American citizens. I guess you get all your information from Facebook?

[Allybeboba]

Now, is where irony comes in. Your previous claim to irony in people not comparing what Obama did to what Trump is doing, has just confirmed your hypocrisy. Two posts ago you thought it was ironic that no one mentions Obama's deportation numbers and now explain why they don't? You got to admit that's funny...

- - - Updated - - -



He called it ironic, just 2 posts ago. Was there even 15 min between?

I stated the biased press(most press is biased one way or the other) was muted when Obama's administration was deporting millions of illegal immigrants. I did not state "no one".

This thread is based on conjecture, as it uses the word "planning" and "considering".
People are all up in arms about what "might" happen. The world was supposed to end on December 21, 2012 too. But it mysteriously did not.

[Felya]

There's nothing wrong with wanting $30 an hour but let's be realistic. Not a lot of jobs pay that. And turning down a job (when you don't currently have one) because it's "dirty" or doesn't pay some absurd amount is just childish.

If we are going to be realistic, instead of pejorative to be divisive, there are two issues with what you saying:

30 p/h out of HS is unreasonable, but so is the idea of that arbitrary number having any meaning beyond being divisive. There is no legitimate claim to that number as a base for anything. The highest minimum wage I have seen by anyone with legitimate claim to pushing it, was Bernie at 15$ p/h. Hillary went from no increase, to 10$ p/h. Trump went from a cut is needed during primaries, to vague claims of 10$. CBO in 2013 places it at 9.75$ p/h. If you consider that, as the actual minimum, that seems much more reasonable.

As others pointed out, who exactly is turning down jobs? As I pointed out with your trash collection example. If the pay and benefits is there, not only is the job suitable, regardless of dirt... but, is in extreme demand. The issue isn't the dirt, when you work from dusk 'till dawn, but the pay you'd be willing to take, to peel off the shirt off your back, because your shirt and skin have joined from the heat and sweat. 5$ an hour is good to support your family? Dirt is once again divisive rhetoric that underscores how back breaking this labor is.

I know the trash guys generally get paid quite well. But you'd be amazed at how many people turn that shit down because it's gross or whatever.

Yeah, I would be amazed, because it negated actual reality. Garbadge men are an extremely thought out job, for exactly the fact that it provides very generous benefits and has no skill base. It's a horrible example and you trying to justify it, hurts your argument. Your assertion are counter to reality and are baseless divisive rhetoric.

Why do you think I'm wanting to toss working conditions out the window? Like I'm confused as fuck about that. Where did I state that? Where did I imply that? All I've said is I think American citizens should be doing those jobs and not illegal immigrants. How the balls am I implying I want to lower working standards lol

Because you are ignoring the working conditions of those jobs. According to you, they are just dirty. So, obviously, you won't realize how shitty those conditions are. You are trapped in a quagmire of asserting it's just dirty and then needing to defend the fact that these jobs are horrible working conditions, as a result.

Yes, if the paradigm shifts to your demand, either Americans have current working conditions and pay of illegals... or the cost of labor and improvement to working conditions, will be reflected in Americans losing purchasing power in cost increase. Yes, those less than 5% currently unemployed, will fill those jobs. But, because it's not a minimum wage increase, it will still price them out of the market due to associated price increase. It hurts all Americans...

Americans are fucking entitled. In almost every sense of the world. If you don't see that then I don't know what you want me to tell you. I'm an American, I've fought in our military, I've worked in some terrible fucking jobs, and I can still see how entitled and fucking lazy a good chuck of the American people are. Your blindness to that fact isn't my issue.

Yeah, I don't see it, because I don't consider my self a special snowflake. When I bust ass at work, I don't put my self on a pedestal thinking I'm better. I realize how everyone has to be this way. Your assertions are based on thinking you are better, mine are based on statistics that show we work harder and longer than any other country.

We are not a third world country, but are the wealthiest and only world super power. We are not entitled, but earned it on the blood and sweat of Americans, who afforded us this power. For you to just denigrate it and demand less, is abhorrent. Are you entitled to the life your parents busted ass for you to have or have their struggles earned it for their children?

- - - Updated - - -

I stated the biased press(most press is biased one way or the other) was muted when Obama's administration was deporting millions of illegal immigrants. I did not state "no one".

How are they bias, when your assertion of a turnstile version of US border is the definition of a muted response? You wanted them to cover Obama as a great deporter to be unbiased, even though you just claimed it was a turnstile? It has nothing to do with "no one", but explicitly your self contradicting demands. Mirror, not others...

This thread is based on conjecture, as it uses the word "planning" and "considering".
People are all up in arms about what "might" happen. The world was supposed to end on December 21, 2012 too. But it mysteriously did not.

Yes, your source of information treating Mayan calendars as the same thing plans that the president promised during the campaign, is completely understandable. How is the state of our buttholes versus the invasion of the greys? Stupid liberal media ignoring it!!!

[Allybeboba]

@Felya
I most certainly hope you don't think that the press is unbiased and does not spin it's own narrative to fit its needs.

[Felya]

@Felya
I most certainly hope you don't think that the press is unbiased and does not spin it's own narrative to fit its needs.

I am asserting that you are biased. I hope you don't think pointing at the media will help. After all, there are seemingly infinite amount of sources. The bias of the media you choose to expose your self to, is directly tied to your own. So, why would I denigrate the same free press where I can find a balanced perspective, while yours results in a quagmire I pointed to above. Seems like the issue isn't free press, but you... you were free to treat the Mayan apocalypse, as the same merits of the OP... how is that media's fault and not your own?

Keep talking shit about free press... give me that soap box...

[Deleted]

Illegal immigrants or refugees from these countries. Not American citizens. I guess you get all your information from Facebook?

I dont even use facebook. You know, too many right filterbubbles. And hate speak.

[Allybeboba]

I am asserting that you are biased. I hope you don't think pointing at the media will help. After all, there are seemingly infinite amount of sources. The bias of the media you choose to expose your self to, is directly tied to your own. So, why would I denigrate the same free press where I can find a balanced perspective, while yours results in a quagmire I pointed to above. Seems like the issue isn't free press, but you... you were free to treat the Mayan apocalypse, as the same merits of the OP... how is that media's fault and not your own?

Keep talking shit about free press... give me that soap box...

In what way was I biased?

I stated that the Obama administration deported millions of illegal immigrants. Which they did, more than any other before them(I stated this as well).
I also stated that the Obama administration allowed millions to come in. Which they did.

How could I have been "biased" when I stated these facts?

[Daelak]

In what way was I biased?

I stated that the Obama administration deported millions of illegal immigrants. Which they did, more than any other before them(I stated this as well).
I also stated that the Obama administration allowed millions to come in. Which they did.

How could I have been "biased" when I stated these facts?

Wrong. They deported violent felons, and net immigration to from Central America reached zero a couple of years ago. Instead of revolving door you should say not even a drop.

[Deleted]

Are you really going to question the credibility of the Associated Press right now?

Faux news > AP anyday /s

[Allybeboba]

Wrong. They deported violent felons, and net immigration to from Central America reached zero a couple of years ago. Instead of revolving door you should say not even a drop.

In what way were my statement incorrect? Were the felons here illegally? Then they were illegal immigrants.

Did illegal immigrants come to the US?

Like this guy?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/na...131437009.html

All one needs to do is use their favorite search engine and search "illegal immigrant arrested deported 4 5 6 7 8" and you will get hundreds of thousands of hits.

[mage21]

Are you really going to question the credibility of the Associated Press right now?

Well not only is the story from the AP completely false, they even pulled the number of National Guard troops supposed to be mobilized out of thin air. Just made up 100,000 troops. Said that Kelly wrote it, when he didn't. Said Trump was considering it, when there's no evidence to suggest Trump even saw the memo, or even knew it existed.

After this story, any objective person would be reasonable to, at the very least, cast a puzzled look at the Associates Press.

[mage21]

And your source for any of this is?

As for the 100,000 number, the memo itself. There is no number found anywhere in the memo, much less a hundred thousand. It really looks like that number got pulled out of thin air.

And, oddly, the AP contradicts their own headline on the Kelly account within their own article.

As for Trump "considering" the memo, that's a positive claim by the AP, the burden to prove that claim rests with them. And there is zero evidence that Trump even knew the memo existed.

[Daelak]

In what way were my statement incorrect? Were the felons here illegally? Then they were illegal immigrants.

Did illegal immigrants come to the US?

Like this guy?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/na...131437009.html

All one needs to do is use their favorite search engine and search "illegal immigrant arrested deported 4 5 6 7 8" and you will get hundreds of thousands of hits.

It isn't illegal to be in the country without documentation, which is why immigration and border patrol efficiently focused on the violent and drug-related traffickers, not 4 year olds and mothers.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the 100,000 number, the memo itself. There is no number found anywhere in the memo, much less a hundred thousand. It really looks like that number got pulled out of thin air.

And, oddly, the AP contradicts their own headline on the Kelly account within their own article.

As for Trump "considering" the memo, that's a positive claim by the AP, the burden to prove that claim rests with them. And there is zero evidence that Trump even knew the memo existed.

They got the number from the National Guard Bureau, per their own article. Read more gooder next time. They said considering because they haven't had heard a written response from the WH as of the 18th, and the last two officials said the memo hasn't been rejected or discarded as of the 10th. Looks like you need to read gooder.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the 100,000 number, the memo itself. There is no number found anywhere in the memo, much less a hundred thousand. It really looks like that number got pulled out of thin air.

And, oddly, the AP contradicts their own headline on the Kelly account within their own article.

As for Trump "considering" the memo, that's a positive claim by the AP, the burden to prove that claim rests with them. And there is zero evidence that Trump even knew the memo existed.

They got the number from the National Guard Bureau, per their own article. Read more gooder next time. They said considering because they haven't had heard a written response from the WH as of the 18th, and the last two officials said the memo hasn't been rejected or discarded as of the 10th. Looks like you need to read gooder.

[mage21]

It isn't illegal to be in the country without documentation, which is why immigration and border patrol efficiently focused on the violent and drug-related traffickers, not 4 year olds and mothers.

- - - Updated - - -



They got the number from the National Guard Bureau, per their own article. Read more gooder next time. They said considering because they haven't had heard a written response from the WH as of the 18th, and the last two officials said the memo hasn't been rejected or discarded as of the 10th. Looks like you need to read gooder.

- - - Updated - - -



They got the number from the National Guard Bureau, per their own article. Read more gooder next time. They said considering because they haven't had heard a written response from the WH as of the 18th, and the last two officials said the memo hasn't been rejected or discarded as of the 10th. Looks like you need to read gooder.

There is no evidence that Trump was planning to mobilize 100,000 troops to round up immigrants. The Associated Press pulled numbers from some other source than the memo that they were basing their entire article on.

The story was completely false.

I do need to read more gooder though, I did miss where they got the number from. I don't want to dishonestly characterize how the AP reported. I want to honestly characterize how the story was false.

[Daelak]

There is no evidence that Trump was planning to mobilize 100,000 troops to round up immigrants. The Associated Press pulled numbers from some other source than the memo that they were basing their entire article on.

The story was completely false.

There is evidence because the draft memo, to this day, hasn't been discarded from contention per the article. The National Guard Bureau gave them information regarding the mobilization numbers used on past border activities and information that was relayed from DHS to them, so yes, it's a real story.

[mage21]

There is evidence because the draft memo, to this day, hasn't been discarded from contention per the article. The National Guard Bureau gave them information regarding the mobilization numbers used on past border activities and information that was relayed from DHS to them, so yes, it's a real story.

A Homeland Security staffer drew up an "early, early document", a memo, and there's no evidence Trump even knew it existed, and it didn't mention any number of troops. This became, "Trump considering mobilizing 100,000 troops..."

That's just false.

The 100,000 number was injected artificially into the story. They were dishonest about Kelly's knowledge of the memo, and they have never proven that Trump even knew the memo existed, much less that he was considering it. It's a news story with no substance, but heavy on assumption and guessing. That's all there is to it.

[Deleted]

And the shit sandwich gets worse......



Edited to add -

The memo has now been released/leaked. You can read it here -

I applaud the USA for electing such a leader

[Felya]

In what way was I biased?

Other than this?:

Ironically the press is complaining about Trump. Yet where were they when Obama deported more immigrants than any other PotUS before him? I guess it didn't fit the agenda at that time.

Under the Obama administration millions upon millions were deported. And millions upon millions also entered. The border is a like a reloving door.

... or do you want a quote how you compared the OP to the Mayan apocalypse?

I stated that the Obama administration deported millions of illegal immigrants. Which they did, more than any other before them(I stated this as well).

No, you explicitly asked why the uproar over Trump, but not Obama's deportation in the press. Completely ignoring the issue being national guard, which is bias in its own right. You actually claim Obama's was ineffective. Yet, instead of bitching how Trump doing what you claimed is a turnstile, you bitch that the press didn't cover it?

I also stated that the Obama administration allowed millions to come in. Which they did.

So, there is a differance between Trump's deportation and this, or is this some strange way to defend Trump for what you are attacking Obama over.

How could I have been "biased" when I stated these facts?

Seeing as how I quoted what your actual comment was... the next reply should be... "oops"?

- - - Updated - - -

In what way were my statement incorrect? Were the felons here illegally? Then they were illegal immigrants.

Did illegal immigrants come to the US?

Like this guy?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/na...131437009.html

All one needs to do is use their favorite search engine and search "illegal immigrant arrested deported 4 5 6 7 8" and you will get hundreds of thousands of hits.

Then why are you asking about Obama not getting any crap for his deportation? You want him to both, get credit for deportations like Trump and blamed for it being ineffective unlike Trump? Then, after bitching about the press, you literally ask him to check the press? Still don't see bias?

- - - Updated - - -

A Homeland Security staffer drew up an "early, early document", a memo, and there's no evidence Trump even knew it existed, and it didn't mention any number of troops. This became, "Trump considering mobilizing 100,000 troops..."

That's just false.

The 100,000 number was injected artificially into the story. They were dishonest about Kelly's knowledge of the memo, and they have never proven that Trump even knew the memo existed, much less that he was considering it. It's a news story with no substance, but heavy on assumption and guessing. That's all there is to it.

Trump said he would deport 2-3 million immediately after inauguration. How do you think he planned to do it... magic? or is this not it?