- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:14 am to rwestmore7
quote:
Damn this is all the crimes you could come in after “Biden let millions in” 2-3,000 crimes from millions of people. Thanks for confirming that immigrants commit crimes af a lower rate than Americans. Maybe we should send ice after citizens if we want crime to go down.
And there it is...
Pure evil.
We get it. Since your party commits the vast majority of violent crime, what is so bad about letting in a few million more illegals to commit more violent crime next to your fellow voters. Oh, that's right. You want these violent criminals voting too!
Congrats on letting us know the truth.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:15 am to rwestmore7
quote:
But again, lets not let facts get in the way of your racism
You do realize you automatically lose the arguement here. Weak sauce really.
Anyway, why are you pro-illegal immigration? Why feel the need to defend all of the negative stuff that comes with it. Wage slavory, sex slavery, drugs, all these things come with illegal immigration. This is not to mention that national sovereignty is impossible to maintain. It is why there are zero nations, on this planet, that allow illegal immigration by law and we all know that no one is above the law.
I mean, you can sit here and twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend those who come here illegally, but for the benefit of both the immigrant as well as the nation they are immigrating to, laws were agreed upon and established. It really is that simple. Think of them as regulations if you think the idea of laws are too restrictive and we all know regulations are there for not only our safety, but the safety of all. This includes the immigrants' safety.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:20 am to hawkeye007
quote:
It’s so damn funny watching this board forget the constitution once the left start using it.
The same constitution you and your ilk want to shred?
Where in the constitution does it state we have to let people in illegally and should not remove them when they commit violent crimes?
That is what your side is literally dying in the streets to protect, while denying the rights of the citizens already here.
This is beyond laughable. The left using the constitution. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:22 am to UtahCajun
I’m not “pro–illegal immigration.” That’s a lazy framing. I’m pro accurate definitions, proportional enforcement, and honest discussion. Pointing out that unlawful presence is a civil violation, that immigrants pay taxes, or that crime statistics don’t support blanket claims is not an endorsement of open borders. It’s rejecting exaggeration and fear-based arguments.
You’re also conflating things that are distinct: Human trafficking, drug smuggling, and wage exploitation are serious crimes, committed by traffickers, cartels, and EMPLOYERS, not by default by every or even a majority of undocumented persons. Those crimes exist because of black markets and poor enforcement priorities, not because someone crossed a border and now magically became a criminal in every sense.
National sovereignty absolutely matters. Laws matter. But laws are not all criminal laws, and pretending they are doesn’t make enforcement better, it just makes the conversation dishonest. You can support immigration law, border control, and national sovereignty without pretending every undocumented immigrant is a violent criminal or defending policies that ignore reality. That’s the distinction you keep refusing to engage with.
If you want to argue for stricter enforcement, argue for it. Just don’t do it by redefining words, attributing crimes wholesale, or insisting that correcting false claims means someone supports “all the negative stuff.” That’s not debate, it’s projection.
You’re also conflating things that are distinct: Human trafficking, drug smuggling, and wage exploitation are serious crimes, committed by traffickers, cartels, and EMPLOYERS, not by default by every or even a majority of undocumented persons. Those crimes exist because of black markets and poor enforcement priorities, not because someone crossed a border and now magically became a criminal in every sense.
National sovereignty absolutely matters. Laws matter. But laws are not all criminal laws, and pretending they are doesn’t make enforcement better, it just makes the conversation dishonest. You can support immigration law, border control, and national sovereignty without pretending every undocumented immigrant is a violent criminal or defending policies that ignore reality. That’s the distinction you keep refusing to engage with.
If you want to argue for stricter enforcement, argue for it. Just don’t do it by redefining words, attributing crimes wholesale, or insisting that correcting false claims means someone supports “all the negative stuff.” That’s not debate, it’s projection.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:25 am to rwestmore7
quote:
Unlawful presence is a civil violation, not a crime. Existing isn’t illegal.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325
8 U.S.C. § 1326
8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:29 am to rwestmore7
quote:
Unlawful presence is a civil violation, not a crime. Existing isn’t illegal. If you think it is, cite the criminal code section.
So nice of you to confirm that yes.. everyone in the country illegally has committed an offense.
I did miss the law that I'm exempted from following being an actual American. I guess you just missed that. You can try that again. Am I allowed to ignore the civil offense of speeding?
See.. here is where your programming fails you. Merely being in the country without permission is civil. However, unlawful entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325) and re-entry after removal (8 U.S.C. § 1326) are crimes, with illegal re-entry punishable by up to 20 years in prison for certain prior convictions.
So no, it's not all civil. In order for it to be civil, you had to have entered first by a legal means. Overstay a visa? Civil. Unlawful entry and reentry? Criminal.
So the border jumpers, people entering on false marriages, etc? There is your criminal codes.
This post was edited on 1/28/26 at 10:29 am
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:30 am to GeorgePaton
quote:
Jocelyn Nungaray
One of the more chilling stories I've read in the last couple months. Thankfully the media kept reporting on the updates as they came in.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:30 am to xxGEAUXxx
Those statutes cover entry, reentry after removal, or refusal to comply with a removal order, not unlawful presence itself. Existing in the U.S. without status is still a civil violation, not a crime.
And importantly, most undocumented immigrants entered legally (on visas) and later fell out of status, so §1325 doesn’t even apply to them.
And importantly, most undocumented immigrants entered legally (on visas) and later fell out of status, so §1325 doesn’t even apply to them.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:31 am to CleverUserName
He's going to call you a racist again. Watch out.
These violent, low IQ progressives can only throw out one word in a debate.
These violent, low IQ progressives can only throw out one word in a debate.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:33 am to rwestmore7
quote:
And importantly, most undocumented immigrants entered legally (on visas) and later fell out of status
All those frickers crossing the Sonora desert in the night are holding visas?
Did the cartels issue the visas?
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:33 am to CleverUserName
You’re still collapsing distinct legal categories into one and then calling that a win. Yes, some immigration violations are criminal, entry crimes under §1325 and §1326, and only under specific circumstances. No one disputes that. But that is not the same as saying “everyone in the country illegally has committed a crime”, which is what people are claiming.
Here’s the part you keep skipping:
-Unlawful presence is civil, not criminal.
-Most undocumented immigrants entered legally and later fell out of status (visa overstays). No entry crime occurred.
-§1325 applies only to improper entry and is rarely charged after the fact.
-§1326 applies only to reentry after removal, not first-time entrants.
-§1253 applies only after a final removal order is willfully ignored.
So no, there is no universal “100% crime rate.” Some people committed an entry offense, many did not, and mere presence is still handled through civil immigration proceedings, not criminal court. As for the speeding analogy: everyone is subject to the same laws. The difference is that civil violations don’t make someone a criminal, and we don’t pretend they do just to score rhetorical points. If you want to argue for stricter enforcement or different laws, that’s a fair debate. But redefining civil violations as crimes, or pretending the statutes say something they don’t, isn’t accuracy, it’s advocacy.
Here’s the part you keep skipping:
-Unlawful presence is civil, not criminal.
-Most undocumented immigrants entered legally and later fell out of status (visa overstays). No entry crime occurred.
-§1325 applies only to improper entry and is rarely charged after the fact.
-§1326 applies only to reentry after removal, not first-time entrants.
-§1253 applies only after a final removal order is willfully ignored.
So no, there is no universal “100% crime rate.” Some people committed an entry offense, many did not, and mere presence is still handled through civil immigration proceedings, not criminal court. As for the speeding analogy: everyone is subject to the same laws. The difference is that civil violations don’t make someone a criminal, and we don’t pretend they do just to score rhetorical points. If you want to argue for stricter enforcement or different laws, that’s a fair debate. But redefining civil violations as crimes, or pretending the statutes say something they don’t, isn’t accuracy, it’s advocacy.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:36 am to hawkeye007
quote:
It’s so damn funny watching this board forget the constitution once the left start using it.
you loons can just pocket that BS after Covid. And you can pocket your hatred for federal agents after J6th. Hell... your programmers are still holding them all in high regard. With their commendations and awards.
So it's YOU loons that set the precedent. So so so so sorry.
With that said... you can point to the amendment, and Supreme Court case review, that says obstruction of a federal agent is constitutional. Anytime you get a minute.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:36 am to rwestmore7
quote:
They pay more than they receive in benefits.
Bzzzt.
Wrong.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:36 am to SludgeFactory
January 6th violent protesters who assaulted police, smashed the Capitol, and tried to overturn an election, all of whom were later pardoned, say hello.
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:37 am to the808bass
Prove it
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:37 am to rwestmore7
quote:
Pointing out that unlawful presence is a civil violation, that immigrants pay taxes,
Estimates of taxes paid are around 100 billion. Net costs 150 billion. A net negative of roughly 50 billion. Not including welfare, health care and other expenses paid for by the American citizen.
quote:
You’re also conflating things that are distinct: Human trafficking, drug smuggling, and wage exploitation are serious crimes, committed by traffickers, cartels, and EMPLOYERS, not by default by every or even a majority of undocumented persons. Those crimes exist because of black markets and poor enforcement priorities, not because someone crossed a border and now magically became a criminal in every sense.
Absolutely. Not every person that comes here illegally has bad intentions. Allowing one illegal in willingly and they commit a violent crime which similar percentage to Americans of that 20 million claim has. Hurts the chances of allowing immigrants in.
quote:
If you want to argue for stricter enforcement, argue for it. Just don’t do it by redefining words, attributing crimes wholesale, or insisting that correcting false claims means someone supports “all the negative stuff.” That’s not debate, it’s projection.
My question to you, if they have a civil final removal order. Should the US law enforcement enforce the removal?
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:40 am to rwestmore7
quote:
And importantly, most undocumented immigrants entered legally (on visas) and later fell out of status, so §1325 doesn’t even apply to them.
Correct. Not criminal in the sense of murderer or gang member. An illegal alien that needs to be removed. Correct?
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:42 am to rwestmore7
quote:
January 6th violent protesters who assaulted police, smashed the Capitol, and tried to overturn an election, all of whom were later pardoned, say hello.
And there it is. The poster is getting their arse handed to them for defending illegal immigrants and their murder of innocent people. So, he pulls the patented deflection to 1/6, also known as the fedsurrection.
The topic at hand is illegal aliens that the Biden Administration let into the country are raping and murdering innocent people and the Left is fine with it so long as these illegals give them power, money, and votes.
This post was edited on 1/28/26 at 10:43 am
Posted on 1/28/26 at 10:43 am to rwestmore7
Page 3 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News