DHS Sets Up Fake University, Nets HUNDREDS Of Illegal Alien Deportations!

[AceFrehley]

Evidently Obama's ICE did not deport anyone, their visa's were extended. It was not until the trump ICE closed the "school" down that the deportations began.

https://noqreport.com/2019/11/27/fak...isa-overstays/

That's odd, I seem to have missed the part that says the Obama regime didn't deport anyone. But let's set that aside for the moment.

So you support extending visas of people who are caught attempting to defraud the US and its immigration laws, but insist it's the other side that has no morals.

Got it.

[Old Trapper]

LMAO.....you should try talking to those minorities in the Cities that Democrats control.

Sharing that equal misery as opposed to how your Democrats live. Brings that neat lil perspective to the forefront of reality.

Perhaps you should consider using some facts rather then the talking points from right wing fantasy world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...e-city/513857/
But if liberal advocates are clinging to the hope that federalism will allow them to create progressive havens, they’re overlooking a big problem: Power may be decentralized in the American system, but it devolves to the state, not the city. Recent events in red states where cities are pockets of liberalism are instructive, and cautionary. Over the past few years, city governments and state legislatures have fought each other in a series of battles involving preemption, the principle that state law trumps local regulation, just as federal law supersedes state law. It hasn’t gone well for the city dwellers.
Closeobservers of these clashes expect them to proliferate in the years to come, with similar results. “We are about to see a $#@! storm of state and federal preemption orders, of a magnitude greater than anything in history,” says Mark Pertschuk of Grassroots Change, which tracks such laws through an initiative called Preemption Watch. By the group’s count, at least 36 states introduced laws preempting cities in 2016.

State legislatures have put their oar in on issues ranging from the expansive to the eccentric. Common examples involve blocking local minimum-wage and sick-leave ordinances, which are opposed by business groups, and bans on plastic grocery bags, which arouse retailers’ ire. Some states have prohibited cities from enacting firearm regulations, frustrating leaders who say cities have different gun problems than do rural areas. Alabama and Arizona both passed bills targeting “sanctuary cities”—those that do not cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Even though courts threw out much of that legislation, other states have considered their own versions.

Arizona also made sure cities couldn’t ban the gifts in Happy Meals (cities elsewhere had talked about outlawing them, on the theory that they lure kids to McDonald’s), and when some of its cities cracked down on puppy mills, it barred local regulation of pet breeders, too. Cities in Oklahoma can’t regulate e-cigarettes. Mississippi decreed that towns can’t ban sugary drinks, and the beverage industry is expected to press other states to follow suit.

Most of these laws enforce conservative policy preferences. That’s partly because Republicans enjoy unprecedented control in state capitals—they hold 33 governorships and majorities in 32 state legislatures. The trend also reflects a broader shift: Americans are in the midst of what’s been called “the Big Sort,” as they flock together with people who share similar socioeconomic profiles and politics. In general, that means rural areas are becoming more conservative, and cities more liberal. Even the reddest states contain liberal cities: Half of the U.S. metro areas with the biggest recent population gains are in the South, and they are Democratic. Texas alone is home to four such cities; Clinton carried each of them. Increasingly, the most important political and cultural divisions are not between red and blue states but between red states and the blue cities within.

[Peter1469]

We are still benefiting from the New Deal, and the whiners are still whining about it. The major reason they are whining is that it is a great example of the success of American socialism, and that just bugs the $#@! out of the right wing anti-American types. They would prefer a Plutocracy, or even an Oligarchy, above a free society. As trump has proven, they would believe a lie before the truth.

The New Deal was a stake in the heart of the Constitution.

[Old Trapper]

That's odd, I seem to have missed the part that says the Obama regime didn't deport anyone. But let's set that aside for the moment.

So you support extending visas of people who are caught attempting to defraud the US and its immigration laws, but insist it's the other side that has no morals.

Got it.

Guess you missed the part where i said "evidently". I saw no where that it said otherwise.

Now, since the government collected anywhere from $1,000 to $12,500 for these visa's, advertised the school as being accredited, and actually extended the visas, who "defrauded" who? The ones with no morals of course.

[Old Trapper]

The New Deal was a stake in the heart of the Constitution.

What part?

Now, all of you people who believe such be sure not to draw SS, use Medicare, use the facilities in the National Forests, and numerous other benefits you enjoy.

[AceFrehley]

Guess you missed the part where i said "evidently". I saw no where that it said otherwise.

Now, since the government collected anywhere from $1,000 to $12,500 for these visa's, advertised the school as being accredited, and actually extended the visas, who "defrauded" who? The ones with no morals of course.

Which part of that article led you to make the claim "evidently"?

[Peter1469]

What part?

Now, all of you people who believe such be sure not to draw SS, use Medicare, use the facilities in the National Forests, and numerous other benefits you enjoy.

All of the New Deal. That does not include protections for National forests and monuments. Those were created by the other Roosevelt.

The New Deal destroyed the concept of federalism.

America experienced severe social, political, and economic turmoil in the three years after the onset of the Great Depression (1929). Immediate pressures for economic relief were coupled with long-term strains of vast economic inequality resulting from the transition to a newly industrialized nation and the tightening of job availability in the face of unprecedented immigration levels. The New Deal was President Franklin Roosevelt’s first effort to address the problems created by and underlying the Great Depression. The New Deal was more than a series of actions responding to the Great Depression; it created a new governing philosophy for the nation.

This new governing philosophy was influenced by Progressivism. A generation before the New Deal, Progressives fractured into various groups or periods, such as the “New Nationalism” of Teddy Roosevelt and the “New Freedom” of Woodrow Wilson. Yet, Progressives as a whole had two broad objectives. First, they sought to dissolve concentrations of wealth, to which end they coupled “trustbusting” (attack on financial trusts) with the creation of new rights that protected the individual from the uncertainties of the marketplace. Second, Progressives sought to empower the masses politically, to which end they initiated a number of direct democracy reforms. These two objectives advanced a new understanding of the relationship between the individual and government that became the foundation of New Deal thought.

[Rationalist]

*The University of Farmington was a fake university set up in 2015 in Michigan by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to expose student visa fraud in the United States.*

*According to the prosecutors, the students enrolled in the university solely to maintain their student-visa status and lengthen their stay in the U.S., despite being aware "that they would not attend any actual classes, earn credits or make academic progress towards an actual degree."*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univ..._of_Farmington

Notice how the Independent article neglects to mention this. So much of the mainstream media lies by omission.

[Rationalist]

We are still benefiting from the New Deal, and the whiners are still whining about it. The major reason they are whining is that it is a great example of the success of American socialism, and that just bugs the $#@! out of the right wing anti-American types. They would prefer a Plutocracy, or even an Oligarchy, above a free society. As trump has proven, they would believe a lie before the truth.

The main flaw in the New Deal is SS. As a concept, SS was a decent enough program when people didn't live as long and when medical expenses were relatively low. Today, medical expenses are extremely high, and people live longer. The only way to keep SS halfway solvent now is to raise the minimum retirement age.

[Rationalist]

Perhaps you should consider using some facts rather then the talking points from right wing fantasy world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...e-city/513857/
But if liberal advocates are clinging to the hope that federalism will allow them to create progressive havens, they’re overlooking a big problem: Power may be decentralized in the American system, but it devolves to the state, not the city. Recent events in red states where cities are pockets of liberalism are instructive, and cautionary. Over the past few years, city governments and state legislatures have fought each other in a series of battles involving preemption, the principle that state law trumps local regulation, just as federal law supersedes state law. It hasn’t gone well for the city dwellers.
Closeobservers of these clashes expect them to proliferate in the years to come, with similar results. “We are about to see a $#@! storm of state and federal preemption orders, of a magnitude greater than anything in history,” says Mark Pertschuk of Grassroots Change, which tracks such laws through an initiative called Preemption Watch. By the group’s count, at least 36 states introduced laws preempting cities in 2016.

State legislatures have put their oar in on issues ranging from the expansive to the eccentric. Common examples involve blocking local minimum-wage and sick-leave ordinances, which are opposed by business groups, and bans on plastic grocery bags, which arouse retailers’ ire. Some states have prohibited cities from enacting firearm regulations, frustrating leaders who say cities have different gun problems than do rural areas. Alabama and Arizona both passed bills targeting “sanctuary cities”—those that do not cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Even though courts threw out much of that legislation, other states have considered their own versions.

Arizona also made sure cities couldn’t ban the gifts in Happy Meals (cities elsewhere had talked about outlawing them, on the theory that they lure kids to McDonald’s), and when some of its cities cracked down on puppy mills, it barred local regulation of pet breeders, too. Cities in Oklahoma can’t regulate e-cigarettes. Mississippi decreed that towns can’t ban sugary drinks, and the beverage industry is expected to press other states to follow suit.

Most of these laws enforce conservative policy preferences. That’s partly because Republicans enjoy unprecedented control in state capitals—they hold 33 governorships and majorities in 32 state legislatures. The trend also reflects a broader shift: Americans are in the midst of what’s been called “the Big Sort,” as they flock together with people who share similar socioeconomic profiles and politics. In general, that means rural areas are becoming more conservative, and cities more liberal. Even the reddest states contain liberal cities: Half of the U.S. metro areas with the biggest recent population gains are in the South, and they are Democratic. Texas alone is home to four such cities; Clinton carried each of them. Increasingly, the most important political and cultural divisions are not between red and blue states but between red states and the blue cities within.

We may reach a point where we could just start making cities their own states. Chicago is pretty different from the rest of Illinois, so it should probably be its own state. NYC is very different from the rest of NY.

Granted, there are plenty of cases where there isn't as much of a difference. California is urban enough in population with enough big cities that it doesn't really need to make its major cities states.