Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2018, 08:46 AM   #1
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default Birthright citizenship to be eliminated by EO

Trump plans on using an executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship. This will be a huge legal battle and it needs to be addressed through the Congress.
I do agree that it needs to be eliminated.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 08:58 AM   #2
BrandonA
Pope & Young
 
BrandonA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet
Hunt In: Mills and Burnet County
Default

It needs to be done but ultimately won’t happrn anytime. Some liberal judge will block it and will eventually be heard at the Suprene Court
BrandonA is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:24 AM   #3
donpablo
Ten Point
 
donpablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Odessa
Hunt In: Iraan, Culberson County & Public Land
Default Amendment

I'm pretty sure it would have to be done by amending the constitution (that's a big hurdle). Now what I'd really love to see done is for congress to get rid of the executive order. The president (regardless of party) was never meant to make laws. Nothing we've seen in the last several decades goes against the founders' original intent than the executive order.
donpablo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:28 AM   #4
Razrbk89
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NE Arkansas
Hunt In: Northern & Eastern Arkansas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donpablo View Post
I'm pretty sure it would have to be done by amending the constitution (that's a big hurdle). Now what I'd really love to see done is for congress to get rid of the executive order. The president (regardless of party) was never meant to make laws. Nothing we've seen in the last several decades goes against the founders' original intent than the executive order.
I agree. This would be an extemely dangerous precedent & it seems like a ridiculous stunt.

If a president could just change the constitution via EO, the next president could presumably just do away with the 2nd and “take arrrrr gunnnnnzzz!”.
Razrbk89 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:37 AM   #5
alien_scones
Spike
 
alien_scones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Colleyville
Hunt In: Baird, Callahan
Default

Here's a good constitutional explanation (and Mark Levin rant) of the citizenship birthright


https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...tutional-right
alien_scones is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:40 AM   #6
lanceodom
Ten Point
 
lanceodom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: LaSalle County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donpablo View Post
I'm pretty sure it would have to be done by amending the constitution (that's a big hurdle). Now what I'd really love to see done is for congress to get rid of the executive order. The president (regardless of party) was never meant to make laws. Nothing we've seen in the last several decades goes against the founders' original intent than the executive order.
agreed!
lanceodom is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:46 AM   #7
jerp
Pope & Young
 
jerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aledo
Hunt In: Shackleford Co.
Default

I agree with donpablo. Remember how much we hated Obama's executive orders? What he could not get done through congress he did with his pen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional no matter who does it. There has long been a debate about the meaning of this statement in the 14th:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The argument mostly hinges on the original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Some contend that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas. The court has already ruled that children of immigrants that are legal permanent residence have citizenship. However there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status. That will come, I reckon.
jerp is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:56 AM   #8
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
The argument mostly hinges on the original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Some contend that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas. The court has already ruled that children of immigrants that are legal permanent residence have citizenship. However there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status. That will come, I reckon.
The 14th was put in place to give slaves full citizenship
Without it, slaves weren't actually "citizens"
They were property like cattle and horses
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:02 AM   #9
awry
Eight Point
 
awry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Round Rock
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razrbk89 View Post
I agree. This would be an extemely dangerous precedent & it seems like a ridiculous stunt.

If a president could just change the constitution via EO, the next president could presumably just do away with the 2nd and “take arrrrr gunnnnnzzz!”.
Agree but if nothing else will get the citizenship debate spotlighted
awry is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:19 AM   #10
yaqui
Ten Point
 
yaqui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: Eastland Co.
Default

Trump just lost the election for Cruz by doing this. Way too many Hispanic voters will not like this.
yaqui is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:20 AM   #11
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaqui View Post
Trump just lost the election for Cruz by doing this. Way too many Hispanic voters will not like this.
I don't believe that.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:36 AM   #12
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Only should be used in a crisis situation and EO's should never be permanent.
Time limits and term limits.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:43 AM   #13
Mike D
Pope & Young
 
Mike D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Texas
Hunt In: Haskell County, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donpablo View Post
I'm pretty sure it would have to be done by amending the constitution (that's a big hurdle). Now what I'd really love to see done is for congress to get rid of the executive order. The president (regardless of party) was never meant to make laws. Nothing we've seen in the last several decades goes against the founders' original intent than the executive order.


EO can’t MAKE law, it can only modify existing law. And it can be overturned/rolled back with the next administration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Mike D is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:51 AM   #14
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

EO's should only be used to protect the citizens of the USA against any and all threats foreign or domestic. Should never be used to further a parties agenda like stopping the building of a pipeline or drilling for oil or building a road blah blah blah. The president's job is to protect us and he should be able to issue orders to do so but not to satisfy his whims or those of his party.

If congress was doing it's job there would be no need for most EO's.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:07 AM   #15
Hank Hill
Eight Point
 
Hank Hill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fort Worth
Default

Hank Hill is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:15 AM   #16
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I agree with donpablo. Remember how much we hated Obama's executive orders? What he could not get done through congress he did with his pen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional no matter who does it. There has long been a debate about the meaning of this statement in the 14th:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The argument mostly hinges on the original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Some contend that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas. The court has already ruled that children of immigrants that are legal permanent residence have citizenship. However there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status. That will come, I reckon.
Doesn't seem complicated. Someone here illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction. And when Texansfan says they are then he needs to tell us who exactly is NOT subject... Or why was it put in there then? LOL
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:31 AM   #17
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat1 View Post
Doesn't seem complicated. Someone here illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction. And when Texansfan says they are then he needs to tell us who exactly is NOT subject... Or why was it put in there then? LOL

It was put in there before the internet and before Mexico was even our border nation.
Everybody in the USA is subject to our laws as soon as they touch our soil.

And not only illegal aliens have babies here.
Folks on student visas and even europeans on work visas INTENTIONALLY have kids here so their kids can be Americans.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:37 AM   #18
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
It was put in there before the internet and before Mexico was even our border nation.
Everybody in the USA is subject to our laws as soon as they touch our soil.

And not only illegal aliens have babies here.
Folks on student visas and even europeans on work visas INTENTIONALLY have kids here so their kids can be Americans.
All the more reason for the SC to interpret the intent of the 14th.
Ironman is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:41 AM   #19
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
All the more reason for the SC to interpret the intent of the 14th.
LoL
How can you interpret something that was written 200 years ago without current day context?

So you're ok with those liberal justices "interpreting" the constitution?

Because I don't think the intent of the 2nd is what many think it is.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:47 AM   #20
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
LoL

How can you interpret something that was written 200 years ago without current day context?



So you're ok with those liberal justices "interpreting" the constitution?



Because I don't think the intent of the 2nd is what many think it is.


Of course you don't...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 11:57 AM   #21
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
Of course you don't...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the 2nd was put in place with the spirit that an average man should be able to hold weapons in order to fight off the government if need be.
If that is the case, these little peashooters we have are of no match for the artillery that the government has so we need to be able to possess all the bombs, grenades and other high tech stuff the government has in order to make the fight fair if it came down to that.

There is no way any militia in this country could fight off the us military if the military didn't care.

They could just bomb us to smithereens
Use those loud ear piercing vehicles to bring us to our knees
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:04 PM   #22
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

I believe Mark Levin is one of the best constitutional lawyers of our time and I put a lot of weight in his thought process and how he views the situation according to the constitution. I am a Trump supporter and I think he is onto something and I bet he gets this done.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:08 PM   #23
RiverRat1
Pope & Young
 
RiverRat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leander
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

So what could "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" possibly mean? It has to include someone. So if not people here illegally then please tell us who?

Do you have even one grain of logic in your head?
RiverRat1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:11 PM   #24
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
I think the 2nd was put in place with the spirit that an average man should be able to hold weapons in order to fight off the government if need be.
If that is the case, these little peashooters we have are of no match for the artillery that the government has so we need to be able to possess all the bombs, grenades and other high tech stuff the government has in order to make the fight fair if it came down to that.

There is no way any militia in this country could fight off the us military if the military didn't care.

They could just bomb us to smithereens
Use those loud ear piercing vehicles to bring us to our knees
Hmmm. Tell that to Afganistan and Vietnam. They seemed to put up a pretty good fight with "peashooters". You can let your buddies have yours. I'll keep mine.
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:18 PM   #25
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
I think the 2nd was put in place with the spirit that an average man should be able to hold weapons in order to fight off the government if need be.
And the 1st was put in place when people only had feathers and ink wells.

Now the media gets to SELL us news.

The invaders from the south could stop our well healed military, just using TV cameras
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:19 PM   #26
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LWC View Post
Hmmm. Tell that to Afganistan and Vietnam. They seemed to put up a pretty good fight with "peashooters". You can let your buddies have yours. I'll keep mine.
I'm keeping mine too
But in both of those wars we went in trying to fight a "pc" war
If the shackles would have been removed and we just went all out no country is a match for us

Im talking scorched earth
If we did that, we would never lose
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:24 PM   #27
yaqui
Ten Point
 
yaqui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: Eastland Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
And the 1st was put in place when people only had feathers and ink wells.

Now the media gets to SELL us news.

The invaders from the south could stop our well healed military, just using TV cameras
The same can be said of the second amendment.
yaqui is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:26 PM   #28
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
And the 1st was put in place when people only had feathers and ink wells.

Now the media gets to SELL us news.

The invaders from the south could stop our well healed military, just using TV cameras
Pepper spray with lots of rubber bullets and bean bags.

Essentially come in riot gear and detain them all right on the border.
Quickly process them back to their side of the river.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:28 PM   #29
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
I think the 2nd was put in place with the spirit that an average man should be able to hold weapons in order to fight off the government if need be.

If that is the case, these little peashooters we have are of no match for the artillery that the government has so we need to be able to possess all the bombs, grenades and other high tech stuff the government has in order to make the fight fair if it came down to that.



There is no way any militia in this country could fight off the us military if the military didn't care.



They could just bomb us to smithereens

Use those loud ear piercing vehicles to bring us to our knees


You assume the government would have the support of the military, which it would not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:32 PM   #30
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
Quickly process them back to their side of the river.
Can you release an illegal Honduran to say Mexico ? Or do you need to send them all the way back to their home country?
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 12:55 PM   #31
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

A simple method of dealing with this is to assign a newborn child the same legal status as their parents. Citizen parent = citizen baby, green card parent = green card baby (applications tied together, same years counted), refugee status parent = refugee status baby, parent from another country visiting (legally) = child from another country visiting (legally), illegal immigrant parent = illegal immigrant baby. Where one parent has a "better" status than another, the child should be given the better of the two.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:03 PM   #32
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LWC View Post
Hmmm. Tell that to Afganistan and Vietnam. They seemed to put up a pretty good fight with "peashooters". You can let your buddies have yours. I'll keep mine.
The Vietnamese had the things we don't: fully automatic weapons, bombs, tanks, planes, artillery, ships, etc.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:04 PM   #33
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
You assume the government would have the support of the military, which it would not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep. I don't see any military action happening again in the US short of an invasion.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:08 PM   #34
Roy Munson
Six Point
 
Roy Munson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
Can you release an illegal Honduran to say Mexico ? Or do you need to send them all the way back to their home country?
No, they have to be deported to their country of origin.
Roy Munson is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:17 PM   #35
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir shovelhands View Post
The Vietnamese had the things we don't: fully automatic weapons, bombs, tanks, planes, artillery, ships, etc.
They did for sure. But they did not come close to matching the firepower of the US military. South Vietnam (without us) had more firepower than the communists. It is my understanding that their will to win along with their "peashooters" allowed them to defend themselves against out military. That and a lot of weak US politicians.
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:26 PM   #36
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
LoL
How can you interpret something that was written 200 years ago without current day context?

So you're ok with those liberal justices "interpreting" the constitution?

Because I don't think the intent of the 2nd is what many think it is.
The same way other amendments have been interpreted by the SC, which were also written more than 200 years ago. Surprised you didn't know that.
Ironman is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:53 PM   #37
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LWC View Post
That and a lot of weak US politicians.
And China/USSR help. We would've won the Korean war too had China not gotten involved (and still might have had McArthur not had his head up his behind).

Last edited by sir shovelhands; 10-30-2018 at 01:56 PM.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 01:59 PM   #38
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
You assume the government would have the support of the military, which it would not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You assume the military is nothing but people who think like you.
How many joined the military just to avoid jail or escape the ghettos of Chicago?
You think they'll have issue with taking folks guns in Abilene?

You think the folks from Abilene will have issue with taking guns from the thugs of Chicago or Compton or New Orleans?

Didn't Kent State happen?

There are Americans employed by the government that are illegally spying on Americans now which is against the constitution.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:02 PM   #39
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
Can you release an illegal Honduran to say Mexico ? Or do you need to send them all the way back to their home country?
I asked a few buddies that work for CBP/ICE I'll hear back soon.
I know for sure travel if a person is rejected in immigration/customs it is up to the carrier that brought them in to take them back to their port of embarcation

Land crossings would be tricky I guess

Let's wait and see what they say
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:04 PM   #40
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir shovelhands View Post
A simple method of dealing with this is to assign a newborn child the same legal status as their parents. Citizen parent = citizen baby, green card parent = green card baby (applications tied together, same years counted), refugee status parent = refugee status baby, parent from another country visiting (legally) = child from another country visiting (legally), illegal immigrant parent = illegal immigrant baby. Where one parent has a "better" status than another, the child should be given the better of the two.
I like this method
Problem is you'll need to verify citizenship of every mother
Oh wait, what about the immigrant who doesn't know who the child's father is then goes on a Maury tour circuit of trying to prove paternity?

How would spurm donors work?
Donor is American citizen but mom is foreigner.

But I like your method at the beginning
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:06 PM   #41
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Munson View Post
No, they have to be deported to their country of origin.
Hmmm they originated in Mexico although they are if Honduran descent.
You're saying we have to ship them back to Honduras?
What if they aren't actually Honduran lie to us?
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:12 PM   #42
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

If we can send them to any country we want, send them to Antarctica.

Want to make a wager on it, say loser has to log out of TBH for a month? Or just the PACE forum since that is the only place you utilize your very unique online personality.
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:17 PM   #43
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
If we can send them to any country we want, send them to Antarctica.

Want to make a wager on it, say loser has to log out of TBH for a month? Or just the PACE forum since that is the only place you utilize your very unique online personality.
I didn't say we can send them anywhere we want.
I think it will be 1 of 2 things
1. Port of embarcation
2. Country of origin

I have no idea so I'm asking those who know
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:28 PM   #44
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

I have no idea so I'm asking those who know

Incorrect. You listed 2 options.

Neither of which addresses a Honduran sneaking in through Mexico.

You are stirring the pot on so many threads, arguing for laws on one, and against laws on the other. My god man, how bad in your day to day life that you get joy from this?
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:45 PM   #45
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
I have no idea so I'm asking those who know

Incorrect. You listed 2 options.

Neither of which addresses a Honduran sneaking in through Mexico.

You are stirring the pot on so many threads, arguing for laws on one, and against laws on the other. My god man, how bad in your day to day life that you get joy from this?
I believe you're in many more of these posts than I am.
Just do a search.
The thing is I stick out because I don't march to the best of y'alls drum (on things like this)

I believe you are FOR the 2nd on some posts and AGAINST obamacare in others so that's a wash.

I want to invite you over for Thanksgiving so you can see how it goes down with my uncles and cousins (you'll be on their team)
And eat some of my nana's recipe buttermilk pie
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:51 PM   #46
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
I want to invite you over for Thanksgiving so you can see how it goes down with my uncles and cousins (you'll be on their team)
We are all Americans (well the ones that were born here legally), there really shouldnt be teams or tribes. We should be a nation of laws.

I bet the Turkey isnt the only thing that gets stuffed !
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:52 PM   #47
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 02:54 PM   #48
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
We are all Americans (well the ones that were born here legally), there really shouldnt be teams or tribes. We should be a nation of laws.

I bet the Turkey isnt the only thing that gets stuffed !
Not just those that were born here (I see you Ted Cruz!)


Oh and they can't stand that I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim and the leader of ISIS or that Hillary is going to Executive Order our guns away if she is ever elected.
Now I CAN'T STAND Hillary but I know that even if she were elected legally she couldn't do that
They read too much Breitbart

Last edited by texansfan; 10-30-2018 at 02:57 PM.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 03:06 PM   #49
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
Quickly process them back to their side of the river.
You misspelled, "I could not have been more wrong on this topic. And you batman, were spot on as usual, I am so embarrassed I will never come back to the PACE forum. Ever. "

Kind of funny, your bros at ICE, what, had to look up the laws?
Attached Images
 
batmaninja is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 03:37 PM   #50
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
You misspelled, "I could not have been more wrong on this topic. And you batman, were spot on as usual, I am so embarrassed I will never come back to the PACE forum. Ever. "

Kind of funny, your bros at ICE, what, had to look up the laws?
LoL your finest six figure federal employees at work!!!

In their defense they don't work land crossings only air/sea
But did you know CBP/ICE Do more than just deport illegals?
They are a highly specialized group and some only concentrate on drugs others counterfeit currency, some human trafficking etc etc

I ride these guys hard all the time that they are only slightly more skilled than our middle school lunch lady
They don't care as long trump keeps signing their checks


Oh and the last text that came in that didn't make the cut said something to the effect of it can take several months for that "prisoner plane" to fill up so some guys sit in detainment all that time
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com