Federal Regulation Nullification and Enforcement

December 12, 2016, 1:22 pm

Agree7 Disagree0

100%
0%

The debate "Federal Regulation Nullification and Enforcement" was started by RogueAmerican on December 12, 2016, 1:22 pm. 7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 0 person is on the disagree side. There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

RogueAmerican posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.


RogueAmerican, adriana, allyssa, dapollman and 3 visitors agree.
Nobody disagrees.

bare minimum.

btw, was thinking. the whole illegals stealing jobs is nonsense. I mean a few construction jobs maybe, but most of the problem are the vanishing factories, which they didn't cause.

most illegals work in kitchens, the low end of which Americans don't want to do cause it pays below minimum (salary) and has grueling hours (not talking about fast food) and agriculture (same reasons, agriculture has historically, and I believe to this day, been exempt from minimum wage jobs and Americans don't come near it if they don't own it, at which point they hire illegals or temporary migrant workers)

these illegal migrants are a cornerstone of city and agricultural economies, take very few jobs that any local would want, and that is why not only cities but farmland America is for protecting these people.

2 years, 11 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

I merely said they receive benefits.

2 years, 11 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

you want illiterate people dying in the streets in this great nation?

do you want our medical facilities to check ids before providing treatment? I hope you end up in a hospital with your wallet stolen, can't treat you til they know your legal. lol

2 years, 11 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Healthcare? What about states allowing education?

2 years, 11 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

true we need to fix it. both sides are saying that. this is where I hope Trump will make it where the good people can get in but make sure the bad does not. idk if he will. we will have to wait and see.

2 years, 11 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

they didn't cut in line. they got none of the benefits.

your acting like they cut in front and got tickets to see the show along with everyone else who waited, when in fact they snuck in through a dumpster and watched the show from a smelly underground storage facility.

it's a totally different line, heck there was no line for them to cut in front off, the costs to get in line were outside of their reach.

2 years, 11 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

on the deportation of millions. yes it is right. because they are wrong to be here in the first place. is it not wrong to cut in front of a line? is it not right to at least send them back to where they were in the line?

2 years, 11 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

because the cities that defy the federal order have openly said the government can shove it's aid, we're sticking by our principles and protecting our people, while the ******s trying to sell out their people and their land for corporate profits and destroy the ecosystem cry and cave.

the difference is scumbags who care only about money are weak in both morals and willpower.

we have yet to see if the deportation of millions is even constitutional. it will have plenty of challenges. another difference may be that one side is in the right, while the other is simply in the wrong.

2 years, 11 months ago

I know they are not equal, but stay with me. From a philosophical, fundamental viewpoint, why can a state or municipality refuse to report illegals and coincide with federal law (not break it), but a state or municipality must abide by environmental regulations. Again, from the philosophical stance, not the legal.

2 years, 11 months ago
Discuss "Federal Regulation Nullification and Enforcement" philosophy
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.