Princess Bubblegum

The nimble navigator strikes again.

South Carolina ayyliens on suicide watch.

Introduction. People from both sides of the political spectrum fall on both sides of the debate surrounding illegal immigrants. Both progressives (A,B) and conservatives (C) can be found arguing against the unfettered immigration and lackluster enforcement of existing laws. The same can be said of the opposition. The issue, therefore, isn't clearly a partisan issue, which perhaps is why the situation currently exists in the state that it does. What I will attempt to argue here for is the deportation of illegal immigrants by means of enforcing existing U.S. immigration law. The general trend of my argument will be from what I would consider to be less controversial contentions to more controversial contentions. Contention A: Illegal immigrants, by definition, exist within the United States counter to U.S. Federal law. As such they may be deported. From fairus.org: >>The illegal alien population is composed of those who illegally enter the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, and others enter legally and then stay illegally (referred to as overstayers). The immigration authorities currently estimate that two-thirds to three-fifths of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)( which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."[1] Contention B: To allow categories of things that are counter to existing Federal law while retaining that law is to subvert that existing law. This is a truism, but the take away is that such a law should be viewed as a bad and undesirable law since it is presumed that the subversion of law is undesirable... Contention C: Subverting an existing law outside of legal channels undermines all law and thus should be undesirable from at least the perspective of the Federal government. Respect for the rule of law and for the government institutions is typically viewed as a necessity—particularly by government proponents. When that respect wanes from the perspective of the citizenry, it affects the ability of government to perform its alleged duty of maintaining the rule of law. Bad laws or laws that are only selectively enforced greatly damage the credibility of government institutions and by extension negatively impact its purpose. Contention D: If subverting the structure of U.S. laws and institutions is not desired from the perspective of the Federal government, then the law should be enforced or it should be changed. In the context of illegal immigrants, the law should be changed in some manner that absolve immigrants in a legal manner that renders them no longer as “illegal.†This should be straightforward. The best way of dealing with bad laws is to repeal them or change them. Ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is detrimental to the rule of law. Selective enforcement in particular is detrimental to the idea of justice and opens the possibility of abuse by those in power. That being said, I recognize that there may be times when a bad law is unlikely to be repealed or changed and subversion of it can be viewed as desirable. However, this is usually from the perspective of the individual and not from those in government chosen and sworn to carry out the execution of the law. Bad law, if viewed as such by powers within the government, have avenues (such as the Supreme Court) to negate bad law. This all of course presupposes that existing immigration law should be viewed as bad law. Contention E: In regard to illegal immigrants, broadly speaking, there are three methods of addressing them: (1) Enforce and/or expand existing law to deport and/or otherwise disincentivise illegal immigration to affect the removal of illegal immigrants from the United States. (2) Retain existing law but choose not to enforce it to the effect of allowing illegal immigrants to stay and remain “illegal.†(3) Change or create law to legalize illegal immigrants in some manner and thereby remove the legal ability of the Federal government to deport them. Contention F: Option #2 from “Contention E†should be viewed as undesirable for reasons expressed in Contentions A-D. To expound on the previously given reasons, an example of how this undermines law would be the use of undocumented labor by unscrupulous employers. Employing illegal immigrants, which is supposed to be illegal, unfairly advantages unscrupulous employers over law-abiding ones. The employment of illegal immigrants also creates a situation where workers are being employed outside of the protection of labor laws. Illegal immigrants are subject to exploitation and coercion by employers who can threaten to bring the long arm of the law down upon them and have them and their family deported (which also leads to selective enforcement)[2]. To allow illegal immigrants to remain illegal and still reside in the U.S. is to encourage this kind of black market economic relationship (among other things)—directly creating instances of law breaking and law subversion. Contention G: When something is subsidized or legalized through government, the effect is to increase and encourage that thing. Likewise, when something is taxed or criminalized, the effect is to discourage that thing. In the context of illegal immigration, without making additional effort to stem new illegal immigration, choosing to either not enforce the law or to allow for the legalization of illegal immigrants is to effectually encourage further immigration that is outside legal channels or--under some advocated policies--will allow for what would effectively be an open-border policy. Short of greatly increasing enforcement of new illegal entry and immigration (e.g. an improved border wall), so long as there is a desire to immigrate to the U.S., people will do so—illegally if they must. When a signal is sent to these potential immigrants that existing immigration law will not be enforced or will allow for the legalization of formerly illegal immigrants, the effect is increased illegal immigration. An example of this was the busing fiasco of illegal child-immigrants in July of 2014.[3,4] Another example would be the refugee crisis currently happening in Europe. Extreme positions sometimes advocated by those opposed to current immigration law sometimes advocate that the idea of an illegal immigrant should not exist—that being that there should never be an instance where government policy is such that the government can deport an immigrant. This is to effectively advocate for open borders. The debate regarding open borders is likely a lengthy one—but it is my position that this is extremely undesirable for a myriad of reasons that are probably tangential to the issue at hand. What can be said though, is that it is not currently Federal policy to have open borders, nor would most Americans likely desire that. Contention H: The encouragement of further immigration that is outside legal channels should be viewed as undesirable to those looking to solve illegal immigration since it exacerbates existing problems. This should be non-contentious. There already exists a problem. A solution that recreates or exaggerates the problem in the future is a poor solution. Contention I: In addition to Contentions G & H, option #3 from Contention E should be viewed as undesirable because it rewards those who knowingly chose not to follow U.S. law yet decided to remain under its jurisdiction. The act of rewarding those who knowingly chose to not follow established law also undermines U.S. law and institutions (an extension of Contentions B and C). It is also insulting to those who decided to follow the law and follow the legal immigration process. Encouragement or rewards for disregard for Federal law is counter to the Federal government's purpose of upholding the rule of law. Contention J: With the general shift in laws and policies towards social safety nets and collectivism, immigration has changed in its effects relative to past immigration. Where once immigration was much more loosely controlled, the growth of collectivist policies creates a situation where immigration affects all citizens in a more impactful way than in past eras. Because of this, immigration controls are a necessity. Those who bypass those controls (illegal immigrants) are those who impact citizens in a manner counter to law and to the detriment of native citizens. I would argue that this is probably the most important contention. It is also quite expansive and has many facets to it. Contentions K & L will expand upon this. Contention K: Illegal immigrants are detrimental to an American election system where only citizens are supposed to be represented. One fundamental issue here is that the United States has democratic elections. As such, demographics matter in the outcome of those elections. It is an obvious point that if immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are given power to sway elections (e.g. by voting), by consequence the proportion of the electoral power that belongs to native citizen demographic shrinks. It should therefore be an important issue when taking into account the general political trends that exist among immigrant populations. Illegal immigrants in the U.S., for example, overwhelmingly favor the Democratic party (8 to 1 Democrat to Republican).[5] Immigrants support Affirmative Action at 58% compared to the native rate of 35%.[6] Immigrants supported the Affordable Care Act at a rate of 69% compared to the native rate of 52%.[7] Immigrants more often than not come from cultures and regions that are more socialist and anti-free market than the U.S. 81% of foreign-born Hispanics favor a larger government over smaller government.[8] It is unsurprising that 80% of Democrats favor allowing for the legalization of illegal immigrants.[9] Had illegal immigrants been allowed the vote, Barack Obama would have easily won key swing states in the 2012 presidential election.[10] What's more, illegal immigrants, as they currently exist, already impact the U.S. Presidential election by means of the Electoral College and the Census Bureau. Illegal immigrants that reside in states that vote (for example) Democratic, contribute to that State's electoral votes in the Electoral College system.[11] In 2012, in the 20 states with the largest immigrant populations, Obama won 17.[12] What's more, there are indications non-citizens (illegal immigrants included) vote despite not being allowed to legally.[13] >>"In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.â€[14,15,16,17] This is rigging the system of democracy by importing (and then legalizing) a leftist voting base and by importing cultural demographics that heavily favor leftism. Regardless of where an individual resides on the political spectrum, it should be acknowledged that importing a voting block that greatly differs from native voting patterns is detrimental to the native citizen's ability to exercise the right of self-determination. Those with libertarian leanings (to which class I believe lannan13 belongs) must address the reality that granting/recognizing “rights of citizenship†(namely voting/representation) to immigrants who come from other nations “illegally†conflicts with limiting governmental intrusion on the rights of native citizens when those immigrants hold conflicting or opposing ideologies that approve of said intrusions. And that point should be re-emphasized: immigrants, while generally supported by those with libertarian values, do not hold libertarian values themselves—more often than not, they hold the opposite (compared to natives, immigrants significantly favor restrictions on free speech, increased drug laws, affirmative action, and other government interventions towards inequality).[18] My appeal to the segment of the population that calls themselves libertarians is one of rational self-interest: the rights of native citizens (you included) come before the alleged rights of prospective citizens and non-citizen residents. Lysander Spooner addressed this type of conflict with democratic governance and the ideas of liberty: >>"[The individual] sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." [19] In this case, the opportunity exists to preemptively remove an arguably contributing factor to the growing threat to the liberties of native citizens by literally deporting it. It is a form of self-preservation. Typical arguments try to claim that illegal immigrants are a net gain to the economy—however, even if true, it fails to account for the political impact they have (and would have more of if legalized) and THAT effect on the economy. In a statist system, it is a given that domestic population—through government--may choose who enters a country and choose if and when immigrants become legal citizens. This is the case for all nations, and the U.S. is no exception. Deportation and execution of the law address this issue. Contention L: The use of social safety nets and infrastructure by illegal immigrants is detrimental to native citizens. Their use of social safety nets and infrastructure is political leverage to expand leftist social programs. Legalization of illegal immigrants would also expand their impact upon social programs. It is a common contention among those who oppose deportation to argue that illegal immigrants are a net gain to the American economy. It may indeed be the case that illegal immigrants increase the GDP of the country, however a net increase to GDP does not necessarily equate with a net gain in tax revenue for government agencies—and by extension supporting taxpayers. If one accepts the premise that unjust taxation is little better than theft, and if one also accepts the premise that taxation to fund social programs for the benefit of non-citizen, illegal immigrants constitutes unjust taxation, then by necessity a form of theft occurs when taxing citizens for the benefit of illegal immigrants. Rather than re-invent the wheel here, I'm going to just share some data from those who've made these arguments before: >>According to a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies, 62% of households headed by a illegal immigrant participated in at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 49% of legal immigrant-headed households and 30% of native-headed households. [20] Households are used as a measurement in place of individual immigrants due to the impact that the entire family unit (e.g. including the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.) have on social programs and taxes. >>In 2012, according to a Heritage Foundation study, the average illegal immigrant household cost US taxpayers $14,387. The study also claims that illegal immigrants currently receive social benefits amounting to $54.5 billion more than they pay in taxes.[21,22] So how much do illegal immigrants pay in collective taxes? Approximately $12 billion annually.[23] The Congressional Budget Office report also concluded that illegal immigrants are a net negative to collective taxation and benefits: >> “The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest. […] Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.†[24] >>A CATO institute analysis of census bureau's 2012 current population survey found that low-income non-citizens--including illegal immigrants--received 42% less in social benefits compared to equally poor citizens. However, this difference can be explained by the fact that non-citizens don't have full access to over 80 federal welfare programs.[25] Why is this important? While illegal immigrants may use less social benefits than some native groups, that is only because they do not have legal access to social programs. Allowing more access to social programs by granting legal status would consequently increase their impact upon social programs. Milton Friedman, noted libertarian author, while attempting to makes sense of the discrepancy of past and present immigration noted that, in the present day, given the current collectivist social programs, it is only so long as illegal immigrants remain under illegal status and exempt from state-funded social programs that they may be good for the economy and native citizens.[26] [27] Immigrants collectively (both illegal and legal) use social benefits/programs at greater rates than native households (and when compared to their respective native ethnic/racial groups[28]). It should be apparent that if illegal immigrants as a collective entity are using less social benefits than natives--presumably due to the fact of their illegal status--then it is not an unreasonable inductive conclusion that should that status change from illegal to legal, the impact of illegal immigrants upon social programs will mirror that of currently existing legalized immigrants. The impact illegal immigrants have already had on social programs should not be understated, either. For example, the impact of illegal immigrants (who are often uninsured) upon emergency rooms (who could not turn them away) was a contributing factor to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the ACA, funding to the costs of these (often unpaid) emergency room visits were paid by taxpayers.[29,30] >>In 2012, about 50% of immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador didn't speak English well or at all. The average figure for all immigrants is 30.3%. [31,32] Multilingualism in the U.S. costs significant money.[33] Without compromises in education (such as ESL services), the children of (illegal) immigrant households are far more likely to face lives of poverty—carrying with that the associated/indirect costs to the native citizens. Moreover, the impact this has on education standards is a likely contributing factor to the manifestations of government-directed education solutions such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core. >>2011 BLS current population survey-- 28% of immigrants 25-65 have not completed a high school education.[34] >>In California, immigrants with less than a high school education account for 73% of the low-education population.[35] Lack of education is important here because of the correlation between education and income. Taken as a collective entity, when a group (such as illegal immigrants) hold low levels of education, they will contribute less in taxes and collect more in social benefits.[36] And of course, there's the oft-repeated issue surrounding illegal immigrants: their effect on American jobs. To be fair, there are supported arguments that show that illegal immigration has contributed a positive effect (or at the very least a non-detrimental effect) upon overall employment. This is attributed to the employment opportunities some immigrants themselves create, either directly through the creation of businesses, or indirectly through consumerism. What can be said though, is that illegal immigrants are competitors for native low-skilled labor. Even presidential candidate Bernie Sanders would contend the same thing.[37] Another oft-repeated talking point surrounding this issue is that illegal immigrants are willing to do the jobs Americans won't do. A more accurate statement is likely to be that illegal immigrants accept payment and working conditions for jobs at a rate Americans won't accept. Since it is supposed to be illegal to hire undocumented employees, any employment can be considered “black market†employment, and as previously discussed, carries with it a general lack of adherence to labor and wage laws. By this means, illegal immigrants and those employing them gain market leverage over their law-abiding economic counterparts. This aspect of the argument for deportation is likely to appeal to those who are concerned for domestic low-skill citizens, but there's an argument that stems from this that should appeal to those with a libertarian leaning as well; namely the effect upon the political landscape of a system of illegal immigration that undermines domestic low-skill employment will inevitably lead to calls for government intervention in the labor market with things like higher minimum wage laws (another social program). When the domestic low-skilled employees are underemployed or underpaid due in part to black market illegal immigrant employment, there will be calls to raise the minimum wage through government when the market won't do the equivalent on its own. While low-skill wage stagnation due to illegal immigration is relatively smaller compared to automation and outsourcing, it nevertheless still has an impact. And it is perhaps a bit of irony that enacting higher minimum wage would cause higher unemployment (and possibly self-deportation) among low-skilled illegal immigrant labor—so long as the law is actually enforced.[38,39] And legalization of illegal immigrants certainly is no guarantee that illegal immigrants and their employers would begin to abide by labor laws. What is likely to happen, especially if illegal immigrants are legalized in conjunction with a minimum wage hike, is increased unemployment among those who would also qualify for social assistance. Illegal immigrants, especially if legalized, would also impact American natives through the Civil Rights Act and associated (nominally) egalitarian government programs (e.g. Affirmative Action). It's no secret that the ethnic and racial makeup of illegal immigrants does not mirror that of the domestic population. When there is a shift in demographics in the country, that shift will impact hiring and selection (e.g. colleges/universities) preferences to abide by racial and diversity quotas. Legalizing low-skilled immigrants (and not deporting them) will lead to increased pressure to hire/select ethnic populations that are boosted through those formerly illegal immigrants in favor of other groups. U.S. universities already implement special programs to specifically enroll illegal immigrants.[40] This trend is likely to increase, especially if illegal immigrants are able to impact elections to a greater degree (via subsequent political pandering and handouts). What has been covered here is not an exhaustive list by any means, but addresses the issues that will only become larger should the U.S. fail to deport illegal immigrants. Contention M: Deportation of illegal immigrants is pragmatic/possible. It has been done before under Truman, it happens on a continual basis under Obama, and can be done in the present/future. It may be done incrementally—there is no time requirement—so long as additional illegal immigration is halted. Through a combination of increased border security, employment oversight (such as E-verify), and active deportation, the illegal immigrant population within the United States can be effectively reduced. It is probable that given sufficient motivation and correct policy, most illegal immigrants will self-deport in favor of risking involuntary deportation (which may come along with asset forfeiture—which is a way to offset the cost of enforcement).[41] A change in government policies towards discontinuing any subsidization of illegal immigration (through social programs for instance) would further this goal. Contention N: Deportation of illegal immigrants is non-dependent upon claims of an alleged positive contribution to the U.S. Economy or to government taxes. Positive economic contributions do not excuse violating the law. Put another way, being a positive economic force is not a sufficient reason to allow for the retaining of illegal immigrants. At best it is a contributory reason--an attempted excuse for the breaking of U.S. laws. We (and the Federal government) should not allow the law to be broken simply because of a growth in taxes, or else the law is a farce--a mere suggestion of human behavior rather than a mandate. Nor should immigration law be hinged upon economic impact. To argue otherwise begs an inference that the purpose of law (immigration law in this instance) is to positively effect the economy (or at least encompasses a positive effect). Perspectives on the purpose of law vary from individual to individual, but from the perspective of a person who views the purpose of law as the collectivized means to protect the liberties and property of the constituent citizenry (a la Bastiat), the economy ought not supersede that duty of government in regards to law. Allowing for the retaining of illegal immigrants under the existing form of democratic government simply because of an alleged positive tax influence to the Federal government is a violation (even if it be indirect) of the rights and property of the citizens of the United States. The costs and benefits that are borne to citizens due to illegal immigration are not equal. An increase in economic growth or tax revenue is no indication of a fair or equitable system—which should be important given the relative involuntary nature of government. Certain groups and sectors are going to benefit more from illegal immigration and some will suffer because of it. Just because there may be an alleged collective economic benefit to the U.S. as a whole is not appropriate justification for undermining more fundamental American principles. Affidavits of Support are supposedly part of the law for immigrants looking to come to the United States, but, like a lot of the U.S. immigration law, is not enforced (and illegal immigrants of course are not beholden by government to this standard).[42] This is how immigration in the U.S. used to work. Immigrants who arrived in the past were rejected if they were believed to be a burden or threat to society (e.g. by lacking employment opportunities, holding certain political beliefs, or through illness). This was because in America the interests of Americans came before the interests of non-Americans. And this is how it should be again: government services used in the protection of American property and liberties should trump government services used for illegal alien residents. Contention O: An alleged negative impact of deporting illegal immigrants upon the economy and upon tax income is overstated. One of the biggest alleged drawbacks to enforcing immigration policies and deporting illegal immigrants is the impact it will supposedly have upon the U.S. economy. Dire predictions of trillions lost in GDP are sometimes stated will occur if all illegal immigrants were to be deported.[43] $1.6 trillion, over the course of 20 years, equates to $80 billion in GDP per year. For comparison, the total 2016 U.S. GDP is estimated to be $18.7 trillion.[44] What these kind of studies usually fail to describe is the per capita GDP (what the aggregated, average individual experiences economically—also sometimes used as a measure for standard of living). A rise in the per capita GDP can occur even when the GDP stagnates—if the population declines. The absence 12 million illegal immigrants (and any subsequent progeny) would decline the U.S. population (assuming zero growth) by 3.7% (12m/318.9m). The study from which the $1.6 trillion figure is derived claims a 5.7% loss in economic growth over 20 years—which presumably means that growth would be an expected 94.3% of the otherwise 100% (e.g. 5% annual growth would become 4.715%). But again, that gap in GDP does not necessarily equate to a lower per capita GDP or a lower standard of living for the remaining U.S. residents. Where GDP does factor in is tax revenue. If GDP experiences a negative impact, it is presumed that government tax revenue is likewise negatively impacted. What this simplification falsely assumes is that the gap in GDP/taxation would exceed incurred costs to government for those generating this gap. As argued above, overall tax revenue from illegal immigrants does not exceed taxes paid—nor would it do so under a legalization program. >>A 1997 study by a National Academy of Sciences panel of demographers and economists details how immigration fuels U.S. population growth and the fiscal costs and negative social policy effects of the current large-scale immigration. The authors of the report The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, say that the study shows a positive economic benefit from immigrants. While that is true in a narrow sense, the study's finding of a possible economic benefit of from $1 billion to $10 billion is outweighed by the costs to the American taxpayer in budget outlays.[45] >>Among the NAS study findings are: Immigration is the driving force behind rapid population growth. Immigration has a negative impact on lower-skilled, less-educated Americans. Immigration is exacerbating the wealth gap. Immigration has contributed to the increase in high school dropouts. Immigrant-headed households use more in government services than they contribute in state and local taxes. Immigration is a substantial tax burden to native households, especially in states with large immigrant populations, and, on average, for the nation as a whole.[46] And it should be asked, what are our economic needs as a nation? If the country determines that it needs low-skilled immigrant labor, there is a mechanism for increasing that: temporary work visas. A notion the U.S. is utterly dependent upon resident illegal aliens for that is unfounded. Contention P: If illegal immigrants are not deported, political efforts will be attempted to legalize them for political gain and at the expense of previously stated reasons to support deportation. This isn't really a position I'm going to go to lengths to argue, but it shouldn't be anything surprising given that politicians pander to demographics for political support. If the possibility arises that illegal immigrants will have voting power, it should be obvious that pandering to them will occur, and there will be adverse consequences to Americans because of it. In Closing. These are the primary arguments I would make to support the position for deportation of illegal immigrants. It's not an exhaustive list, but it is one that I think will appeal to the broad base of people. There are other arguments which may have merit as well (e.g. culture, crime), but these arguments made here are my own positions that I'm willing to argue over. I'll close my opening argument by stating that a nation that does not control its borders ceases to serve its citizens and soon ceases to be a nation, or as put by Reagan, "A nation without borders is not a nation." The U.S., like all nations, needs to control its borders and control its immigration. Deportation is a key and necessary element to that. Final Addendum Though I appreciate the willingness of lannan13 to debate this subject (he initiated the debate actually), and I appreciate anyone who has an open mind willing to listen to the debate, I maintain a deep skepticism towards debate being a means to change the minds of people in general. It's why I have never posted in this sub-forum until this point. I bring this up only because once the debate has concluded, I have no further intention to contribute to this topic or thread. Sources 1. http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime 2. http://www.resourcelibrary.gcyf.org/sites/gcyf.org/files/resources/2014/facts_about_immigration_and_the_u.s._economy.pdf (page 4) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis 4. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/02/protests-force-buses-carrying-illegal-immigrant-children-to-be-rerouted.html 5. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/ 6. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=17m18s 7. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=22m49s 8. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=28m16s 9. http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx 10. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h15m56s 11. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=1m34s 12. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h15m40s 13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/02/do-non-citizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-a-reply-to-our-critics/ 14. http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/ 15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 16. https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf 17. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=4m41s 18. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234200 19. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/ 20. https://youtu.be/yjjSG705Inc 21. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h17m36s 22. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer 23. http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes2015.pdf 24. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf (page 3) 25. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h17m13s 26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE 27. https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=23m17s 28. https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=6m36s 29. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/whats-holding-undocumented-immigrants-back/ 30. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrant-births-at-your-expense/ 31. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h24m57s 32. http://cis.org/node/3876 33. http://www.usenglish.org/view/301 34. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h25m31s 35. ibid. 36. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer 37. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/30/bernie-sanders-again-links-low-wages-with-immigration/ 38. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/the-minimum-wage-cure-for-illegal-immigration/?_r=0 39. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-02-13/could-a-9-minimum-wage-reduce-illegal-immigration 40. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/affirmative-action-illegal-immigrants.html 41. https://www.ice.gov/asset-forfeiture 42. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support 43. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/ 44. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States 45. http://www.fairus.org/issue/national-academy-of-sciences-immigration-study 46. ibid.

It's hard to say who was likely to win without posting what the militaries looked like when you attacked. Tanks do not require soldiers to fight, though, if that is what you meant by "unarmed." If you meant that he had 0 munitions or 0 gas, then yeah, I would imagine that would be a bug. What's interesting, and has been brought up before, is that he dealt damage to you twice where as you only dealt damage to him once (effectively meaning his tanks got two strikes, whereas you only got one). This is because tanks and soldiers receive damage separate from each other despite dealing it together. This didn't affect the victory outcome, though, but it did affect the casualty ratio between you two.

TRUMP 2016 extends its support to the ayyliens of BK for their righteous defense of Shifty. My God, what have I done...

I don't expect today will be a total loss though.

Something seems amiss with this image...

You can't deport Trump. Trump will remain. Trump will survive.

The list generator spit out the following: Congratulations to Naturella, the winner of the 1st place $20mil prize and to Prefontaine, the winner of the 2nd place $5mil prize! And thank you all for participating and for supporting TRUMP 2016. Let's Make America Great Again.

FWIW I did not rig it to come out this way. Edit: the rest of the results:

If I as a student refuse to go to school or refuse to adhere to school rules, what should my punishment be? And if I refuse to comply with the punishment (if it is jail time, for instance), is the end result a threat on my life? Is this going to endear my country and fellow country men to me that I should be threatened in such a manner?

I demand to see their long-form birth certificate. The ayyliens aren't even citizens.

I demand a recount.

The following players have earned a second raffle ticket: Naturella https://politicsandw...nation/id=22866 Thalmor https://politicsandw...nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandw...m/nation/id=439 Buorhann https://politicsandw...nation/id=12739 Santa Claus/Prefontaine https://politicsandw.../nation/id=3767 Syrup https://politicsandw...nation/id=13316 Pangui https://politicsandw...nation/id=14603 Solo Man https://politicsandw.../nation/id=7017 Cranberries https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6394 (1st ticket) Ansom and johnl023 were dropped for no longer flying the Trump flag. We are still accepting new players for the last stretch of the raffle. I have an ad that links here, yes. Probably swamped among all the other ads, though.

If you're asking if I would have made my pip larger if I knew that would be allowed, then the answer is yes, I would.

And this pip is 176x150: The pip does not resize when displayed on the forums. If this size pip is allowed, then the instructions from the donation page should reflect that.

You need to be an applicant to the TRUMP 2016 alliance to get the alliance flag since Sheepy won't allow global flags.

>hire him >this fat woman

I've awarded the following one ticket entry each: Ansom https://politicsandw...nation/id=12283 Naturella https://politicsandw...nation/id=22866 Thalmor https://politicsandw...nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandw...m/nation/id=439 Buorhann https://politicsandw...nation/id=12739 Santa Claus/Prefontaine https://politicsandw.../nation/id=3767 Syrup https://politicsandw...nation/id=13316 Pangui https://politicsandw...nation/id=14603 johnl023 https://politicsandw...nation/id=21080 Solo Man https://politicsandw.../nation/id=7017 Pedro II changed flags and has been removed from the list.

Updated list: Ansom https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12283 Naturella https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=22866 Pedro II https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=23195 Thalmor https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=439 Buorhann https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12739 Santa Claus/Prefontaine https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3767 Syrup https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13316 Pangui https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=14603 johnl023 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=21080 Solo Man https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=7017 First tickets will be awarded to active players within the next few days.

TRUMP 2016 is more concerned about the growing Ayylien threat than about muslims. (I am assuming this is an IC forum). Updated list Ansom https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12283 Naturella https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=22866 Pedro II https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=23195 Thalmor https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=439 Buorhann https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12739 Santa Claus/Prefontaine https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3767 Syrup https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13316 Pangui https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=14603

Nope, sorry. Casino is closed.

Updated list Ansom https://politicsandw...nation/id=12283 Naturella https://politicsandw...nation/id=22866 Pedro II https://politicsandw...nation/id=23195 Thalmor https://politicsandw...nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandw...m/nation/id=439 Buorhann https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12739 Santa Claus/Prefontaine https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3767 Syrup https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13316