LMGTFY

HTH

It was a big issue in the early 1990s, California went very hard on immigration (note - this is often lost on most people ESPECIALLY the media - there is a difference between immigration and illegal immigration. People on this forum understand that but most Americans and Europeans - right and left wing - don't).

The state government's acts backfired in the polls (there was a ballot proposition but I forget exactly what) and led to the Republican Party being effectively destroyed there. People forget: in the not-so-distant past, California used to be a reliably Republican state that produced politicians like Nixon and Reagan. Before Bill Clinton, the Republicans carried the state is something like 8 out of 10 presidential elections previously.

I don't think illegal immigration is more of an issue now than it was then. The difference today is the media.

As for John Cunningham good riddance. Deliberately trying to game the system is bad enough; Check fraud is a major crime that should see him sent off forever. He should be grateful for ICE's generosity in just sending him back without making him do the prison time first.

6 Rep to 4 Dem governors since WW2. The Republicans being generally more centrist and moderate.
I wonder what kind of visas did the Pilgrims have?

There wasn't ICE for one thing, or mass round ups, except the for ill named "Operation Wetback" under Eisenhower.
Since he was never convicted of check fraud you can't say he commited a crime, just speculation.
Can you show me evidence of previous deportation of this scale.

Getting charged with a crime is more than just "speculation" and being charged is grounds for termination in many areas of American employment . . . and he wasn't deported for that.

What is your point in asking about the Pilgrims, and how is that in any way relevant? I am guessing the Pilgrims had the same visas that the Native Americans had, since they originally came from Asia across the land bridge.

That is the problem with the very Euro-centric view of history that you apparently have. History doesn't begin and end with White people.

Really?

The point you have made quite well. i.e. the same visa that what are now called illegal immigrants.

That makes no sense relative to what I said. Quite the reverse, it's a view I don't have.

Yes, really. The authorities cannot randomly charge anyone with anything just because they feel like it. Getting charged with check fraud is a major crime and is grounds for termination at many, many companies and government agencies. They are not bound to wait for conviction and in fact would open themselves up to massive legal exposure if they did so.

As the Pilgrims and their successors (among others) ended up conquering the various native tribes and in retrospect can be seen as a de facto invasion - by inviting the comparison aren't you making the case to support and strengthen ICE and enforce immigration policy? I think though that is the opposite of what you are trying to voice and that is why it is not logical or sensible to bring up the Pilgrims.

Unless by bringing up the Pilgrims and lack of visas you are advocating for borders to be abolished completely, which is an extreme position.

As for worldview - it is sensible for me to bring up the point I made about a Euro-centric view as it makes no logical sense to use the Pilgrims to support your viewpoint, unless you have a superficial understanding of history.

AKA "bad hombre".

What really got up my nose was the ICE press release recently where they said they'd arrested 41,000 people in the last four months, and then they listed a whole bunch of nasty crimes "some" of these people had been convicted of, which totalled "2,700" convictions - not people. So in other words, most likely, those offences had been committed by a relatively small percentage of that 41,000.

The overwhelming majority had thus obviously only been convicted of minor offences and a quarter of them hadn't been convicted of anything at all. I saw John Kelly challenged on the TV about it and he said something like "they weren't very good people though", i.e. guilt by assocation. Which is obviously nonsense given that only a tiny fraction of the people arrested had been convicted of serious offences.

https://www.ice.gov/features/100-days

Overstaying is not a serious breach of the law?

If someone "beats the system" and slips in illegally - they should be rewarded for that?

I call that the "stuff this" theorem. If they are allowed to tell ICE "stuff this" and stay because they broke the law and were undetected for a while, then why shouldn't I be allowed to say "stuff this" at the laws I personally find inconvenient?

Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) then bother through the time and expense of going through the Green Card process to bring our partners in legally?

Legally speaking no, it's not a serious breach of the law, if it were they couldn't have bundled him onto a plane without a hearing. It's a civil offence, so you have no right to representation and if you violate the VWP you have no process either.

By definition, not a serious breach. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be deported, what I'm saying is that the ICE press release is bullshit. If it said, 41,000 people arrested for civil immigration offences, three quarters of whom have also been convicted of criminal offences, of which 2,700 were serious, it would be objective - but it's not. They emphasize the serious offences and the DHS Secretary has implied they're all bad actors and the evidence to support that is very thin.

I agree with you about the press release. I haven't believed government press releases in a really long time. I, naively thought that Obama would be different but he was arguably worse than all the others. Trump is more of the same.

But I don't believe non-US Citizens are above the law. They shouldn't be deported for things like parking tickets etc. Immigration law, however, is another matter.