Judges block Trump order to exclude undocumented immigrants from 2020 census
submitted 3 years ago by Nemacolin from (theweek.com)
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (9 children)
Try to focus on the census. That is what we are talking about.
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (8 children)
Stopping people from entering the country illegally, and tracking down people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, is 24/7 thing.
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (7 children)
Counting everyone is a decennial thing.
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (6 children)
And?
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (5 children)
There is no "and." It is not count everyone and determine which are citizens. It is not count everyone and arrest some of them. It is not count everyone and reform the calendars or do anything else.
It is just count everyone like the law requires. Just do what the Constitution requires.
[–]Druullus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (4 children)
The law requires that people are prevented from entering the country illegally, the law requires that people who are in the country illegally be deported, 24/7.
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (3 children)
Focus. Focus. We are talking about the census.
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)
No, we are talking about counting people who would not enter the country if laws were upheld; we are talking about counting people who would be deported if laws were upheld.
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
I cannot even parse your sentence. What conditional are you trying to use?
[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
Nems is trolling you and dragging down discussion by feigning ignorance to what you're saying.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (9 children)
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (8 children)
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (7 children)
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–]Druullus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]Nemacolin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)