why do you think that 800 women as you claim hasnt replied back ?

Exclusions has nothing to do with proper papers, I mean you need a passport to get into Canada and Mexico.

If you're driving to the border and they pull you over for secondary and do a check, same thing with flying, they might suspect something or pull you over randomly and they do a background check and they find the person has a criminal record so they are refused entry. That is exclusion or they used to say you can voluntary withdraw your attempt to enter the country.

I went to my sister's wedding in Vancouver Canada 5 years ago, my cousin and the rest of the family flew into Vancouver and he was asked to go to secondary and they wouldn't let him in because of a DUI, that is an exclusion not a deportation.

Exclusion applies to people trying to get into our country physically they are stopped at the border driving in , boating in or flying in.

Not people who apply and were denied.

I Think I recognize the name but not the pic Fevid.

I recognized olivepit, you were sandycrab on DH, I remember you were one of the decent ones on there.

david

it doesn't matter how much logic you bring into the conversation , his only argument is the word " hell" isn't mentioned, therefore it doesn't exist.

its like the scientists that claim "economic"isn't a real science because Alfred Nobel did not recognize economics when he was a alive or the foundation did not recognize economics earlier on

I know we are getting off topic, so I hope the OP of thread doesnt get ticked off that we are monopolizing their thread.

that was my point Leftist say Bush deported More than Obama, Right wingers say Obama deported more than Bush .

I just go by facts, Obama changed the deportation game , yes he has more Removals than Bush, but he also got rid of Bush's previous policies like Workplace enforcement operations.

Bush had more returns as I mentioned, his catch and release program was controversial

and more facts, Bush counted Returns and removals in his numbers , and Obama counted Removals for his numbers but added Exclusions.

Here is where I will give Obama credit, he focused on Removals as a priority but I dont agree with his counting of exclusions.

Am I making sense?

Ms.harmony.

Im sorry but you are wrong , first thing the term Deportation changed during the Clinton Administration

prior to 1996 if the government tossed your azz out of the country that was considered deportation

Then there was "exclusion" which meant if you come to the border and you're denied entry it was considered "exclusion" Clinton rolled it all into one package in 1996.


Today Deportation has no official meaning

You have "removals" and "returns"

Bush had more returns than Obama, and Obama has more removals then bush

what is the difference?

A removal means you have a court order to return someone to their country and they are not eligible for a period time to return to the US.

A return doesn't require a court order, you grab them and toss them out, but they are free to comeback legally or most will try and sneak in again.

this is why the numbers show illegal immigration is on the decline, which isn't the true number of factor.

So again I ask , how do you show a decline in illegal immigration when you are using different stats?

look at the yearbook tables from the DHS website

https://www.dhs.gov/keywords/immigration-statistics-yearbook

but it doesnt change the facts, deportation under Bush and previous administration meant one thing and deportation under Obama means another.

Turning people away at the border shouldnt count as deportation, its custom agents doing their job, agents picking up people, detaining them , vetting them processing them and showing them the border door is what deportation is about.

If I visit Canada and they refuse to let me in after a few hours of interrogation isnt deportation in my books.

If I visit Canada and decided to stay and their authorities pick me for whatever reason , vet me, fingerprint me and then kick my azz out of their country that is deportation.

spending time with them is a start, actions dictate, I dont place value in what a person says compared to what they do.

the problem is any woman who is seriously looking for a man for a long term relationship will be turned off by certain things in your profile.

the one poster that mentioned your "separated" status is right
and the other is the age that your looking for?
When a woman sees a man at your age looking for as young as 26, throws up red flags.

Its nice to be honest but sometimes that honesty may cost you.

I dont know what your separated status is but you should work on getting divorced and maybe upping your age limit.

Sarah Goldstein from DH is that you??

something to do with bees?

I guess I can see why she might have taken it that way, what I was going to say is if you weighed over 265 I couldn't do it.

The most Ive bench pressed was 265 and I thought she might think that I think she weighs over that.

anyways you get the gist.

yeah I stopped myself because there was no nice way of asking it or no way of not offending the lady

she seem like a nice lady.

okay, I thought I was going oobatz .

I should have known...bangs head on desk.

I hope I didnt offend her.

I wasnt mean to her, I said her profile pretty clear, one has to be either stupid, blind or just plain ignorant not to notice how clear she was.

what escalated?