POTUS consorting with Illegals to show his contempt for the rule of law

[Cow Poke]

I was referring to your analogy, which is so unworthy of someone like you that I'm going to pretend you never even posted it.

Yup, college has ruined you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Problems with this logic shouldn't be too hard to figure out:

1. How do you separate out the 'dreamers' from the non dreamers? Do we determine this on if we caught them with their parents or do we just take what they said at their word?
2. I wonder if this would have anything to do with the fact that the elections are about a month away and it appears that the Republicans are going to end up gaining many seats in both houses and might even end up taking control of the senate. Suddenly giving democrats a large voting block, just weeks before the election seems rather suspicious to me...
3. How do we pick out those who are not gang members, drug mules, sex slaves, etc from those who are not? How can we get rid of the criminals and save those who are being used by criminals?

Looks like a big mess to me with lots of issues that haven't really been addressed.

[Paprika]

a particular and stubborn variety of irrational dedication to the letter of the law that only serves to undermine the rule of law in the long run.

There there. One might think that you're saying that there's no rational reason to uphold the law.

[Spartacus]

There there. One might think that you're saying that there's no rational reason to uphold the law.

Current immigration law is utterly unworkable. The system is broken. We shouldn't be surprised and can barely be offended when people try to circumvent it.

http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content...lon-Reason.jpg

[Paprika]

Current immigration law is utterly unworkable. The system is broken. We shouldn't be surprised and can barely be offended when people try to circumvent it.

http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content...lon-Reason.jpg

So foreigners who desire to reside in your country have a right to do so?

[Juvenal]

There there. One might think that you're saying that there's no rational reason to uphold the law.

One might think you haven't considered the numbers.



Last time I checked, there were about 11.7 million illegal aliens in the country, a number that hasn't changed significantly since the last administration.

"Upholding the law" means finding law enforcement resources sufficient to round them all up, court facilities sufficient to provide them due process, and buses, trains, planes and automobiles to ship them across the nearest border. For a bow on top, we could also try to find enough diplomatic personnel to handle the blowback after creating a refugee crisis four times the size of Syria's.

Or here's a thought. If, or maybe especially because, the whackjob partisans insist on doing stupid stuff, we should ignore them.

I'd say it's fairly obvious this is an issue that calls for prioritization. That means leaning on the worst, and easing off on the best, nominally while maximizing the effects of our current social, law enforcement, and judicial resources. Maybe by increasing deportations for illegal aliens that get caught up in the law enforcement net, and decreasing deportations on those who came into the country as children.

One might think Americans could find a president willing to do that, even if it's only outside the pages of the Media Research Center, its offshoots, and OPs posted by their fellow Southern Baptists.

As ever, Jesse

[Spartacus]

So foreigners who desire to reside in your country have a right to do so?

I dislike "rights" language, and I don't think we need it when the Bible tells us to welcome the stranger.

In any case, I don't think we get to argue the opposite unless we're willing to update the plaque on the Statue of Liberty, just to make sure the world knows we don't actually believe in that stuff anymore-- it hurts the economy, you know.

[Paprika]

I dislike "rights" language, and I don't think we need it when the Bible tells us to welcome the stranger.

In any case, I don't think we get to argue the opposite unless we're willing to update the plaque on the Statue of Liberty, just to make sure the world knows we don't actually believe in that stuff anymore-- it hurts the economy, you know.

Okay, no rights language. So you don't think there should be any barrier whatsoever to anyone who wants to immigrate?

[Spartacus]

Okay, no rights language. So you don't think there should be any barrier whatsoever to anyone who wants to immigrate?

Remember when you pounced on me for flippantly mis-characterizing your argument in the thread on millennials?

[Paprika]

One might think you haven't considered the numbers.



Last time I checked, there were about 11.7 million illegal aliens in the country, a number that hasn't changed significantly since the last administration.

"Upholding the law" means finding law enforcement resources sufficient to round them all up, court facilities sufficient to provide them due process, and buses, trains, planes and automobiles to ship them across the nearest border. For a bow on top, we could also try to find enough diplomatic personnel to handle the blowback after creating a refugee crisis four times the size of Syria's.

The context of my comment to Spartacus was whether the illegal immigrants who grew up in your country should be given legal residency and not all of immigration law.

But sure, deporting all of them at once would be a problem. But they didn't all arrive at once, did they?

[lilpixieofterror]

I dislike "rights" language, and I don't think we need it when the Bible tells us to welcome the stranger.

In any case, I don't think we get to argue the opposite unless we're willing to update the plaque on the Statue of Liberty, just to make sure the world knows we don't actually believe in that stuff anymore-- it hurts the economy, you know.

The Statue of Liberty plaque was never really national policy to begin with and economic hard times have tended to co-inside with more restrictive immigration policy. Most of US history hasn't been too inviting to foreigners (rather their threat is real or imagined). I somehow doubt many American citizens are going to run out in the fields to pick crops, clean offices, become maids, etc if the government suddenly decided to ship off all illegals one day. That being said, it doesn't mean the other side doesn't have any valid arguments. Among those, I somehow doubt the democrats have the best of intentions themselves. Adding a large voting block to their numbers, could be a very tempting reason to grant them citizenship.

[Paprika]

Remember when you pounced on me for flippantly mis-characterizing your argument in the thread on millennials?

I'm trying to clarify here, not mischaracterise - I apologise if that was unclear. (Whereas in that thread, you clearly misstated my argument and attributed it to me. )

[Spartacus]

The Statue of Liberty plaque was never really national policy to begin with and economic hard times have tended to co-inside with more restrictive immigration policy. Most of US history hasn't been too inviting to foreigners (rather their threat is real or imagined). I somehow doubt many American citizens are going to run out in the fields to pick crops, clean offices, become maids, etc if the government suddenly decided to ship off all illegals one day. That being said, it doesn't mean the other side doesn't have any valid arguments. Among those, I somehow doubt the democrats have the best of intentions themselves. Adding a large voting block to their numbers, could be a very tempting reason to grant them citizenship.

The majority of the "unwashed masses" tend to the right on social issues. The main reason these ethnic groups tend to vote Democrat is that Republicans are perceived as being against immigration reform.

Incidentally, the word is coincide, as in coincidence.

[lilpixieofterror]

The majority of the "unwashed masses" tend to the right on social issues. The main reason these ethnic groups tend to vote Democrat is that Republicans are perceived as being against immigration reform.

Incidentally, the word is coincide, as in coincidence.

And that kind of makes the point. The Democrats are not doing it because they generally believe or follow the whole 'bring us your huddled masses...' speech on the statue of liberty. Rather, gaining a large voting block is a very good reason to want them made legal so they could vote.

[Spartacus]

And that kind of makes the point. The Democrats are not doing it because they generally believe or follow the whole 'bring us your huddled masses...' speech on the statue of liberty. Rather, gaining a large voting block is a very good reason to want them made legal so they could vote.

If that's the way it all ends up, the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.