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

[lilpixieofterror]

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

Unless the Republicans can produce enough of a popular response from the rest of the population, to counter whatever gains the Democrats might make among the people suddenly granted citizenship. Remember, many of the polls have shown a good part of the general population is against it. Why do you think the Democrats haven't quite jumped on it yet?

[Spartacus]

Unless the Republicans can produce enough of a popular response from the rest of the population, to counter whatever gains the Democrats might make among the people suddenly granted citizenship. Remember, many of the polls have shown a good part of the general population is against it. Why do you think the Democrats haven't quite jumped on it yet?

Because Democrats, by and large, are as cynical and insincere as Republicans. It's not about making positive change--it's about winning the next election.

[lilpixieofterror]

Because Democrats, by and large, are as cynical and insincere as Republicans. It's not about making positive change--it's about winning the next election.

Oh, I agree with you absolutely. Both parties are trying to gain from this, as they try to gain from everything else. Democrats are nervous because the popular support isn't in favor of the move and the Republicans are hoping standing to their base will not end up backfiring on them in case it goes though.

[Spartacus]

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. )

I don't know what the system would look like in my ideal America; I'm hardly a world-class expert on immigration policy. At the very least, we can make a reasonable argument for excluding people with criminal records or who would bring along infectious diseases. Are there any other reasonable restrictions you'd like to suggest?

In any case, if that infographic I posted is even vaguely accurate (if someone can present statistics to the contrary, I'd quite happily rethink my position there), the "you should have immigrated legally" argument will fall flat. We can't tell people to go wait in line if we were just going to tell them "no" anyway.

[Paprika]

We can't tell people to go wait in line if we were just going to tell them "no" anyway.

It's less offensive

[Spartacus]

Oh, I agree with you absolutely. Both parties are trying to gain from this, as they try to gain from everything else. Democrats are nervous because the popular support isn't in favor of the move and the Republicans are hoping standing to their base will not end up backfiring on them in case it goes though.

Alright, then: let's set aside the cynicism of politics and pretend we have people in office who actually care about the common good. What sorts of arguments would we like to hear each side of the argument make?

[lilpixieofterror]

Alright, then: let's set aside the cynicism of politics and pretend we have people in office who actually care about the common good. What sorts of arguments would we like to hear each side of the argument make?

Well, a good point is the US has grown from all of its immigrants in its past. Many of my ancestors were immigrants to the US and I bet almost everybody here has at least 1 or more immigrants in their direct blood line. The US didn't fall apart, in fact, it grew even more powerful and better than it was before.

Bad point, how do separate out those who are working for the drug cartels, the sex trade, etc from those who are not?

[Juvenal]

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?

I think you mean, or should mean, a path to legal residency for the minor children of illegal immigrants, which is what was on offer with the Dream Act. It was first proposed at the national level as a bi-partisan measure, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch [R, Utah] in 2001, about a month before 9/11.



There is no reasonable likelihood that the current congress, or the congress to be seated after the next election, which is most likely to feature Republican control of both houses, will address this issue legislatively. With control of just one house, they've shown no interest in reaching across the aisle toward this administration.

They're too deranged for that, and here I'm speaking descriptively, not as a polemic.

Starting with the Affordable Care Act and continuing with nearly every proposal of the current administration, including this one, all it has taken is the support of Obama to recast any Republican initiative as a liberal conspiracy. For cause, I no longer take these folks seriously. They have taken immigration reform off of the table while going forward with plans to sue the administration into enforcing the most onerous portions of a law they've voted over 50 times to repeal in full or in part, even if it means shutting down the government to do so.

They opposed the ACA tooth and nail until Obama joined them, and now they support it hook, line, and anchor around their necks.



The only way immigration reform stands a chance is if Obama comes out against it. Then, it'll be guaranteed.

As ever, Jesse

[Spartacus]

Well, a good point is the US has grown from all of its immigrants in its past. Many of my ancestors were immigrants to the US and I bet almost everybody here has at least 1 or more immigrants in their direct blood line. The US didn't fall apart, in fact, it grew even more powerful and better than it was before.

True! But it's also true that, for the most part, we've outsourced a lot of our low-skill jobs, e.g. manufacturing. Where once the people who sewed our clothes and manufactured our knickknacks lived a few neighborhoods away and had a chance of climbing the American socioeconomic ladder, now they live an ocean or more away and have no opportunity to enjoy the economic prosperity to which they contribute.

Bad point, how do separate out those who are working for the drug cartels, the sex trade, etc from those who are not?

Answering that question would require a bit more expertise in immigration policy and law enforcement than I have. We could start by talking to people familiar with how these criminal organizations operate. That said, it's necessarily unlikely that such organizations would prefer to work under the radar, anyway.

[Darth Executor]

Alright, then: let's set aside the cynicism of politics and pretend we have people in office who actually care about the common good. What sorts of arguments would we like to hear each side of the argument make?

"We are sorry for attempting to destroy our country by shiping in rapits, murderers and other unsavory types of criminals. We are further sorry for attempting to destroy the income of the lower classes by driving down their wages and eliminating their jobs altogether. To prove we are sincere we shall, without delay, fall on our swords to redeem our honor." ~ mass immigration proponents

"All illegal immigrants will be expelled from the country. Those who did so as adults are banned from ever returning for any reason. Those who came along as kids may apply for immigration through normal channels from the country of their birth. No special preference shall be given to them otherwise. Furthermore all future immigration would be based not on finding employment in the United States prior to applying, nor any lottery, but on providing considerable value in the form of expertise in a useful industry." ~ mass immigration opponents

[Darth Executor]

There is no reasonable likelihood that the current congress, or the congress to be seated after the next election, which is most likely to feature Republican control of both houses, will address this issue legislatively. With control of just one house, they've shown no interest in reaching across the aisle toward this administration.

They're too deranged for that, and here I'm speaking descriptively, not as a polemic.

No you worthless scumbag, you're the deranged one. Republicans already gave you pieces of crap one round of mass amnesty under Reagan, under a gentleman's agreement that the problem wouldn't occur again. No compromise can be made with people like you who don't have a shred of honor. Your word is worth just about what you're worth: absolutely nothing. Insallah, the Republicans will flood Florida with foreign math professors and you'll spend the rest of your pathetic life on welfare, on the floor of whatever closet you could afford to live in, with MS13 bullets flying over your head liberally.

[Alsharad]

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

Looking it over, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. It isn't unlike a lot of countries' immigration laws. If you do not have anything to offer the country, you are looking at a tough road. I looked into immigrating into New Zealand and if you do not have a specific skillset at a specific level, don't bother applying.

Additionally, the people that are looking to come over with family that are citizens or permanent residents, they can generally get visas. I don't know if they are allowed to come into the country or not (I think that they are). It takes a long time, and it is aggravating, but it isn't unjust.

That said, no country needs additional unskilled labor from another country. If you do not have anything to offer another country, it is unreasonable to expect that country to honor you with the privilege of citizenship. And that is exactly what it is, a privilege and an honor. It is no more a right than a license to drive and should be treated as such.

For those "dreamers", the solution needs to be kind, but it must be remembered that kicking them out is not "unfair" or "unjust" or even "wrong". They are not citizens. However, I would not be opposed to some kind of permanent visa for them (and their children). They would not be granted any rights, however, guaranteed by the constitution (no free speech, no owning a firearm, etc.) and would only receive federal protection for things that fall under protecting the general populace. I would not be opposed to a fast-track to citizenship if they took a job that required risking their lives for the general populace (i.e. police, fire, and/or military duty) that guaranteed citizenship after a given number of years of service. Any solution that is developed, however, must be fair to those people that HAVE gone through all the proper steps. In fact, if someone must suffer an "injustice", it needs to be those that disobeyed the law and (unfortunately) their families.

That's my .02

[rogue06]

What's this? Obama has a consort! I think when Michelle finds out she'll snap his putter like a pretzel stick.

[Spartacus]

Looking it over, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. It isn't unlike a lot of countries' immigration laws. If you do not have anything to offer the country, you are looking at a tough road. I looked into immigrating into New Zealand and if you do not have a specific skillset at a specific level, don't bother applying.

Additionally, the people that are looking to come over with family that are citizens or permanent residents, they can generally get visas. I don't know if they are allowed to come into the country or not (I think that they are). It takes a long time, and it is aggravating, but it isn't unjust.

That said, no country needs additional unskilled labor from another country. If you do not have anything to offer another country, it is unreasonable to expect that country to honor you with the privilege of citizenship. And that is exactly what it is, a privilege and an honor. It is no more a right than a license to drive and should be treated as such.

Where do you get off, wandering into a thread and providing internally consistent arguments? This is Civics!

For those "dreamers", the solution needs to be kind, but it must be remembered that kicking them out is not "unfair" or "unjust" or even "wrong". They are not citizens. However, I would not be opposed to some kind of permanent visa for them (and their children).

They would not be granted any rights, however, guaranteed by the constitution (no free speech, no owning a firearm, etc.) and would only receive federal protection for things that fall under protecting the general populace.

I think the Supremes have ruled that non-citizens have free speech rights, though I may be wrong about that.

I would not be opposed to a fast-track to citizenship if they took a job that required risking their lives for the general populace (i.e. police, fire, and/or military duty) that guaranteed citizenship after a given number of years of service.

There's something to this, though I'm not sure how far we can take it. The term "paddy wagon" for a police vehicle originally came from the fact that they were often full of Irish (Patrick -> paddy) who had been arrested, but within a generation or two, the Irish were the ones driving the paddy wagons: they went from the criminal underclass to the pillars of the police force. That said, the police in this country seem to have a good deal of problems already...

Any solution that is developed, however, must be fair to those people that HAVE gone through all the proper steps. In fact, if someone must suffer an "injustice", it needs to be those that disobeyed the law and (unfortunately) their families.

That's my .02

It's not just the eligibility that should concern us, but the extremely long wait times... which might be partially solved just by restructuring the bureaucracy.

[Cow Poke]

The only way immigration reform stands a chance is if Obama comes out against it. Then, it'll be guaranteed.

His narcissism won't allow him to do that.