thejeff wrote:
I agree with everything you said here except for the premise: securing a country's borders and values is a worthy, moral goal.
Did DACA make our borders less secure?
Why is it moral to repeal it?
thejeff wrote:
I agree with everything you said here except for the premise: securing a country's borders and values is a worthy, moral goal.
Did DACA make our borders less secure?
Why is it moral to repeal it?
Harambe wrote:
thejeff wrote:I agree with everything you said here except for the premise: securing a country's borders and values is a worthy, moral goal.
Did DACA make our borders less secure?
Why is it moral to repeal it?
YES 10000%, DACA made the borders LESS secure.
How? Because it gives the people coming here illegally the idea that coming to the US illegally is ok.
So by letting DACA continue, you are only encouraging more of the same behavior, which insures this problem WONT die. Which for any country on this earth, having proper borders and legal immigration, is their goal.
Harambe wrote:
thejeff wrote:I agree with everything you said here except for the premise: securing a country's borders and values is a worthy, moral goal.
Did DACA make our borders less secure?
Why is it moral to repeal it?
It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
Cool story, bro.
This issue is a Trojan horse for the typical racist and maybe you are not that person. Maybe. There are so many racist threads on this site it's not funny.
Your "law and order" logic is a fail. We all break a bunch of laws just driving to work. This is hardly any different.
thejeff wrote:
It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
What has this person done wrong? What would you do if you were in his situation?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/06/i-am-a-dreamer-and-im-as-american-as-you-are-215580Learn to speak Spanish.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
thejeff wrote:It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
What has this person done wrong? What would you do if you were in his situation?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/06/i-am-a-dreamer-and-im-as-american-as-you-are-215580
the a coming round d mountain wrote:
YES 10000%, DACA made the borders LESS secure.
How? Because it gives the people coming here illegally the idea that coming to the US illegally is ok.
So by letting DACA continue, you are only encouraging more of the same behavior, which insures this problem WONT die. Which for any country on this earth, having proper borders and legal immigration, is their goal.
And what did those people do? They got work. And they did the work Americans won't do. How is that insecure?
Also, you seem to forget employers enjoy the benefits of relatively lax borders.
Fail, fail, fail, fail.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Cool story, bro.
This issue is a Trojan horse for the typical racist and maybe you are not that person. Maybe. There are so many racist threads on this site it's not funny.
Your "law and order" logic is a fail. We all break a bunch of laws just driving to work. This is hardly any different.
We are Americans so yes, of course we do and can. But people from other countries DONT have that right to do that PERIOD.
Just like you have the right to make a mess in your own house, NO ONE else has the right to do that in YOUR house doe...
And another thing, this is a country issue, not a racial issue doe....
thejeff wrote:
seattle dude wrote:OK. You make a fair point.
But if you are focused on punishment and following the law, why aren't we cracking down very hard on the businesses that hire all the illegals in the first place? Why is the demonizing rhetoric mostly aimed at the mostly poor immigrants and not at the places/people that hire them?
They migrate here because they know they can get jobs. Would they come if they knew for sure no one would hire them?
This is all just a bunch of hot air being spewed and nothing is really going to change anyway. Too much of certain sectors of our economy actually depend on illegal immigrants (like the big agribusinesses). We are not really going to do anything substantial that could hit any of these businesses in their wallets.
So it's all just rhetoric.
Agree 100% on punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
Agree on second point, too. We don't need a wall; we need to take away the incentives to come.
lol, Agree on 3rd point, too. Congress will make it a law (or at least grant amnesty to existing illegals).
Crap, say something jerkish so we can get in a fight.
I agree as well. I used to work in big agribusiness (slaughterhouse in SW Kansas). Immigration ALWAYS gave us a heads-up before they came in for a sweep, telling us to move our "foreign exchange" students off the floor. The whole thing was a joke and everyone knew it.
God bless America!
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Cool story, bro.
This issue is a Trojan horse for the typical racist and maybe you are not that person. Maybe. There are so many racist threads on this site it's not funny.
Your "law and order" logic is a fail. We all break a bunch of laws just driving to work. This is hardly any different.
Thanks, bro. I reject racism here; if that were the issue, a specific race would be targeted. I am leaning more towards Patriotic-Ethnocentrism.
The laws I referred to are those that would necessitate removing the offending party from their home, bro.
thejeff wrote:
Harambe wrote:Did DACA make our borders less secure?
Why is it moral to repeal it?
It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
Why does allowing a law abiding DACA citizen - who works, pays taxes, is productive, and came here illegally through no fault of their own - make our border less secure?
That is a logical leap I can't understand.
I agree that our borders should be secured in reasonable ways. I don't see how punishing good members of the USA who are already in the borders accomplishes that goal.
What about allowing the kids to stay stay but deport the parents? Once the parents are on the plane back to their country of origin the children are granted 2 more years,
Deferred makes me think it is not pernament. Maybe they should be able to stay for ever, with or without a path to citizenship but not for me to decide.
I would focus more on illegals that are criminals, or not working/in school.
Harambe wrote:
thejeff wrote:It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
Why does allowing a law abiding DACA citizen - who works, pays taxes, is productive, and came here illegally through no fault of their own - make our border less secure?
That is a logical leap I can't understand.
I agree that our borders should be secured in reasonable ways. I don't see how punishing good members of the USA who are already in the borders accomplishes that goal.
Again, makes it LESS secure cause you are going to signal to the same people who have been coming here for 30 yrs to keep coming. CYCLE WONT END!!
You are telling them, keep coming cause weak AZZ Americans will never say no.
You are also rewarding illegal behavior period. I have lots of friends who have come here legally. You are saying FU to them too!
Harambe wrote:
thejeff wrote:It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.
Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".
That is the point of my response to your post.
Why does allowing a law abiding DACA citizen - who works, pays taxes, is productive, and came here illegally through no fault of their own - make our border less secure?
That is a logical leap I can't understand.
I agree that our borders should be secured in reasonable ways. I don't see how punishing good members of the USA who are already in the borders accomplishes that goal.
You have to think about the precedent you are setting. If you allow "just these folks" to stay, you are sending the same message to the "next folks", too.
Those "good" folks you refer to are technically aiding and abetting. I won't frame an argument around that point other than to caution you against making assumptions.
the a coming round d mountain wrote:
Again, makes it LESS secure cause you are going to signal to the same people who have been coming here for 30 yrs to keep coming. CYCLE WONT END!!
You are telling them, keep coming cause weak AZZ Americans will never say no.
You are also rewarding illegal behavior period. I have lots of friends who have come here legally. You are saying FU to them too!
So you recommend punishing people who:
1) were brought to the USA as children - having no choice in the matter
2) Have established themselves as productive Americans
So the message is:
Don't seek federal protection of your immigration status. Fly under the radar, work black market jobs, don't pay taxes. Immigrate but don't integrate and contribute.
Instead, we will punish the immigrants with the most success and lease intent.
Yet, somehow this is moral.
Thank god we have hard working immigrants making up for some of the people in this thread.
thejeff wrote:
seattle dude wrote:OK. You make a fair point.
But if you are focused on punishment and following the law, why aren't we cracking down very hard on the businesses that hire all the illegals in the first place? Why is the demonizing rhetoric mostly aimed at the mostly poor immigrants and not at the places/people that hire them?
They migrate here because they know they can get jobs. Would they come if they knew for sure no one would hire them?
This is all just a bunch of hot air being spewed and nothing is really going to change anyway. Too much of certain sectors of our economy actually depend on illegal immigrants (like the big agribusinesses). We are not really going to do anything substantial that could hit any of these businesses in their wallets.
So it's all just rhetoric.
Agree 100% on punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
Agree on second point, too. We don't need a wall; we need to take away the incentives to come.
lol, Agree on 3rd point, too. Congress will make it a law (or at least grant amnesty to existing illegals).
Crap, say something jerkish so we can get in a fight.
The last amnesty (1986) only granted amnesty to Mexicans. They have already benefited from amnesty.
Why do we want to crack down on illegal immigration after all?
They lower the cost of labor and result in cheaper goods for all of us?
They commit, on average, 44% less crimes than citizens.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/illegal-immigrant-crime-wave-evidence-hard-find
Lastly, across the entire economy, immigration does not hurt Americans' job prospects:
Is there a valid reason for being so hard-nosed about this? Fear of outsiders?
Look. I haven't even read the posts on here as immigration drives me nuts.
The solution to this is simple. I have a plan where everyone gets exactly what they want.
1) Everyone that came here a child and hasn't committed a crime is a citizen. Same thing with their parents but there should be a waiting list and a fee to pay.
2) In exchange for #1, Trump and the right wingers get their way.
A wall is built (to me a wall is largely a waste of money but it's symbolic adn important to right wingers). Moving forward, we do not allow and/or reward illegal behavior. I can't believe no one talks about this - not even Trump - but the the anchor baby portion of the 14th Ammendment must be taken away. It's absurd that Putin's oligarch friends like Roman Abramovich have kids that are US citizens. It's also absurd that rich African runners routinely fly over here to have babies that are US citizens. One of my best friends gave birth in China. Her baby is NOT a citizen.
If we get rid of "anchor babies" and refuse to educate non citizens and have harsh penalties for hiring illegals, we won't be doing what we are doing now which is giving citizenship every 30 years to lawbreakers. But the idea that we are going to send millions back isn't very realistic.
Rojo,
Well reasoned, I agree with most of it. Let trump build some kind of 'wall' to make his supporters happy.
However, citizenship by birthright is long tenant of the American Way. We are one of the few countries in the world that offers it. It is a central idea of the American Dream, come immigrate, work hard, so that your children may be afforded the wonders of America.
A compromise would be that children born to only illegal immigrants are not given birthright citizenship. Those with legal non-citizen status are fine.
DiscoGary wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:In short the government is the cause of the problem, therefore the companies that bought the government should not be held accountable.
Which is the way it will always be.
That's exactly right. Government corruption is the fault of those in government, not those who purchased the corruption on the open market. If the price of doing business is bribing government officials, then that is what companies will do and they should not be blamed for it.
It's our job as voters to put people in power who are not corrupt. That is not easy to do because the electoral process destroys honest people before they get elected.
Wait a minute - bribing public officials is AGAINST THE LAW. You are describing anarchy and chaos. One thing has become clear, companies can NOT be trusted to use their moral compass to help them decide which laws to obey.