Posts: 266
Threads: 23
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
130
Regarding immigrants at the border. - I support
organized processes. I support civilization. If we're going to have a
government, where I have to be licensed to do stuff, and I have to be
integrated into a system, and I need a passport, and I have to be vetted
as I leave and enter civilized nations, these rules should apply to all
citizens and foreigners crossing our borders and staying in our
nation.
- I don't support open borders. We need a process
for vetting people. Good people are allowed in. Bad people can stay
somewhere else. I know it's probably easy for people to leap to
conclusions and assume I'm saying that "Bad" means a color of skin or
religion. It does not. We all know what bad means. We don't need
other countries criminals here.
- I think it's a bad precedence
for potential immigrants to start with if they're willing to disrespect
our processes from the get go. Obviously some are desperate and needy.
Compassion needs to be shown for them. Less compassion needs to be
shown for the people that are just trying to skirt the law.
- Our
immigration structures and processes are able to support some number of
people. You can't expect them to work flawlessly to process huge
numbers of immigrants that are beyond their capacity. We all know what
it's like to be overworked and understaffed. At the same time, we need
to be aware that if increased immigration is occurring, then we need to
increase our staffing.
- Illegal immigrants are second class
citizens here. By staying illegal, they are sucked into shady
situations. Either process them and let them stay here legally or send
them home, but don't ignore them and pretend like they don't exist.
- Immigrants
compete with existing citizens for jobs and by simple supply and
demand. If there are too many immigrants for how many jobs there are,
this hurts us and drives down wages. We will pay for those who can't
get jobs through welfare. Job creation has to keep pace with labor
supply. You can't support free trade that sends all of our jobs
overseas and then take in a bunch of people to compete with our
unskilled labor pool.
- These caravans aren't organic. Someone is helping them move here. Who is it? IDK.
- As
a world, we need to help shitty countries be better. The answer is not
to have some places be shitholes and then they all just migrate to
other places. Their countries should be fixed so that the people don't
have a desperate reason to leave.
- Immigrants need to be
assimilated into our culture. We have one of the most progressive and
respectful cultures in the world. Some immigrants come into our country
from cultures with less respect for women, LGBTQ, and certain religions
than are normal here. That gap needs to be narrowed where it exists.
- I have no tolerance for immigrants who become violent criminals here.
- There
is nothing compassionate or Christian about open borders. The illegal
immigrant situation through Obama and up to now is not compassionate.
It ignored the problem and created second class citizens. We need to
process these people quickly. We need to be staffed such that they are
processed quickly. People sitting in the desert, in shanty towns, etc.
is not compassionate. At the same time, we have to respect ourselves by
bringing in those people who make America better, and having firm
boundaries for those who don't.
Just a couple things. I keep hearing about open borders. Trump says it over and over. Do you know that not a single member of Congress--Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal or Socialist supports open border legislation?
I did a search in this post and didn't find the word "asylum" once. Many people confuse illegal immigration with asylum seekers. It's actually against federal and international law to turn away asylum seekers.
Do you have tolerance for home-grown violent criminals? I'm just not sure why one is worse than the other, especially considering that data clearly shows immigrants commit violent crimes at a much lower rate than American citizens.
You sort of have to ask yourself why immigration is such a hot issue right now. Seriously, illegal border crossings are a third of what they were 15 years ago. The only national emergency is in the white house.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Just a couple things. I keep hearing about open borders. Trump says it over and over. Do you know that not a single member of Congress--Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal or Socialist supports open border legislation?
I did a search in this post and didn't find the word "asylum" once. Many people confuse illegal immigration with asylum seekers. It's actually against federal and international law to turn away asylum seekers.
Do you have tolerance for home-grown violent criminals? I'm just not sure why one is worse than the other, especially considering that data clearly shows immigrants commit violent crimes at a much lower rate than American citizens.
You sort of have to ask yourself why immigration is such a hot issue right now. Seriously, illegal border crossings are a third of what they were 15 years ago. The only national emergency is in the white house.
How do you know who is here for Asylum and who is here for
improving their standard of living? You
have to have them interact with the government, probably at the border. It would be part of the vetting process. Being an illegal immigrant and living in the US,
while hiding from authorities is not someone who’s under Asylum.
I don’t think there’s any excuse for violent behavior, but
depending on who does it, I think the reaction can differ. American citizenship is a right for people
that are born here. For immigrants it’s
a privilege. Being a violent criminal
leads to having reduced rights and privileges for both citizens and potential
citizens. We can either imprison them
here at our expense or we can ship them to their home country and let them pay
for it or deal with it. Regardless, we
should be reserving citizenship or visas for people that deserve it. If my kid (I don’t have a kid, so a
theoretical one) is being an asshat in my house, I ground him or deal with it. If his theoretical friend is in my house being
an asshat, I kick him out of the house and tell him not to come back. It doesn’t really matter what percentage of
immigrants are criminals. I’m not
talking about treating all immigrants like they’re criminals. I’m talking about the ones you know ARE
criminals and what to do with them. If
1% of a immigrants are criminals, that’s 1% of potential immigrants who are
stuck in line waiting for our bureaucracy because a criminal is taking their
spot.
I don’t think illegal immigration is just an issue to the
white house. If it was, we wouldn’t be
talking about it. If putting up a border
wall didn’t affect anybody, no one would care.
Trump has been very clear about his opinions on the matter and why he
thinks it’s a priority. Regardless, as a
nation, it is our duty to have a good immigration and asylum process and if it’s
not good we need to discuss it and make it good.
Now this makes this interesting:
White House proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, targeting political foes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrati...reddit.com&utm_term=.567395bb0cc3
I mean on one had humans shouldn't be pawns. On another.....the sanctuary cities want them. Why not assist getting illegal aliens to where they're wanted?
I’m skeptical that this was something that was serious or
given much legit consideration. It makes
more sense to me that this would be posturing to try and make a point. The article seems like it’s adding some extra
exposition to make it seem like Trump is running on pure emotion and anger.
I don’t think releasing criminals into sanctuary cities
would really make much sense in any context.
It’s humerous to suggest that the Democrats are doing it to themselves,
so giving them more of what they’re already doing, but if you care about the
citizens you wouldn’t do that. If it’s
purely about budgets, there’s probably a bunch of services that could be cut
before we get to releasing criminals into the public. You could probably release a lot of the
non-violent American criminals to make room for the immigrant criminals and
that would be a compromise that many potential voters would agree with.
Quote: @medaille said:
I’m skeptical that this was something that was serious or
given much legit consideration. It makes
more sense to me that this would be posturing to try and make a point. The article seems like it’s adding some extra
exposition to make it seem like Trump is running on pure emotion and anger.
I don’t think releasing criminals into sanctuary cities
would really make much sense in any context.
It’s humerous to suggest that the Democrats are doing it to themselves,
so giving them more of what they’re already doing, but if you care about the
citizens you wouldn’t do that. If it’s
purely about budgets, there’s probably a bunch of services that could be cut
before we get to releasing criminals into the public. You could probably release a lot of the
non-violent American criminals to make room for the immigrant criminals and
that would be a compromise that many potential voters would agree with.
It's refreshing to read an opinion as if it's from somebody just sitting and watching it all from the fence.
I don't really see it any differently.
Anyone who parrots this "open borders" concept is completely mis-informed. This is purely a Trump and GOP talking point built on a straw-man argument that does not exist.
You lemmings act like the border was just a wide open free for all until Trump came to power. We have always had a vetting process in place.
And really, the Democrats have had concrete plans in place to fund immigration and border security under Obama. You forgot, the obstructionist Republicans are the reason this issue was never solved:
Verdict: True
A 2013 immigration bill that included $46.3 billion for border security was supported by all 52 Democrats in the Senate and only 14 Republicans. The bill was part of a bipartisan push for comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Fact Check:
All 52 Senate Democrats, joined by 14 Republicans and 2 independent senators, did vote in favor of a 2013 immigration bill that included substantial funding for border security. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, was never voted on by the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the GOP at the time.
The bill, which sought to “provide for comprehensive immigration reform,” would have funded $46.3 billion in border security to be transferred from the Treasury to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust.
That spending included $30 billion to train at least 19,200 additional border patrol agents on the southern border and $4.5 billion to carry out a border security strategy developed by the Department of Homeland Security. The bill would have also given $8 billion for fencing, infrastructure and technology, as well as $750 million for E-Verify, a system to help employers ensure their employees are legally allowed to work in the U.S.
Republican support in the Senate was contingent upon increased border security, though 32 Republicans still voted against the bill. The legislation included a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, which led many detractors to refer to it as an “ amnesty” bill.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said back in 2013 that a path to citizenship was necessary to secure Democratic support for the immigration bill.
At the time, President Barack Obama said the bill represented bipartisan support for “commonsense” immigration reform. “The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted,” he said. “Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.”
With the bill facing conservative resistance in the House, one of the Senate Republicans in the so-called “Gang of Eight,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, said that he hoped the House would consider the legislation. “I think we have a good piece of legislation they should take a look at. There are a lot of good ideas that they should adopt,” he said at the time.
The House never took up the bill. Then-House Speaker John Boehner told reporters in July 2013 that they had no intention of doing so.
“I’ve made it clear and I’ll make it clear again,” Boehner said. “The House does not intend to take up the Senate bill. The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill.”
I do find it completely predictable our resident Christian pastor thinks its funny at Trump's illegal and ridiculous idea to dump all the illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities. This is the kind of forward-thinking, reactionary, emotional based decisions the President of the US comes up with and its funny to you? Without having the proper infrastructure, funding or support in place you want to throw families and children by the tens of thousands into cities out of political spite? I guess that compassionate Christian has a funny way of showing empathy.
I'm not really going to be lectured (falsely, in this case, not that that has ever mattered to you) by someone who supports the murder of children- both born and preborn. Nor, am I going to listen to someone spouting off about compassion when he is incapable of defending his belief that parents should have the right to kill their child if it has Down Syndrome. Maybe when purposefully killing human beings in the name of convenience... is a greater moral problem for him than stopping people from crossing the border illegally... I'll listen to something he has to say. It'll be a nonsensical copy-and-paste job from some biased "fact check" website... but I'll at least respect his effort. But not while he's supporting a the modern-day equivalent of slavery and the holocaust.
Quote: @pumpf said:
I'm not really going to be lectured (falsely, in this case, not that that has ever mattered to you) by someone who supports the murder of children- both born and preborn. Nor, am I going to listen to someone spouting off about compassion when he is incapable of defending his belief that parents should have the right to kill their child if it has Down Syndrome. Maybe when purposefully killing human beings in the name of convenience... is a greater moral problem for him than stopping people from crossing the border illegally... I'll listen to something he has to say. It'll be a nonsensical copy-and-paste job from some biased "fact check" website... but I'll at least respect his effort. But not while he's supporting a the modern-day equivalent of slavery and the holocaust.
This is why it's pointless to have any discussion with you.
You won't listen to anything I will say, you are too ignorant and lazy to see if what I wrote is true or not, you'll just automatically reject it because you're too steeped in ignorance and prejudice against me because I believe in abortion rights.
You're a sad, wannabe Christian who thinks that because you stand on the right side of an abortion issue you have the green light to lead an immoral, anti-Christian life and judge anyoneelse who doesn't share your same religious beliefs. You justify kids in cages. You don't care there was never a plan to reunite children with parents after a court hearing. You can't accept that it would have been possible to arrest someone for illegal entry and still reunite their family prior to deportation. You laugh at families being shipped off like political pawns and dropped off with no resources or plan in place just to spite a political enemy. You seriously think this is how Jesus would want to treat people and children - to separate families for the crime of trying to escape their homelands in search of a better life? Spare me the judgement of your holier than thou attitude when you show no compassion for others.
I've never said anything about murdering anyone, you just put words in my mouth because that's what you believe I think. But hey you think you're morally superior for thinking a days old cluster of cells is a person with rights, yet you support a political system that will slash away at that child's healthcare, food, education as soon as its born.
Go preach elsewhere, CINO.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ pumpf said:
I'm not really going to be lectured (falsely, in this case, not that that has ever mattered to you) by someone who supports the murder of children- both born and preborn. Nor, am I going to listen to someone spouting off about compassion when he is incapable of defending his belief that parents should have the right to kill their child if it has Down Syndrome. Maybe when purposefully killing human beings in the name of convenience... is a greater moral problem for him than stopping people from crossing the border illegally... I'll listen to something he has to say. It'll be a nonsensical copy-and-paste job from some biased "fact check" website... but I'll at least respect his effort. But not while he's supporting a the modern-day equivalent of slavery and the holocaust.
This is why it's pointless to have any discussion with you.
You're not trying to have a discussion with me. If you were, you'd answer the one question that I've been asking you all along. Until you do that- no: we're not having a discussion. It's just you preaching your own perverted "gospel".
|
