In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
Let's remember 'these people' are already here. Just like Utah figured out it's cheaper/more effective to give homeless people homes than it is to put them in jail, sometimes the guttural reaction isn't the smart one.
I'd love to hear the conservative alternative to deal with the millions of people already here, but years of squawking about immigration and they still pretty much got nothing. Unless "we'll deal with that after we 'close the border' (to some still defined point)" counts as a plan?
Here's a plan.
Ease the legal immigration policies on illegals who are already in the country. To prevent incentivizing illegal immigration, only ease the policies on illegals who can show they were in the country before this plan was announced publicly. By "ease" I mean remove or seriously lighten any fees; the paperwork is hard enough without needing thousands of dollars worth of fees too. Give them ~6 months to apply. After that, no holds barred. Deport anyone caught here illegally who has not started the legalization process. Combine this with tightening border security, offering to send military support to Mexico to help fight the cartels, and sending economic aid.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
Let's remember 'these people' are already here. Just like Utah figured out it's cheaper/more effective to give homeless people homes than it is to put them in jail, sometimes the guttural reaction isn't the smart one.
I'd love to hear the conservative alternative to deal with the millions of people already here, but years of squawking about immigration and they still pretty much got nothing. Unless "we'll deal with that after we 'close the border' (to some still undefined point)" counts as a plan?
A large majority of Americans oppose House Speaker John Boehner's invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the international negotiations with Iran, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC poll found that 63 percent of Americans disagreed with Boehner's decision to extend the invitation without consulting the White House, while 33 percent said it was the right thing to do.
Even among Republicans, only a narrow majority supported Boehner's invitation -- 52 percent -- while 45 percent did not. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly opposed the invitation: Democrats, 81 percent to 14 percent; independents, 61 percent to 36 percent.
The poll, conducted Feb. 12 to 15, surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is 3 points.
Yeah, when I noticed the whole "veni vidi vici" on a pack of Marbs I knew they were on some next level world-wide stuff.
The tobacco industry is pretty evil. Using 'the law' and 'choice' to profit from killing millions worldwide every year.
Alcohol companies do the same. Prohibition didn't work out so well though.
I don't think anyone is suggesting prohibition, at least not here? But it's pretty sick and twisted what happens with tobacco sales and how people manipulate systems to wash away guilt.
Send them back. Every last one of them. $400 for a plane ticket is cheaper than supporting them. They broke our laws to come here, we have no obligation to let them stay.
Yeah, but you have no sympathy for pretty much anyone, and are generally the poster child of the bible belt crazy nationalistic american. I just hope that the reasonable people in the US will never be outnumbered by people like you.
You are against vaccines, against net neutrality, generally speaking i think a pretty good decision making compass on any issue is to simply take the opposite position that hannahbelle does, and you are probably on the right side.
Edit: You do not even appear to realize the problems with "send them all back". How do you send someone back who does not have a passport? How do you determine where to send them back to? How do you even FIND them, considering they tend to fly low on the radar while illegal? Do you want an immigration stasi spying on everyone in your country to see if there is an illegal immigrant in their basement (this is not cheap btw)
I feel like despite all the anti-vaccination stuff and bible madness the one great redeeming quality that even the staunchest conservative Americans had was this great attitude towards immigration that Europe could need a big chunk off. If you throw that out of the window too I feel like you've chosen the worst out of both worlds
For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation, what's being opposed is mass legalization of illegal immigrants with no attempt to curb it. Honestly, I would probably accept one final, mass amnesty once the border was secure. (I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.) Because what we have right now is ridiculous. I feel more sympathy for the legal immigrant who spends time and money to come here.
The problem is, we are trying to paint the ceiling before fixing the leak.
On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote: For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation, what's being opposed is mass legalization of illegal immigrants with no attempt to curb it. Honestly, I would probably accept one final, mass amnesty once the border was secure. (I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.) Because what we have right now is ridiculous. I feel more sympathy for the legal immigrant who spends time and money to come here.
The problem is, we are trying to paint the ceiling before fixing the leak.
All our dipshit politicians talk about is illegal immigration.
On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote: For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation, what's being opposed is mass legalization of illegal immigrants with no attempt to curb it. Honestly, I would probably accept one final, mass amnesty once the border was secure. (I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.) Because what we have right now is ridiculous. I feel more sympathy for the legal immigrant who spends time and money to come here.
The problem is, we are trying to paint the ceiling before fixing the leak.
All our dipshit politicians talk about is illegal immigration.
Well read this thread and you'd think that conservatives just don't like Mexicans, judging by the leftist commentary. It's the common caricature.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
They probably will. They're dirt poor and so would be receiving welfare if they were legal. They've got no skills beyond manual labor (if they did, they could've afforded to immigrate legally). They don't speak English, which will greatly hamper naturalization.
The only positive I can see, besides avoiding the admittedly insane prices involved in mass deportations, is that these people would generate sales tax income.
How in the hell can republicans support shit like this?
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
Do you know the curriculum of the course? It's possible it actually is biased against America. White guilt is definitely a thing, and is just as ignorant as the white man's burden.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
They probably will. They're dirt poor and so would be receiving welfare if they were legal. They've got no skills beyond manual labor (if they did, they could've afforded to immigrate legally). They don't speak English, which will greatly hamper naturalization.
The only positive I can see, besides avoiding the admittedly insane prices involved in mass deportations, is that these people would generate sales tax income.
honest and maybe stupid question but how do those people survive on a daily basis if they don't get welfare? They're probably working some way or the other? More likely "the other" but hey, that's at least some taxes if they continue doing so after naturalization and being allowed to work legally I'd assume?
I think the idea that, especially first generation immigrants be it legal or not, are just going to sit back and not do anything is really out of place
I opened up with "maybe stupid question" because I don't know what it's like in the US. If it's just underpaid work that would be legal if they'd be US citizens then there's no problem. If those people actually get their stuff from shady business that's not legal even if they're US citizens that's obviously out of the window.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
They probably will. They're dirt poor and so would be receiving welfare if they were legal. They've got no skills beyond manual labor (if they did, they could've afforded to immigrate legally). They don't speak English, which will greatly hamper naturalization.
The only positive I can see, besides avoiding the admittedly insane prices involved in mass deportations, is that these people would generate sales tax income.
They already are paying sales tax? Many of them have American children. The "Dreamers" are generally English speaking people that are as American as anyone else in pretty much every way but name.
Imagining all illegal immigrants as poor ignorant fruit pickers may be convenient but it isn't accurate.
Another positive might be not intentionally destroying families, that the same people so wishing they could deport them, claim they want to protect.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
They probably will. They're dirt poor and so would be receiving welfare if they were legal. They've got no skills beyond manual labor (if they did, they could've afforded to immigrate legally). They don't speak English, which will greatly hamper naturalization.
The only positive I can see, besides avoiding the admittedly insane prices involved in mass deportations, is that these people would generate sales tax income.
honest and maybe stupid question but how do those people survive on a daily basis if they don't get welfare? They're probably working some way or the other? More likely "the other" but hey, that's at least some taxes if they continue doing so after naturalization and being allowed to work legally I'd assume?
I think the idea that, especially first generation immigrants be it legal or not, are just going to sit back and not do anything is really out of place
I opened up with "maybe stupid question" because I don't know what it's like in the US. If it's just underpaid work that would be legal if they'd be US citizens then there's no problem. If those people actually get their stuff from shady business that's not legal even if they're US citizens that's obviously out of the window.
It's not that they're doing nothing, its that even if they are working, they would receive financial aid because there's no way they can get decent paying jobs with no skills. People still get financial aid even if they work, if their job pays below some threshold.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things you've said on these boards.
They probably will. They're dirt poor and so would be receiving welfare if they were legal. They've got no skills beyond manual labor (if they did, they could've afforded to immigrate legally). They don't speak English, which will greatly hamper naturalization.
The only positive I can see, besides avoiding the admittedly insane prices involved in mass deportations, is that these people would generate sales tax income.
They already are paying sales tax? Many of them have American children. The "Dreamers" are generally English speaking people that are as American as anyone else in pretty much every way but name.
Imagining all illegal immigrants as poor ignorant fruit pickers may be convenient but it isn't accurate.
Another positive might be not intentionally destroying families, that the same people so wishing they could deport them, claim they want to protect.
The whole "born in America, you're an American citizen" thing is stupid. Your citizenship should not be tied to where you're born; it's no more representative of your quality of character than your race is.
How in the hell can republicans support shit like this?
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
Do you know the curriculum of the course? It's possible it actually is biased against America. White guilt is definitely a thing, and is just as ignorant as the white man's burden.
"Instead of striving to build a 'City upon a Hill,' as generations of students have been taught, the colonists are portrayed as bigots who developed 'a rigid racial hierarchy' that was in turn derived from 'a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,'" the letter reads. "The new Framework continues its theme of oppression and conflict by reinterpreting Manifest Destiny from a belief that America had a mission to spread democracy and new technologies across the continent to something that 'was built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.'"
How in the hell can republicans support shit like this?
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
Do you know the curriculum of the course? It's possible it actually is biased against America. White guilt is definitely a thing, and is just as ignorant as the white man's burden.
Jesus Christ, even the slightest changes to an awful history curriculum is an act of instilling white guilt. Please do not abuse that word, it makes you sound like a GamerGate loon whenever they use the word "SJW" to respond to even the slightest criticism to their views. There is nothing wrong with admitting that there have been some instances in the history of the US that objectively makes us look rather bad.
How in the hell can republicans support shit like this?
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
Do you know the curriculum of the course? It's possible it actually is biased against America. White guilt is definitely a thing, and is just as ignorant as the white man's burden.
"Instead of striving to build a 'City upon a Hill,' as generations of students have been taught, the colonists are portrayed as bigots who developed 'a rigid racial hierarchy' that was in turn derived from 'a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,'" the letter reads. "The new Framework continues its theme of oppression and conflict by reinterpreting Manifest Destiny from a belief that America had a mission to spread democracy and new technologies across the continent to something that 'was built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.'"
I thought manifest destiny was bullshit every time I heard it. This sounds a lot more accurate than what I was taught.
Sounds like a lot of white guilt nonsense to me. It's probably true, but it's pretty clearly so heavily emphasized to push the idea that white people were all racist imperialists, and native Americans were all peace-loving egalitarian saints.
I don't know about you, but I wasn't alive 300 years ago. I couldn't have been involved.
How in the hell can republicans support shit like this?
State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.
Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.
Do you know the curriculum of the course? It's possible it actually is biased against America. White guilt is definitely a thing, and is just as ignorant as the white man's burden.
Jesus Christ, even the slightest changes to an awful history curriculum is an act of instilling white guilt. Please do not abuse that word, it makes you sound like a GamerGate loon whenever they use the word "SJW" to respond to even the slightest criticism to their views. There is nothing wrong with admitting that there have been some instances in the history of the US that objectively makes us look rather bad.
Except for the fact that those events did not involve anyone alive today. It's like making the Italians feel bad that Caeser starved all the civilians of Alesia to death, or making the Israeli's feel bad that the Hebrews butchered every last Canaanite.
EPT
