|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution.
Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing?
|
On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing?
Unequivocally implies that nothing good can ever come of it. You're asking for an absolute about people.
|
On September 05 2017 09:11 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? Unequivocally implies that nothing good can ever come of it. You're asking for an absolute about people.
Salma Hayek *cough* and Arnold Schwarzenegger *coughcough*.
And yes, both were illegal in the US, and by law deportable. Both before they became famous. I wouldn't bother too much arguing though, because i don't think xDaunt is arguing in good faith.
|
I will also admit crime is bad and education should be the best possible. Cheese cake is just a pie.
|
Congressional Republicans, rudderless on an unpopular debt ceiling and government funding strategy, are looking to President Donald Trump to bail them out.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are mulling a basic framework to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts and avert an Oct. 1 shutdown with a short-term spending bill, according to multiple Republican aides. But while top Trump officials like Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin back a “clean” debt increase, the president himself is mum on the latest strategy.
GOP leaders, wary of the the backlash from rank-and-file members who campaigned on reducing the debt, want Trump to publicly endorse the proposal to give them political cover.
“Districts like mine are extremely supportive of this president; if he wants a ‘clean' debt vote, and he’s vocal about it, the right play … would be to let him do the whipping for it and it would get done,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a whip team member who personally prefers to cut spending as part of a debt limit hike.
Without Trump’s endorsement, the GOP could plunge into a month of intra-party battles that could rattle financial markets and threaten the economy. And absent relative GOP unity on a crucial fiscal deal, Republican leaders could be forced to beg for Democratic votes to avert catastrophe, a move that would invite criticism from the right.
“I don’t think anybody wants that of the leaders in the Senate and the House and the White House,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) when asked about a shutdown and debt default in an interview. “Surely we’ll be able to avoid that.”
When pressed by reporters late last month, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president supported a “clean” debt ceiling bill.
Trump’s most direct comments on the issue came when he tweaked McConnell and Ryan on Twitter for creating a debt ceiling ‘mess,’ but there are plenty of signals that the president is falling in line — especially after Hurricane Harvey. Paradoxically, the storm, leadership sources believe, could actually smooth the entire process, making September a little easier.
For one, the severity of the damage is convincing top White House officials — and, they’re praying, Trump himself — that now is not the time to pick a fight over the president’s proposed border wall with Mexico being funded in a must-pass spending bill. Trump has signaled to his staff that he’d prefer to have the border wall fight later this year, sources familiar with those conversations said.
That’s in part because Trump has a personal interest in Harvey recovery, visiting the region for the second time over the weekend, demanding quick action to rebuild Texas and Louisiana. Republicans are set to approve $7.9 billion in Harvey emergency package as early as this week. The debt limit must be raised by the end of the month and is likely to move in tandem with a spending bill, whether it's the initial Harvey relief bill or the larger spending bill due by the end of month.
No final decision has been made, and lawmakers may need to wait until the end of the month to lift the debt limit and fund the government past September while also delivering an additional infusion of hurricane aid. Republicans and Democrats have estimated the storm could require more than $100 billion from the federal government, likely delivered in tranches.
Between the aid to recover the Gulf Coast and kicking the debt ceiling past the 2018 mid-term elections, GOP leaders think that Trump will back down on the wall and that the dire situation in Texas could give them cover with conservatives who would otherwise rebel.
Yet some Texas Republicans and conservatives are already pushing back against a catch-all package that rolls Harvey aid with government funding and a debt bill avoids default.
Source
|
Any questions or statements about "illegal immigration" and what measures can or should be taken about it carry an implicit assumption about what illegal immigration actually is. A government could stop illegal immigration in a day by declaring all immigration legal. That's a fairly extreme example, but the central point is:
It is necessary to debate what immigration should be legal at the same time as what steps should be taken to prevent illegal immigration.
|
On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing?
To be honest I don't feel comfortable answering for the left in terms of this thread or otherwise. Answering for myself though, I do think illegal immigration is, in general, a bad thing. To clarify my last post, I would be supportive of humane and sane policies that reduce illegal immigration but there is no such policy that would completely eliminate illegal immigration while remaining sane and humane. The financial and human costs are very real and just because I support an outcome doesn't mean the policies are justifiable at any cost.
When I think of a policy goal, I think of something concrete that can be measured against but you seem to be using it to mean a mission statement. If the right's starting place for negotiations for when to implement immigration reform such as worker programs or amnesty is just an unreachable mission statement, it becomes clear why the left may be hesitant to go along with "secure the border first".
|
On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing?
This seems either basically tautological or very complicated, depending on how you mean it. Basically everyone would agree that illegal immigration isn't ideal because if the same people were able to immigrate legally instead, that'd be better.
Are you looking for people to say that we'd rather all illegal immigrants weren't in the country? Because I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate how awful that might turn out.
|
On September 05 2017 12:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? This seems either basically tautological or very complicated, depending on how you mean it. Basically everyone would agree that illegal immigration isn't ideal because if the same people were able to immigrate legally instead, that'd be better. Are you looking for people to say that we'd rather all illegal immigrants weren't in the country? Because I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate how awful that might turn out.
It's a simple idea, and I wish it was purely tautological. If the Left was sane on the issue, it certainly would be. But instead, as demonstrated above, there are countless apologists on the Left for illegal immigration. One would think that there'd be less love for human trafficking and indentured servitude.
|
On September 05 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:.... But instead, as demonstrated above, there are countless apologists on the Left for illegal immigration. One would think that there'd be less love for human trafficking and indentured servitude.
This doesn't seem to me like an accurate appraisal of any of the above opinions.
edit: Furthermore, speaking for myself, I don't consider human trafficking or indentured servitude synonomous with illegal immigration. If you wish to stand by that argument I suggest you substantiate it further.
|
|
|
On September 05 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 12:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? This seems either basically tautological or very complicated, depending on how you mean it. Basically everyone would agree that illegal immigration isn't ideal because if the same people were able to immigrate legally instead, that'd be better. Are you looking for people to say that we'd rather all illegal immigrants weren't in the country? Because I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate how awful that might turn out. It's a simple idea, and I wish it was purely tautological. If the Left was sane on the issue, it certainly would be. But instead, as demonstrated above, there are countless apologists on the Left for illegal immigration. One would think that there'd be less love for human trafficking and indentured servitude.
There's a difference between illegal immigration as a process which is obviously not good at all and the individuals themselves, who are still real people
|
On September 05 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 12:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? This seems either basically tautological or very complicated, depending on how you mean it. Basically everyone would agree that illegal immigration isn't ideal because if the same people were able to immigrate legally instead, that'd be better. Are you looking for people to say that we'd rather all illegal immigrants weren't in the country? Because I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate how awful that might turn out. It's a simple idea, and I wish it was purely tautological. If the Left was sane on the issue, it certainly would be. But instead, as demonstrated above, there are countless apologists on the Left for illegal immigration. One would think that there'd be less love for human trafficking and indentured servitude.
I think you misunderstood me? Who on the left disagrees that it would better if all currently-illegal immigration could instead be done legally? That's the tautological form. "All these illegal immigrants should be back where they came from" is the complicated one
|
On September 05 2017 14:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 12:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? This seems either basically tautological or very complicated, depending on how you mean it. Basically everyone would agree that illegal immigration isn't ideal because if the same people were able to immigrate legally instead, that'd be better. Are you looking for people to say that we'd rather all illegal immigrants weren't in the country? Because I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate how awful that might turn out. It's a simple idea, and I wish it was purely tautological. If the Left was sane on the issue, it certainly would be. But instead, as demonstrated above, there are countless apologists on the Left for illegal immigration. One would think that there'd be less love for human trafficking and indentured servitude. I think you misunderstood me? Who on the left disagrees that it would better if all currently-illegal immigration could instead be done legally? That's the tautological form. "All these illegal immigrants should be back where they came from" is the complicated one
I don't know if I really qualify here, but I would not say that all currently-illegal immigration being made legal is necessarily a good thing.
However, I think that undesirable immigration should be discouraged by changing the basis for its economic (and/or political) motivation where applicable and possible, rather than discouraging it through legal and physical means.
|
Of course we would all like to see an end (relatively) to illegal immigration, but as others have clarified that's very different than no immigrants or all of the immigrants currently here illegally being removed.
That said, our immigration policy is criminally negligent, and the fraction of illegal immigrants that are here to commit crimes/leech off of society is smaller than that of native born US citizens, so it's our own fault that many of them are here criminally (as opposed to having gone through a non-criminally negligent immigration system) so the solutions really shouldn't start by punishing them.
Finally, it's hard to take conservatives (or many Democrats) seriously on this issue while they push to have us pay $30-50k to try to keep immigrants who commit felonies and return from deportation several times IN THE US.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I came across this article today, and I think it's a good read, despite venturing a little into that conspiratorial ground that I don't like much.
Decorum and human decency demand that we refrain from talking ill of the dead and the dying. This rule is null and void when the people we are to mourn are responsible for the death and continued slaughter of countless humans around the world. Forgive me if I thus refuse to pull any punches and lace into this war mongering Senator from Arizona. Not even an impending date with his maker can moderate the mendacity of McCain; like a barbarian on steroids, Johnny boy insists on pushing one ungodly war after another.
McCain has used the narrative of being a Vietnam P.O.W. to catapult to the top of the political strata even though he has done little to help veterans who suffer the ravages of the wars he keeps pushing. I make no secret of my admiration for veterans, after having faced two years of hardship and calling homeless veterans my neighbors and friends, I can vouch for the valor and kindness of those who served in our nation’s military. What makes veterans heroes is not the number of times they pulled triggers nor is their valor quantified based on body counts; it is their generosity and giving spirit that makes them true warriors worthy of praise and honor.
True heroes are those who fight in wars and come back home to serve even as they battle their own demons. I’ve written about my experiences with veterans on copious occasions; it breaks my heart daily seeing veterans struggling with PTSD and the horrors of readjusting to life after seeing hell unleashed on their fellow humans (read Blessed are the Peacekeepers). My own father a veteran and both my grandfathers war heroes who fought Mussolini’s army in World War II, I am a man who always revered people who put on the uniform to serve their nation. This reverence was heightened by magnitudes when I made friends over the past two years with a litany of veterans from South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa to Colorado. The kindness of veterans who kept me in good spirits during my season of adversity is a debt I can never pay back. Many were facing hardships of indigence and distress yet kept helping others—this is the quintessence of being a hero.
ghionjournal.com
|
On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing?
Yes. If your legal immigration system is broken, then illegal immigration is a good thing for the country.
These people aren't migrating to mooch off your oh-so-fantastic welfare system. They are migrating because they can get a job as cleaner, gardener, farmhand, etc. etc.
|
On September 05 2017 15:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 07:19 Azuzu wrote:On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle? The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution. Set the details aside for a moment and indulge me in just a few moments of real intellectual honesty. Is it really that hard for y'all on the left to admit unequivocally that illegal immigration is a bad thing? These people aren't migrating to mooch off your oh-so-fantastic welfare system.
Exactly, unlike Austria / Germany / France / the UK / Sweden / Finland.
Migrants into the US are actually a benefit, they want to work, they don't belong to a totalitarian death cult, they share a similar heritage and they can accept American culture whilst bringing their own flavour to it.
Let's be real here, Democrats want immigrations because immigrants vote Democrat, Republicans don't want them for the same reason.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In the US, like literally everywhere else, there are good immigrants and bad immigrants. Some genuinely seek better and make the country a little more successful from the fruits of their labor. Others contribute to a vicious race to the bottom wherever they end up. The latter are not "good immigrants" by any stretch of the imagination.
|
On September 05 2017 16:25 LegalLord wrote:
In the US, like literally everywhere else, there are good immigrants and bad immigrants. Some genuinely seek better and make the country a little more successful from the fruits of their labor. Others contribute to a vicious race to the bottom wherever they end up. The latter are not "good immigrants" by any stretch of the imagination.
"Contribute to a vicious race to the bottom" is rather vague, but like I said, it's not as if it's 50% good 50% bad, it's the same or a better ratio than you find in birth-right citizens.
The "Some are this, some are that" is grammatically accurate, but intentionally misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
