|
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 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question.
He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different?
|
On September 05 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question. He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different?
Bingo.
|
On September 05 2017 22:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:22 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2017 22:11 Aquanim wrote:On September 05 2017 22:01 Danglars 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? I think you have your answer. Something tells me you knew it beforehand. The debate is borked from the start and we should move on after this latest demonstration. Can you be more specific about what you feel is inadequate about the responses xDaunt recieved? Could you be more specific about what the goals of a sane and humane immigration policy are? My goal (which would necessarily encompass more than simply immigration policy) is a world in which nobody has an economic or political need to illicitly move from one country to another, which would as a consequence result in no illegal immigration. + Show Spoiler +(Obviously with some other conditions, since a world in which everybody is dead would technically satisfy that criteria. Assume sanity and move on.) In my opinion, harsh treatment of many prospective immigrants who are currently treated as illegal immigrants will result in movement further away from that goal, not closer to it. I acknowledge that you might have wanted to see an answer to this question before answering mine, but I still want an answer to mine.
I'm not really interested in your definitions of achievable worldwide utopias, ending economic and political needs to illicitly move from one country to another. It's more germane to political discussion to ask what the goals of your country's immigration policy should be ... because citizens of that country can vote through their representatives to change it. You know exactly why you won't answer my question. You already know why the responses are inadequate to xDaunt's: you can't answer yes or no or state your preferred objectives for a sector of the country's governance.
|
On September 05 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question. He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different?
I mean, I'm well aware that you and xDaunt probably don't share my goals. To let it go at that begs the questions of whether your goals or mine are "better".
|
United States41989 Posts
Danglars, you're refusing to understand the very simple issue with xDaunt's problem, that it is unclear whether the problems that illegally immigration currently solves would be solved in his 0% illegal immigration hypothetical.
That's what we need cleared up from him. People can't give a clear yes/no on that because they don't know what they're saying yes/no to. If he's offering us a world without seasonal agricultural labourers then that's a no. If he's saying there should be a legal framework for those guys then yes. But it's not clear from the question at all.
|
I love how the discussion started with boarder security being a core issue for conservatives, but quickly turned to the conservatives demanding they be told what their immigration policy is. Really just boils down the entire debate to the core problem. Conservatives blame the left for being unable to read minds and tell conservatives what their immigration policy is. Conservatives are sure that the left opposes their policy.
|
On September 05 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 05 2017 22:22 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2017 22:11 Aquanim wrote:On September 05 2017 22:01 Danglars 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? I think you have your answer. Something tells me you knew it beforehand. The debate is borked from the start and we should move on after this latest demonstration. Can you be more specific about what you feel is inadequate about the responses xDaunt recieved? Could you be more specific about what the goals of a sane and humane immigration policy are? My goal (which would necessarily encompass more than simply immigration policy) is a world in which nobody has an economic or political need to illicitly move from one country to another, which would as a consequence result in no illegal immigration. + Show Spoiler +(Obviously with some other conditions, since a world in which everybody is dead would technically satisfy that criteria. Assume sanity and move on.) In my opinion, harsh treatment of many prospective immigrants who are currently treated as illegal immigrants will result in movement further away from that goal, not closer to it. I acknowledge that you might have wanted to see an answer to this question before answering mine, but I still want an answer to mine. I'm not really interested in your definitions of achievable worldwide utopias, ending economic and political needs to illicitly move from one country to another. It's more germane to political discussion to ask what the goals of your country's immigration policy should be ... because citizens of that country can vote through their representatives to change it. You know exactly why you won't answer my question. You already know why the responses are inadequate to xDaunt's: you can't answer yes or no or state your preferred objectives for a sector of the country's governance.
The immigration sector is not fundamentally independent of the rest of the decisions a country makes, so I don't see why you can reasonably expect anybody to state preferred objectives for that and that alone.
|
On September 05 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question. He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different?
They cannot because there is no sane policy that leads to absolute border control and ends illegal immigration.
Which is exactly what everyone has been telling you since you asked the question yesterday.
|
On September 05 2017 22:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2017 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question. He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different? Bingo.
Hey, aren't you the guys who say it is unfair to characterise "the right" as some sort of entity, and yet here you are characterising "the left" with your own perceptions. In the end though, the pair of you think it clever to admit to posing a bogeyman strawman question and when everyone answers with thoughtful comments on the nature of the question and how it relates to wider politics and the function of the country, the only thing you can come up with is "but the left!" and" Bingo".
Tell me Danglers, how do you propose to achieve your own "the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy"?
|
"Absolute" border control is a utopian idea itself. You'd have to go to some pretty drastic measures to try to achieve it.
|
On September 05 2017 23:06 Doodsmack wrote:
"Absolute" border control is a utopian idea itself. You'd have to go to some pretty drastic measures to try to achieve it.
That sort of rhetoric is why stupid ideas like the Wall become popular. They are pure ideology that is not based in critical, rational thought. The children of illegal immigrants are a prime example of this. 90% of them are employed, productive members of US population and committed no real crime. Yet the rhetoric states they must be deported.
|
On September 05 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 05 2017 22:22 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2017 22:11 Aquanim wrote:On September 05 2017 22:01 Danglars 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? I think you have your answer. Something tells me you knew it beforehand. The debate is borked from the start and we should move on after this latest demonstration. Can you be more specific about what you feel is inadequate about the responses xDaunt recieved? Could you be more specific about what the goals of a sane and humane immigration policy are? My goal (which would necessarily encompass more than simply immigration policy) is a world in which nobody has an economic or political need to illicitly move from one country to another, which would as a consequence result in no illegal immigration. + Show Spoiler +(Obviously with some other conditions, since a world in which everybody is dead would technically satisfy that criteria. Assume sanity and move on.) In my opinion, harsh treatment of many prospective immigrants who are currently treated as illegal immigrants will result in movement further away from that goal, not closer to it. I acknowledge that you might have wanted to see an answer to this question before answering mine, but I still want an answer to mine. I'm not really interested in your definitions of achievable worldwide utopias, ending economic and political needs to illicitly move from one country to another. It's more germane to political discussion to ask what the goals of your country's immigration policy should be ... because citizens of that country can vote through their representatives to change it. You know exactly why you won't answer my question. You already know why the responses are inadequate to xDaunt's: you can't answer yes or no or state your preferred objectives for a sector of the country's governance.
The problem here is that you are not talking about the same thing as the other people when you are saying "immigration policy". And the people who are talking to you and XDaunt know that you don't mean the same thing, which is why they don't answer the question in the way you would like them to.
If you asked them what they would like immigration policy to look like, it would probably involve a legal way to immigrate for large amounts of the people who are currently immigrating illegally. After that way exists, illegal immigration wouldn't be a big problem anymore. It is not like people who oppose your views here think that illegal immigration is naturally a great thing. They think that it is a necessary evil until the legal immigration system actually works and provides legal ways to immigrate.
Meanwhile, you don't really want any of that. What you want is stopping them from coming into the US. You want a big wall around your country that stops anyone from entering unless you explicitly allow them to, and then you want to not allow anyone in. You don't want to gain back control of immigration, you want to get rid of immigration completely (Of people who are not white people with perfect english)
|
Why not make illegal immigrants do all the jobs the US citizens don't want to do until they paid the cost of catching and deporting them as well as their overseers' salary?
Free border security!
|
Irma is now a cat 5. Good luck to any of you down near the gulf. Please stay safe.
|
Not all conservatives are as diehard on immigration or as hyperbolic as daunt and danglers are today for some odd reason. I would say the moderate third would be happy with the DADC and a lot more would okay with a guest worker visa. What gets a lot of republican from supporting immigration is a sense that amnesty is needed or even preferable. I don't see any problem with creating a second class citizenship status where they can stay and work legaly but with much reduced rights until they go through a citizenship process. If they associate with gangs or commit a felony then they should be deported but it's not worth the cost to get rid of them repetitively for no reason and I think most conservatives can see that.
Educating their children and making them proper citizens shouldn't be a bipartisan argument. Neither should giving citizenship to graduates of American University's.
|
On September 06 2017 00:29 Sermokala wrote:
Not all conservatives are as diehard on immigration or as hyperbolic as daunt and danglers are today for some odd reason. I would say the moderate third would be happy with the DADC and a lot more would okay with a guest worker visa. What gets a lot of republican from supporting immigration is a sense that amnesty is needed or even preferable. I don't see any problem with creating a second class citizenship status where they can stay and work legaly but with much reduced rights until they go through a citizenship process. If they associate with gangs or commit a felony then they should be deported but it's not worth the cost to get rid of them repetitively for no reason and I think most conservatives can see that.
Educating their children and making them proper citizens shouldn't be a bipartisan argument. Neither should giving citizenship to graduates of American University's.
A sub class of people with less rights, I feel like this is something that has been done before in history. And never in a good way.
|
On September 06 2017 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 00:29 Sermokala wrote:
Not all conservatives are as diehard on immigration or as hyperbolic as daunt and danglers are today for some odd reason. I would say the moderate third would be happy with the DADC and a lot more would okay with a guest worker visa. What gets a lot of republican from supporting immigration is a sense that amnesty is needed or even preferable. I don't see any problem with creating a second class citizenship status where they can stay and work legaly but with much reduced rights until they go through a citizenship process. If they associate with gangs or commit a felony then they should be deported but it's not worth the cost to get rid of them repetitively for no reason and I think most conservatives can see that.
Educating their children and making them proper citizens shouldn't be a bipartisan argument. Neither should giving citizenship to graduates of American University's. A sub class of people with less rights, I feel like this is something that has been done before in history. And never in a good way.
But they aren't us citizens and no one is expecting them to. Imagine all the people who are here on guest worker visas or education visas already. They're effectively second class citizens. A lot of the problems I'd say that have come from creating a sub class of people with less rights is not agnoedging publicly what you are doing beforehand. What are illegal immigrants right now in america if we don't consider them criminals?
|
Depends on what rights you want to restrict and how it is done. Isn't that essentially the case for immigrants on work visas? For instance restricting welfare or voting rights. Whereas at the moment illegal immigrants in USA may find difficulty for the rule of law and criminal reporting, if those are now a given right, it can only benefit them.
|
I am willing to accept that they have lesser rights in the abstract, as that is simply true because they are not citizens. But any specific restriction for them unionizing or other labor rights would not be acceptable. That would create a separate subset of problems.
|
The idea would have to be a step up from what they are now but probably remove a lot of the bill of rights from say normal citizenship. They shouldn't vote or be allowed to have guns but the simple ability to report a crime or give testimony shouldn't come with the risk of being deported.
Welfare general shouldn't be an issue with how many children they normally produce (that sounds a lot worse than I mean but you get the idea) would fight a lot of the demographic issues the systems run into without them.
Edit union and labor rights are sticky I feel as many came to do jobs that would fall under the minimum wage. Unions are an aside to this as the point shouldn't be to price them out of the reason they want guest worker status in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
