|
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 22:34 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.
Mind answering the question yourself then? As I see it there's really three questions here, which your question sort of conflates:
1) Assuming that all current illegal immigrants were going to immigrate anyway, would it have been better for them to have instead been able to immigrate legally?
2) Assuming it had been possible, would it have been better if all current illegal immigrants had been successfully prevented from entering by ICE, and/or successfully made to leave when their visa expired?
3) Assuming it were possible, would it be better if we deported all illegal immigrants currently living in the US?
For me I'd think 1) is a nearly universal yes, 2) is hard to say, and 3) is an obvious no.
|
On September 06 2017 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:No one faults Sanders for playing tough when the race was still competitive. The totally valid critique (and what made be stop supporting him) was when he ramped up his attacks as he was mathematically eliminated. Once he was hoping for delegates to go rogue, and did everything he could to convince them to, he lost a lot of dignity and definitely helped Trump without any payout. What he did for Trump did not have a benefit after he was mathematically eliminated.
This works under the presumption that he should have stepped aside, fell in line, and started to help Hillary out. No dice; the party did him no favors, so he owes them nothing. He was a Democrat by convenience by his own admission, and he didn't go to the right cocktail parties and Court the right donors to get DNC love.
This entire line of argument assumes that Hillary over Trump was all that mattered after the situation degraded to that point. Perhaps it eventually was the case that it was time to compromise, but "mathematically unfeasible victory" was not that point. It was when Hillary acknowledged and accommodated the progressive wing, which was never done. So Sanders did the only sensible thing he could do at the end: defeated and faced with a no-win scenario, he hedged his bets by officially supporting Clinton.
I can sympathize with the idea that Sanders helped to undermine the stupid crap that Hillary and the centrist establishment folk were peddling. But before they look at Sanders they should look in a mirror to see why it wasn't popular.
|
On September 06 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 06 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I will point out is that I do think dreamers tend to be WAY overly proud of their Mexican heritage. If you grew up here, and never spent any formative years of your life in Mexico, you aren't Mexican. They might not be legally American either, but people being proud to be "from" somewhere they've never actually been is extremely stupid. As someone who is a 5 generation Swedish American, so far removed that my last name is Irish, I call bullshit on this. My relatives from Sweden still visit us and we import food to have the as close to the same Christmas dinner my grandfather had in the 1920s. Its nearly 100 years later. Pride in your national heritage is pride in your family and what traditions they decided to keep, not the land itself. This is not exactly typical. Consider how many people who identify as Christian don't go to church. That's more so what I am talking about, or at least is what I have seen a lot. For many dreamers, the extent of their Mexican culture is speaking Spanish and hanging out with their cousins often. You don’t need to go to church to be Christian. Most church leaders will tell you that, especially non-Catholics. I’m not really sure you get to regulate who defines themselves at what if you don’t even understand how those groups define themselves. I am not in charge of any sort of regulatory commission, but I won't hesitate to point out that people tend to, due to their own weakness as individuals, grasp onto labels that give feelings of community (Christian because their families are Christian etc), virtue or power. They don't invest much of their time or energy into doing much more than "yay, I'm a part of this group". Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So for the "dreamers", it isn't the same issue as with normal illegal immigrants, right? Instead of these being people who compete with unskilled rural residents for things that will be automated within the next 20 years, they are competing with a wide range of demographics since they are just kids and will likely go on to do a variety of things. According to my observations, these dreamers do indeed tend to do a lot of the same work as their parents, at least at first. I've known lots of families where the teenage kids help their fathers with landscaping or painting or construction etc. In that regard, these dreamers are definitely competing with the "working" (rofl) class people who tend to worshipped.
However, I still don't quite see why, from a country-health perspective, we don't want dreamers competing with the lower class. In a lot of ways, dreamers are not much different than a poor family having a couple more kids. These kids would then go on to grow up to compete with these unskilled workers in the same way a dreamer would. Just like dreamers, plenty of rural/lower class people escape into more prosperous areas. But many don't. I think about the idea that this is essentially just another way to increase competition at the bottom, and how it feels wrong to defend "our" unskilled workers against ones that might be better. But at the same time, by that logic, there's no reason to defend "our" anything against anyone in that way. By my own logic, a country would always be best served by having as competitive a work force as possible. By my logic, H1B should be unlimited and used for any job. Fuck that. I honestly have a hard time seeing where I draw a line.
I'd be curious to see some studies on what kinds of people these dreamers are. In my experience, they have basically been Americans by any measure while also still having very heavy Mexican cultural influences. They all speak fluent English and Spanish but certainly have strong Mexican and American cultural values. Proud and happy to be American (and largely consider themselves American), while also being proud of their family and heritage.
One thing I will point out is that I do think dreamers tend to be WAY overly proud of their Mexican heritage. If you grew up here, and never spent any formative years of your life in Mexico, you aren't Mexican. They might not be legally American either, but people being proud to be "from" somewhere they've never actually been is extremely stupid. As I mentioned a bit earlier, sometimes their contributions do good for the country. A lot of Mexican immigrants do the grunt work for small businesses that can't afford their American expensive counterparts so they actually help grow the country. My problem is more with when they crowd up already overcrowded fields with people and do what always happens when supply of labor far outstrips demand: a savage race to the bottom in living conditions. If, for example, there simply wasn't much construction work around the country that needed to be done and millions of construction workers sitting through spells of underemployment, damn straight I would oppose illegal immigrant labor in the field. As it stands, there is plenty of work that needs doing and they fulfill a need. If illegally low pay is what keeps a small business alive, are we as a country helped by this small business staying alive? Or is that business only serving to take income away from a business that is managed better? What if a better business owner is able to expand, hire a skilled worker, and improve the country more than the shitty small business owner who can't even get by without tax fraud?
Have you ever owned a small business? The unfortunate fact is that at that level you simply can't afford not to skim on the edge of breaking codes and statutes (and they often only work with marginally legal workers rather than straight illegals). That's a smart owner or a stupid one - and plenty of small businesses still fail.
It never sounds good when you put it into words, but you have to skim the spirit of regulation very often in order to just stay afloat. Of course if you straight up break the law you pay the consequences, but I have yet to see a business of any size or health that has never broken some legal code or other at some point in their existence.
|
On that same note, I think the Sander’s camp should look in the mirror and ask why modern democrats are still bitter and resistant. Endless “I told you so” might feel fun on the internet, but one side has to bury the hatchet. And really, it should be the left/Sander’s camp, since they are making the policy push.
|
On September 06 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:No one faults Sanders for playing tough when the race was still competitive. The totally valid critique (and what made be stop supporting him) was when he ramped up his attacks as he was mathematically eliminated. Once he was hoping for delegates to go rogue, and did everything he could to convince them to, he lost a lot of dignity and definitely helped Trump without any payout. What he did for Trump did not have a benefit after he was mathematically eliminated. This works under the presumption that he should have stepped aside, fell in line, and started to help Hillary out. No dice; the party did him no favors, so he owes them nothing. He was a Democrat by convenience by his own admission, and he didn't go to the right cocktail parties and Court the right donors to get DNC love. This entire line of argument assumes that Hillary over Trump was all that mattered after the situation degraded to that point. Perhaps it eventually was the case that it was time to compromise, but "mathematically unfeasible victory" was not that point. It was when Hillary acknowledged and accommodated the progressive wing, which was never done. So Sanders did the only sensible thing he could do at the end: defeated and faced with a no-win scenario, he hedged his bets by officially supporting Clinton. I can sympathize with the idea that Sanders helped to undermine the stupid crap that Hillary and the centrist establishment folk were peddling. But before they look at Sanders they should look in a mirror to see why it wasn't popular.
This is a feeling-based approach. The idea of "you had your chance!" is an emotional appeal and doesn't actually help anyone. From any objective perspective, Sanders made a decision to "stick it to the DNC" and increase Trump's chances. You can try to attach ethics to it as some kind of qualifier, but I would ask for more than that in a leader. I would want someone I vote for to do what you are saying he was right in not doing. I would choose to not vote for someone if they were so poor a leader that they didn't see the situation as bigger than their disagreements and slants.
Ted Cruz is a good example of what I am saying Bernie should have been. Cruz kissed the feet and did what he could to work with Trump best he could. I would still take any opportunity to kick Cruz in the nuts, but he was a better leader than Bernie in this one specific issue.
|
I don't know about that. Democrats took the whole "objective, rational" approach to elections and governance right into losing an election.
|
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
|
Bernie distanced himself enough from the Hillary hailstorm such that he didn't have to go down with the ship, but he could claim to be in her good graces if she won. He would have gotten little to nothing for it. But street cred would be a good benefit. As far as I see it he did the pragmatic thing.
If the DNC is upset that he helped make this happen they should be willing to take their fair share of the blame first. Their tone-deaf blame game suggests that they learned nothing, so fuck them.
Cruz gets to go down with the Trump trainwreck, victory or defeat. Good job, he has... well, about as much credibility as a guy everyone hates.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
When you say illegal immigration is a bad thing, what are you saying? Entirely a bad thing? Some parts good, some parts bad? Pros and cons? Adding even a tiny amount of nuance and giving people something to actually address would help what you're complaining about. When you actually try to say something specific, you will find people respond differently.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
Almost every poster agreed with you that it was illegal and bad for everyone. I didn't see anyone here saying it was great. What are you trying to do here? Is this gaslighting for stupid people?
|
On September 06 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. When you say illegal immigration is a bad thing, what are you saying? Entirely a bad thing? Some parts good, some parts bad? Pros and cons? Adding even a tiny amount of nuance and giving people something to actually address would help what you're complaining about. When you actually try to say something specific, you will find people respond differently.
That there should ideally be zero people who immigrate to the country by means that are not the proper legal channels for such immigration? The point seems straightforward.
|
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad".
|
On September 06 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote:On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. When you say illegal immigration is a bad thing, what are you saying? Entirely a bad thing? Some parts good, some parts bad? Pros and cons? Adding even a tiny amount of nuance and giving people something to actually address would help what you're complaining about. When you actually try to say something specific, you will find people respond differently. That there should ideally be zero people who immigrate to the country by means that are not the proper legal channels for such immigration? The point seems straightforward.
Zero tolerance policies are bad, but lets accept that reasonable exceptions will be possible. That way this discussion can move forward beyond this churlish back and forth.
On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad".
At some point it moved from annoying to insulting. Like how dumb does he think we are?
|
On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad".
I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on.
On September 06 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote:On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. When you say illegal immigration is a bad thing, what are you saying? Entirely a bad thing? Some parts good, some parts bad? Pros and cons? Adding even a tiny amount of nuance and giving people something to actually address would help what you're complaining about. When you actually try to say something specific, you will find people respond differently. That there should ideally be zero people who immigrate to the country by means that are not the proper legal channels for such immigration? The point seems straightforward. Zero tolerance policies are bad, but lets accept that reasonable exceptions will be possible. That way this discussion can move forward beyond this churlish back and forth.
I'll take that as an "ideally zero, but realistically minimal to accommodate reasonable exceptions." I, at the very least, agree with that.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
At the risk of offering an olive branch to an angry crowd, it's really a bipartisan effort of obstructing immigration enforcement. Democrats are more vocal, granted, but the problem would have been solved already if they were the only issue. Gang of eight bill/amnesty framing, lack of legislative action after campaign promises, and the Bush presidency are all at the Republican's feet. Trump would not have won the primary if Republicans were not nearly as culpable for the inaction on the border.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
Mind answering your position yourself then as I asked at the top of the page? I'll quote it for you:
On September 06 2017 01:43 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 22:34 xDaunt wrote: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 gotals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different? Bingo. Mind answering the question yourself then? As I see it there's really three questions here, which your question sort of conflates: 1) Assuming that all current illegal immigrants were going to immigrate anyway, would it have been better for them to have instead been able to immigrate legally? 2) Assuming it had been possible, would it have been better if all current illegal immigrants had been successfully prevented from entering by ICE, and/or successfully made to leave when their visa expired? 3) Assuming it were possible, would it be better if we deported all illegal immigrants currently living in the US? For me I'd think 1) is a nearly universal yes, 2) is hard to say, and 3) is an obvious no.
Danglars, I'd be curious about your answers too, if you have the time.
|
On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on.
Yes, but this is a common thread with xDaunt. Starts with a baity post, then whines about everyone misunderstanding him and blames it on the left. He could actually try making his post clear, clarify further as the discussion goes, or even try discussing things for once. But he doesn't.
Take illegal immigration, for example. It's a fairly nuanced issue when it comes to the US. Sure, you could make a blanket statement that "illegal immigration is bad", except that's completely untrue when it comes to the present day 2017 United States. If you could go back into the past 50 years and start managing immigration properly, then sure. But currently, there is so much that relies on that labour force that a giant void would be left if there were no illegal immigrants at all.
So then we get into the fun partisan issue of "yes it's bad they're illegal, so let's make them legal" or "it's bad they're illegal so let's deport them all", and all the area in between.
|
On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on.
The percentage of strawman-and-move-on posters actively reduce the value of big posts with tons of points. If you keep teaching what you do and don't value over time, it's only your ignorance talking that you haven't encouraged smaller points and fewer responses.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
I'm left (voted Liberal in last federal, NDP in last provincial election) and pretty firmly against illegal immigration.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/we-re-allowed-to-stay-here-forever-deportation-order-for-mexican-family-overturned-1.4272700
This was in the news recently.
Some illegal immigrants from Mexico got into the country, popped out some babies, and since the babies were born in Canada, the kids get citizenship. Kids are now 5, 6 and 9 years old. Because they're citizens, the judge ruled that it'd be in the kids interest to let them stay in Canada since Canada has better healthcare, education etc. than Mexico (not really arguable).
They get to bypass the normal immigration process, get access to welfare, etc. whereas people who come legally are on 5+ year waiting lists via the normal immigration process.
I would rather deport the parents, and the kids with them, and let the kids keep citizenship. Once the kids grow up or, if they can get parents visas for visiting Canada earlier than that, they can come back, and apply to import their parents in like everyone else.
|
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
Except for all the people saying that they would like no illegal immigration but that the cost to accomplish that is wholly unacceptable and unrealistic.
But I guess that view of the responses you got doesn't fit the end goal of 'leftists are just as bad at denouncing illegal immigration as the right is at denouncing nazi's".
The main difference between left and right in their approach of illegal immigration is that one sides wants to have a proper path to citizenship and a good system for letting in the people who benefit the country before working on deporting those who remain (the 'undesirables'). While the other sides wants to shut down all immigration and kick out all illegals, desirable and undesirable, and then worry about how to let the good ones that you just kicked out back in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
