|
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 January 22 2018 07:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:11 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:48 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. Does any part of the Flake DREAM stuff actually allow them to sponsor their families to immigrate? It definitely isn't part of the core DACA, which just allows them to become lawful permanent residents rather than citizens (so they can't even vote). Unless you're saying that it's de facto sponsoring because they can be legal immigrants, their family can go home and then potentially immigrate? That's already in the law as it is, which is the problem. I'm pretty sure even legal permanent residents can sponsor family members to become legal permanent residents. I think that only works with spouses and minor children, not parents? Citizenpath says you have to full naturalize to be able to sponsor a parent. The legalized will become citizens one day. That's under DREAM, not DACA. There's no path to citizenship under the old DACA that lapsed and Democrats want renewed/actually passed. Under DACA you just deferred action every 2 years in perpetuity, I think, rather than becoming a permanent resident. Since there wasn't an actual bill I've seen stories that say both. I'm pretty sure the "gang of six" bill did not, but Graham-Durbin is more tentative. In any case, I think the framework of "Dreamers on condition of making sure it doesn't happen again" is a very useful and fair once, since theoretically no one should want this to happen again. Yeah, I think a DREAM bill that gave the permanent residency contingent on waiving the right to sponsor parents after citizenship would be the best solution (DACA alone just waiving action in perpetuity is a tremendous waste of resources). I'm not sure how much Dem opposition there would be to it in the Senate though; I am skeptical it could be filibustered at least. They should lose the right to sponsor anyone and make that very clear, but yes. So we've got one condition. Now we need at least some border security. I personally could jettison E-verify for now, but you see can the issues.
I think issues with sponsoring children and spouses are an entirely separate issue to DACA that are abused in totally different ways and need a more cohesive overhaul, so I would like to see them being resolved in a separate bill with more holistic reform instead of trying to shove a band-aid in DACA/DREAM.
|
On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here.
We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again.
On January 22 2018 07:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:18 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:59 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:43 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it). They also want to change chain migration, make E-verify mandatory, and beef up border security. All of these are downward pressures and barriers to bringing your kid across the border. do you have citations on their actual proposals and on those actually accomplishing their stated objective? I assume with how many pointless anti-obamacare votes they've had, they've at least had a vote by now on some immigration change law. my general suspicion is with GH on this one, that the republicans avoid truly going hard and effective vs illegals because of corporate/rich donors wnating to take advantage of illegal labor. All we have are the "proposals" we read in the news, there is no real bill for anything so far as I know from either side. But those are the general terms the White House and some Senators have laid out. that's the kind of thing that makes me doubtful they're serious about it. they've had control of congress for a few years; sure their law would get filibustered/vetoed, but then they could say they tried, AND they clearly don't mind submitting laws that will get filibustered/vetoed based on how many times they did it on obamacare. if they're serious, why don't they have an actual bill on it? Because that isn't how these negotiations work? Neither the Dream lovers or critics have an actual bill yet. Are neither of them serious? again, so what? they didn't mind trying to repeal obamacare a jillion times; why don't they have a bill on this? they have enough votes that they can force the dems to filibuster it, so why don't they do that? also the dream act is an actual fleshed out bill, so your claim is simply false there, and makes it sounds like you haven' tpaid much attention. I mean that's literally why it's called the dream ACT, because it's an actual proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Actif you're serious, why not take the time to craft an actual legislative proposal? then you can have it ready in case you get the votes you need. also, whether or no tdems are serious isn't even relevant to the question at hand.
Dick Durbin ins't even using that act right now, he's with Graham-Durbin. Just googling "Dream act" is going to get you confused because people aren't being careful with their language.
On January 22 2018 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:21 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:11 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:48 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. Does any part of the Flake DREAM stuff actually allow them to sponsor their families to immigrate? It definitely isn't part of the core DACA, which just allows them to become lawful permanent residents rather than citizens (so they can't even vote). Unless you're saying that it's de facto sponsoring because they can be legal immigrants, their family can go home and then potentially immigrate? That's already in the law as it is, which is the problem. I'm pretty sure even legal permanent residents can sponsor family members to become legal permanent residents. I think that only works with spouses and minor children, not parents? Citizenpath says you have to full naturalize to be able to sponsor a parent. The legalized will become citizens one day. That's under DREAM, not DACA. There's no path to citizenship under the old DACA that lapsed and Democrats want renewed/actually passed. Under DACA you just deferred action every 2 years in perpetuity, I think, rather than becoming a permanent resident. Since there wasn't an actual bill I've seen stories that say both. I'm pretty sure the "gang of six" bill did not, but Graham-Durbin is more tentative. In any case, I think the framework of "Dreamers on condition of making sure it doesn't happen again" is a very useful and fair once, since theoretically no one should want this to happen again. Yeah, I think a DREAM bill that gave the permanent residency contingent on waiving the right to sponsor parents after citizenship would be the best solution (DACA alone just waiving action in perpetuity is a tremendous waste of resources). I'm not sure how much Dem opposition there would be to it in the Senate though; I am skeptical it could be filibustered at least. They should lose the right to sponsor anyone and make that very clear, but yes. So we've got one condition. Now we need at least some border security. I personally could jettison E-verify for now, but you see can the issues. I think issues with sponsoring children and spouses are an entirely separate issue to DACA that are abused in totally different ways and need a more cohesive overhaul, so I would like to see them being resolved in a separate bill with more holistic reform instead of trying to shove a band-aid in DACA/DREAM.
Now I could accept that compromise and leave chain migration for other immigrants later. Border security is a must though.
|
On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:28 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:18 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:59 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:43 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it). They also want to change chain migration, make E-verify mandatory, and beef up border security. All of these are downward pressures and barriers to bringing your kid across the border. do you have citations on their actual proposals and on those actually accomplishing their stated objective? I assume with how many pointless anti-obamacare votes they've had, they've at least had a vote by now on some immigration change law. my general suspicion is with GH on this one, that the republicans avoid truly going hard and effective vs illegals because of corporate/rich donors wnating to take advantage of illegal labor. All we have are the "proposals" we read in the news, there is no real bill for anything so far as I know from either side. But those are the general terms the White House and some Senators have laid out. that's the kind of thing that makes me doubtful they're serious about it. they've had control of congress for a few years; sure their law would get filibustered/vetoed, but then they could say they tried, AND they clearly don't mind submitting laws that will get filibustered/vetoed based on how many times they did it on obamacare. if they're serious, why don't they have an actual bill on it? Because that isn't how these negotiations work? Neither the Dream lovers or critics have an actual bill yet. Are neither of them serious? again, so what? they didn't mind trying to repeal obamacare a jillion times; why don't they have a bill on this? they have enough votes that they can force the dems to filibuster it, so why don't they do that? also the dream act is an actual fleshed out bill, so your claim is simply false there, and makes it sounds like you haven' tpaid much attention. I mean that's literally why it's called the dream ACT, because it's an actual proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Actif you're serious, why not take the time to craft an actual legislative proposal? then you can have it ready in case you get the votes you need. also, whether or no tdems are serious isn't even relevant to the question at hand. Dick Durbin ins't even using that act right now, he's with Graham-Durbin. Just googling "Dream act" is going to get you confused because people aren't being careful with their language. Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:21 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:11 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:48 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Does any part of the Flake DREAM stuff actually allow them to sponsor their families to immigrate? It definitely isn't part of the core DACA, which just allows them to become lawful permanent residents rather than citizens (so they can't even vote).
Unless you're saying that it's de facto sponsoring because they can be legal immigrants, their family can go home and then potentially immigrate? That's already in the law as it is, which is the problem. I'm pretty sure even legal permanent residents can sponsor family members to become legal permanent residents. I think that only works with spouses and minor children, not parents? Citizenpath says you have to full naturalize to be able to sponsor a parent. The legalized will become citizens one day. That's under DREAM, not DACA. There's no path to citizenship under the old DACA that lapsed and Democrats want renewed/actually passed. Under DACA you just deferred action every 2 years in perpetuity, I think, rather than becoming a permanent resident. Since there wasn't an actual bill I've seen stories that say both. I'm pretty sure the "gang of six" bill did not, but Graham-Durbin is more tentative. In any case, I think the framework of "Dreamers on condition of making sure it doesn't happen again" is a very useful and fair once, since theoretically no one should want this to happen again. Yeah, I think a DREAM bill that gave the permanent residency contingent on waiving the right to sponsor parents after citizenship would be the best solution (DACA alone just waiving action in perpetuity is a tremendous waste of resources). I'm not sure how much Dem opposition there would be to it in the Senate though; I am skeptical it could be filibustered at least. They should lose the right to sponsor anyone and make that very clear, but yes. So we've got one condition. Now we need at least some border security. I personally could jettison E-verify for now, but you see can the issues. I think issues with sponsoring children and spouses are an entirely separate issue to DACA that are abused in totally different ways and need a more cohesive overhaul, so I would like to see them being resolved in a separate bill with more holistic reform instead of trying to shove a band-aid in DACA/DREAM. Now I could accept that compromise and leave chain migration for other immigrants later. Border security is a must though.
noted, but that doesn't change the thrust of my point or address its substance; so i'll take it your conceding my claim then? (the underlying claim at issue being that republicans, meanin the republican party in congress, aren't actually serious about addressing immigration)
|
On January 22 2018 07:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. On January 22 2018 07:28 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:18 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:59 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:43 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it). They also want to change chain migration, make E-verify mandatory, and beef up border security. All of these are downward pressures and barriers to bringing your kid across the border. do you have citations on their actual proposals and on those actually accomplishing their stated objective? I assume with how many pointless anti-obamacare votes they've had, they've at least had a vote by now on some immigration change law. my general suspicion is with GH on this one, that the republicans avoid truly going hard and effective vs illegals because of corporate/rich donors wnating to take advantage of illegal labor. All we have are the "proposals" we read in the news, there is no real bill for anything so far as I know from either side. But those are the general terms the White House and some Senators have laid out. that's the kind of thing that makes me doubtful they're serious about it. they've had control of congress for a few years; sure their law would get filibustered/vetoed, but then they could say they tried, AND they clearly don't mind submitting laws that will get filibustered/vetoed based on how many times they did it on obamacare. if they're serious, why don't they have an actual bill on it? Because that isn't how these negotiations work? Neither the Dream lovers or critics have an actual bill yet. Are neither of them serious? again, so what? they didn't mind trying to repeal obamacare a jillion times; why don't they have a bill on this? they have enough votes that they can force the dems to filibuster it, so why don't they do that? also the dream act is an actual fleshed out bill, so your claim is simply false there, and makes it sounds like you haven' tpaid much attention. I mean that's literally why it's called the dream ACT, because it's an actual proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Actif you're serious, why not take the time to craft an actual legislative proposal? then you can have it ready in case you get the votes you need. also, whether or no tdems are serious isn't even relevant to the question at hand. Dick Durbin ins't even using that act right now, he's with Graham-Durbin. Just googling "Dream act" is going to get you confused because people aren't being careful with their language. On January 22 2018 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:21 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:11 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:48 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
That's already in the law as it is, which is the problem. I'm pretty sure even legal permanent residents can sponsor family members to become legal permanent residents. I think that only works with spouses and minor children, not parents? Citizenpath says you have to full naturalize to be able to sponsor a parent. The legalized will become citizens one day. That's under DREAM, not DACA. There's no path to citizenship under the old DACA that lapsed and Democrats want renewed/actually passed. Under DACA you just deferred action every 2 years in perpetuity, I think, rather than becoming a permanent resident. Since there wasn't an actual bill I've seen stories that say both. I'm pretty sure the "gang of six" bill did not, but Graham-Durbin is more tentative. In any case, I think the framework of "Dreamers on condition of making sure it doesn't happen again" is a very useful and fair once, since theoretically no one should want this to happen again. Yeah, I think a DREAM bill that gave the permanent residency contingent on waiving the right to sponsor parents after citizenship would be the best solution (DACA alone just waiving action in perpetuity is a tremendous waste of resources). I'm not sure how much Dem opposition there would be to it in the Senate though; I am skeptical it could be filibustered at least. They should lose the right to sponsor anyone and make that very clear, but yes. So we've got one condition. Now we need at least some border security. I personally could jettison E-verify for now, but you see can the issues. I think issues with sponsoring children and spouses are an entirely separate issue to DACA that are abused in totally different ways and need a more cohesive overhaul, so I would like to see them being resolved in a separate bill with more holistic reform instead of trying to shove a band-aid in DACA/DREAM. Now I could accept that compromise and leave chain migration for other immigrants later. Border security is a must though. noted, but that doesn't change the thrust of my point or address its substance; so i'll take it your conceding my claim then? (the underlying claim at issue being that republicans, meanin the republican party in congress, aren't actually serious about addressing immigration)
No, you don't have to have a bill for it to be serious. They are still negotiating with Democrats. Trump won in part on immigration. They take it deadly serious.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again.
The two aren't very obviously related.
The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that.
The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that.
The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse.
Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging.
|
On January 22 2018 07:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:45 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. On January 22 2018 07:28 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:18 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 07:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:59 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2018 06:43 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it). They also want to change chain migration, make E-verify mandatory, and beef up border security. All of these are downward pressures and barriers to bringing your kid across the border. do you have citations on their actual proposals and on those actually accomplishing their stated objective? I assume with how many pointless anti-obamacare votes they've had, they've at least had a vote by now on some immigration change law. my general suspicion is with GH on this one, that the republicans avoid truly going hard and effective vs illegals because of corporate/rich donors wnating to take advantage of illegal labor. All we have are the "proposals" we read in the news, there is no real bill for anything so far as I know from either side. But those are the general terms the White House and some Senators have laid out. that's the kind of thing that makes me doubtful they're serious about it. they've had control of congress for a few years; sure their law would get filibustered/vetoed, but then they could say they tried, AND they clearly don't mind submitting laws that will get filibustered/vetoed based on how many times they did it on obamacare. if they're serious, why don't they have an actual bill on it? Because that isn't how these negotiations work? Neither the Dream lovers or critics have an actual bill yet. Are neither of them serious? again, so what? they didn't mind trying to repeal obamacare a jillion times; why don't they have a bill on this? they have enough votes that they can force the dems to filibuster it, so why don't they do that? also the dream act is an actual fleshed out bill, so your claim is simply false there, and makes it sounds like you haven' tpaid much attention. I mean that's literally why it's called the dream ACT, because it's an actual proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Actif you're serious, why not take the time to craft an actual legislative proposal? then you can have it ready in case you get the votes you need. also, whether or no tdems are serious isn't even relevant to the question at hand. Dick Durbin ins't even using that act right now, he's with Graham-Durbin. Just googling "Dream act" is going to get you confused because people aren't being careful with their language. On January 22 2018 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:21 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 07:11 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 22 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:[quote] I think that only works with spouses and minor children, not parents? Citizenpath says you have to full naturalize to be able to sponsor a parent. The legalized will become citizens one day. That's under DREAM, not DACA. There's no path to citizenship under the old DACA that lapsed and Democrats want renewed/actually passed. Under DACA you just deferred action every 2 years in perpetuity, I think, rather than becoming a permanent resident. Since there wasn't an actual bill I've seen stories that say both. I'm pretty sure the "gang of six" bill did not, but Graham-Durbin is more tentative. In any case, I think the framework of "Dreamers on condition of making sure it doesn't happen again" is a very useful and fair once, since theoretically no one should want this to happen again. Yeah, I think a DREAM bill that gave the permanent residency contingent on waiving the right to sponsor parents after citizenship would be the best solution (DACA alone just waiving action in perpetuity is a tremendous waste of resources). I'm not sure how much Dem opposition there would be to it in the Senate though; I am skeptical it could be filibustered at least. They should lose the right to sponsor anyone and make that very clear, but yes. So we've got one condition. Now we need at least some border security. I personally could jettison E-verify for now, but you see can the issues. I think issues with sponsoring children and spouses are an entirely separate issue to DACA that are abused in totally different ways and need a more cohesive overhaul, so I would like to see them being resolved in a separate bill with more holistic reform instead of trying to shove a band-aid in DACA/DREAM. Now I could accept that compromise and leave chain migration for other immigrants later. Border security is a must though. noted, but that doesn't change the thrust of my point or address its substance; so i'll take it your conceding my claim then? (the underlying claim at issue being that republicans, meanin the republican party in congress, aren't actually serious about addressing immigration) No, you don't have to have a bill for it to be serious. They are still negotiating with Democrats. Trump won in part on immigration. They take it deadly serious.
ok, well then i'll agree that you disagree and that there's little more to say on the topic; but I won' tconsider it a very sound disagreement, as i've presented considerable evidence establishing that they're not really trying, and you haven' tcountered my evidence/arguments as a whole with your evidence/arguments, you really haven't provided much evidence at all for your claim.
|
On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging.
I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept.
They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood.
|
KwarK's point, to borrow your inhumane analogy, is that people aren't water...
|
No, it isn't. His point is that you deal with current problems now and debate future issues after that, espeically if you agree on how to deal with the current problem.
edit: thanks for calling his post inhumane though, I'm not sure if you misread the posts or are trying to manufacture some offense.
|
Ok good, that we've established that the link between the two is the stuff of political decision making and not essential is progress. And yes, I missed that he brought up the analogy, but nevertheless think it still inappropriate in the context of fighting against folks who routinely attempt to delegitimize the humanity of immigrants.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 22 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging. I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept. They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood.
They are not connected logically.
You do not need to solve the problem of minors being brought into the country to solve the problem of what to do with undocumented adults who are already here.
One problem is how to deal with undocumented adults who were brought here as children. That's a paperwork issue, a question of what legal status they should have etc. You can fix that in a debate chamber with a pen and paper. Pure bureaucracy. It'd be super easy to, for example, give them 10 year temporary green cards rather than 2 year temporary green cards.
The other problem is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing minors with them and raising them in the United States. That's an immigration issue, that's an incredibly broad issue that spans from foreign policy issues relating to why the nations are unstable in the first place, to drug policy (see above), to border enforcement, to deportations, to mixed incentives, to macroeconomics and so forth. That's a total fucking mess that will take a very, very long time to unravel and an awful lot of actual work.
I'll try another metaphor to see if you'll get it this time. Imagine there is pressure building up inside a boiler. You think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. I think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. But you refuse to open up the damn release valve until we can reach an agreement on where the pressure is coming from and how to stop the pressure buildup.
|
On January 22 2018 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging. I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept. They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood. They are not connected logically. You do not need to solve the problem of minors being brought into the country to solve the problem of what to do with undocumented adults who are already here. One problem is how to deal with undocumented adults who were brought here as children. That's a paperwork issue, a question of what legal status they should have etc. You can fix that in a debate chamber with a pen and paper. Pure bureaucracy. It'd be super easy to, for example, give them 10 year temporary green cards rather than 2 year temporary green cards. The other problem is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing minors with them and raising them in the United States. That's an immigration issue, that's an incredibly broad issue that spans from foreign policy issues relating to why the nations are unstable in the first place, to drug policy (see above), to border enforcement, to deportations, to mixed incentives, to macroeconomics and so forth. That's a total fucking mess that will take a very, very long time to unravel and an awful lot of actual work. I'll try another metaphor to see if you'll get it this time. Imagine there is pressure building up inside a boiler. You think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. I think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. But you refuse to open up the damn release valve until we can reach an agreement on where the pressure is coming from and how to stop the pressure buildup.
They think the boiler exploding is a better option then letting an uncontrolled amount of steam (illegals) out.
|
Hmm farv' s post was the target of this.
I would debate that, as my addition to the analogy demonstrates. It is in fact essential for flooding to end before you start pumping.
Besides immigration is always a political question for the citizenry. The fact that the politicians agree is in many ways an accident, nothing prevents the GOP and their voters from having a "deport them all" position.
The issues we have are connected, and for many reasons. But one is enough.
|
"nothing prevents the GOP and their voters from having a 'deport them all' position" except for, you know a ton of things ranging from pure economics to basic human decency to the sheer weight of hypocrisy that constantly overhangs the "America is a Christian nation" party as it conjures up policy Jesus would burn down temples over.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 22 2018 08:31 Introvert wrote:
Hmm farv' s post was the target of this.
I would debate that, as my addition to the analogy demonstrates. It is in fact essential for flooding to end before you start pumping.
Besides immigration is always a political question for the citizenry. The fact that the politicians agree is in many ways an accident, nothing prevents the GOP and their voters from having a "deport them all" position.
The issues we have are connected, and for many reasons. But one is enough.
The flood is the cumulative impact of decades of undocumented children who are now adults. Giving them legal status does make the flood disappear. The fact that illegal immigrants may still bring more children into the country is a potential cause for a future flood in a few more decades when it has built up to breaking point does not change that.
It is not essential to take long term preventative action to prevent another flood from happening in a few decades before you pump the current floodwaters out of your house.
|
|
|
On January 22 2018 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging. I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept. They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood. They are not connected logically. You do not need to solve the problem of minors being brought into the country to solve the problem of what to do with undocumented adults who are already here. One problem is how to deal with undocumented adults who were brought here as children. That's a paperwork issue, a question of what legal status they should have etc. You can fix that in a debate chamber with a pen and paper. Pure bureaucracy. It'd be super easy to, for example, give them 10 year temporary green cards rather than 2 year temporary green cards. The other problem is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing minors with them and raising them in the United States. That's an immigration issue, that's an incredibly broad issue that spans from foreign policy issues relating to why the nations are unstable in the first place, to drug policy (see above), to border enforcement, to deportations, to mixed incentives, to macroeconomics and so forth. That's a total fucking mess that will take a very, very long time to unravel and an awful lot of actual work. I'll try another metaphor to see if you'll get it this time. Imagine there is pressure building up inside a boiler. You think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. I think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. But you refuse to open up the damn release valve until we can reach an agreement on where the pressure is coming from and how to stop the pressure buildup.
This metaphor is worse so I'll ignore it and we'll be purely political.
One side benefits from the status quo. Therefore once the solution is agreed upon they have no incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again. This is the problem, and this problem has historical precedent. The flood benefits you more than me, so if it happens again, well, maybe you'll buy my house from me and then still come out a winner.
The GOP agrees to the legalize solution on the condition that it doesn't happen again. If it does, they get screwed. This is the political problem. This is the ONLY time we can deal with problem two.
|
On January 22 2018 08:33 farvacola wrote:
"nothing prevents the GOP and their voters from having a 'deport them all' position" except for, you know a ton of things ranging from pure economics to basic human decency to the sheer weight of hypocrisy that constantly overhangs the "America is a Christian nation" party as it conjures up policy Jesus would burn down temples over.
And those are linked to politics. My point is that the fact that they "agree" is in some ways superficial. This isn't like agreeing that the house should be pumped.
gah I didn't intend to spend all day on here talking about this.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 22 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 08:26 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging. I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept. They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood. They are not connected logically. You do not need to solve the problem of minors being brought into the country to solve the problem of what to do with undocumented adults who are already here. One problem is how to deal with undocumented adults who were brought here as children. That's a paperwork issue, a question of what legal status they should have etc. You can fix that in a debate chamber with a pen and paper. Pure bureaucracy. It'd be super easy to, for example, give them 10 year temporary green cards rather than 2 year temporary green cards. The other problem is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing minors with them and raising them in the United States. That's an immigration issue, that's an incredibly broad issue that spans from foreign policy issues relating to why the nations are unstable in the first place, to drug policy (see above), to border enforcement, to deportations, to mixed incentives, to macroeconomics and so forth. That's a total fucking mess that will take a very, very long time to unravel and an awful lot of actual work. I'll try another metaphor to see if you'll get it this time. Imagine there is pressure building up inside a boiler. You think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. I think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. But you refuse to open up the damn release valve until we can reach an agreement on where the pressure is coming from and how to stop the pressure buildup. This metaphor is worse so I'll ignore it and we'll be purely political. One side benefits from the status quo. Therefore once the solution is agreed upon they have no incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again. This is the problem, and this problem has historical precedent. The flood benefits you more than me, so if it happens again, well, maybe you'll buy my house from me and then still come out a winner. The GOP agrees to the legalize solution on the condition that it doesn't happen again. If it does, they get screwed. This is the political problem. This is the ONLY time we can deal with problem two.
But the GOP doesn't have a solution to people bringing minors into the country. It's a complex problem.
|
On January 22 2018 08:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 08:26 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:57 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:36 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:28 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2018 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2018 07:16 KwarK wrote:
Dreamers should happen again, it's good policy. If children grow up in the United States, get educated in US schools paid for by US taxpayers, get treated in US hospitals, drive on US roads etc, then they should absolutely live, work, and pay taxes in America.
The US shouldn't be inviting children of the world to come to the US. But the children that get here anyway should definitely be kept. We spent good money turning those into American children and now you want to send them back to a country they don't even remember? It's idiocy.
American citizenship doesn't define being an American. I could get American citizenship in a few years but it won't make me more American than someone who was here from infancy. That's not the point I'm arguing. We need to make sure that we don't get to another situation where we have hundreds of thousands of people brought here by their parents illegally when are they young. That's a separate and unrelated issue though. Refusing to do something that both sides agree is good policy unless you get your way on a different, much more complicated and divisive issue is absurd. The fact that the differing political schools of thought can't agree on how to solve illegal immigration does not mean that they should deliberate refuse to solve problems they do agree on like what to do with non citizens who were raised here. We all agree the situation is bad now, yes? So we are dealing with it. No one wants minors who aren't citizens to grow up in a different country. The two are very obviously related. It isn't good policy to allow this to happen again. The two aren't very obviously related. The first is what to do to fix the problem of non citizens who were raised here. And both sides agree on a solution to that. The second is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing their undocumented children into the country, and both sides cannot agree on a solution to that. The argument that we cannot enact the solution both sides agree on to problem 1 until one side caves on problem 2 is obtuse. Imagine there was a river that burst its banks and flooded nearby houses. One person who lives in the house thinks that this wouldn't happen if the river were dredged to clear accumulated silt. Another person thinks that building up the river banks higher is the way to go. They both agree that the water currently in the house should be pumped out. If they went with your argument they'd be wading around the living room while they debated the merits of dredging. I'm struggling to explain this to someone who contends that these issues aren't connected. I've written up like 4 ways that I don't think you would accept. They are certainly connected politically, which is the business of Washington. You don't pump water out your house if there is still a flood. They are not connected logically. You do not need to solve the problem of minors being brought into the country to solve the problem of what to do with undocumented adults who are already here. One problem is how to deal with undocumented adults who were brought here as children. That's a paperwork issue, a question of what legal status they should have etc. You can fix that in a debate chamber with a pen and paper. Pure bureaucracy. It'd be super easy to, for example, give them 10 year temporary green cards rather than 2 year temporary green cards. The other problem is how to prevent illegal immigrants from bringing minors with them and raising them in the United States. That's an immigration issue, that's an incredibly broad issue that spans from foreign policy issues relating to why the nations are unstable in the first place, to drug policy (see above), to border enforcement, to deportations, to mixed incentives, to macroeconomics and so forth. That's a total fucking mess that will take a very, very long time to unravel and an awful lot of actual work. I'll try another metaphor to see if you'll get it this time. Imagine there is pressure building up inside a boiler. You think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. I think we should open up the release valve to prevent it from exploding. But you refuse to open up the damn release valve until we can reach an agreement on where the pressure is coming from and how to stop the pressure buildup. This metaphor is worse so I'll ignore it and we'll be purely political. One side benefits from the status quo. Therefore once the solution is agreed upon they have no incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again. This is the problem, and this problem has historical precedent. The flood benefits you more than me, so if it happens again, well, maybe you'll buy my house from me and then still come out a winner. The GOP agrees to the legalize solution on the condition that it doesn't happen again. If it does, they get screwed. This is the political problem. This is the ONLY time we can deal with problem two. But the GOP doesn't have a solution to people bringing minors into the country. It's a complex problem.
yes they do, we've been discussing three of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
