Let's talk about illegal immigration (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

When your only offer is to enforce laws that already exist, my reaction is going to be:

1. You're not willing to give anything meaningful.

2. If I can't trust you to enforce laws now, why would I trust you to enforce the same laws in the future?

Sorry, but those reactions are entirely rational on my part.

No they're not. You're living in a dream world.

What you want is to enforce the laws already on the books. I don't want that, but I'm willing to give it to you if you'll just allow the illegals already here to stay and work and pay taxes and receive benefits. Since you have no way of getting rid of them, YOU'RE the one not giving anything away in this deal; it's all me. I'm willing to allow you to re-allocate the necessary resources to enforce the law from HERE ON IN. That's a HUGE concession on my part. And what are you really giving me? Nothing. Illegals already pay taxes, they already work and have families and nobody's going to remove them. I want legal recognition and rights, and that's a very minor thing compared to what you're getting.

 

[timschochet]

Tell you what, timschochet, let's make a different deal. I offer to let you keep half your take-home pay, in return for giving me the other half. Seems pretty fair; I really want all of your money, so this is a pretty good compromise.

But the main problem with your analogy, of course, is that illegal immigrants take NOTHING from you. They give.

Please stop with this bull####. It is not true and it makes absolutely zero sense to argue that it is true.

P.S. I stand corrected on the guns. I thought you were a gun grabber but I guess I had you confused with someone else.

1. It's not bull####. Illegal immigrants are a net benefit to our society. You can dispute that all you want, but you'd be wrong.

2. Not a "gun grabber," though I think that term is rather absurd. I want universal background checks and registration. That's it. No bans on any firearms. I'd like what Israel has. Almost every citizen in Israel owns a gun, but there is very little gun violence. All firearms in Israel are strictly registered.

 

[SIDA!]

Tell you what, timschochet, let's make a different deal. I offer to let you keep half your take-home pay, in return for giving me the other half. Seems pretty fair; I really want all of your money, so this is a pretty good compromise.

But the main problem with your analogy, of course, is that illegal immigrants take NOTHING from you. They give.

Please stop with this bull####. It is not true and it makes absolutely zero sense to argue that it is true.

P.S. I stand corrected on the guns. I thought you were a gun grabber but I guess I had you confused with someone else.

1. It's not bull####. Illegal immigrants are a net benefit to our society. You can dispute that all you want, but you'd be wrong.

Since we are spending billions on education and near the bottom or far from the top tier compared to other nations...do you think we can just board up our schools and spend that money elsewhere?

I mean...being poor, uneducated and unable to even speak the native tongue is so beneficial, why waste the money. On top of that, it would make the illegals even more of a benefit since we're no longer dropping 8-10k per year to educate each one of their kids.

 

[timschochet]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

 

[Rich Conway]

Don't want to, don't need to. All we need to do is crack down on businesses who hire illegally (either by hiring illegals or by circumventing labor laws).

 

[Rich Conway]

As far as the net benefit thing, you can keep claiming it, but no one will believe you until you show some proof. And, no, proof that immigration is a net benefit is NOT the same thing as proof that illegal immigration is a net benefit.

 

[SIDA!]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

Why not? Mexico did it.

First and foremost, the whole deportation of 12 million people is a fabrication and an overstatement of what the reality would be.

Just like there is during tough economic times when some illegals self-deport and return back to their native land...the same will happen if we ever get serious about the illegal immigration issue.

It really only takes two things.

1. Seal the border and enforce it.

2. Fine and/or imprison employers of illegals

You will stop the flow of new illegals into the country dramatically. Then you will dry up the number of jobs that are available for illegal aliens. Many will leave on their own.

Then you weed out the rest through the normal course of business (deport those who come into contact with the justice system).

It really is not that difficult at all.

Once you illustrate this to people they are like..yeah...that makes sense.

Then the next argument is definitely more tricky and that is the supposed "breaking up of families" angle.

We break up families every day in this country when a parent breaks the law. Illegal aliens aren't special. And nearly all of them have broken up their own families in some way to come here, anyway. So, it is okay for them to voluntarily break up their families...but if we do it in the name of enforcing the laws and our national sovereignty we are the bad guys?

The other thing that some on the left talk about is that we need to fix the Mexican economy. First and foremost, do we ever say another country needs to fix our economy? No. So GTFO and solve your own problems.

But more importantly...all the people that leave Mexico and other countries to come here are the people that need to go back and demand change...force change. The United States acts as a safety valve for these ####hole countries and their corrupt leaders and government.

Make them deal with their own ####### riff raff.

And one more thing about the whole wall and Donald Trump getting them to pay for it. It ain't rocket science. We have a tremendous amount of leverage when it comes to Mexico. Remittances are their second largest industry. Why can't we tax remittances and use that to pay for the border expenses?

Democrats never met a ####### tax they didn't like when it comes to working Americans. I can't even take a #### in California without paying a tax to flush the toilet so why are these ####ers exempt. When they take their happy ### down to Western Union to send money home...take a bite out of it.

Liberals love to make things complicated when it comes to enforcing the laws that are on the books. But, strangely...they jizz in their pants thinking about all the additional laws they can add..especially in California.

 

[timschochet]

Repeat after me: none of that is ever going to happen.

Also you keep thinking your real opponent on this issue are liberals. It's not. It's the Chamber of Commerce and big business.

 

[The Commish]

He doesn't have it. It may be the law but it's not being enforced. If he wants it enforced he has to give something up. Otherwise he can have all the meaningless laws he wants.

Yeah...this isn't how things work. This is right up there with Trump being able to create a dictatorship. You walked that back, you want to walk this back too?

 

[timschochet]

He doesn't have it. It may be the law but it's not being enforced. If he wants it enforced he has to give something up. Otherwise he can have all the meaningless laws he wants.

Yeah...this isn't how things work. This is right up there with Trump being able to create a dictatorship. You walked that back, you want to walk this back too?

Nope.

 

[Ratbert]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

Nobody ever believed that we'd insure 12-15 million previously uninsured people either.

 

[Rich Conway]

When your only offer is to enforce laws that already exist, my reaction is going to be:

1. You're not willing to give anything meaningful.

2. If I can't trust you to enforce laws now, why would I trust you to enforce the same laws in the future?

Sorry, but those reactions are entirely rational on my part.

No they're not. You're living in a dream world.

What you want is to enforce the laws already on the books. I don't want that, but I'm willing to give it to you if you'll just allow the illegals already here to stay and work and pay taxes and receive benefits. Since you have no way of getting rid of them, YOU'RE the one not giving anything away in this deal; it's all me. I'm willing to allow you to re-allocate the necessary resources to enforce the law from HERE ON IN. That's a HUGE concession on my part. And what are you really giving me? Nothing. Illegals already pay taxes, they already work and have families and nobody's going to remove them. I want legal recognition and rights, and that's a very minor thing compared to what you're getting.

You get: illegals receive social safety net benefits, the one thing I don't want to give.

I get: another promise that you won't keep.

Sorry, not a compromise on your part.

 

[SIDA!]

Repeat after me: none of that is ever going to happen.

Also you keep thinking your real opponent on this issue are liberals. It's not. It's the Chamber of Commerce and big business.

You don't think that enforcing the border will ever happen nor do you think that going after employers will happen?

I don't keep thinking liberals are our real opponents. They are one of our opponents and you are a liberal and thus I was addressing your group specifically. I think you should know based on our earlier conversations about Trump and my attitudes toward the GOP leadership/establishment that I am keenly familiar with the chamber and big business.

When you have the presidency and control of both the house and the senate and nothing happens, or when you have control of both chambers and nothing happens...it is quite clear or should be quite clear to any Republican with an IQ higher than that of Steve Avery's that the GOP is the REAL problem.

ETA: And thus one of the major reasons why Trump is doing so well. Trump is the frankenstein they created.

 

[squistion]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

Nobody ever believed that we'd insure 12-15 million previously uninsured people either.

Um, the logistics of deporting 12-15 million people is tad more complicated than insuring 12-15 million people.

 

[SIDA!]

The same people who say we can't handle 12 million illegals "logistically" are the same ones suggesting we can handle the "logistics" of importing tens of thousands of refugees.

Logistically we can put a man on the moon and rovers on planets, fight wars on multiple continents with hundreds of thousands of men, and count our entire national population every decade...but finding 12 million people who shouldn't be here even though they get drivers licenses, use hospitals, enroll their kids in schools, file tax returns, etc. is a little too difficult.

All these pro illegal advocates want to treat the average American like they are a ####### two year olds.

Two parents are playing with their baby on the bed and dad drops down on the floor and peaks up over and over with mommy saying: "Where'd he go!? Uhhhh...where'd he go!?"

Where'd the illegals go!

Give me a ####### break.

 

[squistion]

The same people who say we can't handle 12 million illegals "logistically" are the same ones suggesting we can handle the "logistics" of importing tens of thousands of refugees.

The logistics of deporting 12 million illegals is the same as importing "tens of thousands" refugees? Okie Dokie.

 

[timschochet]

Repeat after me: none of that is ever going to happen.

Also you keep thinking your real opponent on this issue are liberals. It's not. It's the Chamber of Commerce and big business.

You don't think that enforcing the border will ever happen nor do you think that going after employers will happen?

I don't keep thinking liberals are our real opponents. They are one of our opponents and you are a liberal and thus I was addressing your group specifically. I think you should know based on our earlier conversations about Trump and my attitudes toward the GOP leadership/establishment that I am keenly familiar with the chamber and big business.

When you have the presidency and control of both the house and the senate and nothing happens, or when you have control of both chambers and nothing happens...it is quite clear or should be quite clear to any Republican with an IQ higher than that of Steve Avery's that the GOP is the REAL problem.

ETA: And thus one of the major reasons why Trump is doing so well. Trump is the frankenstein they created.

To answer your question, I don't think either will happen.

And for the sake of clarity: I am a liberal on a lot of issues (principally social) but not on this one. On this issue I would call myself a Chamber of Commerce Republican.

 

[dparker713]

When your only offer is to enforce laws that already exist, my reaction is going to be:

1. You're not willing to give anything meaningful.

2. If I can't trust you to enforce laws now, why would I trust you to enforce the same laws in the future?

Sorry, but those reactions are entirely rational on my part.

No they're not. You're living in a dream world.

What you want is to enforce the laws already on the books. I don't want that, but I'm willing to give it to you if you'll just allow the illegals already here to stay and work and pay taxes and receive benefits. Since you have no way of getting rid of them, YOU'RE the one not giving anything away in this deal; it's all me. I'm willing to allow you to re-allocate the necessary resources to enforce the law from HERE ON IN. That's a HUGE concession on my part. And what are you really giving me? Nothing. Illegals already pay taxes, they already work and have families and nobody's going to remove them. I want legal recognition and rights, and that's a very minor thing compared to what you're getting.

This is always the stupidest argument in favor of legalizing illegals. Its both untrue and irrelevant.

 

[dparker713]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

Nobody ever believed that we'd insure 12-15 million previously uninsured people either.

Um, the logistics of deporting 12-15 million people is tad more complicated than insuring 12-15 million people.

We've been deporting people for quite some time. The insuring of 12-15 million required brand new infrastructure. Plus, there's no particular deadline in deporting people, unlike implementing new insurance.

 

[The Commish]

He doesn't have it. It may be the law but it's not being enforced. If he wants it enforced he has to give something up. Otherwise he can have all the meaningless laws he wants.

Yeah...this isn't how things work. This is right up there with Trump being able to create a dictatorship. You walked that back, you want to walk this back too?

Nope.

fair enough....keep going....thought I'd offer

I go back to my original statement....you'll settle for nothing less than open borders (rules in place that you have no interest in applying is essential no rules at all). I don't know why you are attempting this dog and pony show of compromise. Embrace it Tim. Don't run from it. It has to be exhausting.

 

[jon_mx]

SIDA, like Rich we're never going to agree on this. That's cool. I need to beat you at the polls. Right now, that doesn't look so good. Even if Hillary gets elected, there's enough resistance to any kind of amnesty that it's not going to go through. I acknowledge that I'm in the strict minority; your side is winning.

That being said, you DO realize that you're never going to deport 12-15 million people, right? I mean it's not going to happen.

Nobody ever believed that we'd insure 12-15 million previously uninsured people either.

Um, the logistics of deporting 12-15 million people is tad more complicated than insuring 12-15 million people.

We've been deporting people for quite some time. The insuring of 12-15 million required brand new infrastructure. Plus, there's no particular deadline in deporting people, unlike implementing new insurance.

Maybe once the Mexicans build us a wall, they can build us a one-way Tram system to ship them back?

 

[rascal]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

 

[SIDA!]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

 

[timschochet]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

You're coming around!

 

[rascal]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

I will never agree with a policy that deports people that were fleeing their homes to escape murder/rape/starvation/etc.

 

[The Commish]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

This is the chicken/egg thing that people spend their time arguing over rather than the issue. First off, at some point the laws have to be enforced. Otherwise nothing will change. If you don't want to enforce the laws, there's no point in having them. It's a waste of time, money and resources that costs us billions. Second, we have to get over this notion that abiding by the laws is described as the above. It's not. There are correct ways and incorrect ways to come to this country. If you choose to go the incorrect way, there is nothing inhumane about refusing their entrance or sending them back where they came from once found. You don't want that to happen? Play by the rules.

That last comment brings me to my final point....if you don't like the rules, have them changed. If you think the rules are bad, your issue is with the rules not the actions resulting from the application of the rules. That sort of thinking is an example of projection. You're focused on the symptom and not the problem. Guess what happens when you do that? You waste a lot of time, resources, and money.

 

[dparker713]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

How about that VAT taxes and all consumption taxes are regressive?

 

[SIDA!]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

I will never agree with a policy that deports people that were fleeing their homes to escape murder/rape/starvation/etc.

Do you believe in even having a border and the whole idea of a nation-state or do you feel that those concepts are passe and archaic constructs of yesteryear?

 

[rascal]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

I will never agree with a policy that deports people that were fleeing their homes to escape murder/rape/starvation/etc.

Do you believe in even having a border and the whole idea of a nation-state or do you feel that those concepts are passe and archaic constructs of yesteryear?

I said secure the border, no? And yes I do believe in borders/nation state.

 

[SIDA!]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

I will never agree with a policy that deports people that were fleeing their homes to escape murder/rape/starvation/etc.

Do you believe in even having a border and the whole idea of a nation-state or do you feel that those concepts are passe and archaic constructs of yesteryear?

I said secure the border, no? And yes I do believe in borders/nation state.

I just wanted to make sure. Seems odd to me that you find it humane to keep them out of our country but once they get in it is inhumane to return them.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[rascal]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

This is the chicken/egg thing that people spend their time arguing over rather than the issue. First off, at some point the laws have to be enforced. Otherwise nothing will change. If you don't want to enforce the laws, there's no point in having them. It's a waste of time, money and resources that costs us billions. Second, we have to get over this notion that abiding by the laws is described as the above. It's not. There are correct ways and incorrect ways to come to this country. If you choose to go the incorrect way, there is nothing inhumane about refusing their entrance or sending them back where they came from once found. You don't want that to happen? Play by the rules. That last comment brings me to my final point....if you don't like the rules, have them changed. If you think the rules are bad, your issue is with the rules not the actions resulting from the application of the rules. That sort of thinking is an example of projection. You're focused on the symptom and not the problem. Guess what happens when you do that? You waste a lot of time, resources, and money.

OK, only way people won't want to come here is if their home nations offer basic requirements for a living. We can't afford that. I have no problem securing the border, what I disagree with his deporting those that have lived here for years to a destination where they are likely to be killed/raped/starve (themselves or their families).

 

[rascal]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

Let's start with the notion that enforcing the law is inhumane and that ignoring laws is an American ideal.

I will never agree with a policy that deports people that were fleeing their homes to escape murder/rape/starvation/etc.

Do you believe in even having a border and the whole idea of a nation-state or do you feel that those concepts are passe and archaic constructs of yesteryear?

I said secure the border, no? And yes I do believe in borders/nation state.

I just wanted to make sure. Seems odd to me that you find it humane to keep them out of our country but once they get in it is inhumane to return them.How do you reconcile that?

They aren't here yet. We can't bring everyone in.

 

[timschochet]

The same way Ronald Reagan did?

 

[The Commish]

I was thinking about immigration on the way home from work, and had this thought...

There are basically two types of immigrants to America: 1) those that are seeking a better life, and 2) those that want to hurt America. Obviously #2 are bad and should be kept out; but people don't know how to determine/find those so some say no to everyone. So how do we find some way of finding/keeping/helping those in #1...we have to make it in their interest to be identified and also secure the border (I for one am against sending all illegals away...it's inhumane, expensive, and against our American ideals).

How do we do that....we make it advantageous for those in category 1. And one way of doing that is by ditching our current tax system and implementing a consumption tax (i.e. VAT like some other countries do), but also provide a check at the end of the year to those that are below the poverty line. Only way you can get a check is to get a green card/visa/citizen/etc so it becomes in their interest to step forward.

Poke holes....

This is the chicken/egg thing that people spend their time arguing over rather than the issue. First off, at some point the laws have to be enforced. Otherwise nothing will change. If you don't want to enforce the laws, there's no point in having them. It's a waste of time, money and resources that costs us billions. Second, we have to get over this notion that abiding by the laws is described as the above. It's not. There are correct ways and incorrect ways to come to this country. If you choose to go the incorrect way, there is nothing inhumane about refusing their entrance or sending them back where they came from once found. You don't want that to happen? Play by the rules. That last comment brings me to my final point....if you don't like the rules, have them changed. If you think the rules are bad, your issue is with the rules not the actions resulting from the application of the rules. That sort of thinking is an example of projection. You're focused on the symptom and not the problem. Guess what happens when you do that? You waste a lot of time, resources, and money.

OK, only way people won't want to come here is if their home nations offer basic requirements for a living. We can't afford that. I have no problem securing the border, what I disagree with his deporting those that have lived here for years to a destination where they are likely to be killed/raped/starve (themselves or their families).

bit of a strawman IMO....there are always reasons people come here illegally and at some point a line has to be drawn. What they are going back to or fleeing from doesn't have much to do with them breaking our laws. Of course it could be part of a justification to grant them a temporary stay of some sort until they can find some place else to go. If they are willing to go through our process, it's possible to create some sort of new visa/stay agreement based on proof they provide that if they go back to where they came from it will mean the end of their life etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Does anyone have a handy cheat sheet or summary of the actual official positions of all the major candidates on immigration?

Thanks.

 

[Rich Conway]

[Hillary]I don't know, what do you want my position to be?[/Hillary]

 

[Rich Conway]

Probably as good a place as any to post this.  Anyway, it's a pretty good piece on the economic effects of illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

 

[timschochet]

Probably as good a place as any to post this.  Anyway, it's a pretty good piece on the economic effects of illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

It's a "good" piece because it fits your world view. As you know, I have offered plenty of contradictory evidence, which you rejected because it did NOT fit your world view.

But though I disagree with the article, it's at least a thoughtful piece and nothing like the nonsensical dirge that some of the Trump fans have brought up. Thanks for posting it.

 

[cstu]

Probably as good a place as any to post this.  Anyway, it's a pretty good piece on the economic effects of illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.

I was following along nicely before he pulled this claim and number out of his ###.

 

[cstu]

The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually.

All the benefits of being born in America and they can't even finish high school.  Then they complain that they don't get paid enough and have to compete with people who don't speak English for jobs.

 

[HellToupee]

All the benefits of being born in America and they can't even finish high school.  Then they complain that they don't get paid enough and have to compete with people who don't speak English for jobs.

so making fun of people that clearly need a helping hand is your response. 

 there are a myriad of reasons why a person doesn't finish HS . Most of them are sad situations

people with attitudes like yours absolutely disgust me

 

[Rich Conway]

Probably as good a place as any to post this.  Anyway, it's a pretty good piece on the economic effects of illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

It's a "good" piece because it fits your world view. As you know, I have offered plenty of contradictory evidence, which you rejected because it did NOT fit your world view.

But though I disagree with the article, it's at least a thoughtful piece and nothing like the nonsensical dirge that some of the Trump fans have brought up. Thanks for posting it.

This piece isn't evidence at all.  It's almost entirely opinion, same as the "evidence" you usually post.

That said, I wouldn't say it fits my world view, although when I think critically about it, I have to agree with this article's primary conclusion: that the primary economic effect of unchecked illegal immigration is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  Considering you're the one who always says big business and the Chamber of Commerce are the primary opponents of those who want to crack down on illegal immigration, it sounds like you agree as well.

 

[crewmember]

If an illegal immigrant uses an American citizen's social security number for work, does the citizen receive higher social security benefits?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Attempting to do a hit piece on Trump and anyone who isn't open borders a man admits 20% of his workforce are illegal. Hopefully he will soon be behind bars where he along with everyone else who exploits cheap labor for their personal gain belongs. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's a true indicator of Trump's abject failure to deliver on immigration that there are all of TWO posts since September. This is truly something supporters could have rallied behind. Instead Trump:

- left DACA in place

- left DAPA in place

- can't fund his wall project

- has sabotaged his own visa plans with public statements guaranteeing their defeat in the courts.

 

[Mile High]

Attempting to do a hit piece on Trump and anyone who isn't open borders a man admits 20% of his workforce are illegal. Hopefully he will soon be behind bars where he along with everyone else who exploits cheap labor for their personal gain belongs. 

Where does it say they were cheap labor? If it does i missed it. I have worked along side many illegals in construction and they got paid the same as anyone else based on their skill and experience level. The fact is  there aren't  enough American citizens coming to the job sites and applying for the jobs in the first place.

 

[Mile High]

They are taking jobs from American citizens in the construction fields because. In construction sometimes you have to move to where the work is. They come to work every day and put in a days work.  They actually come to job sites looking for work. There are a bunch of lazy Americans who talk a lot about these types of jobs but never show up to do it. And that's a fact.