DACA

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no way to do anything for these kids and it save the nation some money. Money that could otherwise go to natural citizens.

I understand the conflict perfectly well. The fact that, so far, we haven't come up with something better is a failure of imagination, so we have resolved that the expedient option is the only viable one because we lack the creativity to come up with anything else, despite its troubling implications regarding inherited guilt and collective punishment.

I would have thought such a vigorous anti-SJW crowd would be more receptive to an argument that rejects the notion of inherited guilt, no?

It's not about guilt. The children of these illegal migrants only become guilty when they reach the age of majority.

So what you're saying is that because we view this scenario through a pragmatic lens, we just aren't imaginative enough? Hmm, let's think. What is a way we can keep these families here without having to make them citizens, AND prevent money that should be for American citizens going to illegal migrants.

I can think of one way, but there's an amendment against it.

Exactly. They become guilty because of a decision made for them before they were able to exercise their own will.

Pragmatism isn't inherently opposed to creative solutions.

[jediuser598]

To a European this is one of those uniquely US phenomenon. To have two separate paths to citizenship. One legal and one illegal. Some kind of guaranteed amnesty for certain crimes with added reward of citizenship. This kind of lawlessness wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else.

I can only understand it in a context of the high demand for cheap illegal workers with next to no rights. Slavery light. The state picks up the bill by rewarding the children of the slaves. Modern freedmen.

Slavery light? I see immigrants in this country at a place I work, Guatemalans. They buy tons of stuff, carts are usually full, sometimes they're even using two because one isn't enough. I'd estimate we have a sizable population around here, it's about (from pure ballpark guess) 5-10% of our customers, you see them pretty constantly. They don't look like they're hurting. They eat better than I do and don't speak the native language. Funny thing is is when they need help, we all use our phones to use google translate. Yet we treat them like every other customer. Sure that's anecdotal evidence, but if their wages are so horrible, why'd they migrate here? They're using our services anyways, and they're free to leave when they want, so I don't see the slavery aspect. You can't be a slave if you're free to leave at any time.

Here is my problem, if they really wanted to be Americans, then they should embrace our culture. I'm happy to have people here who want to be Americans, and want to assimilate, bringing their own flavor with them, but if they put their own country's flag over America's flag? Well that means they're that country's citizen and perhaps they should go back to that country if they venerate it higher than America. At that point, that's where I draw the line. I wouldn't give those people amnesty. That's economic parasitism. Now that's not a practical solution for determining who to give amnesty, but it's more of a "Why are you here if you revere your own home country so highly?" Someone wants to come here and try their best to be an American and try to move the American Ideal forward? :goteam:

Coming here just to send American dollars back to your home country?

[jediuser598]

Say an illegal immigrant came here fleeing the violence of their country. Whether it be South America, or the Middle East, or where ever. In sending them back (in this hypothetical) we know that, 100%, this illegal immigrant is going to die. What would you guys do then?

I'm not saying this is always the case with illegal immigration, but I'm wondering what you guys would do if this were the case.

You are describing an asylum case. We grant to asylum to refugees who are legitimately in fear of their lives all the time.

Except if they're from the middle east.

[Speaker to Animals]

Say an illegal immigrant came here fleeing the violence of their country. Whether it be South America, or the Middle East, or where ever. In sending them back (in this hypothetical) we know that, 100%, this illegal immigrant is going to die. What would you guys do then?

I'm not saying this is always the case with illegal immigration, but I'm wondering what you guys would do if this were the case.

You are describing an asylum case. We grant to asylum to refugees who are legitimately in fear of their lives all the time.

Except if they're from the middle east.

I don't see legitimate refugees coming from there. If we were serious about it, all those Syrians we bring here would be Christians, Yazidis, and homosexuals. But what we get instead are a bunch of chlid-raping jihadis. So go fuck yourself with that quip.

It would be like implementing a a refugee program for the Holocaust in which you shipped in millions of the people perpetrating the Holocaust (white Germans) while blocking the people perpetrators are murdering (Jews, Gypsies, etc). It's fucking stupid and, frankly, Then to top it all off, you do so knowing the Nazis are mixing their SS troops in with the "refugees" coming here. I am amazed that you people are still trying to peddle this bullshit at this time.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What could possibly be better than following the law? I though you are a lawyer. Don't you have to swear to uphold the rule of law or something?

I am a huge fan of the rule of law. More's the better when the law can be just as well says I.

[Kazmyr]

They should apply for asylum like any other refugee. That is well regulated. People from Mexico aren't refugees.

He makes a case for why Mexicans jumping the border are actually refugees. Maybe not actual refugees (and thus being able to avail themselves of asylum - because he didn't touch that), but in essence they are - due to the Mexican government being a cesspool/cartel control.

[Xenophon]

They should apply for asylum like any other refugee. That is well regulated. People from Mexico aren't refugees.

He makes a case for why Mexicans jumping the border are actually refugees. Maybe not actual refugees (and thus being able to avail themselves of asylum - because he didn't touch that), but in essence they are - due to the Mexican government being a cesspool/cartel control.

Here's an article from someone who recently visited the Mexican Narcowastes.

http://www.prescottenews.com/index.php/ ... ico-rising

For readers who have not traveled in Mexico recently or only know the country from the border areas, Mexico today is far from the Mexico of even a few decades ago. What we saw over our five day visit is a rapidly growing industrial powerhouse with modern infrastructure and gleaming new industrial parks. The dysfunctional narco state sensationalized by the media was nowhere in evidence. The Mexico City Metro Area with a population of 22 million is the largest city in the Western Hemisphere and continues to be a magnet for jobs and economic opportunity. The state of Guanajuato, like Arizona, is landlocked. A short two decades ago it was primarily an agricultural and mining region. But by developing new roads and rail links to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and cultivating a civic culture friendly to trade, it has created over 50 industrial parks employing tens of thousands of workers and become a manufacturing base for many of the worlds tops companies.

Those poor, brown savages. Come right in sweeties, put your feet anywhere.

[Hastur]

To a European this is one of those uniquely US phenomenon. To have two separate paths to citizenship. One legal and one illegal. Some kind of guaranteed amnesty for certain crimes with added reward of citizenship. This kind of lawlessness wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else.

I can only understand it in a context of the high demand for cheap illegal workers with next to no rights. Slavery light. The state picks up the bill by rewarding the children of the slaves. Modern freedmen.

Slavery light? I see immigrants in this country at a place I work, Guatemalans. They buy tons of stuff, carts are usually full, sometimes they're even using two because one isn't enough. I'd estimate we have a sizable population around here, it's about (from pure ballpark guess) 5-10% of our customers, you see them pretty constantly. They don't look like they're hurting. They eat better than I do and don't speak the native language. Funny thing is is when they need help, we all use our phones to use google translate. Yet we treat them like every other customer. Sure that's anecdotal evidence, but if their wages are so horrible, why'd they migrate here? They're using our services anyways, and they're free to leave when they want, so I don't see the slavery aspect. You can't be a slave if you're free to leave at any time.

Here is my problem, if they really wanted to be Americans, then they should embrace our culture. I'm happy to have people here who want to be Americans, and want to assimilate, bringing their own flavor with them, but if they put their own country's flag over America's flag? Well that means they're that country's citizen and perhaps they should go back to that country if they venerate it higher than America. At that point, that's where I draw the line. I wouldn't give those people amnesty. That's economic parasitism. Now that's not a practical solution for determining who to give amnesty, but it's more of a "Why are you here if you revere your own home country so highly?" Someone wants to come here and try their best to be an American and try to move the American Ideal forward? :goteam:

Coming here just to send American dollars back to your home country?

I didn't say they hurt. They're not slaves like on the plantations of old. More like the slaves of ancient Rome. I don't doubt they have money.

Edit: wrong pic

[Zlaxer]

I understand the conflict perfectly well. The fact that, so far, we haven't come up with something better is a failure of imagination, so we have resolved that the expedient option is the only viable one because we lack the creativity to come up with anything else, despite its troubling implications regarding inherited guilt and collective punishment.

I would have thought such a vigorous anti-SJW crowd would be more receptive to an argument that rejects the notion of inherited guilt, no?

It's not about guilt. The children of these illegal migrants only become guilty when they reach the age of majority.

So what you're saying is that because we view this scenario through a pragmatic lens, we just aren't imaginative enough? Hmm, let's think. What is a way we can keep these families here without having to make them citizens, AND prevent money that should be for American citizens going to illegal migrants.

I can think of one way, but there's an amendment against it.

Exactly. They become guilty because of a decision made for them before they were able to exercise their own will.

Pragmatism isn't inherently opposed to creative solutions.

Deterrence -


Do you think we currently over provide for U.S. Citizens on foodstamps, wellfare, etc? Do you think they have enough to spare? Are we giving them too much?

If not, then why are your proposing to provide them with even less? The US can't keep spending at its current rate and expect to be around in another 50 years....so if we have a spending problem, then why are you proposing that we spend even more?

I feel bad for the DACA candidates, but they're not the responsibility of the US government (or the US tax payer)...its the concern of their native country....whether they've lived their or not. The US government can't even meet the needs of its own citizens - we are in no position to take on more of the world's poor - unlike the 1870s - we have massive social programs that cost more than we can afford....

[jediuser598]

To a European this is one of those uniquely US phenomenon. To have two separate paths to citizenship. One legal and one illegal. Some kind of guaranteed amnesty for certain crimes with added reward of citizenship. This kind of lawlessness wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else.

I can only understand it in a context of the high demand for cheap illegal workers with next to no rights. Slavery light. The state picks up the bill by rewarding the children of the slaves. Modern freedmen.

Slavery light? I see immigrants in this country at a place I work, Guatemalans. They buy tons of stuff, carts are usually full, sometimes they're even using two because one isn't enough. I'd estimate we have a sizable population around here, it's about (from pure ballpark guess) 5-10% of our customers, you see them pretty constantly. They don't look like they're hurting. They eat better than I do and don't speak the native language. Funny thing is is when they need help, we all use our phones to use google translate. Yet we treat them like every other customer. Sure that's anecdotal evidence, but if their wages are so horrible, why'd they migrate here? They're using our services anyways, and they're free to leave when they want, so I don't see the slavery aspect. You can't be a slave if you're free to leave at any time.

Here is my problem, if they really wanted to be Americans, then they should embrace our culture. I'm happy to have people here who want to be Americans, and want to assimilate, bringing their own flavor with them, but if they put their own country's flag over America's flag? Well that means they're that country's citizen and perhaps they should go back to that country if they venerate it higher than America. At that point, that's where I draw the line. I wouldn't give those people amnesty. That's economic parasitism. Now that's not a practical solution for determining who to give amnesty, but it's more of a "Why are you here if you revere your own home country so highly?" Someone wants to come here and try their best to be an American and try to move the American Ideal forward? :goteam:

Coming here just to send American dollars back to your home country?

I didn't say they hurt. They're not slaves like on the plantations of old. More like the slaves of ancient Rome. I don't doubt they have money.

Edit: wrong pic

Wait, so are you arguing they're slaves, or that they have it better than normal American citizens? You can't argue both at-the-same-time.