There will be plenty of opportunities for that in the future. 
But it’s not Me And Me Alone; there are folks who are illegal now, just like they were illegal in the years and decades prior, because I was but one voice among many when rather a lot of elected officials wrote the laws that way.
If you want to change the existing “no trespassing” policy, then feel free to put up a candidate who advocates for that. But don’t be surprised when folks instead elect the candidate who says “I still don’t want to give permission; and who’s with me?”
No, I’m saying that as of right now it’s illegal and we should treat 'em accordingly. If you want to debate whether we should change the law, fine and dandy; but I was getting the impression that folks are saying we shouldn’t right now come down hard on the folks who are already doing this without the relevant permission.
Well, look, all apologies for the misunderstanding, and consider this an olive branch: I’m fine with you lobbying for ‘yes’ – as long as you realize that I’m out there lobbying for ‘no’, and as long as you grant that the answer currently is no – and as long as we can act, united as one, against the illegals until and unless the like of your lobbying changes the law.
No, hey, again, I think we’ve had a miscommunication here, and I want to remedy that: you can advocate for change to your heart’s content. I’m just saying that, until you get the change you’re advocating for, the fact that you want that change is irrelevant; the existing law is what should prevail: permission hasn’t been given yet, and full stop.
You want permission to be given? Work for that. But that ain’t happened yet, is all I’m saying; we should be enforcing the law until you and yours do a better job of winning over the relevant arbiter than me and mine have.
Well, the similarity is that I object to both. The similarity is that I like the law on the books prohibiting each of 'em, and would gladly (a) stop someone from doing either, and then (b) give the guy a good talking-to about “consent” and “permission” while waiting for the cops to arrive. The similarities go on and on, and are of course shared by everything from “shoplifting a candy bar” to “beating a guy to death”.
And if you want to change the law on any of that – well, again, it’s your right to push for that; I’m not out to shut you down. I’m just out to push for the opposite, and to say that the existing laws against trespass and rape and shoplifting and murder and so on should be enforced as long as you haven’t won yet.
What are you talking about? I want a surgeon who hasn’t yet violated any laws to get better treatment than a rapist gets. Hell, I want non-surgeons who (a) haven’t broken laws, and (b) understand “consent” and “permission” to get better treatment than rapists. And me and mine have done our best to, uh, lobby the arbiter of such things for to make that the law of the land, right?
Which is why we have laws on the books, in the wake of electing folks to office or voting on a referendum or whatever: we need a way to settle such disputes, and, hey, presto, we came up with one. And you’re free to try to win that dispute in the very next go-round; but until then, there’s a standing order in place, is all.
Yes, but I also want to debate what we do with those who have entered illegally. I don’t think that we should just throw them back out into the cold. Especially when you are talking about children, or people that came here as children. That a debate that I am willing to have.
It’s not just an impression, I think we have been explicit that we shouldn’t come down hard on people who’s only crime is looking for a better life for themselves and their families. I don’t think that we should come down hard on the children who have been brought here.
I also don’t think that we should expend resources on tracking down and coming down hard on those who are living here peacefully and contributing to society in positive ways. That’s a double waste, the first of the taxpayer resources it requires to track them down, jail them, investigate them, try them, and then ultimately deport them, as well as the waste of the human capital that we toss back over the border.
It would be like diverting money from your major crimes unit to increase enforcement of traffic and parking from a state where everyone is driving mostly safely, and mostly parking alright, to one where .1mph over the limit, and they tear up your DL. Double park and they crush your car. Well, yeah, they are just enforcing the law, right? And they are just coming down hard on the folds that are not following it.
I can agree with what the law says, even as I work to change it. But even within that law, I can still criticize the priorities and methods of enforcement. You say “we can act, united as one, against the illegals” which makes it sound like you want to press me into a posse to drive them out of town. I don’t want to.
Permission isn’t given to rape, either, right? But, in Maricopa county, Arpaio diverted resources from investigating sexual assaults to be better able to track and deport undocumented immigrants.
He thought that trespassing was worse than rape. I disagree. That’s why I think that it is very important to tell what your actual priorities are. Both are illegal, but which do you focus on at a LEO level. If you insist that ever undocumented immigrant be deported, other crimes will need to go unprevented and unsolved to get that wish.
And that’s what we are doing. It’s just that in previous posts, you took it upon yourself to speak for all of the US, to imply that we all spoke with a single mind and voice on the subject. In making analogies about personal property, where you are the legal dictator of that property does not work at all when you try to extend that to a democratic country.
There are many people in countries other than the united states with medical degrees that want to come here, but are prevented by our immigration policies. We also complain about a shortage of medical personnel. So, you want a surgeon to get better treatment than a rapist, as long as he was born in the right country.
And that’s why I advocate for immigration. I think that there are many like yourself that think that we are full, that think that these tattered curtains we’ve had flying for decades are just dandy, that the flooded basement doesn’t need to be drained and cleaned, and that we need help doing all that. I am sure that for all of your ancestors, there was someone who said that we didn’t need any more immigrants. I do believe that your position is based on poor facts, if the reason that you are against immigration is because you think it will be bad for us.
Honestly I have a lot less of a problem with people who held their nose and voted for Trump than I do with people who still support Trump and the Republican party. Despite Trump and co.'s best efforts to convince us otherwise, comparisons with Clinton (and Obama) are no longer on the table - those folks have left the building. Trump and co. are trying to destroy the economy and health care all on their own.
Well, once again let me return to my love of clearing up miscommunications: my ability to grant or refuse permission when folks want to enter my house is – well, it’s like unto the ability of the United States government to make that call when it comes to folks who want to enter this country.
So the elected officials who put the laws on the books, and the judges who haven’t struck any of that down – well, that’s not a “dictator” scenario, mind you; but that whole thing is, as you put it, the arbiter in one case, just like I’m the arbiter in the other. And the question, in each case, is who has the authority to make that call?
Which brings me to this:
Uh, yeah; I’m sure there was. But was that the person who got to make that call? Because when my ancestors came over, some folks here were cool with it, and some weren’t; and the question was, who had the authority to say “yes” or “no”?
And, near as I can tell, the laws on the books at the time reflected a win for the folks who didn’t really have a problem with my people coming on in to get started on the whole ‘law-abiding citizen and productive member of society’ thing hereabouts. And, nowadays, the laws on the books reflect a win for the folks who’ve thought it over and said, “uh, yeah, no; we’re just not that into you.”
Now, reasonable guy that I am, I’ll grant that you have a point worth considering when it comes to some of the folks with medical degrees. Heck, I’ll agree to be right there with you on the whole advocating-for-change thing on that aspect of this. But that doesn’t mean I’d currently give them a pass for having already broken the law by being here without permission; there’s what the law is, and what I’d like it to be, and I don’t ever want to confuse one with the other.
these two articles refute the whole job stealing bs MSN
Pennsylvania farmers say local Americans just don't want farm work - pennlive.com
what pisses off joe six pack is since he didn’t pay attention in getting any kind of education he dosent have construction/factory that a well trained primate from the zoo could do in an hours worth of training to fall back on
these days if you want a decent job you have to actually learn which billy joe bob dosent want cause Jesus told the pastor he didn’t need none of that heathen learning and the pastor told him …
Um, yeah, something like that. Except the un/underemployed semiskilled workers in the Rust Belt lost their jobs to automation, not Mexicans. Those jobs aren’t coming back. Many of them even know it.
My experience might be different from a lot of you, but the reason I don’t like many of the generalizations being thrown around in this thread is: I live in the SF Bay Area. It’s a hotbed of lefty politics, but I’d say about half of my friends/acquaintances are pretty hard core conservatives. Not so much Trump supporters as “I would never vote for Hillary” types. These folks are, for the most part, college educate, non-religious people who are fairly successful in their professional careers. Most own their own businesses. I do know a few religious whack-jobs, but those are the exception, in my neck of the woods. YMMV.
You can be all that and still not be a “decent person”. What qualifies them as such, in your mind?
You know, change the title to a religion a person chooses to be part of or one referencing the Democrats and I wonder how the title would be perceived.
Honest answer? It comes down to how much shitty stuff the leadership of the group in question has been doing. So, if you asked how people can still be Scientologists, you might get a similar ripping up of the supporters. But with any group that isn’t heralded by people as shitty as Trump and his supporters, you’d going to be asked to defend your belief that no moral person could or should be able to tolerate associating themselves with the group in question.
Well they did, and you don’t seem to be. Weinstien is just one of dozens if not hundreds of other Hollywood types just as bad or worse.
Look, Hollywood is a moral sewer. Yet the democrats suck up to them.
And you think Democrats have a moral high ground??? Have you ever been to a democratic convention and saw what went on behind closed doors? Bill Clinton also tried to silence his victims and you democrats still revere him.
I don’t see much difference between voting for someone and taking political donations to the point where you look the other way when you have to know their evils. And btw, many dems took money from Trump also.
Perhaps you should reread the OP, and make a better effort to understand the complete indecency of the man you wanted to be President.
Shucks, I missed that you threw in this little follow-up post before. Well, I’d be remiss if I didn’t address it now: much like you don’t care for me ‘equating’ stuff, I think your analogy here seems, well, terrible.
Because: what’s the “-40” an analogy for? They were going to die if they’d been stopped at the border and told “no, hold it, you don’t have permission to come in,” and they’re going to die now if they’re told “whoa, hey, didn’t see you there; startled me a little; don’t you know you need to get back on the other side, now?”
We’ve already got American citizens right here who are, y’know, in danger of dying untimely deaths; what role would they play, in that analogy?
Okay, change it to scientology.
Apparently the neglected children of dysfunctional parents.
I thought they were forced to come here by their illegal alien parents?
Except for the ones who weren’t, of course.
Either way, these illegal aliens have done nothing to warrant that their citizenship be moved ahead of all of those who wish to immigrate to the U.S. legally.
Is there a line that they can queue up in? If so, you are right that they are line jumpers. If not, then it’s not a matter of them jumping in line, it’s that you don’t want them here.
Hollywood is an American neighborhood where a lot of people in the entertainment business live and work and many of them (though not all) are at least above average in wealth. Other than that, it’s a typical American community. All the sex-crimes, back-stabbing, adultery, drug use, etc. that happen in Hollywood also occur in small towns full of churches. If anything Hollywood is more virtuous, in that they are less hypocritical about things.
By the way, have you ever been to a Republican convention and seen all the things they do behind closed doors?
I don’t have a problem with prostitution among consenting adults, and adultery isn’t necessarily ok, but it isn’t the same as sex crimes. I don’t really mind drug use among adults even though addiction is a potential side effect. I’m fairly libertarian on sex and drugs.
As far as sexual harassment or sexual abuse, involuntary sexual trafficking, etc anyone who does it should be held accountable.
It was recently released that in Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump he was investigating Tony Podesta who is a wealthy democratic lobbyist. The response from everyone on the left I know was ‘good’. Whoever breaks the law, works with the Russians, etc. should be held accountable. The rule of law is central to a working democracy, Saddam Hussein once said ‘the law is whatever I write on a scrap of paper’. If you don’t have an independent legal system that nobody is above, then you open yourself up to tons of corruption and abuse.
There are shitty people, but Trump is in a whole new league. Did Trump used to be a democrat who has given money to democrats? Yes. It doesn’t excuse his behavior, he is a piece of shit no matter how you slice it. Ideally morality and rule of law should be above partisan politics. It feels like even though on the left we have our issues with putting party above rule of law or morality, we aren’t totally turning a blind eye to what is happening like it feels the right is doing with Trump.