I don’t think vandalism is a huge problem in this country, but I still want people caught vandalising punished.
Because it is much easier to debate imaginary straw men then the actual arguments presented to date?
The next time you bring up this “let 'em all in” crap, could you please name the poster you are “debating”?
Well, you gotta give me Cuba, given the regime’s reputation for imprisoning, torturing, and killing people who try to escape:
http://www.cubauncensored.com/the-escape-cubans-escaping-from-cuba/
It doesn’t specifically say they were shot, but if they’ll torture you when they catch you, it’s logical to assume they’ll shoot you to stop you if you refuse to halt.
I’ll allow it for two reasons:
- You’re only up to 4% and,
- I can’t wait to see how far you are going to stretch the parameters to make some of the countries fit.
:rolleyes:
That is for emigrating, not immigrating.
I didn’t catch that, thanks.
Sorry, Cuba is out, so you are down to 3%.
The Republican message for the families that have already been split up:
I too think that people who destroy or deface other people’s property should be caught and punished.
Now that we agree on that, can we move back to why illegal immigrants in the country are such a HUGE problem?
You contradict yourself. You blandly assert that you are not for open borders and then proclaim that it is no big deal because the Hispanic guys at 7-11 are pretty cool so no problem. Which is it?
Just because a problem hasn’t reached crisis level so that a citizen is unable to get coffee in the morning does not mean it is not a problem, again, unless you have no problem with open borders.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the policy I remember being advocated in Forbes by certain right-leaners and libertarians a decade or two ago. (Sorry, no cite – too long ago!) Considering the widely documented economic benefits of immigration, I think the burden of evidence should be on those who believe immigration should be limited at all.
They are already here. So the status of the border doesn’t really have anything to do with it.
They are not supposed to be here. What do you believe should happen if an ICE agents finds someone here illegally?
Further, even if you support amnesty for those already here, shouldn’t we stop future illegal immigrants? Even if you do not believe it is a huge problem, should we simply ignore the misdemeanor crime of illegal entry in all cases?
Are you advocating for this policy? I am simply trying to establish the baseline where we are coming from. I don’t care if Obama did this or Bush did that or Trump does this. What at the base level do we have a disagreement about?
Jesus, can you construct an argument without the boogeymen of “the US is going to be like Tokyo in a few years!” or “I bet you think we should start INVITING the terrorists in!!”
Get a grip, man.
And let’s just rememeber that almost every country in the world has some degree of open borders – save places like North Korea that are fairly called closed – so stop using the term open borders like it is something scary. Having a country be open is the normal state of affairs.
So what? The fact is, they are already here. If ICE agents have nothing better to do then go around looking for law-abiding illegal immigrants, then we should cut funding for ICE.
I believe we should first go after judges who fraudulently submit travel claims. After they are all put away for actual felonies, THEN we can worry about people who commit misdemeanors. How’s that plan grab you?
The 12 million ‘illegal immigrants’ have, by and large, been here years, many of them for decades. Many of them were here legally and then overstayed their visas, hence the scare quotes.
They take shit jobs and work and pay taxes and stuff. The only way they’re a problem is that you’re defining them as a problem. Sure, they’re here illegally, but in what sense would they be a problem if Trump had an about-face and pardoned them all, making them all legal?
If there’s no good answer to that, then in what way is their presence problematic enough to spend a lot of money trying to get rid of them? Why wouldn’t it make more sense to do what we’ve done at least once in the past, and give a blanket amnesty to those who have become productive members of our society?
I’m really trying here, but all I keep hearing is that we should just let them all in. If that is the case, then let’s start from that proposition and debate that. If that is the starting point, then we are wasting our time debating Trump’s particular policy because you would not support ANY policy that detained people coming in violation of the law.
I’m advocating for the idea to at least be in the conversation. If immigration is a net economic good, maybe laws should place the burden of demonstrating reasons for exclusion on the state as opposed to placing the burden of demonstrating reasons for inclusion on the immigrant.
Surprisingly, I also do not support ANY policy that detained people for speeding. Or stealing a loaf of bread. Or jaywalking.
I’d rather our law enforcement be focused on dangerous type stuff. I’m funny like that.
Before a person gets on a plane to travel to the US, they need a visa. If they don’t have a visa, they don’t get on the plane. I’m for that policy.
Yes, the debate has migrated a bit. But Trump’s policy is the worst possible manifestation (so far) of a mindset that views all undocumented immigration as an evil that must be stopped. Maybe it’s pointless to debate whether detainee families should be separated or kept together without asking, why are they being detained at all?