A cite to prove that illegal is illegal? Interesting board you have here.
What possible reason do you have to think every person who criticizes the Republicans is somehow lockstep with Obama? For me, he’s far too centrist and corporate. However, he’s about a million times better than any Republican presidential candidate in the last…god…30 years? has been.
I don’t think that.
In all seriousness, why would you think it was legal for illegal immigrants to join the military? I can see where, in desperate times, the military might look the other way or not ask too many questions, but it makes no sense for it to be legal.
Sorry, then. I thought when you said
you were showing surprise that he would consider BOTH the Republicans and Obama wrong.
If you read the post that started this discussion, MfM was trying to make a clear distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I pointed out that the distinction isn’t so clear.
Then I apologize for suggesting what I did. I DID get confused as to the actual focus of that part of the discussion.
Well the French Foreign Legion is famous for accepting foreign nationals. And frankly, I’m not sure why the US military would have a problem accepting a native speaker of English who had been in the country for over a decade. I didn’t know what the law is, but I could imagine school records and the like could be sufficient. That’s why I appreciated leavening the posturing with facts. It’s rather obvious that the restrictions on military service for the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants were observed in the breech.
Back in 2011 the last living World War I veteran passed on: his name was Frank Buckles. He had lied about his age to join the military: he was only 16 at the time of enlistment. adaher and others might call him a fraudster. I call him an American.
My thoughts are hardly deep and profound, but this question requires a long answer. What was GW Bush’s immigration policy? What is Obama’s? What do I consider the appropriate policy? What is the Republican’s most recent proposal? And then, are there any wide gaps between these policy positions?
Sigh. Ok, this certainly isn’t an issue that I know a lot about, nor do I care too much. I see proper policy as mainly avoiding extreme positions and muddling through. One extreme position is, “A core role of government is protecting the borders.” In the context of immigration, this is inane. There isn’t a government in history that has successfully stopped all smuggling and the ones that came closest (15th century China, Soviet Albania) practiced a xenophobia that was economically disastrous. At another extreme might be open borders, which is advocated by no sizable US constituency. Illegal immigration is something to be managed: in fact given our reliance on foreign farm labor, it has a rather sizable political constituency. For the Republicans it’s a wedge issue, pitting their business wing against their populist one.
What did Obama do? My source of information is a Frontline episode from a couple of years back. Obama tightened enforcement by focusing on law breakers. Even if the laws were picayune and even if they busted up families. So deportations went up as the illegal immigrant population declined. The thinking was that if the administration established its bona fides with enforcement, that is would pave the way for rationalized immigration reform.
That didn’t work, because modern conservatives operate within in aempirical cognitive framework. It doesn’t matter what the admin does: they will still rail at them for not enforcing the law. While at the same time refusing to appropriate money for immigration judges so that -you know- the law can be enforced. Patriotic Americans oppose such demagoguery: sound policy is grounded on a factual basis, on reality.
A year ago, there was talk of some sort of bill being passed. But soon the right wing tail took hold of the Republican dog and it was decided that everyone should be deported, including those who were brought to the country as toddlers and didn’t speak a word of the language from the country of their birth. These are Americans in my view. There should be a carve-out for them. Obama has provided such a carve out via executive order. Starting about 2 months ago, the Republicans decided to overturn it in its entirety. This isn’t a matter of calibration. It’s a difference in kind.
Note that letting DREAMers join the military is one of the potential executive orders Obama is reportedly considering, and which would be ended if legislative action is taken against DACA.
Link.
You are on record supporting that the US recruit child soldiers. Or at least look the other way when children enlist.
Nicely played. (◔_◔)
I was merely extolling Frank Buckles’ patriotism. I’ll note as an aside that 16 has been the age of majority in the past and IIRC Israel permitted 16 year old recruits at some point in time. We’re not talking about 12 year olds with AK47s in Sierra Leone.
I extol the patriotism of anyone who wants to join up. But not everyone can do it, and if you falsify anything to do it, you are a fraudster. People falsify lots of different things to get in with the best of intentions. But there are rules and I don’t think we should lionize the ones who don’t get caught. We should think of them exactly the same as the people who do get caught.
Then we share our extolment and furthermore agree that some just love their country too much.
Heh. Maybe so, but we do need to have consistent policies for dealing with lawbreakers. The smart ones should be treated the same as the dumb ones once caught. We really are treating immigration like a sort of Darwinism where we weed out the less fit by sending them home and then reward the smarter ones who didn’t get caught before the amnesty took effect.
There is no moral difference between a person who got caught at the border and one who made it here and lived 20 years. You can make a PRACTICAL case for treating the successful lawbreakers well while giving the shaft to the less successful ones, but moralizing really has no place in that debate.
There’s *certainly *a moral difference between a person who has worked hard, paid taxes, and helped build the country for 20 years and one who has not.
Then you favor deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. Please promote this position among your conservative friends.
Whose to say that the guy that got caught at the border or in a workplace raid wouldn’t have done the same?
Most importantly, whose to say that the people who obeyed the law and waited in line wouldn’t have contributed just as much as those who broke the law?
A fine argument there, seriously. It’s just not the one your party is currently rallying around.