Nice try there but no, the two are not the same. And I haven’t seen anything to indicate that is Clinton’s policy.
Secondly, I continue to note how you apparently have no issues with the Rubio/GOP position that the rights of gay people should be restricted under the law and that it is one of their objectives should they take the Presidency.
They have no means to do so. The Supreme Court has already set a precedent and precedents do not get overturned so directly.
And yes, the two are the same. If you aren’t willing to enforce the law, then you are left with what exists in the absence of the law: open borders. Our side will characterize the Democrats’ position in that way, and it will be 99% accurate.
Unless you’re seriously saying that we will guard the border and turn back those who try to come in but can’t evade the patrols, but if they manage to sneak in somehow, then they’ll be allowed to stay. Gee, let’s apply that reasoning to all our laws!
It’s hard to fathom the stupidity inherent in this remark.
Not sending back people who are already here = letting everyone in without hindrance.
Yeah, that makes sense - in a world where anything equals anything else.
Also too, by your definition President Reagan implemented an open-borders policy. Buahahaha.
So we are going to give special benefits to people who are better at breaking the law than their less intelligent counterparts who got caught at the border. Got it.
Reagan’s policy wasn’t open borders. It was an amnesty for long time residents, something that we mostly agree on. Provided we deport everyone else, or as much of everyone else as we can. Democrats do not agree to the latter.
‘The law’ - what, there’s just ONE law, and if it isn’t enforced, then no laws are enforced, and we’re in a state of lawlessness?
Please, can you explain this to the nice state trooper the next time I’m stopped for driving a wee[sup]1[/sup] bit fast?
1 For certain large values of ‘wee’. ')
The law states that if you enter the country illegally, or overstay your visa, that you are not authorized to be here. That means, go home, or we’ll send you home.
Now I’m all in favor of a statute of limitations of sorts, but the deal is, we deport everyone who doesn’t qualify and all future border crossers and visa overstayers, and we put in place the tools to enable us to actually deport a much higher percentage of them. That’s the compromise that’s on the table. Is Clinton willing to explicitly support that? And I"m not talking about the bait and switch immigration bill which allows the executive to pretty much waive all enforcement.
Rather than framing it as a moral issue, I would ask what problem it is that you’re trying to solve.
Open borders would be a problem, and I would be against it, because we simply can’t handle a massive flood of immigrants from Third World countries while maintaining our own standard of living.
Now, what is the problem, given reality as it presently exists? Net inmigration/outmigration has been at about zero for a while now. The problem that would be caused by open borders doesn’t exist. So what’s the problem you’re trying to solve?
Nor was anyone else’s. (OK, Matt Yglesias has argued for genuinely open borders. I don’t think he’s gotten much support.)
That wasn’t Reagan’s policy either. Or are you saying that he refused access to refugees unless they’d been here so long that they weren’t really refugees anymore?
The problem of how to get control of our borders. Few oppose an amnesty for longtime, law abiding residents(TRUE law abiding residents, not identity thieves or chronic minor lawbreakers). The question is what happens next? How do we avoid a mass amnesty 20 years from now? Democrats don’t care what comes next.
I’m actually fine with open borders myself, provided that’s the LAW and it applies to all. As in, we quickly bring over 50 million Chinese and 50 million Indians and 50 million Africans and they dwarf the Latino population in short order. What I object to is a poorly enforced law that is subject to the political considerations involved in upsetting a growing minority that both sides would like to have vote for them.
Open the borders up for real and that’s no longer a problem. But you’re right, most people don’t support that. Okay, so if we have laws that have been duly passed and generally agreed upon, then those laws should be enforced, rather than imposing what is in effect a discriminatory policy against Eastern Hemisphere migrants while turning a blind eye to massive Western Hemisphere migration(and worse, said Westerners believing they have some kind of God-given right to come here, but keep those damn Asians out!)
(Source)≠ “off the table” so um no, not actually Clinton’s policy.
Her actual statements are very much stating that secure borders are vital.
And Rubio’s actual statements are for killing the Dreamers Act effective as first order or business and getting on with deporting young adults who came to the U.S. as children, who been law abiding members of society and who want to contribute and pay taxes
And his actual stated intent is to make gay marriage illegal again.
And he has stated that he does not believe the scientific community about climate change and would not take any action on it as doing so would harm the economy.
And you think those clearly stated positions “are better” than advocating focusing deportation implementation on those who a violent threat to public safety. Okidokie then!
Focusing resources on those who pose a threat to public safety is effectively removing the threat of deportation from those who make it into the country but don’t hurt anybody.
This is the Straight Dope, not MSNBC. We don’t have to honor political spin here. Her statement is coded language at its finest. It tells Latino voters exactly what they want to hear while muddying the waters for everyone else. Does she support enforcement? It looks like she does, sort of. How will she change the policy that led to a man being deported five times but still managing to kill an innocent person? Oh wait, she won’t. Never mind.
Bullshit. You know very good and well a few strategically chosen appointments to the Court could see that reversed. Both Rubio and Cruz have stated that is something they would do if elected. Rubio has even suggested there are other legal means to allow the states to deny SSM within their jurisditions.
You can pretend this is not an issue all you want but there are millions of gay couples and millions of their family and friends who know you are dead wrong. And I can assure you they will be turning out to vote in November.
Maybe they could start by turning out for the primaries. We’ve got record turnout for ours. How are you doing? Are people just inspired by an old corrupt politician and her socialist opponent?
As for SCOTUS appointments, unless you appoint a total hack, precedents can’t be overturned, at least not directly, as in gay marriage is a fundamental right but now it’s not. Gay marriage is here to stay.
But if you need fear to turn people out, by all means use it. We will.
And the suggestion that Dems aren’t willing to deport immigrants who have arrived recently is total bullshit and fabrication, as the millions of immigrants deported by President Obama can tell you.
ETA: Also, I’m noticing a bit of goalpost-moving. First, it was that if illegal immigrants aren’t deported, period, then that’s open borders. Then apparently Reagan’s policy (or what you say his policy was; haven’t had time to verify, and I don’t trust your recollection of history) that illegal immigrants who’ve been here a good while can stay, but everyone else gets deported, isn’t open borders. And then the important thing seems to be that the policy meets some shifting standard of fairness. Whatever, dude - I’m gonna go watch a movie with the wife and kid.
Thank you, we will be relying on the fear you generate to get citizens off their asses and to the polls. I don’t need to be motivated to vote for Hillary, I will most assuredly vote against Trump, or Cruz, or Mr. Roboto.
And again I say bullshit. My expectation is that any SCOTUS appointments by a President Cruz or Rubio would in fact be a total hack.
Further, your suggestion that SCOTUS decisions can’t be reversed reveals an ignorance of fact. The Court has reversed itself in the past and could do so in the future. And that is the stated objective of at least two of the people running for the GOP nomination. So again I say bullshit.
So that’s why Separate But Equal is still the law of the land! 
*You *need it, because that’s all you have. Right?
Maybe you should take a look at your borders. You have 7500 miles of land border with just Mexico and Canada. You have hundreds of international airports, and never mind the coasts and islands.
You have two realistic choices. You can devote an inordinate amount of resouces to walling off and policing these points of entry, and have control of your borders.
Or, you can admit that this situation is unenforceable, and concentrate on stopping the worst of the problem while acknowledging the totality will still go on. This is how we deal with crime in general: work intelligently to reduce crime and the factors that drive it, while living within reality.
Reagan deported plenty of people. So, will Hillary Clinton continue the deportation policies of Barack Obama’s first term?
That’s what I’m in favor of and what most people are in favor of. That’s not what’s at issue here. The government has enough resources to deport felons AND a large number of non-felons. Democrats think that the non-felons should not be deported, despite the fact that the law requires it and the resources are present to do it.