Discussion is a two-way street.
I think I’ve demonstrated my willingness to participate fully. Can you please do the same? Or have you not thought things out well enough? I don’t mean that to be snarky, truly, but it’s difficult to address the discussion efficiently when you do not tell me what your position is.
My position is quite clear. I think that anyone who claims that their main problem with illegal immigration is the fact that the immigrants are breaking a law should embrace the removal of that law.
If they were born here, they didn’t come from anywhere else. Why is the 16 year old daughter of an illegal immigrant any less American than I am ? Someone who’s never left the country ?
How can I provide a cite when the situation hasn’t come up ? We aren’t engaging in the kind of mass deportations you want, and probably never will.
Fine, that’s one country, out of quite a few - unless they change their minds. That still doesn’t make it anything other than cruelty, however.
If it was clear, I wouldn’t have asked you questions in order to clarify. Really, this seems quite reasonable. But, if you don’t want to have a discussion, than don’t. Fine with me.
As the law stands, she is not. I propose that the law change and that she be considered a citizen of Mexico. This law applies to the children of diplomats liviing here and that doesn’t seem to cause any problem or confusion.
Person A: Where were you raised?
Person B: New York.
Person A: Oh, you’re American.
Person B: Kinda. I was raised there but I’m actually a citizen of Burundi.
Person A: Is that where your parents are from?
Person B: Yeah.
Person A: Oh, cool.
I agree it would be a problem to the extent that a country does not consider the offspring of their citizens born abroad to be a citizen of the home country. But I looked up the country with the most illegals here and they consider such children to be citizens. So, if your argument is: “And thus creating an underclass of stateless people.”, make your case. As of right now it’s merely an opinion based on at least one false assumption.
As far as it being cruel, I see how you consider it so. But it’s the parents’ fault not mine (ours). If a man steals a bicycle and gicves it to his son, do you think the son has a right to keep the bicycle?
Sure you would have. I asked you a question, and you didn’t answer it.
Considering it’s a problem manufactured from American bigotry and nothing else, it is our fault. That is the one and only reason we want to send such kids away.
And what has been stolen ? The kid was born here and raised here; he or she is just as American as I am. If you can justify throwing that kid out into a country he’s never seen, you can do the same to me. This is about bigotry and cruelty, and that’s all.
Obviously, the point is that they are both ill-gotten gains. But I have no basis whatsoever (as far as I kow) for throwing you out. That is NOT the same thing we are talking about.
Do you honestly think this? Wow. Is your mind so conditioned to think one way that you cannot accept that therre might be well-meaning people who have simply come to a different conclusion than you. That they might weigh the many factors that you have weighed differently.
So there is absolutely no consideration of the impact they have on our schools and hospitals? and how these impacts adversely effect our own citizens? Or no consideration about the message it send encouraging further illegal immigration? Or how unfair it is to those who wait in line playing by the rules? None of that might come into play? It’s all “bigotry and cruelty”. If you want to say those things play a role, we could discuss that, but this is one of the most ridiculous, close-minded things I’ve heard. And that includes many of you other statements of the same ilk. AND THAT’S SAYING SOMETHING.
And just so I understand you, when you say bigotry, what do you mean by it? Racial bigotry. If so, how do you explain the Mexicans here legally who might agree with me. Or how do you explain me wanting what I propose enforced across all illegals, whether they hail from Mexico, Ireland, Nigeria, Thailand, Italy, Brazil, or England?
I’d ask you, to give yourself a challenge. Try—just try—to formulate an argument from my side that does not depend on “cruelty and bogotry”. You don’t even have to share it. But it might help further discussions, as it might lead you to see that those who do not agree with you are not demons.
But if your way works for you, enjoy.
If you wish continue, please answer my questions. If not, have a nice day.
Which is where I was in this post before we were refining when slavery was abolished worldwide.
Building a wall isn’t going to make people want to get into this country any less (or more). It’s merely treating the symptom and the problem still grows. A quick fix would be to make the definition of “illegal” immigration so narrow and focused. That way, less people are caught up in the dragnet and a slim amount of these problems go away.
This problem isn’t about “illegals” at all. It’s about the status quo, racism, powrer, nativism, and money. How you tend to stand on those issues, you tend to fall on this issue (so it may seem).
Building a barrier doesn’t solve things. It’s simply running away from problems on a large scale. We need some sort of system-wide reform on many levels.
Maybe you missed it. Let’s recap. Your post 274:
My response, post 275, notice the punctuation at the end:
Your response, post 276, which addresses only the first sentence in #275, and NOT the question asked at the end (identifiable by the little squigly thing with the dot under it):
In my next post, #278, I told you I was confused by your non-answer and asked you to describe what your position is, and requested an answer to my question that was pending:
So, if you’d like to keep the discussion going, answer the questions that are asked of you. Why would you fight that? Especially when they are giving you the opportunity to clarify your position? Do you think it is more helpful for me to respond to you when I am unclear about something? Sheesh.
Deporting them is our fault. We don’t need to; we need their parents here, working. We certainly don’t need to deport the kid.
It is the same thing. I’m a citizen because I was born here; so are they. If they can be thrown out, so can I.
Not on this matter.
They support them. We are exploiting them, not the other way around.
Well, whoop-te-do.
Yet you don’t worry about the unfairness of throwing a 14 year old out of the only country she’s ever known ?
When I see a big push to punish the people who hire illegal immigrants, I might think there was something else beyond bigotry and cruelty. Until then, no.
One can be bigoted against all foregners - not that it’ll work out this way. It’ll be the poor and brown who get stomped on.
Der, if there is a way to stop illegal immigration, it’s to punish the people that hire them. Impose a steep penalty, then the need for cheap labor dries up.
Again, a fence will do nothing to solve the problem.
While I wholeheartedly agree that we need to enforce the laws against employers and that that will do much to curb illegal immigration, to say that a fence will do nothing defies logic. The more difficult it is for people to come, the fewer that will come, the easier we make it, the more that will come. That’s just human nature.
Did I say otherwise ?
And what makes you think anything short of a larger version of the Berlin Wall will make it much more difficult than it is now ? Considering that people from both sides will be knocking it down, tunneling under it or finding ways around it. These people come here because we want them here. If necessary I’m sure you’ll find American companies digging tunnels to let them in.
Nope. Just buttressing it slightly. Maybe putting the argument in a slightly different way. Perhaps the nuance might get the discussion somewhere.
At that point, it also becomes a cost/benefit scenario. Is it going to stop immigraiton that much? Is it worth it?
I simply do not see how erecting an impassible barrier and manning it will get this done. I also don’t see why it must be done. I do see what it is doing to our society as it is now, but that means we change our system.
The proposed fence, I heard on NPR, goes up to the ocean. It is very possible to just swim out a hundred or so feet, or rent scuba gear and get into America. Building a wall there means “securing” the southeastern Texas border as well as the Pacific border of California. The border then becomes bigger with more personnel and resources to get such a job done.
Once again, it’s just simply not worth it. It’s not very Quaker Oats*.
*because Quaker Oats is the right thing to do, according to Wilford Brimley
No one is talking about just building a wall and walking away. The wall will be supplemented by electronic surveillance,: drones and other things. In total, these things augment the Border Patrol. They talk about the fence as a force multiplier, not a substitution.
And if any American company, or individual tries to subvert the fence or otherwise aid illegals, they will be arrested and jailed for a long time. Or should bem any way.
That’s a perfect description of the Berlin Wall.
:dubious:
The Border Patrol seems to think the fence they have in San Diego has been extremely helpful. and if it extends into the Pacific a coulpe hundred yards, patrolled by Border Patrol or Coast Guard boatds, so much the better.
They idea is to have control of our own borders. Why is that so strange? We can then let in 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or 10,000,000 a year. Whatever number we deem appropriate. If these paople are so valuable to our economy and contributye so much, we’ll open the flood gates and everyine will be here legally. So, what’s the problem?
:dubious: :dubious: Well, the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, which morally is very different than a fence designed to keep people out.