Immigration and border issues

[Caballus]

It would be extremely interesting to see how republican establishment would react to proposal like this - since they're about as far from any public service as one can imagine. It would be hysterical.

I agree for the most part. However, this is too far "socialistic" for most on these forums.

Can be interpreted or messaged in multiple ways, but I would offer that it is non-partisan and strongly democratic (with a small d).

Sponsored

 

[Qcman17]

Honestly man I think you are pretty f*cked up but that's for your shrink to determine ultimately. To the rest in this thread my apologies for drawing this redneck back into the discussion.

 

[watisthis]

Can be interpreted or messaged in multiple ways, but I would offer that it is non-partisan and strongly democratic (with a small d).

Well, if you have read a decent part of the socialism or wealthy tax thread a more just and fair democracy and capitalistic economy is just 'envy' and 'greed.'

However, it is nice when we can have a discussion about anything and concede somewhere that benefits the most in a humane way.

 

[watisthis]

Guy linking black face, racist trump memes, confederates, and providing nothing to discussion other than his biased, obviously racist rhetoric, upset by me trolling him and his buddy. THE IRONY!

All I would have to do to is agree with this guy and he'd welcome me into his home as one of his racist brothers.

Get trolled, boomer.

 

[Hack]

Rights as a US citizen has never not stopped people from inward fighting, placing blame, and jailing. We had a pretty decent immigration policy prior to Trump. Is it perfect? No. Do we need to work on boarder security? Yes. Immigration and asylum is a very rigorous process in most cases. It is not the fault of people coming here that you lost your job (not you of course). People thinking the job market will ever be fair are kidding themselves. Either you are extremely valuable in a job that requires more people or your going to be replaced by the lowest common wage.

Policy is one thing, enforcement is another. Remember that Obama administration officials sued AZ over enforcing immigration laws.

It would be extremely interesting to see how republican establishment would react to proposal like this - since they're about as far from any public service as one can imagine. It would be hysterical.

Both the Dems and the Republican politicians are the same. Two different names, different promises, but most of their actions are the same. Both part of the same old boys network corrupt government.

 

[watisthis]

Policy is one thing, enforcement is another. Remember that Obama administration officials sued AZ over enforcing immigration laws.



Both the Dems and the Republican politicians are the same. Two different names, different promises, but most of their actions are the same. Both part of the same old boys network corrupt government.

Yeah, I remember back when I had to take some ethics and law classes learning about Lewis Powell and his Powell Memorandum its a really good read if you have the time.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

You named the reason--equality.

Also, as noted, it would serve to reduce the sense of entitlement that has become common among our citizenry.

With reduced entitlement comes increased commitment to the community.

Not suggesting that one should be paid a wage that hardly allows them to survive in school. With increased service come decreased expenses for public support. Service could include compensation in-kind in the form of tuition and expenses (GI Bill-like for other than military service).

Yes, Sir. I fail to see that it would introduce extreme inequality.

I don't consider the fact that 99% of the population would not currently qualify to be ironic. I consider it to be a natural outcome of the fact that we are not conditioned to ask what we can do for the country (or local community). If service was required for citizenship, that statistic would likely reverse.

I think that free citizenship is more utopian than earned citizenship. The only argument I can see against it is entitlement-based. "I am a citizen because my parents are citizens..."

So how exactly does that work? Non 'citizens' don't qualify for entitlements. Do they still have to pay income taxes? Are they still subject to selective service?

I don't see how the answer to those questions can be no, in which case all your'e doing is setting the stage for a civil war.

You can't have a 'class' of 'residents' that share most or all of the same burden as 'citizens', enjoy none or few of the benefits, and have equality. Those things are in diametric opposition.

 

[Caballus]

So how exactly does that work? Non 'citizens' don't qualify for entitlements. Do they still have to pay income taxes? Are they still subject to selective service?

I don't see how the answer to those questions can be no, in which case all your'e doing is setting the stage for a civil war.

You can't have a 'class' of 'residents' that share most or all of the same burden as 'citizens', enjoy none or few of the benefits, and have equality. Those things are in diametric opposition.

They would have the same rights, protections, and access to services that a legal non-citizen has today. Likewise, they would pay taxes the way a legal non-citizen currently does. Non-citizens are currently required to register for selective service; this would continue. If they are drafted and serve, they would obviously receive credit for citizenship just as someone who serves of their own volition--maybe fewer credits if they didn't volunteer (?).

So, the only thing that changes is that the rights and entitlements that come with full citizenship would have to be earned by each individual rather than inherited. Those born of American parents would have an automatic right to seek citizenship, as would those who enter the country legally as immigrants.

Thus, those most likely to argue against it are those who do not want to earn citizenship by contributing to the nation (or community), but instead argue that citizenship is their God-given right based on what an ancestor did (or didn't do). In other words, the "entitled".

 

[Weather Man]

So how exactly does that work? Non 'citizens' don't qualify for entitlements. Do they still have to pay income taxes? Are they still subject to selective service?

I don't see how the answer to those questions can be no, in which case all your'e doing is setting the stage for a civil war.

You can't have a 'class' of 'residents' that share most or all of the same burden as 'citizens', enjoy none or few of the benefits, and have equality. Those things are in diametric opposition.

Illegal aliens qualify for deportation.

 

[watisthis]

What's your point? Why wouldn't you link the total number of a specific crime(s) and a % based on who committed it per capita?

Plenty to digest in this article.

 

[Weather Man]

They hate it when you get all factee and not emottee.

 

[watisthis]

They hate it when you get all factee and not emottee.

Of course those are facts, but when comparing those crimes to the entire number of those crimes being committed, illegal immigrants are a small %. Do we need to deport illegal immigrants? Yes. Are illegal immigrants the most violent people in America? No.

So if you're trying to be unbiased here or at the very least honest you would need to show all of the data, as the article I just linked tries to do.

I have no problem saying illegal immigrants commit crimes, crimes are bad, thus we need to stop illegal immigration. But signaling them out as the worst offenders is simply not even close to true.

Sponsored