Immigration and border issues

[Caballus]

So essentially, they would be like a greencard holder?

Would be very similar to a green card holder (aka permanent resident) with some key exceptions, among which include--

1. A permanent resident can be deported (have their green card revoked). This would not be the case for an American born resident (based either on jus sang or jus soli). They would not be deportable, whether they decide to earn full citizenship or not.

2. States determine whether a permanent resident can participate in state and/local elections. An American born resident would have the same rights to vote in state and local elections as a full citizen has. However, a non-full citizen would not be able to participate in national level elections.

So, yes, similar to a permanent resident, but with more inherent rights.

Sponsored

 

[watisthis]

Notice how the meme 3 have yet to address what the rest of us are talking about. Once again we see deflection, not a single solution in sight from the meme 3.


"Immigration is broken, so the question is how harshly do we punish undocumented people. Crossing the border without a document is only a class B misdemeanor so that's similar to filing a false police report or driving without a license.

Moreover, what exactly do you want to do about it? The net flow of illegal immigrants across the border has been negative for more than a decade. Numbers are doing down, enforcement wouldn't be free and getting every single illegal immigrant person out would be a massive project costing hundreds of billions and requiring unprecedented levels of authority.

Liberals are far harsher on punishments for the businesses employing illegal immigrants, liberals were also far better at deporting them."

I await more banter and deflections than debate and solutions from the meme 3.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Would be very similar to a green card holder (aka permanent resident) with some key exceptions, among which include--

1. A permanent resident can be deported (have their green card revoked). This would not be the case for an American born resident (based either on jus sang or jus soli). They would not be deportable, whether they decide to earn full citizenship or not.

2. States determine whether a permanent resident can participate in state and/local elections. An American born resident would have the same rights to vote in state and local elections as a full citizen has. However, a non-full citizen would not be able to participate in national level elections.

So, yes, similar to a permanent resident, but with more inherent rights.

As I understand it, greencard holders qualify for most entitlements (some have requirements, like 40 quarters of work, 5 years in country, etc), can own firearms, and basically do anything a citizen can do, except vote, and serve on a jury. I have met many greencard holders that have no desire to ever become a citizen.

How is what you are proposing changing anything with regard to a sense of entitlement? Seems like the entitlements would mostly still be there.

 

[kz]

From the same article as above :

Concern about crime committed by undocumented immigrants has been a key point in the Trump administration's push for stricter border controls. But the report showed that most of the arrests of noncitizens were for immigration offenses, not violent crimes.

In 2018, U.S. citizens still accounted for the vast majority of non-immigration arrests — 91 percent for violent crimes, 93 percent for public order violations and 96 percent of all arrests on weapons charges.

Hopefully you feel as stupid as this makes you look.

Also - non-citizens does not not mean illegal immigrants - it also included legal immigrants and non-immigrants (anyone in US on a non-immigrant visa - example Saudi AF pilot in training). I know it probably is extremely hard to comprehend, but trust me - it is true.

 

[Caballus]

As I understand it, greencard holders qualify for most entitlements (some have requirements, like 40 quarters of work, 5 years in country, etc), can own firearms, and basically do anything a citizen can do, except vote, and serve on a jury. I have met many greencard holders that have no desire to ever become a citizen.

How is what you are proposing changing anything with regard to a sense of entitlement? Seems like the entitlements would mostly still be there.

The title "American Citizen" has meaning. This would be even more true if full citizenship had to be earned. The service and the title that results from it would be highly sought after.

From a more tangible perspective, those who earn citizenship would have clearly rendered a service to the country/community. With that comes a greater voice, the right to vote being the most meaningful.

Again, the only argument against it would be that someone should be entitled to full citizenship having contributed nothing to the nation or their community.

 

[Caballus]

Who is delinquent in their payments to NATO?

 

[Qcman17]

Who is delinquent in their payments to NATO?

I'm pretty sure that was for me LOL.

 

[Caballus]

Pl

I'm pretty sure that was for me LOL.

Doubt it since no nations are delinquent. There's a tendency to conflate the agreed obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense with the payments made directly to the Alliance. No one is delinquent on their payments to NATO.

 

[Qcman17]

Doubt it since no nations are delinquent. There's a tendency to conflate the agreed obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense with the payments made directly to the Alliance. No one is delinquent on their payments to NATO.

I know that Caballus and I appreciate you pointing that out. An attack on one is an attack on all. We lost boys in Afghanistan after 9/11 honoring that commitment as did many other countries. Four of them iirc from US friendly fire which of course was just a terrible mistake.

 

[Caballus]

Nice meme, but that is not true, nor is it how the Alliance works. The issue is that nations agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. Many (most) are still pretty far off from that target. That is different from contributions made directly to the Alliance. Logic: if you are not paying for your own defense (per Article 3), you won't be able to do your part in the event of an Article 5 violation. However, when you look at the three major ways Allies contribute, the 2% becomes hard to defend. For example, when Albania joined the Alliance a few years ago, they were above 2%. Ultimately, their military couldn't absorb 2%. Same is true of several other smaller countries.

Not saying nations should not spend more--some should, some it doesn't make sense. Am saying that a better approach would be to align spending requirements to the defense strategy (ends, ways, means).

 

[Caballus]

I know that Caballus and I appreciate you pointing that out. An attack on one is an attack on all. We lost boys in Afghanistan after 9/11 honoring that commitment as did many other countries. Four of them iirc from US friendly fire which of course was just a terrible mistake.

Allies spill blood alongside us everyday but seldom makes our news.

https://thedefensepost.com/2019/11/10/italy-special-forces-iraq-ied/

 

[Caballus]

No, not even in that sense are they delinquent because they have until 2024 to hit the target. It's a false narrative.

Sponsored