timschochet
Footballguy
Stuart may be an outlier here. I would guess that most of those who share his views about illegal immigration are not for more open legal immigration. That, at least, has been my experience.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Issues Thread #1 Immigration Issues (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
So now here is the question for those of us who oppose the views expressed by Stuart Ullman- should we attempt to reconcile our opinions with his and reach a compromise? Is this even possible? Or should we simply try and defeat him at the voting both, and impose our own position on him and those who think like him?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I'm totally fine with legal immigration as long as they aren't criminals and they pay taxes.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Yes. As long as we know who's coming in and can keep the bad guys out, the more the merrier.
We've got a lot of room up in Montana.
timschochet
Footballguy
Stuart is for “open” legal immigration, meaning we take in as many as wants to come, if I understood him correctly. Are you for that?
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
By the time these immigrants have kids, they end up being super Americanized anyway.
timschochet
Footballguy
Would you make it easier for poor Hispanics south of the border to come here legally?
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I mean, considering they're coming here anyway you would have to make it easier for them to come through.
The problem isn't the immigration itself, it's having millions of undocumented people flowing into our country.
Many come because it's easier to cross the border than do it legally. Putting up a big wall is only half of what needs to be done.
TLEF316
Footballguy
I sympathize with poor Hispanic folks that want to come here for a better life. But the bottom line is that by sneaking over the border, they're breaking the law. (the term "undocumented immigrants" drives me NUTS. Lets call a spade a spade) You can argue that they provide a net benefit to society but its still illegal and I feel it needs to stop. If I sneak into my neighbor's house, I'm trespassing. The fact that I washed his windows or cooked him dinner or did something else he didn't feel like doing himself doesn't make it ok. (Not using these examples to be offensive to low-skill Hispanic workers. Just trying to make a point)
I'm all for legal immigration for non-criminals and especially war refugees. And I dont really care where they come from provided they are properly vetted. (I realize this is easier said than done) But I would definitely give preferential treatment to educated, skilled workers (provided there aren't Americans to fill those jobs). Simply put, those people add more to our society (IMO) and are more likely to assimilate and contribute in any number of ways. So yes, I value an English-speaking software engineer from India over a Spanish speaking laborer from Ecuador. I realize that many will consider that insensitive but that's how I feel.
I'm not sure I buy the idea that poor people from South/Central America "have no line". I'll buy that the line is long, but that doesn't give them the right to jump it.
As for the folks that are already here, I dont think there is any way we could ever efficiently go through with mass deportations. That's just not realistic and I certainly get that there are moral issues with that as well. And to some extent, I agree that its not an American thing to do. But the idea that someone can sneak in here, send their kids to public schools, get paid under the table and send money back home while middle class people get taxed the way that we do is infuriating. IMO, everyone who is reaping the benefits of living here needs to kick in their part. Not doing so is just laughing in the face of those that do.
I'm all for legal immigration for non-criminals and especially war refugees. And I dont really care where they come from provided they are properly vetted. (I realize this is easier said than done) But I would definitely give preferential treatment to educated, skilled workers (provided there aren't Americans to fill those jobs). Simply put, those people add more to our society (IMO) and are more likely to assimilate and contribute in any number of ways. So yes, I value an English-speaking software engineer from India over a Spanish speaking laborer from Ecuador. I realize that many will consider that insensitive but that's how I feel.
I'm not sure I buy the idea that poor people from South/Central America "have no line". I'll buy that the line is long, but that doesn't give them the right to jump it.
As for the folks that are already here, I dont think there is any way we could ever efficiently go through with mass deportations. That's just not realistic and I certainly get that there are moral issues with that as well. And to some extent, I agree that its not an American thing to do. But the idea that someone can sneak in here, send their kids to public schools, get paid under the table and send money back home while middle class people get taxed the way that we do is infuriating. IMO, everyone who is reaping the benefits of living here needs to kick in their part. Not doing so is just laughing in the face of those that do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
That's a good question! I can see him getting it done. The important thing is getting the wall done.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If the wall doesn't get built will you become a Nazi? I'm testing the Riversco hypothesis.
whoknew
Footballguy
Its going to be very difficult to compromise if SU's position has to include the wall. From my point of view, its an unbelievably silly waste of money.
Well, now that I think about it - am I really going to punish all of the hard working undocumented and DACA kids that are here just because the GOP wants a dumb wall? Probably not. I'd compromise, I'm sure.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks to everyone who has taken part in this discussion so far. As I wrote earlier, I think most people on all sides of this issue are full of good intent. At least among ourselves we don’t have any bigots or haters. 
On the other hand we’re no closer to finding any solutions that we can agree on. Personally I can’t get behind the wall, even to save the DACA kids. I think it would send a terrible message and destroy our relationship with Mexico. Our southern border serves as an escape valve for Mexico by taking in their most destitute. Without that valve I fear they will erupt, and the cost to us will be ten times what it is now.
On the other hand we’re no closer to finding any solutions that we can agree on. Personally I can’t get behind the wall, even to save the DACA kids. I think it would send a terrible message and destroy our relationship with Mexico. Our southern border serves as an escape valve for Mexico by taking in their most destitute. Without that valve I fear they will erupt, and the cost to us will be ten times what it is now.
timschochet
Footballguy
Just want to address this one point, and assure you that I don’t use the term to drive you nuts (any more than I think you use the term “illegal” to drive me nuts, though in truth it does.)
its a difference in our philosophy: I take it you believe that having broken the law by coming here is what should define these people. I don’t think it should; I think it is dehumanizing to refer to a person as an illegal person. That’s why I refuse to use the term. Undocumented seems apt to me because it’s only luck that you and I have papers and they don’t.
If we’re ever going to compromise on this issue we need to find a way to get past this crucial difference between us. But I honestly don’t know if we can.
TLEF316
Footballguy
I know you're never going to bend on this point, but I really think your thinking is flawed. To me, "undocumented" implies an error or omission. I forgot to register my car. I didn't notify the post office that I've changed addresses, etc.
These people aren't undocumented. There wasn't a mix up. Nobody accidentally forgot to do anything. They made a conscious choice to enter our country without permission or violate the terms of their temporary visa. We can argue about the seriousness of that offense, but they're breaking the law. That doesn't define them as a person in the greater sense of the word, but as far as their status in our country, its the correct definition.
Was I lucky to be born in America? Abso-freaking-lutely. But being "unlucky" isn't an excuse to break the law. A mitigating factor? Yeah, I'll buy that. (Can't imagine the hardships people face in Northern Mexico with all the drug violence) But I can't just give them a pass or just "give" them things (such a citizenship) when there are tons of other people that go through all the proper steps to achieve those same goals.
timschochet
Footballguy
This part I understand. Ultimately I disagree with you only because I think it’s beneficial to give these people a path to citizenship- beneficial to us as a nation. But I get your POV. I really do.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I honestly don't know a lot about immigration but here's some random thoughts I have on it:
- I would want to allow anybody in who wants to come here - but I do think there needs to be a line and there should be no "cutting in line" by someone with money or by someone who tries to sneak in
- We need to make the above process for allowing legal immigration to be easier - maybe that's a lot harder than I think it is but we've solved problems that are much more complicated
- As others have mentioned I would give some preferential treatment to people with skills we need or value
- On the number we let in each year - I think we probably need a variable cap - maybe based on employment and population numbers. As has been mentioned it would seem like a bad idea 20 years from now if we let in 500,000 unskilled laborers and we only have a fraction of jobs available
- The Wall - It seems like a a colossal waste of money - I guess someone could argue that all of my above points would be moot or not possible without the wall. Our country is just too large to do it. Is a Canadian border wall next? Are we going to start monitoring all our beaches? Just seems like an impossible task
- I think one thing we need to do that is not immigration specific is greatly reduce the number of incarcerated non-violent drug offenders - I think this would obviously have a impact on a lot of immigrants that are here in our prisons
I don't get the logic of those who don't have a problem with people crossing the border, think their kids should be allowed in our schools, think hospitals must care for them, think landlords must rent to them, have no interest in deporting them, but if a employer wants to employ an illegal, then it is time to crack down on the employer. Why fully accept all the burdons illegals put on society, but crack down at the one part where illegals contribute to society.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t know anyone who thinks like this. Personally I think it’s interesting that many politicians who claim they want to take action on this issue never move to punish employers, and I think we can all guess why. But Im glad they don’t.
Calvitron Johnson
Footballguy
Ok as long as you foot the bill for incarceration and it doesn't come out of everyone else's taxes. There's at least a chance that when you send a rapist back to their 3rd world country, they will dispose of him. let them deal with it.
timschochet
Footballguy
I understand your concern about the cost, but I can’t agree with your conclusion. We shouldn’t be in the business of setting rapists free, IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
It seems to me that if you are one of those who favor harsher treatment of undocumented immigrants already here, you’ve got a problem in that the American public simply isn’t going to have the stomach for much of what you would like to see happen. We’re already witnessing a little of this with the separation story. I don’t believe that mass deportations, as some of you have proposed, would ever be tolerated.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
If you commit a crime in this country, whether you are here illegally or not, you should be punished here. If we are worried about the cost on incarceration, I'd rather my taxes go to ensure someone here illegally gets punished for a violent crime than keeping someone in prison who was caught with marijuana repeatedly.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah the idea someone might be sent back and then released elsewhere would not be fair to the victim.
However you're kind of falling into the Trumpian argument here. Once you start calculating the effect of crimes in the question of immigration then the next inevitable question is how many such instances are there and why are such people being allowed here in the first place?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's impossible and intractable. Self-deportation over time is the only reasonable option. But honestly we have so many Hispanics working in local construction here and were so essential to rebuilding NO that I find it hard to believe that anyone would really want to see them go.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It would be nice if conservatives focused on the aspect that 'illegal' Hispanics are here because of a grey market in labor. Let's face it, paperwork, minimum wage, tax requirements, all that, make paying people who are not on the grid in cash for labor, that what most citizens in an affluent country with a terrific (albeit imperfect) social benefits net don't want to do, very attractive. Same thing happened in Europe. The cost and difficulty of things in several areas would immediately go up without this labor pool. There's what's right and what's wrong and then there's the cost of running your restaurant and the cost of the food it serves, the cost of building a house and the price it goes on the market for, etc.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
I agree, and lets face it, an immigrant labor pool is perfect for seasonal work.
Really great Malcom Gladwell podcast came out this week, and the long story short is, we lived for over a century with a cyclical migration system that was challeged and changed by a Marine Commandant who was not fundamentally racist or anti-mexican (as he was very progressive toward minorities in the marines). But he was law and order and Gladwell theorizes he had become fascinated in borders based on his time in vietnam attemtping to enforce a border.
The border begins getting aggressively policed in 1986 and a group called the Mexican Migration Project has 40 years of data on the subject, by building a wall, we don't keep migrants out as much as we keep them in, and the lack of being able to flow freely has in effect lead to them sending for their family and having roots here as opposed to allowing a little more natural flow.
Now, all of this said, its a layered problem, because I could see people being troubled by trends in European migration and the laisse faire attitude there makes borders here make a little more sense.
But these Mexican and central American workers should be afforded a guest visa program that lets them safely and efficiently exercise a sensible guest visa program as its a symbiotic relationship for our country and them as people.
I'll say this, if I needed to get work done and have someone work hard and my choice is an American who's got generational roots here and an immigrant, I'll take the immigrant every single time if thats the only information I have.
timschochet
Footballguy
Some great points here.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this issue is that so much emotion is involved, it’s very difficult to examine the facts in an objective manner so as to really look at plausible solutions. On all sides the politicians are paralyzed by the emotions of the voters which keeps their positions strident and unwilling to work with the other side.
Is racism an important element at play here? I think that’s impossible to deny. Very few people are going to come right out and say that “the browning of America” bothers them, even to themselves, but let’s face it, it does.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this issue is that so much emotion is involved, it’s very difficult to examine the facts in an objective manner so as to really look at plausible solutions. On all sides the politicians are paralyzed by the emotions of the voters which keeps their positions strident and unwilling to work with the other side.
Is racism an important element at play here? I think that’s impossible to deny. Very few people are going to come right out and say that “the browning of America” bothers them, even to themselves, but let’s face it, it does.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
We can force them to pay in other ways. Tarriffs, increased immigration fees, etc.
Mexico will pay for the wall. If they don't, that's fine too.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
What is the point of the wall if we take anyone who wants to come? Who is risking their lives sneaking in if they can just drive or walk up to the front door? I'm assuming your answer is "bad hombres" but wouldn't they be the least likely thwarted by a wall?Stuart Ullman said:
Imagine that our policy is now that anyone that applies to get in can as long as they are not a "bad hombre". Ideally they apply and wait a period of time to be properly screened, but those that are fleeing something might be allowed in but are detained in some fashion (preferably some kind of tracker rather than a holding facility) while they are screened. Oh and Visas can be extended or converted to whatever with just a phone call. What numbers are going to be sneaking in at this point? Maybe a wall is still needed and would be effective against "bad hombres", but it seems that if we are going this far ("take everyone") then maybe we should wait and re-evaluate the point of the wall after we see what happens.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
To stop the illegals from coming in. We need to control our borders and have documentation on who comes in.
We can't have anybody who wants to come in, to come in. There's a difference between open borders and open immigration.
We need to be able to vet and track these people. Having people flowing in like water is unacceptable.
Them coming in is ILLEGAL. I should not need to justify ending an illegal activity, imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't know if this is true but we're gonna stop it if we can.Stuart Ullman said:
I will be very angry at the left. Because only they can stop it at this point.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Why are the flowing like water illegally if there is a legal avenue for [most] "everyone"?
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Because there's no wall to stop them and it's quicker to run across than it is to enter legally.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
No, instead you need to justify how a wall would end this illegal activity. What are the cost (not just construction costs) for this "benefit" of stopping this illegal activity. (And "benefit" is in quotes because for sake of argument I'm assuming that this is a benefit. Though I'm generally of the opinion that "illegal immigration" is pretty close to a wash which is why the debate is so tough. Some add up the cost and benefits and come up with this being very costly while others a great benefit. I think the truth is pretty much in the middle.)
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
It stops illegals from walking in. It's a wall. We're making an attempt to stop illegal immigration, let me know how enforcing the law is a bad thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I don't know man, I feel like it would be considerably harder for women and children to hop over a 40 foot wall than to just walk in.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
But harder than hoping on a bus somewhere and riding in legally? Or, walking the paved road and walking up legally? These questions are post taking everyone who wants to come but with documentation and the opportunity to keep the "bad hombres" out.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I can't wait until we can humanely let everyone in. The wall starts that process.
Deter then accomodate, imo.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I can't wait until we can humanely let everyone in. The wall starts that process.
Deter then accomodate, imo.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There are costs and benefits with how we might enforce laws. We should be looking to enforce laws using cost effective means. If we are changing the laws after to "take everyone" it seems the cost-benefit equation changes quite a bit.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I agree. At the end of the day, I am just one man with an opinion. I don't have all the answers but I do know our current system is broken.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I have to say, your opinion and druthers is one thing.
Trump and Trumpists, they don’t plan on letting anyone in.
I have problems with the wall concept for other reasons but you need to ground this in reality.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I know who would win if Mexico tried to start a trade war over Tariffs. We can hurt them much more than they can hurt us, believe me.
Similar threads
