Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[BeaverCleaver]

Good Lord...almost 30% of the posts in this thread are from Tim.

 

[Gawain]

And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

If this was the case, then I'd agree with Tim that our current immigration laws are bad and dumb. Laws shouldn't exist that hurt others and hurt our country. But, it's pretty clear that your set of circumstances isn't the case and illegal immigration has a deleterious effect on our society.

It would be much like why I think marijuana and anti-sodomy laws are bad and don't have to be obeyed.

However, even Tim can't make the argument that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the country. He manages to bled libertarian open-border beliefs with a heavy safety net. The libertarian argument for open borders only works if the people that immigrate don't drain resources and make a positive contribution. With our current safety net programs, the libertarian philosophy fails.

I'd have zero problem letting every illegal into the country if they were ineligible for social services and if they were picked up for a felony, vagrancy or neglect of their kids they were shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[Mister CIA]

YAAAAAAYYY Country,

Sincerly,

God.

 

[timschochet]

And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

If this was the case, then I'd agree with Tim that our current immigration laws are bad and dumb. Laws shouldn't exist that hurt others and hurt our country. But, it's pretty clear that your set of circumstances isn't the case and illegal immigration has a deleterious effect on our society.

It would be much like why I think marijuana and anti-sodomy laws are bad and don't have to be obeyed.

However, even Tim can't make the argument that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the country. He manages to bled libertarian open-border beliefs with a heavy safety net. The libertarian argument for open borders only works if the people that immigrate don't drain resources and make a positive contribution. With our current safety net programs, the libertarian philosophy fails.

I'd have zero problem letting every illegal into the country if they were ineligible for social services and if they were picked up for a felony, vagrancy or neglect of their kids they were shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Actually I have made the argument that illegals are a net benefit to our society even with social services, and I have linked to studies which bear this out. I firmly believe it to be true.

 

[Sarnoff]

If I were to tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal. They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous.

The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody. The illegals form gangs and are dangerous. And they don’t learn, which brings our averages down.

 

[timschochet]

If I were to tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then theyre bound not to respect our laws, so theyre much more likely to become criminal. Theyre swarming our prisons. We dont have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous.

The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we cant afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids dont speak English, so were saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody. The illegals form gangs and are dangerous. And they dont learn, which brings our averages down.

Why are you even bothering to make these arguments? I could easily tear each and every one of them apart, but you already stated that it wouldn't matter to you anyhow, since even if illegals were a total positive to society you'd still be against then since they are illegal. Though this itself is a specious argument which has an illogic at its core which I'm quite certain you wouldn't apply to other situations, it remains your argument. So why are you adding this other stuff, which to you is irrelevant anyhow?

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

 

[Gawain]

And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

If this was the case, then I'd agree with Tim that our current immigration laws are bad and dumb. Laws shouldn't exist that hurt others and hurt our country. But, it's pretty clear that your set of circumstances isn't the case and illegal immigration has a deleterious effect on our society.

It would be much like why I think marijuana and anti-sodomy laws are bad and don't have to be obeyed.

However, even Tim can't make the argument that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the country. He manages to bled libertarian open-border beliefs with a heavy safety net. The libertarian argument for open borders only works if the people that immigrate don't drain resources and make a positive contribution. With our current safety net programs, the libertarian philosophy fails.

I'd have zero problem letting every illegal into the country if they were ineligible for social services and if they were picked up for a felony, vagrancy or neglect of their kids they were shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Actually I have made the argument that illegals are a net benefit to our society even with social services, and I have linked to studies which bear this out. I firmly believe it to be true.

LOLWiki, but:

At the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

 

[timschochet]

And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

If this was the case, then I'd agree with Tim that our current immigration laws are bad and dumb. Laws shouldn't exist that hurt others and hurt our country. But, it's pretty clear that your set of circumstances isn't the case and illegal immigration has a deleterious effect on our society.

It would be much like why I think marijuana and anti-sodomy laws are bad and don't have to be obeyed.

However, even Tim can't make the argument that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the country. He manages to bled libertarian open-border beliefs with a heavy safety net. The libertarian argument for open borders only works if the people that immigrate don't drain resources and make a positive contribution. With our current safety net programs, the libertarian philosophy fails.

I'd have zero problem letting every illegal into the country if they were ineligible for social services and if they were picked up for a felony, vagrancy or neglect of their kids they were shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Actually I have made the argument that illegals are a net benefit to our society even with social services, and I have linked to studies which bear this out. I firmly believe it to be true.

LOLWiki, but:

At the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

Well it's a good thing that taxes aren't the only factor then, isn't it?

 

[timschochet]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

 

[Joe T]

This thread.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

So you will not answer a question posed to you...

 

[timschochet]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

So you will not answer a question posed to you...

I've answered every question posed to me in this thread. It doesn't seem to matter. So many of you believe myths about illegal immigration (for instance, that they are a net economic detriment- FALSE- that we can't afford them- FALSE- that they cause crime in greater percentages than do people already here- FALSE) that there seems to be no getting through to you. It's very frustrating.

 

[jonessed]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

So you will not answer a question posed to you...

I've answered every question posed to me in this thread. It doesn't seem to matter. So many of you believe myths about illegal immigration (for instance, that they are a net economic detriment- FALSE- that we can't afford them- FALSE- that they cause crime in greater percentages than do people already here- FALSE) that there seems to be no getting through to you. It's very frustrating.

 

[mr roboto]

Tim, you are just repeating your opinion, without backing it up. Please share with us your data.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you are just repeating your opinion, without backing it up. Please share with us your data.

On my iPhone so I can't. There's loads of it available if you're really interested though. Start with Standard and Poors study in 2012 on this very subject. If people are truly interested I will post some stuff later today when I have access to a laptop.

 

[Sarnoff]

If I were to tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then theyre bound not to respect our laws, so theyre much more likely to become criminal. Theyre swarming our prisons. We dont have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous.

The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we cant afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids dont speak English, so were saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody. The illegals form gangs and are dangerous. And they dont learn, which brings our averages down.

Why are you even bothering to make these arguments? I could easily tear each and every one of them apart, but you already stated that it wouldn't matter to you anyhow, since even if illegals were a total positive to society you'd still be against then since they are illegal. Though this itself is a specious argument which has an illogic at its core which I'm quite certain you wouldn't apply to other situations, it remains your argument. So why are you adding this other stuff, which to you is irrelevant anyhow?

One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

 

[Freelove]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

So you will not answer a question posed to you...

The only question he posed was nonsensical. Specifically: "Do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line again?"

The answer to the question, "Do you want to take care of illegals to the exclusion of needy American children?" is of course, no. I don't presume to speak for Tim, but every liberal-minded person I've ever met would want to see both sets of needs met, with preference insofar as it is required, going to the citizens of the country footing the bill. But of course, since the question as asked much more closely resembled, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" it didn't really merit a response.

The part about "letting illegals jump to the front of the line again," is beyond empty Fox rhetoric. We certainly do a lot for illegals. Probably a lot more than most conservatively-minded people would prefer. But to even remotely suggest they are somehow getting preferential treatment over the course of major life concerns versus all other Americans is patently stupid. How could one answer something like that seriously?

If the substance of the statement that preceded the question was meant to be taken seriously (and I don't think it was -- I think instead it was the sort of mindless Tim-bashing that seems so popular here), it demands scrutiny. To what extent do you feel we have the right or expectation that children of the impoverished should be taken from them? Because that's what you're asking when you demand "the same" vis a vis Tim's initial post. Forced adoption.

CPS seems to take these things on a case-by-case basis, rightly, but is the standard you want to set really that all of them be taken from their birth parents, and placed in foster care before we can be troubled with saving the lives of helpless waifs left on our doorstep?

If not, can we not recognize that there do exist a number of programs of varying effectiveness that address the basic needs of children in poverty? They are far from perfect, and do require effort on the part of the parent or social worker. But I'm not sure Tim is suggesting any more than that for these border kids. That systems be put in place, and personnel assigned to help get things moving in a positive, life-preserving direction.

If there's an intelligent conversation to be had about this, it seems to me it would revolve around what these personnel and systems might look like, and if we can determine that, then whether it can be economically feasible -- or as Tim seems to feel, beneficial.

I don't pretend to know the answer one way or another. In general, I prefer more open borders, and am perfectly okay with less economic freedom if that's what it takes. But I recognize there are balance points in that equation where practicality has to take precedence. I also think it's hubris to pretend to know where those balance points are, precisely, and to declare the situation "impossible." I'm willing to pursue the idea of "impossible" pretty damn far when innocent children's lives are at stake.

I do think that there are some persons in here taking what I perceive to be the conservative side who have said some intelligent things on the subject. Thanks.

But those of you posting nothing but rolling faces and post counts and high-fiving one another? I think you're pretty drastically overestimating how far above the idiot line you appear to the average viewer.

 

[Joe T]

But those of you posting nothing but rolling faces and post counts and high-fiving one another? I think you're pretty drastically overestimating how far above the idiot line you appear to the average viewer.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

You know, everyone can pile on Tim in here (FWIW, I feel that they should have their immediate needs met, but beyond that will be up for discussion), or we can get back to the issue at hand. Clearly, if we have an ounce of compassion, these children should not be left to starve, and simply sending them back means that their lives will once again be in danger. However, the influx of children on a system that already has 1.7 million children out of a home will only make the burden of care greater than ever. Putting them in the care of the government is a recipe for disaster, as we've seen with veterans. I'd suggest foster care or adoption, but if their parents are otherwise fine aside from being stuck in a violent place, that raises lots of legal issues.

In the end, all I can say is that I have not reached an answer I feel comfortable with. Sending them back or letting them all into the system at once will almost certainly result in an even bigger mess.

I disagree. If we send them back at least they're (presumably) be being cared for by people who love them and care about them.

Oh OK. And people think I'm naive.

it's not an either/or situation here.

 

[johnnycakes]

Well, this isn't the first time we have been presented with a humanitarian crisis and done nothing. We routinely turned away Jewish refugees before and during WWII and we definitely had knowledge of what was going on in Europe at the time... chose not to believe it, perhaps, but reports were out there. I'm sure there are other examples, but link and link.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants. My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

 

[timschochet]

Well, this isn't the first time we have been presented with a humanitarian crisis and done nothing. We routinely turned away Jewish refugees before and during WWII and we definitely had knowledge of what was going on in Europe at the time... chose not to believe it, perhaps, but reports were out there. I'm sure there are other examples, but link and link.

You're correct. And in turning the Jews away, many of the exact same arguments were used: they had no papers- why couldn't they wait in line like everyone else? We had no room for them. They would have drained our resources. It was crap then, and it's crap now. I have to add that the way the Jewish refugees were treated is one reason this issue affects so emotionally.

 

[Todd Andrews]

But those of you posting nothing but rolling faces and post counts and high-fiving one another? I think you're pretty drastically overestimating how far above the idiot line you appear to the average viewer.

Very nice! High five!

Her vagine hang like the sleeve of a wizard!

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

I great friend who is Jewish lost her dad at 95 last year. He was a German Jew. He was a certified bad mutha (medals and #### out of his ###) - basically, a Jewish Shaft. He crawled/killed/####ed his way through Holland while knowing most of his family & friends were being exterminated back home. He faked an Irish accent (him to me: "little did I know that I picked a persona even worse than mine!") and hopped a ship to the US. He switched a couple of letters in his last name & changed to Anglo when he got here until it became safe to "come out".

 

[timschochet]

Another example which always should be remembered is the Hawaiian Nisei- second generation Japanese. Their parents were migrant farmers who were undocumented and denied citizenship (via a shameful 1920s Supreme Court decision). There was constant talk of their deportation back to Japan, and complaints in the press that they were using their kids born here as a means to stay- "anchor babies"- though the term wasn't in vogue then- sound familiar?

After Pearl Harbor our government threw all of the Japanese on the west coast into detainment camps. The Nisei responded by volunteering en masse for the US Army in order to "prove" they were Americans. They were rejected for 2 years- the argument against was that they couldn't be trusted, and it was just a ploy to win them citizenship- sound familiar? Finally, after 1943 the army relented, and allowed the Nisei to join, in segregated units, where they faced severe bigotry and mistreatment. The 442nd regiment which was formed became the most highly decorated in United States history.

 

[Freelove]

But those of you posting nothing but rolling faces and post counts and high-fiving one another? I think you're pretty drastically overestimating how far above the idiot line you appear to the average viewer.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I dismissed you as simple within a week of arriving.

 

[Sarnoff]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided. But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

Wanna bet? That happened because it eventually had to over generations, not because their eyes were filled with stars with being "American". I lived in Hanover, PA for several years and the older guys who would hang out there spoke German to each other. They could speak English, of course, but chose not to amongst themselves. A lot of folks - like mine I posted about above - didn't come here to JOIN something as much as they did to get AWAY from something.

 

[Sarnoff]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't called you a racist, Sarnoff. Many if not most of your arguments are based on false stereotypes, but since they tend to be commonly held by those who agree with your position, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that they are simply based on ignorance rather than deliberate racial malice. But later when I have time to give each of your points the attention they deserve, I'll let the facts speak for themselves and everyone can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Christo]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

Wanna bet? That happened because it eventually had to over generations, not because their eyes were filled with stars with being "American". I lived in Hanover, PA for several years and the older guys who would hang out there spoke German to each other. They could speak English, of course, but chose not to amongst themselves. A lot of folks - like mine I posted about above - didn't come here to JOIN something as much as they did to get AWAY from something.

This is an important distinction. I had a case last year where we had to get an interpreter for a man who'd lived here for over 30 years.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

Gonna call me a "liberal? I'm no Tim-defender, nor am I a lefty in the traditional sense but I like arguing hopeless causes. Bring something that approximates a level of intelligence and I'll be your huckleberry.

 

[Mohawk]

The idea that an immigrant group insists on NOT being assimilated because they wish to learn in both English and their home language is absurd. Of course they want to assimilate. Why do you think they want bilingual education? So they can learn faster how to assimilate. You cannot expect a person to assimilate overnight. It takes awhile. Learning in Spanish (in this case) only helps to learn in English. They ask for bilingual education, not uni-lingual! My mother's generation went to schools in Baltimore that used bilingual education. It helped her learn English and to assimilate. These weak arguments are based on fear. They (the immigrants) want something I have. Get over yourselves. All of you, or your ancestors, are immigrants! The Statue of Liberty says it best. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free. What exactly about that do you NOT understand? It's like phony Christians hating on other groups when their religion insists on loving everyone, whores, sinners, etc. as their founder insisted. You guys cannot live up to the ideals you all espouse as what makes America great. You are phony Americans.

 

[timschochet]

The idea that an immigrant group insists on NOT being assimilated because they wish to learn in both English and their home language is absurd. Of course they want to assimilate. Why do you think they want bilingual education? So they can learn faster how to assimilate. You cannot expect a person to assimilate overnight. It takes awhile. Learning in Spanish (in this case) only helps to learn in English. They ask for bilingual education, not uni-lingual! My mother's generation went to schools in Baltimore that used bilingual education. It helped her learn English and to assimilate. These weak arguments are based on fear. They (the immigrants) want something I have. Get over yourselves. All of you, or your ancestors, are immigrants! The Statue of Liberty says it best. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free. What exactly about that do you NOT understand? It's like phony Christians hating on other groups when their religion insists on loving everyone, whores, sinners, etc. as their founder insisted. You guys cannot live up to the ideals you all espouse as what makes America great. You are phony Americans.

Great post, Mohawk. It makes me feel better to know that not everyone here shares Sarnoff's ignorance on this subject. I was starting to get a little worried.

 

[Christo]

The idea that an immigrant group insists on NOT being assimilated because they wish to learn in both English and their home language is absurd. Of course they want to assimilate. Why do you think they want bilingual education? So they can learn faster how to assimilate. You cannot expect a person to assimilate overnight. It takes awhile. Learning in Spanish (in this case) only helps to learn in English. They ask for bilingual education, not uni-lingual! My mother's generation went to schools in Baltimore that used bilingual education. It helped her learn English and to assimilate. These weak arguments are based on fear. They (the immigrants) want something I have. Get over yourselves. All of you, or your ancestors, are immigrants! The Statue of Liberty says it best. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free. What exactly about that do you NOT understand? It's like phony Christians hating on other groups when their religion insists on loving everyone, whores, sinners, etc. as their founder insisted. You guys cannot live up to the ideals you all espouse as what makes America great. You are phony Americans.

Great post, Mohawk. It makes me feel better to know that not everyone here shares Sarnoff's ignorance on this subject. I was starting to get a little worried.

Not really. There are lots who don't want to assimilate. There are lots who only want to assimilate to the extent they need to get by. I gave an example earlier. You live here 30 years and don't speak English? In no way, shape or form does that demonstrate a want to assimilate.

 

[jonessed]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. Its a typical liberal thing to label your opponents arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

Or ignorant, or a teabagger, or a bigot, or an idiot...Arguing for intelligent conversation when you can't even get past petty name-calling is most definitely something worth laughing at.

Obama is sending them home with some financial aid to the governments. That's the right decision. I'm glad it's over. Now the process can begin.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The idea that an immigrant group insists on NOT being assimilated because they wish to learn in both English and their home language is absurd. Of course they want to assimilate. Why do you think they want bilingual education? So they can learn faster how to assimilate. You cannot expect a person to assimilate overnight. It takes awhile. Learning in Spanish (in this case) only helps to learn in English. They ask for bilingual education, not uni-lingual! My mother's generation went to schools in Baltimore that used bilingual education. It helped her learn English and to assimilate. These weak arguments are based on fear. They (the immigrants) want something I have. Get over yourselves. All of you, or your ancestors, are immigrants! The Statue of Liberty says it best. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free. What exactly about that do you NOT understand? It's like phony Christians hating on other groups when their religion insists on loving everyone, whores, sinners, etc. as their founder insisted. You guys cannot live up to the ideals you all espouse as what makes America great. You are phony Americans.

Great post, Mohawk. It makes me feel better to know that not everyone here shares Sarnoff's ignorance on this subject. I was starting to get a little worried.

Not really. There are lots who don't want to assimilate. There are lots who only want to assimilate to the extent they need to get by. I gave an example earlier. You live here 30 years and don't speak English? In no way, shape or form does that demonstrate a want to assimilate.

This is truly the illegal immigrants better life in America. Pay no tax, send money to Mexico, have babies in the US that are automatic citizens which qualify for every freebie the Government has to offer on the tax payer dime yet the illegal parents never paid a penny into the system and services they abuse, free healthcare by using the emergency room as their regular doctors office, and a Government that is allowing all this to win the Hispanic vote. And people wonder why Americans despise illegals.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Suppose I found people willing to adopt each one of these kids? Would you guys allow them to come in?

This is absolutely a great question, and I'll gladly have this discussion with you. As soon as you have done this for every currently homeless or malnourished child who is an American citizen. Or do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line, yet again?

Are you willing to reallocate public funds in order to make taking care of the homeless and malnourished children already here a priority to take precedence over nearly everything else?

Please answer the question that Strike asked

First I need to know his answer to mine. I need to know how serious he is about addressing these other problems, or if, as I suspect, they're simply an excuse not to deal with these poor children at our border.

So you will not answer a question posed to you...

The only question he posed was nonsensical. Specifically: "Do you want to let the illegals jump to the front of the line again?"

The answer to the question, "Do you want to take care of illegals to the exclusion of needy American children?" is of course, no. I don't presume to speak for Tim, but every liberal-minded person I've ever met would want to see both sets of needs met, with preference insofar as it is required, going to the citizens of the country footing the bill. But of course, since the question as asked much more closely resembled, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" it didn't really merit a response.

The part about "letting illegals jump to the front of the line again," is beyond empty Fox rhetoric. We certainly do a lot for illegals. Probably a lot more than most conservatively-minded people would prefer. But to even remotely suggest they are somehow getting preferential treatment over the course of major life concerns versus all other Americans is patently stupid. How could one answer something like that seriously?

If the substance of the statement that preceded the question was meant to be taken seriously (and I don't think it was -- I think instead it was the sort of mindless Tim-bashing that seems so popular here), it demands scrutiny. To what extent do you feel we have the right or expectation that children of the impoverished should be taken from them? Because that's what you're asking when you demand "the same" vis a vis Tim's initial post. Forced adoption.

CPS seems to take these things on a case-by-case basis, rightly, but is the standard you want to set really that all of them be taken from their birth parents, and placed in foster care before we can be troubled with saving the lives of helpless waifs left on our doorstep?

If not, can we not recognize that there do exist a number of programs of varying effectiveness that address the basic needs of children in poverty? They are far from perfect, and do require effort on the part of the parent or social worker. But I'm not sure Tim is suggesting any more than that for these border kids. That systems be put in place, and personnel assigned to help get things moving in a positive, life-preserving direction.

If there's an intelligent conversation to be had about this, it seems to me it would revolve around what these personnel and systems might look like, and if we can determine that, then whether it can be economically feasible -- or as Tim seems to feel, beneficial.

I don't pretend to know the answer one way or another. In general, I prefer more open borders, and am perfectly okay with less economic freedom if that's what it takes. But I recognize there are balance points in that equation where practicality has to take precedence. I also think it's hubris to pretend to know where those balance points are, precisely, and to declare the situation "impossible." I'm willing to pursue the idea of "impossible" pretty damn far when innocent children's lives are at stake.

I do think that there are some persons in here taking what I perceive to be the conservative side who have said some intelligent things on the subject. Thanks.

But those of you posting nothing but rolling faces and post counts and high-fiving one another? I think you're pretty drastically overestimating how far above the idiot line you appear to the average viewer.

Holy bejeesus is that a lot of words. Another bad GG imitator here. LOL. It's funny you chose to post so many words, and call me a Tim basher for supposedly posting a question that you consider unworthy of discussion, without even mentioning Tim's idiotic question that clearly can't be worthy of discussion. If you recall, he asked if we would let all these children stay if he found a home for each and every one of them. Do you REALLY consider that tangent worthy of "intelligent" discussion? I'd say it's very worthy of mocking. Where's the "scrutiny" of Tim's statement/question? Like many of his posts it adds zero to this discussion and just wastes thread space.

 

[Sarnoff]

I haven't called you a racist, Sarnoff. Many if not most of your arguments are based on false stereotypes, but since they tend to be commonly held by those who agree with your position, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that they are simply based on ignorance rather than deliberate racial malice. But later when I have time to give each of your points the attention they deserve, I'll let the facts speak for themselves and everyone can draw their own conclusions.

To you as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that you propose led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history. I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and in order to live in a civilized society, we must have law and orde.

 

[Sarnoff]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

Gonna call me a "liberal? I'm no Tim-defender, nor am I a lefty in the traditional sense but I like arguing hopeless causes. Bring something that approximates a level of intelligence and I'll be your huckleberry.

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't called you a racist, Sarnoff. Many if not most of your arguments are based on false stereotypes, but since they tend to be commonly held by those who agree with your position, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that they are simply based on ignorance rather than deliberate racial malice. But later when I have time to give each of your points the attention they deserve, I'll let the facts speak for themselves and everyone can draw their own conclusions.

To you as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that you propose led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history. I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and in order to live in a civilized society, we must have law and orde.

Once again, you couldn't be more wrong. I utterly reject moral relativism. But all in good time.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. Its a typical liberal thing to label your opponents arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

Or ignorant, or a teabagger, or a bigot, or an idiot...Arguing for intelligent conversation when you can't even get past petty name-calling is most definitely something worth laughing at.

Obama is sending them home with some financial aid to the governments. That's the right decision. I'm glad it's over. Now the process can begin.

I haven't called anyone a racist, or a teabagger, or a bigot, or an idiot. All of those terms are insulting.

I have called Sarnoff ignorant, which is not insulting. In fact, it's rather a compliment. As I'm about to demonstrate, he's gotten his facts wrong on just about everything he's written in this thread. Which means either he is ignorant, or a deliberate liar. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I wonder how many of our ancestors came here illegally. I know at least one branch of my family were French Hugenots (sp?) who got the hell out of France before they could be rounded up and dispatched. They hid in the swamps of Southern Maryland before founding many of the small towns there. My uncle ran all of the details down several years ago, such as they are, but it appears that that we were just "assumed" to be legal. Maybe the fact that they were of (mostly - if they did nothing else, Rome ####ed everywhere they went)) Northern European descent had something to do with it

My grandmother on my fathers side wound up at the end of World War II, having survived the Holocaust, in the Russian sector of Vienna. In the middle of the night my grandparents and their 7 year old son (my dad) cut through a barbed wire fence and snuck into the American sector and freedom. Under today's laws they would certainly be considered illegal immigrants.My mothers family arrived, like so many Jews, at the start of the 20th Century via Ellis Island. But in order to get on a boat to NYC they had to break many laws, including forged papers, to travel all the way from Russia. So I consider my ancestors on both sides to be illegal, and I'm very proud and grateful to them.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

You continue to make completely false and absurd arguments, based on nothing but your own ignorance and stereotypes. Later on today, when I have a little more time, I'm going to demolish each and every one of your arguments, using facts and links to back me up, none of which you've provided.But again I don't see the point of you making these additional arguments anyhow- you've already argued that because they're illegal nothing else should matter.

I knew it. Its a typical liberal thing to label your opponents arguments as racist, which I knew was coming.

Or ignorant, or a teabagger, or a bigot, or an idiot...Arguing for intelligent conversation when you can't even get past petty name-calling is most definitely something worth laughing at.

Obama is sending them home with some financial aid to the governments. That's the right decision. I'm glad it's over. Now the process can begin.

I haven't called anyone a racist, or a teabagger, or a bigot, or an idiot. All of those terms are insulting.I have called Sarnoff ignorant, which is not insulting. In fact, it's rather a compliment. As I'm about to demonstrate, he's gotten his facts wrong on just about everything he's written in this thread. Which means either he is ignorant, or a deliberate liar. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You can be such an ###

 

[timschochet]

And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

OK, I'm going to start with this. Actually, after Sarnoff makes this argument, he doesn't need to go on from here, since he is basically telling us that all of his other arguments on this issue is irrelevant, and this is the only one that counts anyway. Which is a good deal for him because as far as it goes it's the strongest of all his arguments. It's philosophical argument, and FWIW I agree with it- in principle, though not with the conclusions that Sarnoff derives from it. Two points:

1. The "illegality" argument, as I will call it, only applies to those illegal immigrants who are already here. It does NOT apply to those who have arrived at our borders (such as the children who are the main topic of this thread) or to those who might decide to come to our border. It is only after they successfully cross the border that they have actually broken our law. Therefore, to the main issue at hand- what to do about these children- Sarnoff's argument is largely irrelevant.

2. I fully acknowledge that this law exists, (even though I'd like to change it) and that it should be obeyed. However, and this is important- Its a MISDEMEANOR.

(Confirmed by several sources, here's one: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071222065600AAAPhlC). Now I have to ask, if we allow people to commit misdemeanors, will it lead, as Sarnoff claims, to a "lawless society"? All of us commit misdemeanors all the time. Speeding on the freeway is a misdemeanor. Does that lead to anarchy? Hardly.

I do believe that illegal immigrants should be punished for having broken the law. Like other misdemeanors, they should pay a fine: in this case, a rather large one: I set it previously at $5,000.00, which still seems right to me. And then they should be allowed to stay here. Not as a reward, but because they contribute to our society- as I'm about to demonstrate.

Finally, I want to note that most of the "path to citizenship" proposals, including the latest one, have illegals admitting their crimes and paying fines as punishment- however, these have all been uniformly rejected as "amnesty" by those who agree with Sarnoff- which leads me to conclude rather cynically that this whole "you need to obey the law" argument by Sarnoff and others is really just an excuse, and not what they truly care about at all.

 

[Kevrunner]

Tim, I'm on the other side of the fence regarding these unfortunate children, can't see how this country can support them, the cost of living is so high across the country that it is pretty much guaranteed that the majority of these kids will live in poverty and be without their parents. We need to send them back to their home countries. The only exception I would make is if any of these kids have relatives who are legal and will adopt them and support them. Then I will be all for letting them stay.

I might be coming from different experiences then you have had with illegals. I've had two friends that have had their family members murdered by individuals who were in this country illegally.

 

[timschochet]

If I were to tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do:

The remainder of Sarnoff's arguments are so bogus that I have to respond to them one by one, starting with this one:

In point of fact, study after study demonstrates that illegal immigrants, by percentage, actually commit LESS CRIME than those who are born in this country. Here:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173642807/does-crime-drop-when-immigrants-move-in

And here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/public-study-illegal-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-americans/

And here:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201302/immigrants-have-lower-crime-rate

From the last one:

Your average immigrant is not a threat to you. Whether legal or illegal, the fact is that immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than those born in the U.S. This issue has been lied about and fought over for years, but the reality is that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crime.

Oops! Sorry Sarnoff. But it gets worse for you...

 

[timschochet]

I might be coming from different experiences then you have had with illegals. I've had two friends that have had their family members murdered by individuals who were in this country illegally.

I am very sorry for your friends. What you have to realize is that statistics show that less illegals, by percentage, commit crimes than do citizens. (See my above post.) That probably doesn't help you emotionally, but it's true nonetheless.