MC Gas Money
Footballguy
2920
Thats the projected year we take back america
Thats the projected year we take back america
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rove!
- Start date
identikit
Footballguy
We are currently in the days of pre-2920s, right?Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?StrikeS2k said:Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.Sarnoff said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)
And it won't take until 2920 for it to happen either.
And it won't take until 2920 for it to happen either.
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
I always assumed he was from the future.We are currently in the days of pre-2920s, right?Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?StrikeS2k said:Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.Sarnoff said:
The waaaaaaaay liberal future
No, you're not willing to compromise. You refuse to budge at all from the position that we must reward those here illegally with citizenship. I've proposed many other solutions, but you refuse to compromise in the slightest.Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?StrikeS2k said:Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.Sarnoff said:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
I work every day ...its hard enough knowing i pay money to support legal dead beats ...but it kills me knowing my hard earned money goes towards illegal trespassers as well
Last edited by a moderator:
chauncey
Footballguy
Anyone pointed out the irony that the FLETC (federal law enforcement training center) is going to be housing 700 illegal detainees awaiting deportation. And the reason there is room to house them is that the Obama/Napolitano team claimed the border was more secure/safer than ever so a freeze was put on hiring/training new BP agents.
I don't really care but the locals interviewed out here are up in arms, worried about all kinds of nonsense.
I don't really care but the locals interviewed out here are up in arms, worried about all kinds of nonsense.
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
If we award illegals with citizenship then shouldnt we award freedom to people who break out of jail?
timschochet
Footballguy
I remember some of your solutions. I actually found them to be quite reasonable and thoughtful, and certainly a willingness to compromise from your original position. I believe I gave you credit for that here.No, you're not willing to compromise. You refuse to budge at all from the position that we must reward those here illegally with citizenship. I've proposed many other solutions, but you refuse to compromise in the slightest.Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?StrikeS2k said:Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.Sarnoff said:
Ultimately the reason I couldn't accept them is because although you are willing, under certain conditions, to allow the illegals to stay in this country, you're not willing to grant them citizenship under any conditions. In effect, what you are doing is creating a permanent underclass. I can never agree to that. If that makes me, in your mind, uncompromising, so be it. I hate these people having to wait, but I can live with that. I hate the idea of tighter border restrictions, and I REALLY hate the idea of a fence, which I think is the height of stupidity. But I am willing to accept those conditions, very reluctantly, in the spirit of compromise. What I can't accept is never allowing these people a chance at citizenship, no matter how well they behave once they get here. I just think that's wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
I do have one more compromise to offer: we could allow illegals to stay, under certain conditions, and be treated with equality under the law, but because of how they got here, they could never be citizens- so long as their children who are born here would be citizens without any cloud attached to them. A sort of "second generation Path to Citizenship" if you will. That way we avoid giving amnesty to illegals, and they would be deprived of most social programs (except those of public health)- but they would be allowed to stay and their children would have access to everything that the rest of us do.
Would this be acceptable to anyone here? (I'm trying to reach a consensus, I really am.)
Would this be acceptable to anyone here? (I'm trying to reach a consensus, I really am.)
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
You will fail, but the good news is this is a messageboard so all of your self-important babble is meaningless anyways.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Tim, why are you vehemently against a fence? Too much of a Berlin Wall feel or something? If everyone is forced to enter/exit through checkpoints why is that a problem? The only reasons it would be a problem are the cost to construct/maintain, or you think having to be checked at the border is wrong.
I hope it's the former because the latter reason is assinine.
I hope it's the former because the latter reason is assinine.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Berlin Wall analogy really isn't accurate, because they were trying to keep people from leaving. You didn't touch on my main reason, actually. I'm a strong believer in free trade, and that starts with Mexico. I believe this wall would antagonize our relationship with Mexico and threaten our trade with them. The symbolism of a fence between us and the Mexicans, keeping them out, would create a level of hostility between the two countries that would threaten our relationship. It could lead to the rise of radical, populist elements (such as the mayor of Mexico City, who is basically a clone of the former Presidrnt of Venezuela). So that's the main reason I'm against this idea.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I don't get it.
This is completely untrue. Not only am I 100% willing to allow them to apply for citizenship in the exact same manner that all other prospective non-citizens must use, I'm not even proposing any punishment for breaking the law in the first place. What I'm not willing to do is reward illegals for breaking the law. What message does that send to those who have applied for citizenship legally?I remember some of your solutions. I actually found them to be quite reasonable and thoughtful, and certainly a willingness to compromise from your original position. I believe I gave you credit for that here.No, you're not willing to compromise. You refuse to budge at all from the position that we must reward those here illegally with citizenship. I've proposed many other solutions, but you refuse to compromise in the slightest.Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?StrikeS2k said:Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.Sarnoff said:
Ultimately the reason I couldn't accept them is because although you are willing, under certain conditions, to allow the illegals to stay in this country, you're not willing to grant them citizenship under any conditions. In effect, what you are doing is creating a permanent underclass. I can never agree to that. If that makes me, in your mind, uncompromising, so be it. I hate these people having to wait, but I can live with that. I hate the idea of tighter border restrictions, and I REALLY hate the idea of a fence, which I think is the height of stupidity. But I am willing to accept those conditions, very reluctantly, in the spirit of compromise. What I can't accept is never allowing these people a chance at citizenship, no matter how well they behave once they get here. I just think that's wrong.
I'd further suggest that our current immigration laws be revisited, to change the process of applying for status and/or citizenship. Those changes would have to apply to everyone equally, however, not one set of laws for those who have managed to sneak in and another set of laws for those who obeyed the current law.
That's a compromise. "No deal unless they get automatic and favored status for citizenship" is not. It doesn't matter what else you think you're giving up on your side, it's not a compromise if you absolutely insist on the single most important item.
Edit 1: I wrote this before I read your next post, which I'll respond to shortly.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm going to take the extraordinary step of agreeing with Tim on the wall thing.
It will be funny to see if anyone remembers that Hillary supported the wall in 2008 when she runs again 2016, especially the Demo base.
Last edited by a moderator:
Under current law, wouldn't children born here be citizens anyway? I'm not really a fan of that law, to be honest, as it seems to reward law-breaking. Were I in charge, I'd want to modify that law as part of any compromise. Specifically, here's the problem: I would want to create a guest worker program for the future, allowing foreigners to live and work here legally. I would want to include those already here under that program, without penalty. But I wouldn't want to grant those already here any special status that isn't granted to the first guest workers who come over after the law is passed. So, any citizenship-granting provision would have to apply equally to those already here and those who come here afterward. Perhaps a law that included a time period, such as "arrived in the US prior to age N, lived in the US with parents through age Q" confers citizenship would work for me. The simple law of "born here confers citizenship" doesn't work for me, when we're allowing all comers in via a guest worker program.
On a related note, I was listening to NPR this morning, and they were talking about this specific "crisis". They quoted one of the Democrat politicians (don't remember who) as saying that an important step to solving the problem is to somehow change the misconception of people in Central America that getting across the border is an automatic pass to citizenship. Seems like even some Democrats recognize that amnesty encourages further law-breaking.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
What's funny about this isn't about the law, we have a law, it's the failure to enforce the law.
Why would we put up a wall when we won't even try to put enough agents on the border?
Didn't Obama as Senator actually vote for a border fence? And as president he won't
The whole thing is ludicrous.
Why would we put up a wall when we won't even try to put enough agents on the border?
Didn't Obama as Senator actually vote for a border fence? And as president he won't
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
The whole thing is ludicrous.
That's not a law. That's (yet another) poor legal interpretation by the SCOTUS. From Wiki:
I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to change that at this point which, unfortunately, I don't see happening. I suppose they could reinterpret the 14th but I don't see that happening either.
timschochet
Footballguy
As I mentioned before, if your purpose is to demonstrate that our leading Democrats have been weak ### hypocrites on this issue, be my guest. They have. In many cases they're far worse than the conservatives I'm always arguing here because they're disingenuous. They don't care about solving this problem; they're just looking for votes from Latinos. They'll get them.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim further up I tried to agree with you. What can I say I agree.
I doubt we agree on what needs to be done in terms of amnesty, but I agree with you on the wall and I agree with you on the R/D equal ineffectuality. My point on Obama is just that if he voted for a wall he should be willing to send more/enough border patrol agents.
In NO we regularly need 2500 cops (IMO), instead we have 900-1100, same deal. We need security, everyone agrees we need security, we hate the murders, cops stop murders, no one will pay for cops. Meanwhile we're planning x million for a 300th birthday celebration. My guess is someone is profiting from the lack of cops, my guess is the same with the illegal aliens, someone somewhere is making money off the situation.
Hillary ran on building a wall, Obama voted for a wall, GOP talks a big mean line, Demos talk some hybrid compromise, what do we get? Nada.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Rich I tried to find common ground with you but we are just too far apart. You and Sarnoff and Strike want to change the law so that children born here to illegals aren't citizens, and I could never abide that. We're moving in opposite directions.
Which is fine. Though things look bleak for my side right now, I'm pretty confident that eventually we will defeat your side on this issue, and push through a Path to Citizenship. Dunno how long it will take, but it will happen.
Which is fine. Though things look bleak for my side right now, I'm pretty confident that eventually we will defeat your side on this issue, and push through a Path to Citizenship. Dunno how long it will take, but it will happen.
Look at it from another perspective. Pretend we were designing a brand new system, from the ground up, with ZERO existing laws on the books. What system would we design? That's the system I want to put in now. Forget the mistakes of the past, whatever they are, and design the right system from scratch.
A system that doesn't allow someone who walks across the border (legally) to become a citizen, but does allow someone born across the border (to non-citizen parents), makes no sense. No one in their right mind would design that system, starting from scratch.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
That wouldn't change our disagreement. Ultimately I see illegals as a good thing, and consider their breaking the law to get here to be a positive (and the law itself to be a minor one) and would like to see them rewarded and encourage more to come. You disagree on all of this. Whether we start from scratch makes no difference because we just don't see this the same way.
We don't, and that's fine. But if you were to design a system from the ground up, you'd never in a million years go with "people already born can't become citizens, people born on that side of the border can't become citizens, but people born on this side are citizens".
timschochet
Footballguy
Well of course not. But Im guessing the way I would solve that inconsistency would be 180 degrees from yours, lol
No, it wouldn't be that different, which is my point. Your idea here is to "compromise" on a solution that's clearly moronic just because it's somewhere between what the two sides want. My idea is to come up with a different solution altogether, and look at factors other than "exact location of birth".
Obama to seek $2 billion from Congress to tackle child migrant crisis
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/29/us-usa-immigration-obama-idUSKBN0F40RE20140629
So, first he helps create the crisis and now he wants more money to fight it. ]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/29/us-usa-immigration-obama-idUSKBN0F40RE20140629
So, first he helps create the crisis and now he wants more money to fight it. ]
So if your sister went on vacation and had a fling that resulted in a pregnancy and she came back and decided she wanted to keep the kid you'd tell her your niece or nephew can't be a citizen?
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
I'm sure as we speak he's getting spanish language copies of his his Mr Ishida novel printed up for the gift baskets.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Shhhhh.
I'm sure as we speak he's getting spanish language copies of his his Mr Ishida novel printed up for the gift baskets.
Rove!
Footballguy
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/
sounds like something that would happen in North Korea....
[icon]
Insoxicated
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I saw this on the news this morning. The situation is really out of hand.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Don't worry, Tim says this won't be a problem in his lifetime and I'm sure you can take that to the bank brotasauras.
timschochet
Footballguy
There's no answer I can give you that you will accept. The easy answer is that we stop at the point at which they are greater a burden to our society than any possible benefit they could provide. But most of you seem to believe we've passed that point long since. I disagree, but my view represents a small minority of opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
There is no endgame.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Maquiladores outside Nogales is the plan. Cheap, near slave labor.
Hey why pay all those union folks, right?
timschochet
Footballguy
I think it's classless and disgusting for people to protest in front of children and make them feel unwanted. Whatever your views on this issue and on illegal immigration in general, children are not villains; they are victims, and booing their arrival (which happened the last few days in California) is not what this country should be about.
they shouldn't be going to California. They should be going back where they came. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it, would we?
timschochet
Footballguy
We won't agree on that, but either way, it's still wrong to protest in front of them and yell ugliness at them. The kids aren't to blame.
Last edited by a moderator:
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I agree the kids are in an unfair spot. I also sympathize with the people who were upset with the illegal aliens being shipped into their town. They did what they felt they needed to.
Similar threads
