Let's talk about illegal immigration (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

You earlier were saying you are for absolutely no regulation of the border.

That position is the mirror image to Trump's totally deporting everyone.

 

[RCon]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

1. Devil is in the details, obviously.

2. Legal status. I would agree. No fine required, IMO.

2. Deportation for felonies. I assumed this was a given, not part of a negotiation.

2. Access to public schools. I would prefer a fee associated with this. Public schooling is expensive.

2. Access to public health benefits. I'm not sure what this means.

2. The citizenship issue. This is really the crux. Let's say the agreement is no citizenship, ever, for those who came here illegally, including those who came here legally but stayed illegally (for some period of more than N days), but children born here in the future are citizens. Questions/comments/requirements...

a. How do we prevent illegals currently here from returning home, then coming "legally", and claiming they weren't here previously?

b. Legal guest workers (or whatever you wish to call them) cannot be eligible for social safety net benefits.

c. Future illegal immigrants (including those here now who choose not to "come out of the shadows") would be deported, no questions asked.

3. Meh. I'd rather focus on massive crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals, or subvert minimum wage laws (regardless of whether the recipient is legal or not).

Finally, "your side" would need to convince me that you'd actually hold up your end of the bargain this time.

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

You earlier were saying you are for absolutely no regulation of the border.

That position is the mirror image to Trump's totally deporting everyone.

This is inaccurate. What I wrote was that there was no possible way to make the border completely secure, and I didn't see the point in wasting money on it. However, I am willing to compromise.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

Yes. Most studies don't separate it out though.But logically if all immigration is an economic net positive then illegal immigration has to be even more so, since they use less social services.

But the "off the books" illegal immigrants and not having federal, state, and FICA withheld from their pay and their employers aren't paying payroll taxes. That's a big difference compared to the "on the books" illegal immigrants.

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

1. Devil is in the details, obviously.

2. Legal status. I would agree. No fine required, IMO.

2. Deportation for felonies. I assumed this was a given, not part of a negotiation.

2. Access to public schools. I would prefer a fee associated with this. Public schooling is expensive.

2. Access to public health benefits. I'm not sure what this means.

2. The citizenship issue. This is really the crux. Let's say the agreement is no citizenship, ever, for those who came here illegally, including those who came here legally but stayed illegally (for some period of more than N days), but children born here in the future are citizens. Questions/comments/requirements...

a. How do we prevent illegals currently here from returning home, then coming "legally", and claiming they weren't here previously?

b. Legal guest workers (or whatever you wish to call them) cannot be eligible for social safety net benefits.

c. Future illegal immigrants (including those here now who choose not to "come out of the shadows") would be deported, no questions asked.

3. Meh. I'd rather focus on massive crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals, or subvert minimum wage laws (regardless of whether the recipient is legal or not).

Finally, "your side" would need to convince me that you'd actually hold up your end of the bargain this time.

1. Of course. But this is all talk. It's ironic to me that accuse me of not being willing to compromise, when it's the conservatives who have rejected all deals on this issue. They would reject your idea too, because you're at least willing to give illegals some kind of legal status. They would call you "pro-amnesty" and link you with me as an "open borders" person.

2A.It's a given for me.

2B, They did commit a crime by coming here. There has to be some kind of punishment. I believe in a lawful society. Therefore, a fine is appropriate.

2C. They do pay a fee for public education already. It's called taxes.

2D. Public health means treating those who are at public health risk, such as TB.

2E. a. I don't know. Enforcement is not my concern.

b. It depends on what you mean by "safety net." If they pay taxes, they should be as eligible as anyone else.

c. No. If more illegals come, they can pay a fine too and stay. I'll never agree to a "NOW we deport everyone" position.

3. No. The businesses who hire illegals benefit our society by doing so. No punishment for them, now or ever. That would be the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Finally, I would need to see some willingness from "your side" that you are willing to accept legal recognition of the undocumented before I agree to anything.

 

[timschochet]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

Yes. Most studies don't separate it out though.But logically if all immigration is an economic net positive then illegal immigration has to be even more so, since they use less social services.

But the "off the books" illegal immigrants and not having federal, state, and FICA withheld from their pay and their employers aren't paying payroll taxes. That's a big difference compared to the "on the books" illegal immigrants.

That's not true in every case. But even so, they don't receive the amount of benefits either.

 

[Eminence]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

I mentioned there was an element of racism in some of the attitudes towards this issue, and I was attacked for it. Here it is. Can anyone deny that what Eminence is expressing here is a popular sentiment among many Trump supporters?

Eminence and Trump. Step back and think on that.

Youre talking about the likely GOP nominee for President. Step back and think on THAT.

You're ostensibly trying to debate these people on positions. It's a waste of time they're incapable of reason.

No, we're more than capable. You simply can't accept that there are different strokes for different folks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

You earlier were saying you are for absolutely no regulation of the border.

That position is the mirror image to Trump's totally deporting everyone.

This is inaccurate. What I wrote was that there was no possible way to make the border completely secure, and I didn't see the point in wasting money on it. However, I am willing to compromise.

No, wrong.

You propose no regulation. That is you cannot say you will set limits to immigration and you will propose no means for enforcing or ensuring those limits. That would be compromise.

You consider enforcing the law unacceptable and impossible. That's an extremist position, it really is.

 

[nittanylion]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

The only thing Tim HASN'T advocated for yet is giving illegal immigrants the right to vote. But I'm sure that's coming up soon in a future post of his.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

 

[Valjean]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

Do you think Israel should open it's borders?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

Do you think Israel should open it's borders?

No. I don't think we should either BTW.

 

[Valjean]

Ok since I am new to your games. Should everything you are saying regarding U.S. Immigration apply to how Israel deals with it's Immigration issues?

 

[timschochet]

Ok since I am new to your games. Should everything you are saying regarding U.S. Immigration apply to how Israel deals with it's Immigration issues?

No. And there's no game on my part. And the situations are completely different.

 

[timschochet]

So silly to bring up Israel. If Canada, Mexico, and every country south of Mexico was at war with us and pledged to our utter destruction, I would have a very different view about immigration.

 

[Ladsud]

So silly to bring up Israel. If Canada, Mexico, and every country south of Mexico was at war with us and pledged to our utter destruction, I would have a very different view about immigration.

Maybe it would help their foreign policy if they werent so racist.

 

[Valjean]

Why? Israel is not at war. I am sure they need workers. Illegal Immigrants surly would help their economy.

I believe Israel like all nations should be permitted to control it's borders. Once again Tim, what other laws should we ignore?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I simply don't understand how the heck we have illegals that pay taxes.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I simply don't understand how the heck we have illegals that pay taxes.

Illegal uses a fake SS# to get a job, employer takes payroll taxes out of his paycheck.

Also, state and local taxes like sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

You are always carving out unique properties to persons or nations whose practices you defend. All nations are bound by the same international laws, that is indeed international law and the philosophy of nations.

You find reasons why nations and persons are not bound by the law and basically your argument is they are not bound by the law, period. It is a syllogism which is indefensible. Here you are abrogating the very definition of nationhood, which is also indefensible. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. You are to the far left of Sanders here.

 

[Valjean]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

Do you think Israel should open it's borders?

No. I don't think we should either BTW.

Tim, you remind me of the Governor in the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas", It explains why you are a big fan of Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cULr4gcOlN8

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

You are always carving out unique properties to persons or nations whose practices you defend. All nations are bound by the same international laws, that is indeed international law and the philosophy of nations.

You find reasons why nations and persons are not bound by the law and basically your argument is they are not bound by the law, period. It is a syllogism which is indefensible. Here you are abrogating the very definition of nationhood, which is also indefensible. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. You are to the far left of Sanders here.

Actually I'm to the RIGHT of Sanders. The concept of free trade and open borders is a distinctly libertarian, capitalist idea. That's why you won't find it advocated by Mother Jones, but you will in Reason magazine.

 

[RCon]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

1. Devil is in the details, obviously.

2. Legal status. I would agree. No fine required, IMO.

2. Deportation for felonies. I assumed this was a given, not part of a negotiation.

2. Access to public schools. I would prefer a fee associated with this. Public schooling is expensive.

2. Access to public health benefits. I'm not sure what this means.

2. The citizenship issue. This is really the crux. Let's say the agreement is no citizenship, ever, for those who came here illegally, including those who came here legally but stayed illegally (for some period of more than N days), but children born here in the future are citizens. Questions/comments/requirements...

a. How do we prevent illegals currently here from returning home, then coming "legally", and claiming they weren't here previously?

b. Legal guest workers (or whatever you wish to call them) cannot be eligible for social safety net benefits.

c. Future illegal immigrants (including those here now who choose not to "come out of the shadows") would be deported, no questions asked.

3. Meh. I'd rather focus on massive crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals, or subvert minimum wage laws (regardless of whether the recipient is legal or not).

Finally, "your side" would need to convince me that you'd actually hold up your end of the bargain this time.

1. Of course. But this is all talk. It's ironic to me that accuse me of not being willing to compromise, when it's the conservatives who have rejected all deals on this issue. They would reject your idea too, because you're at least willing to give illegals some kind of legal status. They would call you "pro-amnesty" and link you with me as an "open borders" person.

2A.It's a given for me.

2B, They did commit a crime by coming here. There has to be some kind of punishment. I believe in a lawful society. Therefore, a fine is appropriate.

2C. They do pay a fee for public education already. It's called taxes.

2D. Public health means treating those who are at public health risk, such as TB.

2E. a. I don't know. Enforcement is not my concern.

b. It depends on what you mean by "safety net." If they pay taxes, they should be as eligible as anyone else.

c. No. If more illegals come, they can pay a fine too and stay. I'll never agree to a "NOW we deport everyone" position.

3. No. The businesses who hire illegals benefit our society by doing so. No punishment for them, now or ever. That would be the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Finally, I would need to see some willingness from "your side" that you are willing to accept legal recognition of the undocumented before I agree to anything.

You do understand how compromise works, right? I give you something you want (that you don't already have), and you do the same in reverse. So, in this faux negotiation, what are you giving me that I want and don't already have?

 

[dparker713]

I simply don't understand how the heck we have illegals that pay taxes.

It's a lot harder for the poor to avoid taxes than the rich

 

[dparker713]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

You are always carving out unique properties to persons or nations whose practices you defend. All nations are bound by the same international laws, that is indeed international law and the philosophy of nations.

You find reasons why nations and persons are not bound by the law and basically your argument is they are not bound by the law, period. It is a syllogism which is indefensible. Here you are abrogating the very definition of nationhood, which is also indefensible. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. You are to the far left of Sanders here.

Actually no nation is bound by international law

 

[timschochet]

After all Saints, who really wants amnesty, free immigration and free trade? Not Democrats. They're only promoting this issue because they know it gets them Latino votes. Otherwise they'd never be for it, because it threatens unions and minimum wage.

No, the people who are really for this are Republicans- not the base, mind you, but the Republican establishment, the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, corporate America. All the people that everyone on both sides love to demonize and whom I have been vigorously defending since the start of this election cycle. Are you really surprised by my position? I've repeated again and again where I stand and why I stand there.

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

1. Devil is in the details, obviously.

2. Legal status. I would agree. No fine required, IMO.

2. Deportation for felonies. I assumed this was a given, not part of a negotiation.

2. Access to public schools. I would prefer a fee associated with this. Public schooling is expensive.

2. Access to public health benefits. I'm not sure what this means.

2. The citizenship issue. This is really the crux. Let's say the agreement is no citizenship, ever, for those who came here illegally, including those who came here legally but stayed illegally (for some period of more than N days), but children born here in the future are citizens. Questions/comments/requirements...

a. How do we prevent illegals currently here from returning home, then coming "legally", and claiming they weren't here previously?

b. Legal guest workers (or whatever you wish to call them) cannot be eligible for social safety net benefits.

c. Future illegal immigrants (including those here now who choose not to "come out of the shadows") would be deported, no questions asked.

3. Meh. I'd rather focus on massive crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals, or subvert minimum wage laws (regardless of whether the recipient is legal or not).

Finally, "your side" would need to convince me that you'd actually hold up your end of the bargain this time.

1. Of course. But this is all talk. It's ironic to me that accuse me of not being willing to compromise, when it's the conservatives who have rejected all deals on this issue. They would reject your idea too, because you're at least willing to give illegals some kind of legal status. They would call you "pro-amnesty" and link you with me as an "open borders" person.

2A.It's a given for me.

2B, They did commit a crime by coming here. There has to be some kind of punishment. I believe in a lawful society. Therefore, a fine is appropriate.

2C. They do pay a fee for public education already. It's called taxes.

2D. Public health means treating those who are at public health risk, such as TB.

2E. a. I don't know. Enforcement is not my concern.

b. It depends on what you mean by "safety net." If they pay taxes, they should be as eligible as anyone else.

c. No. If more illegals come, they can pay a fine too and stay. I'll never agree to a "NOW we deport everyone" position.

3. No. The businesses who hire illegals benefit our society by doing so. No punishment for them, now or ever. That would be the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Finally, I would need to see some willingness from "your side" that you are willing to accept legal recognition of the undocumented before I agree to anything.

You do understand how compromise works, right? I give you something you want (that you don't already have), and you do the same in reverse. So, in this faux negotiation, what are you giving me that I want and don't already have?

You wanted no citizenship. You're getting that. Be happy!

And Rich, lets be honest: if it were up to you and me to decide, I'd probably compromise a whole lot more and I suspect you would too. We're reasonable folks, we'd get a deal done. But it's not up to us.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I simply don't understand how the heck we have illegals that pay taxes.

Illegal uses a fake SS# to get a job, employer takes payroll taxes out of his paycheck.

Also, state and local taxes like sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

I get sales tax. No paperwork involved. I should have specified income taxes. In order for an illegal to pay income taxes somebody knows about it.

 

[RCon]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

1. Devil is in the details, obviously.

2. Legal status. I would agree. No fine required, IMO.

2. Deportation for felonies. I assumed this was a given, not part of a negotiation.

2. Access to public schools. I would prefer a fee associated with this. Public schooling is expensive.

2. Access to public health benefits. I'm not sure what this means.

2. The citizenship issue. This is really the crux. Let's say the agreement is no citizenship, ever, for those who came here illegally, including those who came here legally but stayed illegally (for some period of more than N days), but children born here in the future are citizens. Questions/comments/requirements...

a. How do we prevent illegals currently here from returning home, then coming "legally", and claiming they weren't here previously?

b. Legal guest workers (or whatever you wish to call them) cannot be eligible for social safety net benefits.

c. Future illegal immigrants (including those here now who choose not to "come out of the shadows") would be deported, no questions asked.

3. Meh. I'd rather focus on massive crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals, or subvert minimum wage laws (regardless of whether the recipient is legal or not).

Finally, "your side" would need to convince me that you'd actually hold up your end of the bargain this time.

1. Of course. But this is all talk. It's ironic to me that accuse me of not being willing to compromise, when it's the conservatives who have rejected all deals on this issue. They would reject your idea too, because you're at least willing to give illegals some kind of legal status. They would call you "pro-amnesty" and link you with me as an "open borders" person.

2A.It's a given for me.

2B, They did commit a crime by coming here. There has to be some kind of punishment. I believe in a lawful society. Therefore, a fine is appropriate.

2C. They do pay a fee for public education already. It's called taxes.

2D. Public health means treating those who are at public health risk, such as TB.

2E. a. I don't know. Enforcement is not my concern.

b. It depends on what you mean by "safety net." If they pay taxes, they should be as eligible as anyone else.

c. No. If more illegals come, they can pay a fine too and stay. I'll never agree to a "NOW we deport everyone" position.

3. No. The businesses who hire illegals benefit our society by doing so. No punishment for them, now or ever. That would be the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Finally, I would need to see some willingness from "your side" that you are willing to accept legal recognition of the undocumented before I agree to anything.

You do understand how compromise works, right? I give you something you want (that you don't already have), and you do the same in reverse. So, in this faux negotiation, what are you giving me that I want and don't already have?

You wanted no citizenship. You're getting that. Be happy!

And Rich, lets be honest: if it were up to you and me to decide, I'd probably compromise a whole lot more and I suspect you would too. We're reasonable folks, we'd get a deal done. But it's not up to us.

I already have "no citizenship". If we're making a deal, you have to offer something I don't already have.

If it were up to you and me to decide, you'd take what I've already offered. There's literally nothing left for me to offer other than total capitulation.

If the GOP offered this, Obama would also take it. Otherwise, the GOP would all of a sudden be the pro-Latino party and Democrats would never win another election. The GOP should offer something similar, and by "offer", I mean pass a bill granting legal status with a bunch of restrictions and dare Obama to veto it.

 

[dparker713]

Otherwise, the GOP would all of a sudden be the pro-Latino party and Democrats would never win another election.

If either party is on the brink of becoming irrelevant nationally, it's not the democrats.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

You are always carving out unique properties to persons or nations whose practices you defend. All nations are bound by the same international laws, that is indeed international law and the philosophy of nations.

You find reasons why nations and persons are not bound by the law and basically your argument is they are not bound by the law, period. It is a syllogism which is indefensible. Here you are abrogating the very definition of nationhood, which is also indefensible. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. You are to the far left of Sanders here.

Actually no nation is bound by international law

And yet it exists. Mexico respects our border and we respect theirs. And we both definitely acknowledge it exists.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

After all Saints, who really wants amnesty, free immigration and free trade? Not Democrats. They're only promoting this issue because they know it gets them Latino votes. Otherwise they'd never be for it, because it threatens unions and minimum wage.

No, the people who are really for this are Republicans- not the base, mind you, but the Republican establishment, the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, corporate America. All the people that everyone on both sides love to demonize and whom I have been vigorously defending since the start of this election cycle. Are you really surprised by my position? I've repeated again and again where I stand and why I stand there.

I don't think this was directed at me, I haven't been discussing these points.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I believe that Citizenship in a sovereign nation is an honor and a privilege that is to be jealously guarded and protected. I also believe that any sovereign nation is defined, above all else, by easily recognized and defined national language, culture and borders.

Am I correct in understanding that you don't value Citizenship and nationhood in those regards?

No I don't. I regard the United States as unique among nations in that there is sovereignty as you defined it, no official language, and no culture. There are borders but there shouldn't be IMO ideally.

You are always carving out unique properties to persons or nations whose practices you defend. All nations are bound by the same international laws, that is indeed international law and the philosophy of nations.

You find reasons why nations and persons are not bound by the law and basically your argument is they are not bound by the law, period. It is a syllogism which is indefensible. Here you are abrogating the very definition of nationhood, which is also indefensible. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. You are to the far left of Sanders here.

Actually I'm to the RIGHT of Sanders. The concept of free trade and open borders is a distinctly libertarian, capitalist idea. That's why you won't find it advocated by Mother Jones, but you will in Reason magazine.

No, you are to his left, or to the far anarchist right of Trump.

Sanders disputed that. "You’ve got to be careful about defining the word, ‘immigrants,’” he said. “What they are talking about is completely opening up the border. That was the question, should we have a completely open border, so that anybody can come into the United States of America. If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that was substantially lower wages in this country.

"When you have 36 percent of Hispanic kids in this country who can’t find jobs, and you bring a lot of unskilled workers into this country, what do you think happens to that 36 percent of kids who are today unemployed? Fifty-one percent of African-American kids? I don’t think there’s any presidential candidate, none, who thinks we should open up the borders," said Sanders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/30/bernie-sanders-criticizes-open-borders-at-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce/

Elsewhere Sanders pointed out the essence of nations are their borders, he is almost quasi-nationalist on it.

Opening the border, Sanders declared, "would make everybody in America poorer --you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that." The Senator from Vermont added "what right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour. That would be great for them. I don't believe in that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/bernie-and-immigration-re_b_8846046.html

So you are very much out of the bounds of centrism here.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Otherwise, the GOP would all of a sudden be the pro-Latino party and Democrats would never win another election.

If either party is on the brink of becoming irrelevant nationally, it's not the democrats.

You guys said the same thing back in 2006 when you swept the elections and shouted that the GOP was dead and irrelevant. Yet here we are today, controlling most State Governorships and State Legislatures as well as 2/3 of Federal government.

 

[Eminence]

America for Americans.

 

[dparker713]

Otherwise, the GOP would all of a sudden be the pro-Latino party and Democrats would never win another election.

If either party is on the brink of becoming irrelevant nationally, it's not the democrats.

You guys said the same thing back in 2006 when you swept the elections and shouted that the GOP was dead and irrelevant. Yet here we are today, controlling most State Governorships and State Legislatures as well as 2/3 of Federal government.

I'm not a democrat. I say that because there is no path to victory once Texas turns purple.

 

[The Commish]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated. What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

Then what?Let's say all this happens and we address every individual here illegally today is addressed. Happy yes? We've now coalesced the system. What is your attitude towards those that come illegally going forward?

Eta: to be clear, I am asking this based on what you will settle for not your ideal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

America for Americans.

(Originally an Aztec quote).

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Looks like I'm about to win a Week 17 Fantasy Championship with a $300 prize. I'm now waiting on $1,100 in gambling payouts and fantasy payouts.

It's torture not having any money going tonight but maybe it's for the best. Week 17 can be a crapshoot. I'm gonna have hella money to blow on NFL props.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Eminence]

I thought I was in the wagering thread, my bad.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I thought I was in the wagering thread, my bad.

Shocking.

 

[timschochet]

Looks like I'm about to win a Week 17 Fantasy Championship with a $300 prize. I'm now waiting on $1,100 in gambling payouts and fantasy payouts.

It's torture not having any money going tonight but maybe it's for the best. Week 17 can be a crapshoot. I'm gonna have hella money to blow on NFL props.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Its illegal?

 

[RCon]

Otherwise, the GOP would all of a sudden be the pro-Latino party and Democrats would never win another election.

If either party is on the brink of becoming irrelevant nationally, it's not the democrats.

I realize that. If, however, the Latino vote suddenly flipped to 90% GOP, it would be the reverse.

 

[The Commish]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated. What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

Then what?Let's say all this happens and we address every individual here illegally today is addressed. Happy yes? We've now coalesced the system. What is your attitude towards those that come illegally going forward?

Eta: to be clear, I am asking this based on what you will settle for not your ideal.

this is your change at genuine discussion Tim

 

[cstu]

3. Increased border control.

Then what?Let's say all this happens and we address every individual here illegally today is addressed. Happy yes? We've now coalesced the system. What is your attitude towards those that come illegally going forward?

Until the border is secured then anyone who crosses the border becomes legal. Maybe Republicans would actually try to secure the border then.

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated. What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

Then what?Let's say all this happens and we address every individual here illegally today is addressed. Happy yes? We've now coalesced the system. What is your attitude towards those that come illegally going forward?

Eta: to be clear, I am asking this based on what you will settle for not your ideal.

My honest answer is that if our economy continues to have long term growth (and we all should hope it will) illegals will continue to come. When they reach large numbers we'll end up doing this all over again.

 

[The Commish]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated.What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

Then what?Let's say all this happens and we address every individual here illegally today is addressed. Happy yes? We've now coalesced the system. What is your attitude towards those that come illegally going forward?

Eta: to be clear, I am asking this based on what you will settle for not your ideal.

My honest answer is that if our economy continues to have long term growth (and we all should hope it will) illegals will continue to come. When they reach large numbers we'll end up doing this all over again.

So then your "compromise" is nothing more than a sham. You'll settle for nothing less than open borders to all. Fair? Or is there a point to the compromise even though you have no interest in enforcing the laws as written.

 

[RCon]

I think we've proven, in several threads now, that timschochet has no interest in compromise on this issue.

Edit: In his defense, as he points out, this is all theoretical, since none of us are elected officials deciding these matters.

 

[timschochet]

I think we've proven, in several threads now, that timschochet has no interest in compromise on this issue.

Edit: In his defense, as he points out, this is all theoretical, since none of us are elected officials deciding these matters.

This is not true. According to you (and now the Commish) unless I am willing to shut down all future illegal immigration, I am unwilling to compromise.

Sure, I could agree that from this point forward, we'll deport anybody who comes here illegally. But the reality is we can't, because they'll continue to sneak in. And in 20 or 30 years we will have several million again so we'll have to do the same thing. That's the reality.