What's new
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!

Respectful discussion and debate with Trump supporters requested: Topic # 1 Undocumented immigration (1 Viewer)

Been thinking a bit more about this thread since I read it. During my first week as house painter, I did not fit in very well. The other guys sensed I was different in some way.

However, I did bring my own music and blue tooth speaker and thus earned a little respect in that regard, but not much.

Well, one day I was playing Santana's Samba Pa Ti. When the song finished, one of the undocumented roofers came down and asked me something I could not fully understand...but it ended with "Samba Pa Ti?"

I answered, "Oui."

He replied: :confused:

Then, I shook my head and said, "Sí."

He gave me a hug right in the middle of 4 different work crews...all staring at this point.

To this day, I really do not know why he hugged me, but it is still the only hug I have ever gotten on a job site, and I have really have fit in since then.

I want this guy to stay. :)
See? I would have blurted out something snarky like "No samba pa ti, manos ala obra."  </sambaNazi> 

 
I wouldnt think trump supporters would be interested at all in discussing this topic.  The election decided the issue. 

 
"you play to win the game"
Thank you for making my point. Winning the election but losing the popular vote doesn't settle any issue when a greater number of Americans voted against your candidate than for him.  To continue the football game analogy, Eli Manning beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, but that didn't settle the issue as to who was the better QB even though he won the game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for making my point. Winning the election but losing the popular vote doesn't settle any issue when a greater number of Americans voted against your candidate than for him.  To continue the football game analogy, Eli Manning beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, but that didn't settle the issue as to who was the better QB even though he won the game.
:lmao:

 
Thank you for making my point. Winning the election but losing the popular vote doesn't settle any issue when a greater number of Americans voted against your candidate than for him.  To continue the football game analogy, Eli Manning beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, but that didn't settle the issue as to who was the better QB even though he won the game.
Stick to pigeons. 

 
Thank you for making my point. Winning the election but losing the popular vote doesn't settle any issue when a greater number of Americans voted against your candidate than for him.  To continue the football game analogy, Eli Manning beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, but that didn't settle the issue as to who was the better QB even though he won the game.
:unsure:

 
Cool.

I was once a scofflaw, but now I carry more respect for the law.  

That doesn't mean I agree with all law, now...though.

Thus, I like the ideas floated by the guys that give pass to those who have already passed and have shown quality...

...but recognize the need to remain diligent and assure that law is law...

...and that others aren't unfairly passed by future passers.

It's not an easy lane to steer, but I am just a passenger here.

I'll give my weight to the driver's that seem to make the most sense.

 
Thank you for making my point. Winning the election but losing the popular vote doesn't settle any issue when a greater number of Americans voted against your candidate than for him.  To continue the football game analogy, Eli Manning beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, but that didn't settle the issue as to who was the better QB even though he won the game.
Brady would rather win the Superbowl than win a debate about who is the better QB. 

 
JohnnyU said:
Perhaps, but when you are accepting of letting anyone cross and you're OK with it, then my definition isn't wrong.
Just for clarification, Johnny U-

What I personally mean by open borders is that we should change our immigration laws to allow entry for anyone who is not a criminal, terrorist, or public health risk. This is what we basically had before the mid 1920s, though Asian immigration was more strictly limited. 

And again, this is a conservative notion, not a liberal one (unless you mean liberal in the classic sense.) True capitalism and individual freedom, which are the cornerstones of the modern conservative movement, demand both free trade and free movement of peoples. This is why Donald Trump cannot call himself a conservative (but I can). 

 
squistion said:
Not according to the popular vote. :coffee:
I think Trump supporters would argue the TOTALITY of events has settled this.  The republicans control the White House with 300+ EVs, they control both Houses of congress.  They control a large majority of state governorship posts.  They control a large majority of state legislatures.  The issue of illegal immigration is absolutely settled and anyone trying to argue for popular vote is saying they just want to change the rules after the decision has been made.

Furthermore, Trump supporters can point out that Obamacare supporters didn't want to discuss the merits of Obamacare after Obama was elected.  At that point, we were just going to get Obamacare and elections have consequences.

I would be surprised if any Trump supporter even bothered to come in here and debate this issue.

 
Riversco said:
I wouldnt think trump supporters would be interested at all in discussing this topic.  The election decided the issue. 
I disagree with the premise that the election results decide any single issue because people that voted for Trump could still strongly disagree with him on any individual issue. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am sure this has been answered, so I am happy to take a link to the post, but why is it so important to go after illegal immigrants directly?

Why do I not hear more plans to target businesses/individuals who hire illegal immigrants?  That seems to be a much easier path to removing illegal immigrants.  Start throwing individuals and company owners/executives in jail and the job market for illegal immigrants would dry up significantly.  When the job market dries up - the immigrants will leave on their own.  

When we try to tackle the drug issue - law enforcement focuses most of the attention on the suppliers, not the users.  Why not pursue the same strategy here?  Going after the immigrants just comes across as xenophobic, when you ignore other solutions to the same "problem".
bump - anyone want to take a crack at this? 

Why not throw a few CEOs and hiring managers in jail for employing illegal immigrants?  

 
I disagree with the premise that the election results decide any single issue because people that voted for Trump could still strongly disagree with him on any individual issue. 
This is true despite several lefties here telling us that anyone that voted for trump supports every single thing he does or says. 

 
It's a uphill battle to get the bad hombres out with activist judges helping them

Link

Oregon judge faces scrutiny for allegedly helping illegal immigrant escape ICE | Fox News

Published March 03, 2017 

FoxNews.com

video

Judge accused of helping illegal immigrant elude ICE agents

An Oregon judge is being investigated after she allegedly helped an illegal immigrant elude ICE agents in January by guiding the man through a private entrance at the courthouse.

Continue Reading Below

Multnomah County Judge Monica Heeranz was notified by court staff that ICE agents were waiting outside her courtroom to possibly apprehend Diddier Pacheco Salazar, a 22-year-old Mexican national attending a DUI hearing, U.S. Attorney Billy Willaims said. 

Specific details about what happend inside the courtroom next is not clear. But Salazar reportedly somehow managed to leave the room using an employee exit.

"I prepped my client. I said, 'I don't know if they're going to pick you up outside or what, but here's how to prepare,'" John Schlosser, Salazar's court appointed lawyer, told a local paper. "After the court appearance, I went out in the hallway and sat. My client never came out. I can't say that I'm surprised he didn't come out, but I gave him his options, and assume he had to have been escorted out some other way."

Salazar was arrested two weeks after the incident.

ICE agents decided not to investigate Herranz, who is also on the board of directors of the Oregon Hispanic Bar Association, but Chief Judge Nan Waller is conducting an internal investigation.

Continue Reading Below

Waller told Fox 12 Oregon she wants to figure out what happened before discussing the situation.

Williams calls Herranz’s alleged actions troubling.

“When you’re talking about the judicial system – whether it’s federal or by state – you have an expectation that people are going to abide by the law and not take steps based on their own motivations, their own politics – whatever the motivation was.”

Click for more from Fox 12 Oregon.

“I felt that it was inappropriate and delegitimizes the work of ICE agents who are out there doing their jobs,” Williams said.

“I felt that it was inappropriate and delegitimizes the work of ICE agents who are out there doing their jobs,” Williams said.

 
bump - anyone want to take a crack at this? 

Why not throw a few CEOs and hiring managers in jail for employing illegal immigrants?  
You know why as well as I do. The illegals don't contribute heavily to political campaigns. 

Believe me when I tell you - owners of large construction companies do not want their labor deported, I don't care how Republican they claim to be. I suspect it's the same in the service industry. They know there would be a collapse in certain sectors of those industries. And I don't think it would be as short-term as some in this thread have claimed. There is not a ready-willing-and-able bench of non-illegals just waiting for a fair wage to perform many of these jobs. 

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Hold on...isn't this the respectful thread?

On immigration?

Did I F it up? :(
No....squis and the usual suspects who can't ignore his terrible analogies/arguments did....Time to close this one up and move on to the next.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't disagree but with that mindset time will tell on every decision so he's not doing well nor is he doing poorly because it's too early to judge. 
I don't know that I agree. There are some decisions that immediately change the landscape and cause fissures. I agree with Mercs that the stock market is better-viewed long-term - other stuff, not so much.

 
Judge shoots down Miami-Dade deportation policy adopted to follow Trump immigration order, per Miami Herald.

Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch wrote that the policy violated the Tenth Amendment, which limits the reach of the federal government over states. “Of course we must protect our country from the problems associated with unregulated immigration,” Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch wrote. “We must protect our country from a great many things; but from nothing so much as from the loss of our historic rights and liberties.”

The case was an undocumented man from Haiti who came legally after the earthquakes in Hiati (temporary protected status) but who eventually had felony arrests for driving repeatedly without a valid license. The county will appeal.

It's political as county mayor Gimenez agreed a few weeks ago to detain undocumented people until the feds could pick them up. His decision was very unpopular in Miami.    

 
So, nothing on the "new" EO?  Is the silence an admission that it's the same thing (as a matter of principle) but worded in a way to try and make it not seem the same?

 
So, nothing on the "new" EO?  Is the silence an admission that it's the same thing (as a matter of principle) but worded in a way to try and make it not seem the same?
Well first off it's not really on topic for this thread, which is about undocumented immigration. 

But as I wrote in the main Trump thread, I think it's shameful and un American. It may be legal now though- but even if it is so what? 

 
Well first off it's not really on topic for this thread, which is about undocumented immigration. 

But as I wrote in the main Trump thread, I think it's shameful and un American. It may be legal now though- but even if it is so what? 
What's the significant difference?  Nationality?

I don't see how it's any more legal now than it was the first time.  Nothing in principle has changed.  His comments and the history can't be undone.  Intent's a ##### when you're a blabbering idiot saying stupid #### every 5 minutes.  Nothing can undo that as far as I can see :shrug:  

 
What's the significant difference?  Nationality?

I don't see how it's any more legal now than it was the first time.  Nothing in principle has changed.  His comments and the history can't be undone.  Intent's a ##### when you're a blabbering idiot saying stupid #### every 5 minutes.  Nothing can undo that as far as I can see :shrug:  
Well the topic of this thread was about what to do with undocumented immigrants who are already here, along with possible ways to prevent more from coming here. People traveling here from other countries, along with refugees, are different topics (though somewhat related in terms of Trump's xenophobia, IMO.)

As to the legality of this travel ban, you're asking the wrong guy. I'm personally hoping it's just as illegal. I'm going by what I hear from experts on TV though, who say this one will probably get by the courts (of course, many said that the first time as well.)

 
From a few years ago, in honor of Open Borders Day:

Immigration: My Eyes Work Fine
Bryan Caplan
MARCH 16, 2014

Critics of my open borders advocacy often accuse me of intellectual blindness, of living in a fantasy world of my own creation.  So rather than rehash any of my arguments or review the academic evidence yet again, I'm going to celebrate Open Borders Day by listing the facts about immigration I see with my own two eyes.1. I see immigrants - legal and illegal - working hard, without complaining, struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families.2. I see immigrants - legal and illegal - contributing far more to the world than they could possibly have done at home.3. I see natives happy to hire and patronize immigrants - and rarely fretting about these immigrants' legal status.4. I see that people call me out of touch because I live in Fairfax instead of in a poor immigrant neighborhood.  But they don't think themselves out of touch because they live in America instead of the Third World.5. I see that almost all natives break the law on a regular basis.  Almost everyone drives over 55 mph on the freeway, for starters.  But few natives feel guilty about breaking laws that seem unreasonable, and almost no one wants to crack down on natives who break such laws.6. The typical illegal immigrant who "went back where he came from" would drastically reduce his family's standard of living and make the world a poorer place.  If following the 55 mph speed limit is unreasonable, so is following U.S. immigration law - to put it mildly.  But I see the same natives who break laws every day condemn illegal immigrants as criminals, and yearn to crack down on them.7. If the typical low-skilled immigrant stayed home and tried to improve his political system, he would have near-zero chance of success.  But I see that natives are quick to condemn immigrants for failing to reform their polities. 8. Virtually all of the complaints leveled against immigrants also apply to many natives.  I see that native women who enter the workforce make life harder for native men competing for the same jobs.  I see that low-income natives who have children cost taxpayers money.  I see that young natives vote overwhelmingly Democratic.9. These standard complaints about immigrants are widely viewed as a good reason to exile immigrants to their often wretched birth countries.  When the same complaints are leveled against natives, though, the standard reactions I see are apathy, fatalism, and even denial.10. The standard complaints about immigrants are widely treated as good reasons to exile virtually all immigrants to their often wretched birth countries - even when the specific complaint plainly doesn't apply to many immigrants.  For example, when people complain about immigrant crime, I never see them say, "Since young males commit virtually all serious crime, this is obviously only an argument against young male immigrants."11. Most arguments for immigration restriction are equally good arguments for government regulation of natives' fertility.  But I see that almost everyone favors immigration restrictions, and almost no one favors fertility restrictions.12. I see that almost everything immigrants do makes their critics angry.  The critics are angry when immigrants work, and angry when they're on welfare.  The critics are angry if immigrants are visible, and angry if immigrants keep to themselves.  The critics are angry if immigrants increase housing prices and angry if immigrants reduce housing prices.13. I see that human beings have a strong bias against out-groups - but partially restrain these biases to avoid social disapproval.14. I see that, in our society, this social disapproval is unusually mild when the out-group is current illegal immigrants, and near-zero when the out-group is would-be illegal immigrants.  Put it all together, and what do I see?  I see human beings without the good fortune to be born in the First World escaping poverty through honest toil.   I see these largely admirable people singled out for public scorn and legal persecution.  And I see that the reason for their ill-treatment is not that they're breaking the law, taking jobs, using welfare, or any other choice they make, but because the foreigners in our midst and the foreigners at the gates are the last easy outlets for out-group bias.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From a few years ago, in honor of Open Borders Day:

Immigration: My Eyes Work Fine
Bryan Caplan
MARCH 16, 2014

Critics of my open borders advocacy often accuse me of intellectual blindness, of living in a fantasy world of my own creation.  So rather than rehash any of my arguments or review the academic evidence yet again, I'm going to celebrate Open Borders Day by listing the facts about immigration I see with my own two eyes.1. I see immigrants - legal and illegal - working hard, without complaining, struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families.2. I see immigrants - legal and illegal - contributing far more to the world than they could possibly have done at home.3. I see natives happy to hire and patronize immigrants - and rarely fretting about these immigrants' legal status.4. I see that people call me out of touch because I live in Fairfax instead of in a poor immigrant neighborhood.  But they don't think themselves out of touch because they live in America instead of the Third World.5. I see that almost all natives break the law on a regular basis.  Almost everyone drives over 55 mph on the freeway, for starters.  But few natives feel guilty about breaking laws that seem unreasonable, and almost no one wants to crack down on natives who break such laws.6. The typical illegal immigrant who "went back where he came from" would drastically reduce his family's standard of living and make the world a poorer place.  If following the 55 mph speed limit is unreasonable, so is following U.S. immigration law - to put it mildly.  But I see the same natives who break laws every day condemn illegal immigrants as criminals, and yearn to crack down on them.7. If the typical low-skilled immigrant stayed home and tried to improve his political system, he would have near-zero chance of success.  But I see that natives are quick to condemn immigrants for failing to reform their polities. 8. Virtually all of the complaints leveled against immigrants also apply to many natives.  I see that native women who enter the workforce make life harder for native men competing for the same jobs.  I see that low-income natives who have children cost taxpayers money.  I see that young natives vote overwhelmingly Democratic.9. These standard complaints about immigrants are widely viewed as a good reason to exile immigrants to their often wretched birth countries.  When the same complaints are leveled against natives, though, the standard reactions I see are apathy, fatalism, and even denial.10. The standard complaints about immigrants are widely treated as good reasons to exile virtually all immigrants to their often wretched birth countries - even when the specific complaint plainly doesn't apply to many immigrants.  For example, when people complain about immigrant crime, I never see them say, "Since young males commit virtually all serious crime, this is obviously only an argument against young male immigrants."11. Most arguments for immigration restriction are equally good arguments for government regulation of natives' fertility.  But I see that almost everyone favors immigration restrictions, and almost no one favors fertility restrictions.12. I see that almost everything immigrants do makes their critics angry.  The critics are angry when immigrants work, and angry when they're on welfare.  The critics are angry if immigrants are visible, and angry if immigrants keep to themselves.  The critics are angry if immigrants increase housing prices and angry if immigrants reduce housing prices.13. I see that human beings have a strong bias against out-groups - but partially restrain these biases to avoid social disapproval.14. I see that, in our society, this social disapproval is unusually mild when the out-group is current illegal immigrants, and near-zero when the out-group is would-be illegal immigrants.  Put it all together, and what do I see?  I see human beings without the good fortune to be born in the First World escaping poverty through honest toil.   I see these largely admirable people singled out for public scorn and legal persecution.  And I see that the reason for their ill-treatment is not that they're breaking the law, taking jobs, using welfare, or any other choice they make, but because the foreigners in our midst and the foreigners at the gates are the last easy outlets for out-group bias.  
:blink:

 
LA Times Front Page this morning.

Nearly 20 years ago, Mark Reed, then a top boss for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, sent agents into Nebraska to crack down on meatpackers hiring immigrants who were in the country illegally.

Agents pored over records to ferret out forged documents or fake Social Security numbers, and thousands of workers, fearful of being caught without papers, fled the state.

Reed thought the effort, Operation Vanguard, could become a national model to shut down a magnet for illegal immigration, and he said as much to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) during a congressional hearing on immigration while Vanguard was underway.

“The neon light is on. It has been for decades, and that neon light is driven by jobs,” Reed testified. “As long as those jobs are available, those people are going to come in.”

Smith thought otherwise. “Deportation is the strongest deterrent to illegal immigration,” he said.

Soon after that 1999 hearing, political blowback prompted the agency to halt Operation Vanguard, and officials turned their focus to apprehending immigrants and militarizing the Southwest border.

In the years since, the government’s strategy hasn’t much changed.

In the never-ending political and rhetorical war over illegal immigration, immigrants usually have received most of the blame, while businesses have gotten a relative pass — from enforcement and vitriol alike.

“If you take hypocrisy and then put in a good dose of unintended consequences, you can see why we are in such a mess,” Reed, now semiretired, said of immigration enforcement.
For those who were doubting my argument that we had been exactly here before, we have.  Trump's policy is same old same old.  Doesn't work.

I repeat - we know how to stop illegal immigration.  The fact is we don't actually want it stopped.  So politicians build walls (yep we have already built walls) and put groups of people being deported on TV to make the public think we are doing something.  It does nothing. :no:  

Inspect and enforce policy where these workers are hired.  It is that easy.  It has been demonstrated. 

Also - that may or not be my Dad.  :humblebrag:

 
That LA Times website is a doozy, another snippet:

“When we did the amnesty in the mid-’80s and legalized everyone, we were supposed to seal the border and have a good guest-worker program and never have this problem again. If we had done that, we wouldn’t be here today. But they purposefully didn’t do any of it,” Reed said.

“The only thing IRCA did,” he added, “was legalize all these people and put a few lights and fencing out there on the southern border, and we never did anything with the jobs. We just let it get out of control.”

 
And the heart of it - Operation Vanguard:

Not long before Reed testified at the congressional hearing in July 1999, Nebraska's members of Congress had pushed for tougher immigration enforcement in their state. They summoned Meissner, Reed, then INS director of operations, and other agency officials.

“They were just darned tired of it,” Reed said of illegal immigration. “What were we going to do about protecting their state from this invasion? I think they were really concerned that their communities were being overrun by brown people.”

Previous enforcement efforts had focused on workers. For example, in July 1997, immigration officials detained about 100 workers during high-profile raids at two Nebraska meatpacking plants.

But Operation Vanguard targeted the employers, and after more than 3,500 workers fled as word of Vanguard spread, the officials who had urged Reed to step up enforcement complained that the effort was slowing down slaughter lines and having a negative effect on the state’s economy.

Reed said he also was told that the enforcement actions were “pulling the fabric of their community apart.”
”Turns out that these people — the workers — were part of the community,” he said. “Turns out these are the people who go to their church, the people they hang out at the bar with. And now they were leaving.”

Americans are used to cheap labor and goods, and it’s unclear whether they would be able to stomach a real crackdown on employers and the consequences that would follow, such as higher-priced produce and emptied communities, experts say.

“It’s time for a gut check,” Reed said. “We’ll see what America wants and what America doesn’t want.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top