Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
This is why your discussions go the way they do. Everyone justifies their disrespectful posts including you. This thread made it to post 2 before the normal crazies came in.
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)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Can we get some opinions on ratings (out of 10) for how this discussion went?
timschochet
Footballguy
Its very rare that I call somebody a racist. When I do, I don't regard it as disrespectful. It can't be disrespectful if it's true.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
People post things about you or others they believe to be true. True or not it's not "respectful discussion" so don't complain when the thread turns into another cesspool if you can't be above it either.
timschochet
Footballguy
I wouldn't have done it in this thread. In other threads I felt it was warranted. In any case, I disagree with you; I would say that 99% of the discussion in this thread on this topic has been respectful and I'm grateful for that. It's been pleasant to read.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
In didn't say it wasn't. I'm saying if you start highlighting past events and making things personal with someone it's going to become another cesspool. Don't ruin your own thread responding to posters instead of points
squistion
Footballguy
That is correct and it has to be really beyond the pale for you to label someone a racist. I can recall SIDA talking about his white pride and (white) nationalism and how those of Northern European heritage were superior to the indigenous people of this continent that they conquered - yet you wouldn't categorize him as racist despite some comments that I didn't think could not be viewed in any other way.
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
Some people on the left, myself included understand that in theory, illegal immigrants should not be here and that if they are, they should be removed.
But just like everything else theoretical, when reality meets theory, things get complicated very quickly.
Many immigrants contribute significantly to a local economy. Many have been here for years and/or decades. Many have kids. Many are folks we actually would want in the country as they are law-abiding, contributing members of society. We've long held as a nation that we're richer culturally, societally, economically, and more by including more diverse folks who want to work hard into our society. Many immigrants do this.
So basically it boils down to, we have millions of illegal immigrants in our country...do we deport them? Do we have them live in fear of deportation if they're contributing, successful members of society? Do we have them fear to contact our law enforcement communities because they're in fear of being deported? Do we want to break up families who have been here for a very long time?
Some may say yes, but most on the left say no...that while they need to be held responsible for breaking the law, we can do that with compassion and have them pay a penalty of some kind and move to the back of the line for legalization/citizenship. Most of us don't find a huge problem with this, nor do we have a problem with focusing on violent immigrant offenders and deporting them, even if they have families in many cases.
We also acknowledge that our immigration system is somewhat flawed. We haven't been keeping up with changing situations throughout the world and we've been rather stagnant, which does a disservice to immigrants who we actually would want to have come in. Worker visas? Refugees? We need to be able to have a realistic and grounded discussion about how to handle them and then actually DO SOMETHING about it. But for many years now, we have had an inability to gain the political will to actually work to resolve this problem...there are those in a certain political group that benefit from this problem lingering on and using it as a wedge for their purposes, which is part of the reason, cyncially imo, that they haven't acted...it's too useful a tool.
But the short answer is that we have a problem with deporting illegal immigrants because it's not just that easy. Illegal immigrants are a class that encompasses a lot of complex people, situations, both family, economically, politically, culturally, legally and for those who say we should just deport them all, I think diving into the issue, and gaining a broader understanding of how the immigrant classes break down would be helpful in seeing a bit more nuance in the situation.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
There is a line, but it may seem inconveniently long based on the perspectives of those who want to emigrate to this country.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Don't be silly. It's disrespectful to call an ex girlfriend a fat ####, even if it's true.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I haven't finished this thread, so I don't know if anybody corrected you, but you ought to know that isn't how Social Security works. Like, at all.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I feel sure that people who take this legalistic framework of viewing the problem and use it as literally their only justification for policies have absolutely zero idea what it is like to be born and live in a place like Chiapas or Honduras.
derek245583
Footballguy
I was not born nor have I ever lived in those places.
I dont understand your point.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Can you explain? If they end up counted as social security earnings, wouldn't they be included in the taxpayer's AIME for computation of future benefits?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
What good comes from it? Do you think he will be shamed and change his behavior based upon your assessment. Do you think the name calling is the insight into his belief system he needs to change? Or are you venting? Are you indulging yourself at the understood risk you likely have made his mind now unreachable due to your need to express yourself.
squistion
Footballguy
Kamala Harris @SenKamalaHarris 2h2 hours ago
Talking publicly about fears of deportation is not a crime
and should not get someone detained.#ICERaids
Talking publicly about fears of deportation is not a crime
and should not get someone detained.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
If you lived in extreme poverty in a dangerous place you might consider breaking an immigration law to make life better for you and your family.
I wouldn't think that it would be hard for people to have empathy for others who made that choice, but apparently I am wrong because "laws are laws".
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Being an illegal is an assumed risk. Would I steal food if I had no other means of feeding my family? In a heartbeat. But I wouldn't whine if I got caught. I assumed the risk & decided that it was worth it.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
If you could press a magic button and all of the undocumented/illegal residents of this country would be gone instantly, with no real cost to taxpayers, would you press it? If so, why or why not?
If you did press it, what do you think the impact would be on the economy, the fiscal situation of the US, etc.?
timschochet
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Answer to question 1: yes
Answer to question 2: no impact, because of the bolded.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
If the first bolded statement held true, the second one could not happen.
Absent changes in border control, immigration reform & "unlimited" pushes, it would be a waste of time & human capital to push the button.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I meant direct cost of implementation. That is totally separate from economic impacts.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
As BowieMercs points out, that button has no value if they're all just going to come back after pushing it.
But IMHO, if they were all removed from our economy, prices would go up... and I don't think that's a bad thing at all (despite Tim's assumption that lower prices are always good).
Prices would go up because a lot of industries would have to pay higher wages to keep their labor pools filled. That would lift a ton of people who are here LEGALLY out of poverty.
But IMHO, if they were all removed from our economy, prices would go up... and I don't think that's a bad thing at all (despite Tim's assumption that lower prices are always good).
Prices would go up because a lot of industries would have to pay higher wages to keep their labor pools filled. That would lift a ton of people who are here LEGALLY out of poverty.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Prices of some things would go up dramatically and there would be upward wage pressures in some areas, but the aggregate loss of demand of however many millions of people would also be extremely destructive to a lot of service and retail businesses, leading to lots of layoffs as well. Vacancy rates in some areas would skyrocket too.
It would be an unmitigated disaster.
And if you want to argue that higher prices are good for consumers, be my guest. I'd love to hear your logic and explanations, even if I already know it to be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I was going to, but when I read the bolded, I decided to just say to you... #### YOU!
To others who might be interested, Low prices created by new operational efficiencies and advancements in technology are good for consumers. So are high prices for cutting edge goods and services. Society as a whole benefits when prices are determined by societal advancements. On the other hand low prices created by desperation are NOT good for consumers. Nor are high prices created by desperation. While these prices may by "natural" and therefore considered "correct" by Ayn Rand disciples, the negative effects prices determined by desperation has on society are overwhelming. This is why price gouging and minimum wage laws exist.
If our current prices are resulting from businesses exploiting the desperation of illegal immigrants, it's not good for society as a whole. Fixing the situation would result in higher prices, but those prices would be good as they are not occurring due to exploitation of the desperate.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
So the collective utility of 300+ million people aren't negative impacted if consumer prices rise, for the right reasons.
That is something I never learned in studying economics.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
If you can link to where I said laws should be based on empathy, I'll mail you a crisp $50 bill.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Oh, and most of the Trump supporters have been pleasant enough. Leave it to a bitter Bernie bro to get testy when his fictional economic theories are challenged.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I'll press it for him. Why, because we eithe3r are or are not a country based on law. If the rule of law is subject to being overridden by emotional appeal we have no law. It the law is wrong we change it, we do not ignore it, or at least we should. The more frequently we forget his the more in danger we are of losing that which makes us as Americans us. BTW that is what makes this country worth sneaking into.
What would happen to the economy, it would be a short term disruption and disaster. something on the scale of a Katrina or a Mt. St. Helens but less than the attack on Pearl Harbor. We would adjust quickly with Americans taking up the slack and with congress forced to get off of their ### and actually pass a sensible work visa program in short order. It would actually serve to fix things. It would end this endless debate and perhaps nothing else would. What I don't suppose is we would be paralyzed into inaction leading to eventual starvation. I suppose deep down we are still a resilient people, though I acknowledge I have some doubts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, you weren't implying that? What were you implying than with the empathy remarks against another poster wanting strong immigration laws?
timschochet
Footballguy
You've made this argument several times now. I say it's historically flawed. Let me offer some examples:
1. The abolitionists who helped slaves escape through the Underground Railroad.
2. American soldiers who deserted rather than take part in the eradication of Native Americans (documented in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.)
3. The Civil Rights marchers who, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, engaged in civil disobedience.
In each of these and many other cases in our history, the rule of law was NOT upheld, and America was better off for it. Furthermore, in none of these instances did disobedience to the existing law lead to "no law" as you are warning about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
And each of those examples was intolerable, coming naturally to a head, a crisis, changing the laws. They too had to resolve lawfully or dissolve our country. I do not argue that law is immutable. I am often arguing for change, lawful change, responsible participation in lawful change, even of the Constitution. You consistently argue for disregarding the law, disregarding the Constitution.
It is precisely when it is difficult that we need to honor the law. Even Dr. King urged lawfulness while engaging, ironically, in civil disobedience. As for the underground railroad, well that was a time when the law itself was at odds with itself, but it was important that the law was rectified and restored. Important enough that we paid dearly in blood to accomplish the necessary task.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
You are mistaken; Dr. King did not urge lawfulness; he urged nonviolent disobedience of the law.
And again, per your arguments, the abolitionists should have returned the escaped slaves to slavery, and then tried to legally change the law.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
You miss the point, intentionally. Dr. King targeted specific laws and even then the point was that our system could not tolerate the law not being honored. He urged disobedience of only targeted laws. He feared general lawlessness. Feared what it might mean for his people. It forced a change, but it was a reasoned change to align our laws with core constitutional principals. It was not conceding defeat through lack of will, to acquiesce to the imposition of non-citizens out of laziness, and to change the law not out of constitutional principal. The one was an upholding of the rule of law against unconstitutional abuses which took time to recognize. The other, expedience to correct a lack of past diligence and out of cowardice to live to our convictions. Yes we justify it as compassion, but the compassion of joining in our society can just as well be distributed by us, lawfully. The stories and names of the recipients will change, but the compassion need not go away as is so often pretended.
In my world I hold Trump to the laws and Fernando Trujillo Vigil, and Kevin Flynn and Nopodahl Techapochoweki. I want Trump to be answerable to his financial disclosure obligations, to our campaign laws and laws about foreign investments and entanglements. I want him to not abuse his authority and to propose action in conformity with the law. I want Mr. Vigil to wait his turn in coming to this country. I want Mr. Flynn to return to his country when his student visa expires and Mr. Techapocowekil to be able to come here on a hardship visa for the medical procedure only available here and to escape the religious persecution of an ongoing genocidal campaign against his people. When Mr. Vigil's number is called I want him welcomed fully, not subject to abuse and use by unscrupulous contractors to do difficult work away from the light of safety regs and code inspections to line the pockets of thoughtless profiteers.
We can, by honoring the law allow any and all good that might come from immigration while reaffirming what makes us great. By dishonoring it we foster an environment where the law loses its moral legitimacy. We lose who we are. We have already lost much. I would not see us loose it all simply because some refuse to see that the goals they seek can be achieved, lawfully.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
As for historically flawed, our unique history is so short, in the affairs of man, that it might not yet even be a statistically significant sample. We have seen our system on the brink from lack of respect for the law. We fortunately have not yet had it destroy us, but that does not mean it will not.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Imagine citing matters often considered to be the essence of constitutional crisis as evidence the law can be disobeyed when convenient. I suppose it was not a big deal that Nixon shredded our constitution, and that it was restored, thankfully, by a consensus developed in our country that our law had meaning and none wee above it.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Good discussion DW, we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect what you're saying, but I don't see the slippery slope that you do.
In any case, I need to reiterate that I am NOT in favor of lawlessness. I would have most of these people (the ones who are not felons) pay a fine. Granted, my method of punishment is not the same as yours, but it is punishment nonetheless. I am not proposing that we simply let them get away with it.
In any case, I need to reiterate that I am NOT in favor of lawlessness. I would have most of these people (the ones who are not felons) pay a fine. Granted, my method of punishment is not the same as yours, but it is punishment nonetheless. I am not proposing that we simply let them get away with it.
otello
Footballguy
From January to December 2014, Mexico deported 107,199 Central Americans immigrants by land, while the U.S. only deported 104,688 illegal immigrants during that time period. Of those deported by land from Mexico, 43,456 are from Honduras, 41, 731 are from Guatemala, 20,988 are from El Salvador and 1,024 are from Nicaragua, information released by the Guatemalan Migration Office to Mexican news outlets reveals.
otello
Footballguy
Mexico's legal immigration policies are designed to provide the country with the skill sets that the country needs. There's no talk of letting in those who'll do the work that Mexicans won't do. Mexican immigration law accepts those who have the "necessary funds for their sustenance" while denying entry to those who are not healthy or would "upset the equilibrium of the national demographics."…
There will be no fundamental transformation of Mexico under the Mexican constitution. While we invite illegal immigration with jobs, service in the U.S. military, driver's licenses and discounted college tuition denied U.S. citizens from another state, Mexico slams the door.
Article 32 of Mexico's constitution bans non-native-born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country's military in peacetime. Article 33 gives the president of Mexico the right to deport foreigners at will without the deportation hearing that 90% of our illegals fail to show up for. Foreigners are prohibited from participating in Mexican politics "in any way."
There will be no fundamental transformation of Mexico under the Mexican constitution. While we invite illegal immigration with jobs, service in the U.S. military, driver's licenses and discounted college tuition denied U.S. citizens from another state, Mexico slams the door.
Article 32 of Mexico's constitution bans non-native-born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country's military in peacetime. Article 33 gives the president of Mexico the right to deport foreigners at will without the deportation hearing that 90% of our illegals fail to show up for. Foreigners are prohibited from participating in Mexican politics "in any way."
otello
Footballguy
In Mexico, legal immigration is aimed at privileging lawful arrivals with skill sets that aid the Mexican economy and, according to the country's immigration law, who have the "necessary funds for their sustenance" -- while denying entry to those who are not healthy or would upset the "equilibrium of the national demographics." Translated, that idea of demographic equilibrium apparently means that Mexico tries to withhold citizen status from those who do not look like Mexicans or have little skills to make money.
If the United States were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage.
If the United States were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage.
otello
Footballguy
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91)….
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working without a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91)….
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working without a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
