What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Biden will propose a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-15/biden-to-send-congress-bill-to-legalize-11-million-immigrants-who-lack-documentation%3f_amp=true

In another thread I wrote that it would be awesome if this passed and I was asked why. 

First, because these people aren’t going anywhere. And the exact opposite of what Trump said when he ran for President is true: they are for the most part our best people: our hardest workers, who want better lives for their children. And some, I assume, are bad people. So let’s bring them into the system. They should have to pay some kind of small penalty for the misdemeanor crime of coming here without papers. But after that, the money they will pour into social security alone will be worth it. As for the bad ones, arrest them, deport them, whatever. Statistics suggest they’re a tiny minority anyhow. 

Second, from what I’m reading this bill doesn’t make the mistake of previous path to citizenship bills by combining this issue with more security on our border as a means to appease conservatives. Most conservatives can’t be appeased on this issue, they are opposed; that’s why they chose a man like Trump to be their President. That’s too bad, maybe someday they will return to the views of Ronald Reagan, but in the meantime while the Democrats have the majority, however slight, they should try to get this done; it’s long overdue. If the result is the public perception of overreach and a Republican wave election in 2022, it will have been worth it. 

Third, President Trump really damaged our world image on this issue especially. A huge part of American exceptionalism is that we are a nation of immigrants, and always have been: some with papers, some without. We welcome all; that’s essential to what has made the United States the greatest nation in world history. We need to reclaim that, and because of the way Trump behaved, now is the time. 

 
We're going to need the people if we're going to try to keep China from knocking us off the perch of number one policy maker country in the world.  There was REAL shortsightedness with the Trump Administration in regards to this.

 
Good.  This is a moral issue.  It is immoral for us to close our borders to people who want a better life for themselves and their children.   If Jesus was alive today, he would absolutely be in favor of the US allowing more immigration as a moral issue.   My close friends who are true Christians are the strongest advocates I know on this topic.

 
Good.  This is a moral issue.  It is immoral for us to close our borders to people who want a better life for themselves and their children.   If Jesus was alive today, he would absolutely be in favor of the US allowing more immigration as a moral issue.   My close friends who are true Christians are the strongest advocates I know on this topic.
So you want open borders for all, correct?  

 
“All” is a tricky word.  We need some basic vetting process.  And we need a way to kick out people who arrive here and decide to commit crimes.  But yes, I’m in favor of essentially open borders.  
Just wondering as I have seen a lot of people who think we should let anyone in no matter what.  

 
Good.  This is a moral issue.  It is immoral for us to close our borders to people who want a better life for themselves and their children.   If Jesus was alive today, he would absolutely be in favor of the US allowing more immigration as a moral issue.   My close friends who are true Christians are the strongest advocates I know on this topic.
I don't know about all that.

I think people that are here and established should be made citizens as sending them back would be very disruptive and cruel.

But there are situations where people could do more good working to improve the country they are in instead of running away to the US.  If a situation is crazy unstable and dangerous, then absolutely, we should welcome them with open arms.  But if someone is just wanting to gain a better economic opportunity, that is hardly a moral reason to allow them to immigrate.

 
I don't know about all that.

I think people that are here and established should be made citizens as sending them back would be very disruptive and cruel.

But there are situations where people could do more good working to improve the country they are in instead of running away to the US.  If a situation is crazy unstable and dangerous, then absolutely, we should welcome them with open arms.  But if someone is just wanting to gain a better economic opportunity, that is hardly a moral reason to allow them to immigrate.
Who are you to limit someone from having the same opportunities that you have?

Edit to add:   I grew up in Green Bay, WI.  Left there to seek a better economic opportunity.  Is it wrong that I didn't stay and try to improve the city/state where I grew up?  How is this any different, other than as an artificial construct?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a hardliner when it comes to immigration, but I do think that this "path to citizenship" business is too much. "Path to second class status" is about all I'm willing to get on board with.

 
it to add:   I grew up in Green Bay, WI.  Left there to seek a better economic opportunity.  Is it wrong that I didn't stay and try to improve the city/state where I grew up?  How is this any different, other than as an artificial construct?
Uhm...you're a US Citizen.  The other guy isn't.

 
I'm not a hardliner when it comes to immigration, but I do think that this "path to citizenship" business is too much. "Path to second class status" is about all I'm willing to get on board with.
I’m assuming you didn’t read the article.  Takes 5 years as a permanent legal resident (your “second class citizen”) to begin a three year path to obtaining citizenship.  

 
Can't imagine this passes with the narrow majorities.  Good political theatre, will help him some with his base for not being able to go as hard left as some would want him to.  Good politics, very unlikely to pass in reality.

 
100% against unless/until step up enforcement and security measures + quotas/qualifying guidelines for future immigration based on sound rationale (i.e. future U.S. population growth) + eliminate sanctuary cities, etc.

Can't just address the part of the problem that appeals to your base. It's just the inverse of the Trump policy so this will go nowhere.

 
100% against unless/until step up enforcement and security measures + quotas/qualifying guidelines for future immigration based on sound rationale (i.e. future U.S. population growth) + eliminate sanctuary cities, etc.

Can't just address the part of the problem that appeals to your base. It's just the inverse of the Trump policy so this will go nowhere.
You seem to have missed the election.

 
For those against giving a path to citizenship, what's the reason for your opposition to it? Especially if they are already here, why wouldn't you want them to become citizens and contribute their taxes and productivity?

 
My university, where I'm an accounting professor (look at me, I know debits and credits), is officially a Hispanic-serving institution because of the large percentage of Hispanic students.  (We're in a near-west suburb of Chicago and draw those students from the city and the nearby suburbs.)  As a result, I know quite a number of students who will be affected by this issue. I've seen their struggles through the years, and more recently experienced their fears when ICE was unleashed.

These are fine young people who are effectively no different than any one of us. Why would we deny them the opportunities we had, or our parents, or grandparents?  Not to mention all those already serving in the military; as first-responders, social workers, shop owners, professional staff, clergy.  What are we afraid of?  Give them the path to citizenship.  It's been too long in coming.

 
For those against giving a path to citizenship, what's the reason for your opposition to it? Especially if they are already here, why wouldn't you want them to become citizens and contribute their taxes and productivity?
People who came here illegally should not get the same reward as those who came here legally. If you want to be a citizen, then you should leave and then apply to come back.

If you're willing to accept permanent noncitizen status, then you can stay.

 
For those against giving a path to citizenship, what's the reason for your opposition to it? Especially if they are already here, why wouldn't you want them to become citizens and contribute their taxes and productivity?
By definition an undocumented immigrant has bypassed the legal immigration process. At least 11 million times.

So unless a solution to the source problem is addressed, I'm opposed to only addressing the symptoms of the problem.

 
For those against giving a path to citizenship, what's the reason for your opposition to it? Especially if they are already here, why wouldn't you want them to become citizens and contribute their taxes and productivity?
I can answer this question I think as I’ve talked to so many of these folks over the years. Most of them are not racist, though a minority are. There are two basic objections: 

First, just like the objection to paying off student debt: they oppose it because it’s fundamentally unfair. It’s unfair to those who came here the “right way” (through legal means) and to those still waiting to do so. It’s effectively rewarding people who broke the law and cut in line, and that’s unjust. Although I disagree with this stance I can empathize with it and respect the integrity of those who offer it. 
The second objection is more practical: these are mostly poor people. Thus the fear that as legal citizens they will take out more from the government than they contribute: many believe they already do. And we as a society can’t afford it. Again while I disagree with this perspective it’s not negligible. 

 
People who came here illegally should not get the same reward as those who came here legally. If you want to be a citizen, then you should leave and then apply to come back.

If you're willing to accept permanent noncitizen status, then you can stay.
This is a path to become citizens legally. It's not a short or easy path. So why are opposed to that?

But aside from the legality of it, why are people opposed to others coming to the US and becoming citizens?  

 
By definition an undocumented immigrant has bypassed the legal immigration process. At least 11 million times.

So unless a solution to the source problem is addressed, I'm opposed to only addressing the symptoms of the problem.
What was the process for being admitted into the US when your ancestors arrived here?

 
People who came here illegally should not get the same reward as those who came here legally. If you want to be a citizen, then you should leave and then apply to come back.

If you're willing to accept permanent noncitizen status, then you can stay.


What was the process for being admitted into the US when your ancestors arrived here?

 
People who came here illegally should not get the same reward as those who came here legally. If you want to be a citizen, then you should leave and then apply to come back.

If you're willing to accept permanent noncitizen status, then you can stay.
What was the process for being admitted into the US when your ancestors arrived here?
Who cares about the old system? Like I said before: I'm not a hardliner. I don't want to close the border. I don't want to ban people of color. I understand that this country needs a low-paid working class in order for us to thrive. I just don't think that the workers who came here illegally should be rewarded with the exact same prize that we give to people who follow the rules.

If you're a lib, you should be looking for ways to compromise with the other side, because if you force "amnesty" down our throats then you just may find that your side is the minority party in 2 years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who cares about the old system? Like I said before: I'm not a hardliner. I don't want to close the border. I don't want to ban people of color. I understand that this country needs a low-paid working class in order for us to thrive. I just don't think that the workers who came here illegally should be rewarded with the exact same prize that we give to people who follow the rules.

If you're a lib, you should be looking for ways to compromise with the other side, because if you force "amnesty" down our throats then you just may find that yourself as the minority party in 2 years.
No disagreement.  I’m a pragmatist.

 
Irrelevant
It’s not irrelevant.  Telling people “why don’t you follow the rules” is absurd when the rules today have been constrained so narrowly......compared to most US citizens today......whose ancestors had to wash up on the shore and get a medical test, nothing more.   It’s absolutely crazy.  And hypocritical.

 
Who are you to limit someone from having the same opportunities that you have?

Edit to add:   I grew up in Green Bay, WI.  Left there to seek a better economic opportunity.  Is it wrong that I didn't stay and try to improve the city/state where I grew up?  How is this any different, other than as an artificial construct?
Our federal government has a responsibility to its citizenry first.  What we do for the citizens of other nations is a gigantic grey area and is not a clean cut issue of morality.

The responsibility of government is not congruent with Christian morality and that belief is not Biblical nor a good idea secularly.  If you want to make government fulfill the Christian mission, then you need to present people with the gospel of Jesus and provide for the needs of the church and its work.  To provide people with better financial opportunity is not a question of morality nor has anything to do with Christianity.  Provide for the basic needs of fellow humans? Absolutely a Christian requirement.  Give people a chance to improve their quality of life and gain wealth and comfort?  That's for governments to sort out and has nothing to do with Jesus or morality.

 
Our federal government has a responsibility to its citizenry first.  What we do for the citizens of other nations is a gigantic grey area and is not a clean cut issue of morality.

The responsibility of government is not congruent with Christian morality and that belief is not Biblical nor a good idea secularly.  If you want to make government fulfill the Christian mission, then you need to present people with the gospel of Jesus and provide for the needs of the church and its work.  To provide people with better financial opportunity is not a question of morality nor has anything to do with Christianity.  Provide for the basic needs of fellow humans? Absolutely a Christian requirement.  Give people a chance to improve their quality of life and gain wealth and comfort?  That's for governments to sort out and has nothing to do with Jesus or morality.
I’m not lobbying the government.  I’m lobbying my fellow citizens - many of whom claim to be followers of Christ’s teachings.

 
I’m not lobbying the government.  I’m lobbying my fellow citizens - many of whom claim to be followers of Christ’s teachings.
Christ's teachings are primarily about the condition of the heart/soul and our relationship with God the Father.

You are likely thinking of the parables of the sheep and the goats and the good Samaratin which talk of individual responsibilty to the people they come in contact with regarding the most basic of human needs.

However, there is nothing regarding equality of economic opportunity for large groups of people or nations.  The world of the New Testament was much more harsh and cruel than our world today and there are no large directives about making things fair or equal opportunity.

All that said, we Christian's need to be a much more compassionate group and I mostly agree with the concept of a more open immigration.  I just object to the argument that it is a moral imperative for Christians to support open immigration policies.

 
Christ's teachings are primarily about the condition of the heart/soul and our relationship with God the Father.

You are likely thinking of the parables of the sheep and the goats and the good Samaratin which talk of individual responsibilty to the people they come in contact with regarding the most basic of human needs.

However, there is nothing regarding equality of economic opportunity for large groups of people or nations.  The world of the New Testament was much more harsh and cruel than our world today and there are no large directives about making things fair or equal opportunity.

All that said, we Christian's need to be a much more compassionate group and I mostly agree with the concept of a more open immigration.  I just object to the argument that it is a moral imperative for Christians to support open immigration policies.
Fair enough Jayrod.  Appreciate the respectful disagree and apologies if I’m asserting my own interpretations too strongly.  I trust your reading of scripture more than my own.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 
By definition an undocumented immigrant has bypassed the legal immigration process. At least 11 million times.

So unless a solution to the source problem is addressed, I'm opposed to only addressing the symptoms of the problem.
The emphasis is on the children who were brought into the country ...DACA.  They had no say in the matter.  Their parents brought them or they were born here.

 
The emphasis is on the children who were brought into the country ...DACA.  They had no say in the matter.  Their parents brought them or they were born here.
Biden's proposal is for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Please help me understand how carving out DACA as a subset addresses the source problem of how the 11 million (minus roughly 700K DACA) arrived here in the first place.

 
Biden's proposal is for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Please help me understand how carving out DACA as a subset addresses the source problem of how the 11 million (minus roughly 700K DACA) arrived here in the first place.
Because we need the labor so we’ve turned the other way while grandstanding about immigration reform since the Reagan era.

 
Awesome. So far you've labeled any opposition crazy, hypocritical, un-Christian...and now irrational and nationalist. Move along, troll.
Wow.  That’s......an extreme reaction.  Wow.

Edit to add:  You are way over-interpreting my comments.  There is no reason to use the term “troll.”  I’m here to sincerely discuss the topic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex P Keaton said:
Because we have a slightly irrational nationalist bent as a populace?
We also have a slightly irrational socialist/communist bent as a populace too.  What to do?  :shrug:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top