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.

Amnesty for all - Biden plan (2 Viewers)

Stealthycat

Stealthycat

Footballguy
Are ya'll for or against such a plan ?

Here is my problems with this - and always has been with Clinton, Bush's, Obama and Trump ........... it rewards for being here illegally #1 but #2, it doesn't do anything to stop future illegals. Reagan did the amnesty thing - and our Govt has failed its citizens miserably.

Clinton, Bush, Obama didn't stop this massive problem, Trump didn't nor did any of the Congress's in the past 25 years

Part of me says amnesty is a way to stop the illegals from being here. Sending them all back is another way. I'd like to see a hefty fine for each person staying and claiming citizenship - a compensation for the years of being here illegally. That'd offset some of the massive costs that's going to be needed to stop all future illegally here people

If I knew, 100%, that they would stop 95% of all future illegally here people, I'd be on-board. But I know they won't , history shows us that

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.
Click to expand...








https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-biden-citizenship-illegal-immigrants

The White House on Tuesday reaffirmed that President Biden backs a controversial plan to create a pathway to citizenship to at least 11 million illegal immigrants -- as the White House and congressional Democrats are expected to formally unveil a sweeping immigration bill as soon as this week.

"There certainly is part of the proposal that the president outlined and proposed on Day One that is an earned pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said

A pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants in the country has long been a top item on liberal wishlists, and Biden promised such a plan if elected. Estimates generally put the illegal immigrant population at about 11 million, although others suggest that could be higher.

The proposal, sketched out by the administration on Inauguration Day, would include an 8-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants -- a path that includes a five year path to a green card and a three-year path to citizenship after background checks and other steps.

It would also give farmworkers, along with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immediate green card eligibility. They would then be eligible for citizenship three years later.

The bill, which also includes provisions to stem the flow of migration by addressing root causes of migration from south of the border, as well as some border security measures, faces an uncertain path to becoming law -- particularly in the Senate, where it would need 10 Republican votes.

Republicans in that chamber have slammed the bill, with Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell calling it a "massive proposal for blanket amnesty that would gut enforcement of American laws while creating huge new incentives for people to rush here illegally at the same time."

 
Stealthycat said:
by addressing root causes of migration from south of the border
Click to expand...
What in God's name does this entail?

What, foreign aid to developing countries with no hope of being paid back nor the efficacy of it debated?

This sounds like pie-in-the-sky thinking already.

 
rockaction said:
What in God's name does this entail?

What, foreign aid to developing countries with no hope of being paid back nor the efficacy of it debated?

This sounds like pie-in-the-sky thinking already.
Click to expand...
IIRC Biden is going to give central American countries US taxpayer dollars in hopes that those crooked Govts that have stomped their people into severe poverty will improve their countries .... which is laughable to me.

If it were me? I'd tell Mexico they stop the people at their southern border and if they don't we will stop all travel to Mexico, trade to Mexico, funding to Mexico - everything. THAT would make a difference I think

 
"Pathway for 11 million" is not the same as "amnesty for all". I suspect that you knew that but decided to push forward with a bad faith description anyway.

BTW, I oppose amnesty for all and I oppose a pathway to citizenship.

I do, however, support an expansion of work visas. This country needs reliable cheap labor.

 
I oppose any amnesty plan, however, I would suggest having illegal immigrants already here pay a fine that can be spread out over paychecks, get them onto tax rolls so they can start paying taxes, getting them on a pathway to citizenship(more for the taxes again), and if they commit a crime, they start the process over again, depending upon the severity of the crime. Violent crime gets the person deported, and they can’t try again.

 
Kal El said:
I oppose any amnesty plan, however, I would suggest having illegal immigrants already here pay a fine that can be spread out over paychecks, get them onto tax rolls so they can start paying taxes, getting them on a pathway to citizenship(more for the taxes again), and if they commit a crime, they start the process over again, depending upon the severity of the crime. Violent crime gets the person deported, and they can’t try again.
Click to expand...
How about we weed out the criminals as the FIRST step?

 
Kal El said:
So you’re going to round up millions of people, deport them, and cripple several industries in the process? My idea was for those already here, new arrivals have to do it legally.
Click to expand...
How would we "cripple" industries?  And you're essentially "rounding" them up by giving them a path to get on the tax rolls.  Once they make that application we make sure it isn't some scumbag.

 
Stealthycat said:
IIRC Biden is going to give central American countries US taxpayer dollars in hopes that those crooked Govts that have stomped their people into severe poverty will improve their countries .... which is laughable to me.

If it were me? I'd tell Mexico they stop the people at their southern border and if they don't we will stop all travel to Mexico, trade to Mexico, funding to Mexico - everything. THAT would make a difference I think
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

 
BladeRunner said:
How would we "cripple" industries?  And you're essentially "rounding" them up by giving them a path to get on the tax rolls.  Once they make that application we make sure it isn't some scumbag.
Click to expand...
Do you know who harvests our agriculture? A lot of the people doing it are likely undocumented, because nobody else will do it.

Background checks would be part of the process, keep in mind that all of this is off the top of the dome.

 
rockaction said:
Dude, it's like we know the arguments for immigration and amnesty. Why paste a 101 about them here? Exactly from how on high are you delivering the documents?

JFC.
Click to expand...
First of all, is it necessary to make your point with such a condescending attitude? 

Second, there are posters here that have argued that illegal immigrants are a drain on our society and economy, that they take our jobs, and perpetuate the myths listed in the link I posted. It's been a huge talking point for Trump and his base. So that link isn't for someone such as yourself that's aware of "immigration 101".  It wouldn't be hard to find posts claiming the opposite of the facts in those articles. 

 
No big surprise I’m for a path to citizenship. No point in arguing it though: like @rockaction I already know all of the arguments, pro and con. I could recite them by heart. 
The only point I would make this is: we’re never going to round up and deport 11 million people. So the question is, if we’re not going to give them a path to citizenship, then what? Status quo? 

 
gianmarco said:
First of all, is it necessary to make your point with such a condescending attitude?
Click to expand...
Funny, but that's sort of what I was getting at. You posted a 101 primer with the intent that they should read the articles and accept the premises upon which to debate or something, presumably because they didn't know any better before.

I found that a bit condescending, and responded in turn.

And those articles, I'll bet, are hardly solely based upon pure fact. They're likely stats thrown behind an op-ed about immigration. I've read tons of the type of articles that do that.

 
timschochet said:
So the question is, if we’re not going to give them a path to citizenship, then what? Status quo? 
Click to expand...
isn't there a path to citizenship right now - legally ?

the illegally here people didn't want to follow the rules currently in place, right?  

 
don't mistake - the Fed Govt absolutely could round up most illegals and ship them back - absolutely

the problem is #1 there is nothing to stop them from coming right back over

until the southern border is secure the problem will NEVER go away - and this Biden administration has been crystal clear its going to relax the border

the comments on needing cheap labor is funny too, considering Democrats want $15 an hour for some of the most unskilled labor in North America :(   

 
Sea Duck said:
"Pathway for 11 million" is not the same as "amnesty for all". I suspect that you knew that but decided to push forward with a bad faith description anyway.
Click to expand...
the article was labeled that 

 
rockaction said:
Funny, but that's sort of what I was getting at. You posted a 101 primer with the intent that they should read the articles and accept the premises upon which to debate or something, presumably because they didn't know any better before.

I found that a bit condescending, and responded in turn.

And those articles, I'll bet, are hardly solely based upon pure fact. They're likely stats thrown behind an op-ed about immigration. I've read tons of the type of articles that do that.
Click to expand...
They are always disingenuous at best. They either rely on stats about legal immigrants or they dont assign any increased costs. Or both. 

 
Stealthycat said:
Sea Duck said:
"Pathway for 11 million" is not the same as "amnesty for all". I suspect that you knew that but decided to push forward with a bad faith description anyway.
Click to expand...
the article was labeled that 
Click to expand...
Actually, the article used the phrase "blanket amnesty", but it was only in reference to part of a quote from Mitch McConnell. I suspect you knew that but decided to push forward with bad faith anyway.

 
Sea Duck said:
"Pathway for 11 million" is not the same as "amnesty for all". I suspect that you knew that but decided to push forward with a bad faith description anyway.

BTW, I oppose amnesty for all and I oppose a pathway to citizenship.

I do, however, support an expansion of work visas. This country needs reliable cheap labor.
Click to expand...
I would be ok with a path to citizenship for the DACA kids.  I'd be ok with a path to legal status for some of the long term illegal residents here (though not citizenship, ever - you don't reward bad behavior).  All that after we plug the sieve that is the southern border so as not to cause a mad rush into the country.

Kal El said:
Do you know who harvests our agriculture? A lot of the people doing it are likely undocumented, because nobody else will do it.
Click to expand...
Robotics will take care of this in the next few years - the demand for this kind of labor will plummet.

 
Apple Jack said:
Mexico >>> many US states
Click to expand...
Whatever you think the worst US state is, Mexico is way, way worse than that state.  Unless you're already pretty rich, in which case I'm sure Mexico is a pretty nice place to carve out a comfortable life.

That's why we have a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico but Mexico does not have any corresponding problem of illegal immigration from the US.

 
Stealthycat said:
don't mistake - the Fed Govt absolutely could round up most illegals and ship them back - absolutely

the problem is #1 there is nothing to stop them from coming right back over

until the southern border is secure the problem will NEVER go away - and this Biden administration has been crystal clear its going to relax the border

the comments on needing cheap labor is funny too, considering Democrats want $15 an hour for some of the most unskilled labor in North America :(   
Click to expand...
Exactly, or have no problem buying cheap crap from China.  

 
FairWarning said:
Exactly, or have no problem buying cheap crap from China.  
Click to expand...


Stealthycat said:
don't mistake - the Fed Govt absolutely could round up most illegals and ship them back - absolutely

the problem is #1 there is nothing to stop them from coming right back over

until the southern border is secure the problem will NEVER go away - and this Biden administration has been crystal clear its going to relax the border

the comments on needing cheap labor is funny too, considering Democrats want $15 an hour for some of the most unskilled labor in North America :(   
Click to expand...
If there is any question about how to do it.   The Chinese communists are great at it.    Joe can call on his Chinese buddies.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Whatever you think the worst US state is, Mexico is way, way worse than that state.  Unless you're already pretty rich, in which case I'm sure Mexico is a pretty nice place to carve out a comfortable life.

That's why we have a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico but Mexico does not have any corresponding problem of illegal immigration from the US.
Click to expand...
Currently looking for a place in PVR.

 
So I’ve been thinking a lot more about this. There’s no way Biden’s plan is going to pass, much as I’d love to see it. He doesn’t have the votes. Manchin won’t support it, or Sinema, and he won’t have a single Republican. 
So what’s the point? It appears to be a sop to the progressives: “hey we tried”. 

 
timschochet said:
So I’ve been thinking a lot more about this. There’s no way Biden’s plan is going to pass, much as I’d love to see it. He doesn’t have the votes. Manchin won’t support it, or Sinema, and he won’t have a single Republican. 
So what’s the point? It appears to be a sop to the progressives: “hey we tried”. 
Click to expand...
This will be the result of most initiatives that don't go anywhere. Progressive priorities that are dead ends with any number of dems will vanish. The right wing boogeyman right now is a figment of their imagination. 

Since republicans have dug their heels in on more of the same from the last 4 years I think it'll be fascinating to see how all other factions respond to this inevitability.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Whatever you think the worst US state is, Mexico is way, way worse than that state.  Unless you're already pretty rich, in which case I'm sure Mexico is a pretty nice place to carve out a comfortable life.

That's why we have a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico but Mexico does not have any corresponding problem of illegal immigration from the US.
Click to expand...
That pretty much describes any country south of the border.   The minority of the wealthy and the people in power live large while the majority live like paupers.  

 
My wife is a naturalized US citizen. Her two adult children cannot even get a tourist visa into the US.

So yeah, I have a pretty big problem with any kind of amnesty for illegals.  

 
E Street Brat said:
My wife is a naturalized US citizen. Her two adult children cannot even get a tourist visa into the US.

So yeah, I have a pretty big problem with any kind of amnesty for illegals.  
Click to expand...
This is essentially the same argument that gets made against relieving student loans: “I paid off my loan; why should they get a break?” 
Putting aside the specific issues regarding amnesty and relieving loans, it would be a mistake for society to legislate based on fairness. Rather than ask “is this idea fair or unfair?” the question should be “does this idea benefit us?” 

 
timschochet said:
This is essentially the same argument that gets made against relieving student loans: “I paid off my loan; why should they get a break?” 
Putting aside the specific issues regarding amnesty and relieving loans, it would be a mistake for society to legislate based on fairness. Rather than ask “is this idea fair or unfair?” the question should be “does this idea benefit us?” 
Click to expand...
Again, you keep trying to make "fetch" happen. Something isn't going to happen because you repeat it enough. Fairness is an integral part of the respect for rule of law. Where fairness fails, people look at the law as not a neutral arbiter, but as something that doles out winners and losers arbitrarily. This undercuts the primacy and seriousness of the law because it erodes its legitimacy. Surely you can understand that? Where fairness is important?

To wit: What if we had separate sentences for differing races accused of the same crime? 10 years for whites, 5 for blacks, 8 for Latinx, and so on. You'd have a massive outcry about fairness. Why? Because those who toil under the law expect to be treated similarly to others under the law. That's why student debt is fraught with problems and perverse incentives. You just don't see, see a benefit in the distance, and want to bulldoze over every point against its eventual path. That's short-sighted, reckless, and undercuts the rule of law in the mind of the people who have to abide it.

 
rockaction said:
Again, you keep trying to make "fetch" happen. Something isn't going to happen because you repeat it enough. Fairness is an integral part of the respect for rule of law. Where fairness fails, people look at the law as not a neutral arbiter, but as something that doles out winners and losers arbitrarily. This undercuts the primacy and seriousness of the law because it erodes its legitimacy. Surely you can understand that? Where fairness is important?

To wit: What if we had separate sentences for differing races accused of the same crime? 10 years for whites, 5 for blacks, 8 for Latinx, and so on. You'd have a massive outcry about fairness. Why? Because those who toil under the law expect to be treated similarly to others under the law. That's why student debt is fraught with problems and perverse incentives. You just don't see, see a benefit in the distance, and want to bulldoze over every point against its eventual path. That's short-sighted, reckless, and undercuts the rule of law in the mind of the people who have to abide it.
Click to expand...
But we already pass unfair laws all the time.  Why do energy corporations get subsidies and my small business does not? Why do we have Affirmative Action? I could go on and on. Unfairness is a very subjective notion. I don’t think it should be the basis for passing or not passing legislation. 

 
timschochet said:
But we already pass unfair laws all the time.  Why do energy corporations get subsidies and my small business does not? Why do we have Affirmative Action? I could go on and on. Unfairness is a very subjective notion. I don’t think it should be the basis for passing or not passing legislation. 
Click to expand...
We pass unfair laws to the extent that we hold our nose and tolerate said laws. I think you'll find universal agreement about the desire for fair laws as opposed to laws that choose winners and losers arbitrarily. Even when there are unfair laws that are passed to the great benefit of many  -- think bailouts of banks -- they're passed with serious reservations and strings attached to make them fair, or at least accountable to those who make and support the laws, at least in theory. It's why we still call ourselves a democracy rather than autocracy or plutocracy or oligarchy or any of the -cracies and -archys. Everyone, we believe, is subject to a dispassionate law that is consistent, non-arbitrary, and as fixed and knowable as can be.

 
rockaction said:
Generally speaking, the two move in concert.
Click to expand...
In an ideal scenario, of course. Black and white problems generally have simple solutions, which is why most decision making is in the gray. Where right and fair don't necessarily co-exist.

 
MAC_32 said:
In an ideal scenario, of course. Black and white problems generally have simple solutions, which is why most decision making is in the gray. Where right and fair don't necessarily co-exist.
Click to expand...
This isn't about binaries or black-and-white vs. shades of grey. It's not that reductive. Fairness in the law moves almost in lockstep with law's legitimacy. The problem here is looking at utility as "right." That is what I think you're saying here. Allow me to put words in your mouth. Utility -- that which benefits society the most -- and fairness often don't move together, that is true. But the "right" policy isn't always utile. I think we need to get our definitions straight before proceeding. You're using a term colloquially that has a definite meaning in political philosophy. That something is colloquially the "right" thing to do encompasses a whole host of things. Something can be "right" because it enhances freedom. It can be "right" because it increases utility. It is "right" because it promotes fairness. It can be "right" because it recognizes rights. These second terms are the ones that need be compared to the other. Rights, utility, justice, freedom -- those are the things we thing of when we use the colloquial "right thing to do."

I think you're going for utility here and judging an increase in societal benefit as "good" or "the right thing." Indeed, utility and fairness do not often move lockstep.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dinsy Ejotuz
Senator TILLIS (R-NC) Proposes Serious Immigration Compromise
2
Replies
71
Views
2K
dkp993
dkp993
timschochet
A Day Without Immigrants- Protests planned for February 14
2
Replies
88
Views
2K
Stealthycat
Stealthycat
GordonGekko
(Media Optics) Should Biden Apologize To Border Patrol For False Migrant Whipping Claims? (4/19/22 18:50PST)
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top