This isn’t to VYAZMA because he doesn’t read my links anyway. I’ve already said this, but I’ll summarize again.
People crossing the border illegally are not “illegals”. I’m sure there’s a name for that logical fallacy. They committed a misdemeanor. There is a complex system of forms and laws for what they can do once they are here, including getting a temporary “SSN”. Part of the reason people are out of compliance is that it is so complex. So when you say “those are the laws”, you also have to include “this is how we are enforcing them”. I’m glad we aren’t quadrupling the cost of our justice system just so we can adjudicate more of these cases. I’m perfectly happy having a two-year waiting list for some kid that doesn’t know where her mother is. I would rather the money went to a shelter for them instead a salary for a government lawyer.
I’m pretty sure most of Congress wants to reform the system, but there is a vocal minority with the power to change elections based on how you vote on one issue. I’m pretty sure most Americans would support the reform, again, vocal minority creating misinformation. Immigration laws change all the time and we are in a more restrictive period than normal, so even saying that the current situation is that more people are streaming in now is out of touch with historic reality.
The argument that “these are the laws, therefore I’m on the side of what is right” is not a valid argument. If that were true, then slavery was right, burning at the stake was right, getting busted for a roach in your pocket was right. You can say that those people can be forgiven for having a different understanding based on their knowledge, but you can say it was right in the universal sense of the word “right”. If you want to argue that pointing guns at a bus load of children and yelling that they should go home is right, that’s your right, and I’ll defend your right to do it, but you’re wrong.
(I’m just saying that as an example. I don’t recall anyone here saying they support that particular action).
This isn't to VYAZMA because he doesn't read my links anyway. I've already said this, but I'll summarize again. People crossing the border illegally are not "illegals". I'm sure there's a name for that logical fallacy. They committed a misdemeanor. There is a complex system of forms and laws for what they can do once they are here, including getting a temporary "SSN". Part of the reason people are out of compliance is that it is so complex. So when you say "those are the laws", you also have to include "this is how we are enforcing them". I'm glad we aren't quadrupling the cost of our justice system just so we can adjudicate more of these cases. I'm perfectly happy having a two-year waiting list for some kid that doesn't know where her mother is. I would rather the money went to a shelter for them instead a salary for a government lawyer. I'm pretty sure most of Congress wants to reform the system, but there is a vocal minority with the power to change elections based on how you vote on one issue. I'm pretty sure most Americans would support the reform, again, vocal minority creating misinformation. Immigration laws change all the time and we are in a more restrictive period than normal, so even saying that the current situation is that more people are streaming in now is out of touch with historic reality. The argument that "these are the laws, therefore I'm on the side of what is right" is not a valid argument. If that were true, then slavery was right, burning at the stake was right, getting busted for a roach in your pocket was right. You can say that those people can be forgiven for having a different understanding based on their knowledge, but you can say it was right in the universal sense of the word "right". If you want to argue that pointing guns at a bus load of children and yelling that they should go home is right, that's your right, and I'll defend your right to do it, but you're wrong. (I'm just saying that as an example. I don't recall anyone here saying they support that particular action).The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular--in other countries, as well. Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you'd be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I'll bet you've been called worse things more than once.;) Lois
The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular--in other countries, as well. Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you'd be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I'll bet you've been called worse things more than once.;) LoisNot a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver? Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported. The term "illegal" is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working. They could have been hired legally and have a legal ITIN. But they are violating some immigration law. Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers? If you think I'm making this stuff up, you didn't read my earlier links.
I think Lois pretty much hit the nail on the head. Immigration can be a positive thing when the its done in an orderly fashion and the immigrant has something to contribute to their new country. On the other hand when immigration occurs at a pace that overwhelms the existing resources and social supports and when there is no filter on the type of individuals that are allowed to enter it can clearly be harmful. Letting a reasonable number of highly trained scientists and engineers immigrate could be a big plus, but allowing hoards of illiterate, uneducated and unemployed people in who quickly tap social services would be an enormous drain especially if there are some criminals sprinkled in among them. This is what legal immigration is all about. Its about a countries right to impose restrictions so that immigration will be beneficial and not harmful. Illegal immigration removes the safeguards that protect a country from harmful immigration.The idea of resources being overwhelmed seems central to Lois' argument. It is valid as an argument for having an immigration policy. It does NOT apply to the current situation of Central America children arriving at our southern border. I'm not sure when it has ever applied to any real situation in this country. Bill Moyers on refugees] Please describe a situation where it does not apply. If our resources are overwhelmed with unaccompanied minors on the border, what are we to do? If these children wind up in the hundreds on your doorstep, do you invite them in, feed, shelter, educate and medicate them? Do you do the same with the next hundred? Do you do it on your own? Do you have unlimited resources? It's a cruel lie to assume the US can and should take in every unaccompanied minor who winds up on the border. If you think we can and should do it, please let us know when you have rescued and will absorb your first hundred children into your family and your home, whom you will support with your own resources. Photographs will help. Lois
Please describe a situation where it does not apply. If our resources are overwhelmed with unaccompanied minors on the border, what are we to do? If these children wind up in the hundreds on your doorstep, do you invite them in, feed, shelter, educate and medicate them? Do you do the same with the next hundred? Do you do it on your own? Do you have unlimited resources? It's a cruel lie to assume the US can and should take in every unaccompanied minor who winds up on the border. If you think we can and should do it, please let us know when you have rescued and will absorb your first hundred children into your family and your home, whom you will support with your own resources. Photographs will help. LoisYou've never even attempted to make a case for how these children our overwhelming our resources. You would need to enumerate the resources we have, estimate the resources required and show a sizable difference. That shouldn't be that hard. I don't have to take care of each individual child because I live in a society that cooperates and works together to make the world better. My parents didn't directly fund all of my education, I don't pay a toll every time I drive to work, I'm pretty sure I use more than the average amount of bandwidth than people around me, but we all pay the same internet fees. I don't have unlimited resources, I just live on top of one of the biggest aquifers in the world within the borders of the richest nation in history. And we don't treat every unaccompanied minor the same. These children are coming from a dangerous area where they are imminently threatened and we helped cause the situation they are in. If you feel your sense of security is threatened by this situation, then you might want to consider seeking mental health counseling because that is completely irrational.
You've never even attempted to make a case for how these children our overwhelming our resources. You would need to enumerate the resources we have, estimate the resources required and show a sizable difference. That shouldn't be that hard. I don't have to take care of each individual child because I live in a society that cooperates and works together to make the world better. My parents didn't directly fund all of my education, I don't pay a toll every time I drive to work, I'm pretty sure I use more than the average amount of bandwidth than people around me, but we all pay the same internet fees. I don't have unlimited resources, I just live on top of one of the biggest aquifers in the world within the borders of the richest nation in history. And we don't treat every unaccompanied minor the same. These children are coming from a dangerous area where they are imminently threatened and we helped cause the situation they are in. If you feel your sense of security is threatened by this situation, then you might want to consider seeking mental health counseling because that is completely irrational.I was considering a reply to Lois but you did it better than I would have. +1.
The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular--in other countries, as well. Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you'd be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I'll bet you've been called worse things more than once.;) LoisLausten: Not a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver? No, because he wouldn't be one. He'd be a legal driver who got a speeding ticket. Lausten: Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported. Who said it did? But when they cross the border illegally they must know they may face deportation if they're caught. Everyone who crosses the border illegally knows that. Why should they not be deported? Lausten: The term "illegal" is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working. Yes, and if the person was in the country on a visitor's visa he shouldn't have been working after it expires. It's stated on the visa, which he would have signed, saying he understood the law that he is not to work here without a work permit or after it expires. Lausten: They could have been hired legally and have a legal ITIN. He could not have been hired legally if he's here on a visitor's visa without a work permit. If he had a work permit that expired, he is working here illegally and is in the country illegally. Lausten: But they are violating some immigration law. yes, they are. Do you think it's ok to violate an immigration law? Lausten: Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers? Do you think it's better to disrupt immigration laws the person knows he's breaking? I think it's better if people visiiting this country follow the rules they agreed to when they got the visa, if they have one. If they don't have one they're also breaking the law. Do you think you would be allowed to stay in some other country if you break their immigration laws? Do you think they would say it's ok if you say, "But you are disrupting a functioning economic transaction just because your immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers."? If you cry real tears would they say, "OK, then, you can stay"? What sort of alternative universe are you are living in? If you think I'm making this stuff up, you didn't read my earlier links. Why should I think you're making anything up? You are describing someone who is breaking the law. If he's here and working while on a visitor's permit and has no work permit he's breaking the law he was informed of when he obtained the visa. If he came ito the country without a visa, he also knew he was breaking the law. If he overstayed his visa he is breaking the law--which is written on the visa, which he signed agreeing to abide by the law. What part of the law do you not understand? Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to break it with no consequences.
While I’m formulating a response to some of your comments above, please read. ]
Lausten: Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported. Who said it did? But when they cross the border illegally they must know they may face deportation if they’re caught. Everyone who crosses the border illegally knows that. Why should they not be deported?It's hard to even tell what you think. Slow down. You ask me who said they face deportation, then you say they face deportation. So the answer to your first question is YOU. And you are wrong. "They" in this case is children who are here because they are in imminent danger, and that's why they should NOT be deported. Why do you disagree with that? edit: "NOT" be deported, NOT
Lausten: Not a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver? No, because he wouldn't be one. He'd be a legal driver who got a speeding ticket.Exactly, and these children are legal immigrants who committed a misdemeanor when they crossed the border. It’s right at the top of this page, What is DACA? ]
Lausten: The term "illegal" is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working. Yes, and if the person was in the country on a visitor's visa he shouldn't have been working after it expires. It's stated on the visa, which he would have signed, saying he understood the law that he is not to work here without a work permit or after it expires.If the employee still needs that person and everything else is still above board, then this is a problem with the visa law, not the worker or employer. This is why we need immigration reform, not more border patrol.
Lausten: But they are violating some immigration law. yes, they are. Do you think it's ok to violate an immigration law?Yes. I also think it’s okay to roll through a stop sign in the middle of the night in my small town when no one is around. People violate laws all the time. Cops give people warnings instead of tickets all the time. Sometimes it’s civil disobedience. It’s part of how the system works.
Lausten: Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers? Do you think it's better to disrupt immigration laws the person knows he's breaking? I think it's better if people visiiting this country follow the rules they agreed to when they got the visa, if they have one. If they don't have one they're also breaking the law. Do you think you would be allowed to stay in some other country if you break their immigration laws? Do you think they would say it's ok if you say, "But you are disrupting a functioning economic transaction just because your immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers."? If you cry real tears would they say, "OK, then, you can stay"? What sort of alternative universe are you are living in?I live in a country where the immigration laws are broken. They don’t match the reality of our economic needs. Yes, I put a functioning economy above broken, outdated laws upheld by bigoted Tea party libertarians in ten gallon hats with half pint brains.
Lausten: If you think I'm making this stuff up, you didn't read my earlier links. Why should I think you're making anything up? You are describing someone who is breaking the law. If he's here and working while on a visitor's permit and has no work permit he's breaking the law he was informed of when he obtained the visa. If he came ito the country without a visa, he also knew he was breaking the law. If he overstayed his visa he is breaking the law--which is written on the visa, which he signed agreeing to abide by the law. What part of the law do you not understand? Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to break it with no consequences.Following the law can have consequences too. It’s you who does not understand the law. You are using a childish interpretation, a black and white definition of illegal. According to your logic, Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus quietly.
Here is the answer to your question about what could happen if I overstayed a visa in Europe.] Notice that deportation is only one of many things that could happen. There is a webpage that looks very much like this one for US visas.
While I'm formulating a response to some of your comments above, please read. ]Tney face deportation under US laws, the same as anyone faces deportation under any country's laws. It doesn't help your case to play dumb. As for imminent danger--that has to be determined in a court of law. The United Statess has laws regarding asylum seekers. But you would throw out the law and allow every child who presents himself for asylum to get it, whether we can absorb all of them or even a fraction of them. Nobody is deporting them illegally. You are presenting another red herring as an argument. They are being held until their cases can be heard--according to US immigration law. Are you presently on the Mexican border helping take care of these children awaiting hearings? If not, you have absolutely nothing valid to say. LoisLausten: Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported. Who said it did? But when they cross the border illegally they must know they may face deportation if they’re caught. Everyone who crosses the border illegally knows that. Why should they not be deported?It's hard to even tell what you think. Slow down. You ask me who said they face deportation, then you say they face deportation. So the answer to your first question is YOU. And you are wrong. "They" in this case is children who are here because they are in imminent danger, and that's why they should NOT be deported. Why do you disagree with that? edit: "NOT" be deported, NOT
Here is the answer to your question about what could happen if I overstayed a visa in Europe.] Notice that deportation is only one of many things that could happen. There is a webpage that looks very much like this one for US visas.Try it sometime. Let us know how you do. I know of no country on earth that gives asylum to everyone who applies for it. If you know of one, let us know. "The 12th edition of the Statistical Yearbook reports that 45.2 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide due to persecution and conflict at the end of 2012, the highest number in almost 20 years. Some 15.4 million people were refugees, 10.5 million under UNHCR’s mandate and 4.9 million Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA. The global figure included 28.8 million internally displaced persons and some 928,200 asylum-seekers." Shall we take them all into the United States? If not, why not? We have a hole in our southern border the size of Texas. Why shouldn't all 45.2 million of them be allowed in? At least half are children. Why should their inability to get to the hole in our our southern border stop them? Every one of them "deserves" asylum. How much are you doing to get them here and give them asylum? If you are doing nothing, you are, in effect, relegating them to permanent refugee status. Does that make you proud? Does that make you a REAL American? Do you qualify as a real American if you manage to bankrupt the country and overwhelm its resources? We have tens of millions of people already struggling to survive in the United States right now. What do you propose we do with them as we try to absorb 42.2 million more? And the flow will not decrease. Lois
They face deportation under US laws, the same as anyone faces deportation under any country's laws. It doesn't help your case to play dumb. LoisYou didn't even look at the link to DACA did you? You are being completely unreasonable. You are shouting at the wind and no one is listening.
They face deportation under US laws, the same as anyone faces deportation under any country's laws. It doesn't help your case to play dumb. LoisYou didn't even look at the link to DACA did you? You are being completely unreasonable. You are shouting at the wind and no one is listening. I did look at the link. If anyone is shouting in the wind it's you. You haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we are to take in everyone who wants asylum. Not one idea. And you certainly haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we take care ofthe millions of homeless, jobless people who are aleady here before we invite in millions more. Please tell me where the money and human resources are going to come from to support more homeless and hopeless people. Just lay out as much as an outline of a plan and we can talk. Lois
They face deportation under US laws, the same as anyone faces deportation under any country's laws. It doesn't help your case to play dumb. LoisYou didn't even look at the link to DACA did you? You are being completely unreasonable. You are shouting at the wind and no one is listening. I did look at the link. If anyone is shouting in the wind it's you. You haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we are to take in everyone who wants asylum. Not one idea. And you certainly haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we take care ofthe millions of homeless, jobless people who are aleady here before we invite in millions more. Please tell me where the money and human resources are going to come from to support more homeless and hopeless people. Just lay out as much as an outline of a plan and we can talk. Lois I don't have to answer that because it is already being answered. Just look up the US budget. It's online. We're handling it just fine. The stock market is back at record levels after bankers almost destroyed the economy, not Mexican children. My grocery bill has been affected by storms, not by Mexican children, but it's pretty much the same as it was a few years ago. Do you own a map? Find another place in the world where a big industrialized country is bordered by a big "third world" country. Find a border like that where less than two hundred years ago, that border didn't exist, where it was still their country. Now make one of your stupid analogies fit our situation. Explain to me again why we should treat this unique situation just like any other immigration issue in the world. I accused you of not looking at the link because you continue to say "they face deportation" and we "give asylum to everyone". The DACA is about addressing a specific situation with a 2 year deferral, creating a reasonable exception for a humanitarian crisis. A crisis which you are deaf to and just make argumentum absurdum ad inifinitum.
Take the money from the Military Industrial Complex and use it for social services. We do not need to outspend the next nine nations in the world combined to keep our country safe.please explain exactly how that is to be done. Come on, just get it started. How do we "take money from the Miitary Industrial Complex"? Do we do it with guns? Just how do we do it? Do you think that money just lying around somewhere waiting for someone to take it? Darron: We could also make the rich pay their fair share of taxes, end subsidies for oil and coal companies, and provide free education for anyone who can maintain the grades so they will get better jobs and pay more taxes. Ok, how do you propose to do that? Does your plan include disbanding our form of government? Do we get rid of the Constitution in one fell swoop? We can't get Congress to make big corporations and multi billionaires to pay their fair share now. We couldn't get Congress to close tax loopholes because they claimed it would be the same as a tax increase. We have Republicans already promising to dismantle the ACA and to impeach the President for even suggesting that the country needs more of a safety net. And you think all anyone has to do is snap their fingers, end subsidies and make people and corporations pay their fair share, rob the Military Industrial Complex and everything will fall into place? Do you think every human ill can be cured by declaring a magic solution that has no chance of ever coming to fruition? Do you actually think there is not another side to the equation? What do you think would happen to the Military Industrial Complex if we "take its money"? Do you have any idea how economies work? Darron: Yeah, I know: in my dreams. Indeed yes. They are dreams. If you want them to come true you will have to come up with a practical solution to making them come true. Dreaming has never solved one problem in human history. Lois
I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois. Do you ever read a book? Were you awake in High School history? Look up things like The New Deal or The War on Poverty. We did exactly the things that you say can’t be done within the framework of this democracy. We overthrow the government every four years without a drop of blood in the streets. You act like you just woke up in the world and everyone is telling you that this is the way the world has always been and you believe them.
Immigration is bad because…
Isn’t that what the Indians have been saying since 1492?
I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois. Do you ever read a book? Were you awake in High School history? Look up things like The New Deal or The War on Poverty. We did exactly the things that you say can't be done within the framework of this democracy. We overthrow the government every four years without a drop of blood in the streets. You act like you just woke up in the world and everyone is telling you that this is the way the world has always been and you believe them.You wrote: "I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois." Have someone read it to you, then. I guarantee I could beat you on any American history test. If you think we overthrow the US government every four years, you would fail on the first question. That statement alone proves that you don't have the slighest idea of how how the American governmemt works and I doubt you could learn the first thing about it within the next 10 years of studying it every day, even if you have someone reading to you. Lois