Your solution is to "fix" immigration law by removing it. How is that a solution to anything? Obama's already turned illegals into a protected class; why then do we need to fix anything more?
Your solution is to "fix" immigration law by removing it. How is that a solution to anything? Obama's already turned illegals into a protected class; why then do we need to fix anything more?We can solve the issue in the future by fixing immigration law. And it can be fixed without spending billions erecting a useless wall!
Are you actually under the delusion that illegal immigrants travel by ballooning?
Your solution is to "fix" immigration law by removing it. How is that a solution to anything? Obama's already turned illegals into a protected class; why then do we need to fix anything more?
We have a Coast Guard which is actually pretty good at catching illegals coming via oceans.Are you under the delusion that illegal immigrants travel only by surface land?
Atlantic Coast: 2,069 miles
Gulf Coast: 1,631 miles
Pacific Coast: 7,623 miles
Mexican/US border: 1,954 miles
Canadian/US border: 5,525 miles
As I said, let me know when you've managed to build that dome.
Make sure that it goes deep though:
While it's an incorrect usage of the term, this is a remarkably good post for you. It contains much less stupidity than normal. Congrats!Strawman.
We have a Coast Guard which is actually pretty good at catching illegals coming via oceans.
While it's an incorrect usage of the term, this is a remarkably good post for you. It contains much less stupidity than normal. Congrats!
We have a Coast Guard which is actually pretty good at catching illegals coming via oceans.
While it's an incorrect usage of the term, this is a remarkably good post for you. It contains much less stupidity than normal. Congrats!
A simple question: Should there be limits on legal immigration?
We have a Coast Guard which is actually pretty good at catching illegals coming via oceans.
Your solution is to "fix" immigration law by removing it. How is that a solution to anything? Obama's already turned illegals into a protected class; why then do we need to fix anything more?
In what way did you infer I am saying to remove the law? The law needs to be reworked so immigration is more streamlined. Something that is attainable by people. Right now the process has become so burdensome people have decided living in the shadows is easier.
Should we restrict immigration from certain countries?Yes, I would say criminals depending on what they were convicted from other countries should not be allowed in.
Should we restrict immigration from certain countries?
Should we have limits on the numbers that can come in over specific time periods?
Should there be requirements to help ensure assimilation into our society? Learning our language, etc?
Should there be restrictions based on the skill set of the individual or the primary wage earner in the case of a family?
Should there be a commitment from an employer that the individual has a job waiting for them?
Should there be age restrictions?
Should we restrict immigration to people that we can reasonably expect to be not a burden on society but an asset to society?
With not enough jobs for the people within our borders today, how would a nation $8 trillion plus in debt and rising provide for the needs of more immigrants? Housing, food, clothing, health care, education will all be needed. We're not meeting those requirements for the people here now in the opinion of many people. How will we make life better for our citizens as well as an influx of immigrants under your plan?
Your thought processes appear to be that other than a criminal background, and you don't want to be specific on even that, that anyone desiring to come here should be able to. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
Right. You want to solve the problem of people coming here illegally by making it legal for them to come here. How exactly is that different from simply removing the law? Either way we have unrestrained immigration; your "solution" merely makes it easier for them to get free stuff. You can't even claim "streamlining" would keep out undesirables, because since you specifically rule out securing the border, even those you would choose to not admit would still be perfectly free to enter illegally.In what way did you infer I am saying to remove the law? The law needs to be reworked so immigration is more streamlined. Something that is attainable by people. Right now the process has become so burdensome people have decided living in the shadows is easier.
Um, you do realize that you are making your point that we shouldn't secure our border because we can't stop illegal immigration by sea with a picture of illegal immigrants being detained after arriving by sea, right? Is this a parody post?Yeah, good luck with doing what no other country with a coast and refugee/illegal issues has been able to do.
"A Miami Metro-Dade police officer watches a group of Haitians who were among more than 200 illegal Haitian immigrants who jumped overboard, waded ashore and rushed onto a major highway Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2002, after their 50-foot wooden freighter ran aground off Miami."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-charged-with-smuggling-haitians/
Haitian refugees in boat off Florida coast in early 1980s.
Using logic isn't fair when debating a democrat. You are going to have to use hyperbole and straw man arguments.Um, you do realize that you are making your point that we shouldn't secure our border because we can't stop illegal immigration by sea with a picture of illegal immigrants being detained after arriving by sea, right? Is this a parody post?
Right. You want to solve the problem of people coming here illegally by making it legal for them to come here. How exactly is that different from simply removing the law? Either way we have unrestrained immigration; your "solution" merely makes it easier for them to get free stuff. You can't even claim "streamlining" would keep out undesirables, because since you specifically rule out securing the border, even those you would choose to not admit would still be perfectly free to enter illegally.
Um, you do realize that you are making your point that we shouldn't secure our border because we can't stop illegal immigration by sea with a picture of illegal immigrants being detained after arriving by sea, right? Is this a parody post?
Using logic isn't fair when debating a democrat. You are going to have to use hyperbole and straw man arguments.
So now I know why you're a douche.
Logic for the problem is, just give statehood to Mexico. Defending the border from Guatemala and Belize is much more feasible than against Mexico.
Um, you do realize that you are making your point that we shouldn't secure our border because we can't stop illegal immigration by sea with a picture of illegal immigrants being detained after arriving by sea, right? Is this a parody post?
Umm, just where have I made an augment that the US shouldn't secure its borders?
It would help if you debated stuff like this honestly.
My argument is that it's impossible. All you can do is try and slow the inflow.
Unless you get around to building that really big dome that I mentioned earlier.
Please show any proof that this is true.
You guys keep spewing this stuff that you have been fed and never stop to actually think about it. Its sick. You are the reason that we can't fix this. Your whole idealogy is based on lies.
Are you under the delusion that illegal immigrants travel only by surface land?
Atlantic Coast: 2,069 miles
Gulf Coast: 1,631 miles
Pacific Coast: 7,623 miles
Mexican/US border: 1,954 miles
Canadian/US border: 5,525 miles
As I said, let me know when you've managed to build that dome.
Apologies for not responding sooner.
Here's my train of logic that may seem strange to you but it is what it is: In DC, big money talks a whole lot louder than any voice that is in opposition to that. As proof, look at the irrefutable trend lines that speak to how the middle class and the poor are being far outdistanced by the rich in gains made these past few decades.
Look at how the Dem President now sitting in the Oval Office, that promised he would do his utmost to improve the economic opportunities for the working class, would prefer to kowtow to the very rich who would very much like to have more and more trade agreements that favor them rather than standing up for the middle class and the poor by refusing to pursue agreements that have obviously hurt the working stiff time and again.
Look at how, through more than six years of being in office, the sitting Democrat president cannot/will not attempt to pass laws that appreciably lowers taxes for the middle class and the poor while raising taxes/closing loopholes of the very rich and big corporations.
And look at how the Repubs in DC, the darlings of the very rich and powerful, the same folks who incessantly argue for more and more tax breaks for the very rich and more loopholes they so graciously give big business to promote the trickle down fable that we all know and love, but haven't uttered a single word about lowering taxes exclusively for the middle class and the poor.
I could go on and on and on with examples like this; examples that would appear to be undeniable to folks with any sense of situational awareness.
But then, it seems that all of those facts and common knowledge do not jive with your ideology, so I must therefore bow to your faithfulness of dogma and insulated form of political consciousness that you bear with such grace and tenacity.
Blessed are those that keep the faith in Party and ideology.......no matter what.