(November 15, 2016 at 12:50 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yep, definitely talking about the latter. Which is why I don't understand why people started to counter my stance by bringing Trump and racism into the equation, when my stance has nothing to do with Trump or race.

-You- don;t think they do, but ofc it's the ideological support of good folks like yourself that form the PR wing of the racists ideologies.  They coopt you. You;re presentable in all the ways that they, until recently, were not. When someone says "hey, you're a fucking bigot, why should I listen to you"...they point to people such as yourself.

When they present their bigoted little schemes and you say to yourself "well, I don't think there's anything wrong with x in principle.....so I support it" - then you coopt yourself.

"Whats wrong with border security rhythm" - Other than being a racist dog whistle, nothing, I guess.
"What's wrong with deporting illegals rhythm" - Other than "illegals" being hate speak for brown people...nothing, I guess. (Fun fact, they detain and harass those here legally -and- citizens on suspicion of being mexican)

See where this is headed?

(November 15, 2016 at 1:00 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 15, 2016 at 12:50 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yep, definitely talking about the latter. Which is why I don't understand why people started to counter my stance by bringing Trump and racism into the equation, when my stance has nothing to do with Trump or race.

-You- don;t think they do, but ofc it's the ideological support of good folks like yourself that form the PR wing of the racists ideologies.  They coopt you.  You;re presentable in all the ways that they, until recently, were not.  When someone says "hey, you're a fucking bigot, why should I listen to you"...they point to people such as yourself.  

When they present their bigoted little schemes and you say to yourself "well, I don't think there's anything wrong with x in principle.....so I support it" - then you coopt yourself.

"Whats wrong with border security rhythm" - Other than being a racist dog whistle, nothing, I guess.
"What's wrong with deporting illegals rhythm" - Other than "illegals" being hate speak for brown people...nothing, I guess. (Fun fact, they detain and harass those here legally -and- citizens on suspicion of being mexican)

See where this is headed?

Not at all. My stance isn't that it should only apply to Mexicans. It's as simple as that. Don't put me into a box.

(November 15, 2016 at 12:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Seems to me like you might have been discussing what government is doing, when you referred to your experience, and referred to what you saw as the right way to do it based upon that experience, because, you know, that's how you did it.

That's not what I said at all. I referred to my experience only because it affects my opinion of illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant who went through a lengthy process and spent money in order to get here legally, I'm not to happy about the prospect of amnesty for all illegal immigrants.

You should note that I didn't actually propose a "right way". I just asked a question.

Seriously, go read back over my posts in this thread, because I didn't do anything you seem to think I did, and you are simply reading way too much into what I actually said. I said what I said and I mean exactly what I said, nothing more.

I have to conclude, at this point, that you don't see where it's headed because you don't want to.  I don't blame you for that at all.  It's fucking ugly.  

Let's say that government was empowered in accordance with your stance on illegals.  It has a mandate to deport illegals who haven't been here long, and have no anchor babies.  Lets say Tibs was here illegally.  How likely do you think he would be, to be stopped on suspicion of being illegal and asked for his papers?  More or less likely than a guy named Juan?  Would whatever it is you intend with your support have some effect on that, do you think?

(November 15, 2016 at 1:56 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 15, 2016 at 12:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Seems to me like you might have been discussing what government is doing, when you referred to your experience, and referred to what you saw as the right way to do it based upon that experience, because, you know, that's how you did it.

That's not what I said at all. I referred to my experience only because it affects my opinion of illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant who went through a lengthy process and spent money in order to get here legally, I'm not to happy about the prospect of amnesty for all illegal immigrants.

Why not?  You wanted to be here, it can't be difficult for you to understand what it means to them.  They aren't all as fortunate as you've been.  

Quote:You should note that I didn't actually propose a "right way". I just asked a question.

Yeah, you asked what was wrong with the process...again...not at all a thought exercise in principle or abstract, and absolutely to do with what government is -doing-.   

Quote:Seriously, go read back over my posts in this thread, because I didn't do anything you seem to think I did, and you are simply reading way too much into what I actually said. I said what I said and I mean exactly what I said, nothing more.

Yeah, you did say what you said.  I was never having an abstract conversation - which must have been perfectly clear, what with my mentioning it more than once.... and you weren't either, until it became expedient. You know what though, if you don;t want to discuss that sort of shit with me, you don;t have to respond to me, now do you? Objection noted, your comments are entirely divorced from what government is doing, and any problems with what you think government should be doing by reference to how it is doing those things or would do them have nothing to do with you or your support for them in principle. Satisfaction achieved?

Current policies cause something like between 2000 and 4000 us citizens to be mistakenly deported each year. Proposed policies will only make that worse.
Look it up, I'm not even making that up. It happens pretty much daily. Lost your papers and got a traffic ticket? Back to Mexico you go, even if you were born here.

I promised I'd stay out of politics for a few days. I tried. Instead I'll just try and remain calm and discuss facts.

How do we propose to deport even more people than we currently do, and currently we deport more than ever before, without even more innocent people getting caught up in the sweeps? Our immigration courts need more funding and to probably quadruple in size, but we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money. Seems like we need to fix the massive problems with the current immigration courts before we double or triple their already untenable workload.

(November 14, 2016 at 8:25 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 14, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Examples?

They think David Brooke is a conservative.

I assume you mean David Brooks.

Well, I also think Brooks is a conservative (note the lower case 'c'). For that matter, so does Brooks. But he's old-school conservative from when there were actually thinkers who represented conservatism, rather than the witless goons who grabbed the megaphone 20+ years ago and have presumed to speak on its behalf since.

Brooks is cut from pretty much the same cloth as Buckley and Kristol (Irving, not Bill). He's obviously read -- and taken seriously -- Smith, Tocqueville, and The Federalist Papers. (I doubt that Hannity or Limbaugh have ever read anything more substantial than their press clippings or market share reports.) He is urbane and cosmopolitan without being a snob. I can't count the number of times I've read his column and found a steady concern for the very people the two parties left in the dust and who finally turned to Trump, of all people, as the guy who cared. Perhaps if the Democrats and the GOP had heeded Brooks all along, we wouldn't have been stuck with a President-elect Trump. 

Brooks is a conservative who has not drunk the Conservative (note the upper case 'c') Kool-Aid that government is nothing other than pernicious -- unless we're talking about feeding the military-industrial complex and the security state, which is a-OK with them and something they have in common with establishment Democrats. Like all true conservatives, he worries about the effect of big government on civil liberties. He demonstrates a healthy skepticism about government efficacy (especially at the Federal level) and favors free markets and entrepreneurship, but he is not mindlessly doctrinaire about it. Government does have a purpose greater than some minimalist libertarian role. He considers the state legislatures to be the proper democratic laboratories for progressive change, a view I am quite sympathetic with. Unfortunately, for all their lip service on that very point, most Conservatives seem to think of state and local government as the place to kill progressive experiments, and then they act outraged when people who are frustrated at the glacial pace of reform and social progress take to Congress and the courts to press their case.

If he is not conservative enough for your tastes, Chad, then tell me who is. Which contemporary pundit passes your litmus test, and on what do you base that conclusion?

(November 14, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Then pull your head out of your ass, and I'll repeat them.

What is Trump going to do to avoid the problems that caused Bush's wall to fail?  How is his going to be different?  Hint:  there are a lot more problems than funding to overcome.

Nothing a free flowing river of mexican money won't fix.

Quote:And secondly, are you fine with the fact that the government is going to have to appropriate private citizens' land to build it?

How wide do you think this wall is supposed to be? I am sure land owners who have illegals using their land as an express way for drugs and human trafficking will be happy to be paid for maybe a 50ft wide swath that boarders mexico.

Quote:I forgot that you think being desperate enough to escape violent third-world conditions by crossing a deadly desert as a crime, sorry.

Just pointing out that they're not actually sending us their murderers and rapists.

Oh, so that is why drug cartels pay millions to dig tunnels across the boarder!!! Silly me, I thought they were pumping people into this country to ferry drugs.. Or do you not understand that any organized (meaning sucessful;people not dying in the desert) boarder crossing costs money, money these guys don't have so in exchange many mule drugs. because if they did have money they would just obtain a pass port and scheduled a 'vaca' and never return like so many of our other illegals.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/25/arizona...nts.drugs/
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2014/10/1...nightmare/


The reality of illegal immigration from mexico is a lot larger than the story you are parroting back to me from mainstream news outlets.

Finally getting around to responding to people from several pages ago...

(November 14, 2016 at 6:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 14, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a documented immigrant, so I fully understand the costs of coming to America legally, but can someone explain why deporting people who are here illegally is a bad thing?

It took a lot of time and money for me to finally get to live with my American wife. If people are skirting around those requirements, I don't really have much sympathy for them.

My family and I are immigrants too and came here legally, so I understand the frustration. But the little children though....

It is unfortunate, and if the children don't have any other kind of citizenship then I might feel differently, but usually you inherit your parent's citizenship, so it's not like they can't all move back to where the parents originally came from.

Yes, displacing children isn't ideal, but the fact of the matter is, it's the parent's fault for not staying within the law. We have rules for a reason; the USA doesn't have open borders, and if it did I feel like we would have much more of a problem. To that end, I feel like people should follow the well defined routes to immigrate here.

(November 14, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You also came from a safe environment.  For those people living in areas ravaged by cartels or third-world poverty, they don't exactly have the luxury of waiting around until the U.S. government gets done with its paperwork.  Look at Venezuela right now.  I'm certainly not going to call anyone that flees from these situations a criminal and send them away because they couldn't go through the proper channels.  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Not to mention that many of these immigrants perform back-breaking labor that no one else will do.  We'd find ourselves in a conundrum if we just deported them all.

That's not the fault of the US though. Look, I get why lots of people want to come here, but the fact is, the only people who have a right to be here are US citizens and residents. The immigration process being slow is not a good enough reason to just abandon it completely, break the law, and come live here undocumented. It's unfair to those who have followed the system.

Oh, and as I've said earlier in the thread, this doesn't and shouldn't apply to refugees.

(November 14, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Unless you think we should deport -them- because it took -you- alot of time and money, your personal experience isn't actually relevant.  I'm sorry your sympathizers busted, while we're at it, lol. 

For starters, maybe because our economy depends on them, right down to food production infrastructure and home building?  Secondly, because without them we are below replacement rate.  Thirdly, because they enrich our very culture.  Finally, because we're not a bunch of racist shitlords who think that getting rid of brown people will make it magically better for us?

I don't think that, I just think it's unfair and a kick in the face that people who have violated US law would be given amnesty when there are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who went the legal route.

The economy might depend on them at the moment, but is that a law? The unemployment rate in this country is at 5%. Those jobs have people who can do them. They might not want to do them, but poor people don't really have the luxury of being picky when it comes to jobs. If removing all of them would take us below replacement rate, then narrow the criteria for removing them a bit. I don't see how enriching our culture should trump the law; these people broke the law, fact. We shouldn't be bending over backwards for them. I don't agree with your point about racism; this conversation is about illegal immigrants, who come in all sorts of races.

(November 15, 2016 at 2:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why not?  You wanted to be here, it can't be difficult for you to understand what it means to them.  They aren't all as fortunate as you've been.

It's not difficult for me to understand what it means to them, no. However these people abused the system and came here illegally. Not being as fortunate as me is irrelevant. I didn't have a right to just come here, I had to go through the process to gain that right, and that's the way it should be.

Quote:Yeah, you asked what was wrong with the process...again...not at all a thought exercise in principle or abstract, and absolutely to do with what government is -doing-.   

Again, I have to question what thread you are in, because no I didn't ask that. I asked: can someone explain why deporting people who are here illegally is a bad thing?

So no, I didn't ask what was wrong with any process. I think I asked a very specific question about why, not what. I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind the process than the process itself.

Quote:Yeah, you did say what you said.  I was never having an abstract conversation - which must have been perfectly clear, what with my mentioning it more than once.... and you weren't either, until it became expedient.  You know what though, if you don;t want to discuss that sort of shit with me, you don;t have to respond to me, now do you?  Objection noted, your comments are entirely divorced from what government is doing, and any problems with what you think government should be doing by reference to how it is doing those things or would do them have nothing to do with you or your support for them in principle.  Satisfaction achieved?

I'd love to discuss this stuff with you, provided you actually answer my question rather than deflect my comments onto subjects that weren't even relevant. I think I asked a pretty simple question; I got some decent responses to that actual question from a couple of people. I saw your response from page 7 and have included my response in this post. However I don't think talk of militia was relevant to what C_L and I were talking about.

(November 15, 2016 at 11:05 am)Tiberius Wrote: I don't think that, I just think it's unfair and a kick in the face that people who have violated US law would be given amnesty when there are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who went the legal route.

 

I'm not sure that fairness is the route you want to take when discussing illegals situation vs, for example, your own.  I get it, you paid for your ticket, it makes you angry to see other people on the ride, people who didn't.  

Quote:The economy might depend on them at the moment, but is that a law? The unemployment rate in this country is at 5%. Those jobs have people who can do them. They might not want to do them, but poor people don't really have the luxury of being picky when it comes to jobs. If removing all of them would take us below replacement rate, then narrow the criteria for removing them a bit. I don't see how enriching our culture should trump the law; these people broke the law, fact. We shouldn't be bending over backwards for them. I don't agree with your point about racism; this conversation is about illegal immigrants, who come in all sorts of races.

Right, so any practical concern is not your concern.  What you're interested is that they broke the law, by being here.  Fucking criminals. You know, the racists think the same thing, they just phrase it differently "they took our jobs!" Clearly poor people do have the luxury, since there's not enough illegals to do the work they do n the first place. People compete over them. As to what trumps our law......I've got jokes, if you're gonna set me up like that, lol. In any case, we -don;t- bend over backwards for them..we exploit and oppress them....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your lack of sympathy and refusal to acknowledge or discuss the actual state of affairs is awfully helpful in that regard.

You don't "disagree" with my point about racism.  It's not up for agreement. You'd simply rather not acknowledge it. Get back to me when that canadian border wall comes up, and british illegals are stopped on suspicion of being illegal.

Quote:It's not difficult for me to understand what it means to them, no. However these people abused the system and came here illegally. Not being as fortunate as me is irrelevant. I didn't have a right to just come here, I had to go through the process to gain that right, and that's the way it should be.

Yeah, fucking abusers, their crushing poverty is irrelevant.  They have no right, no right I say!

Quote:Again, I have to question what thread you are in, because no I didn't ask that. I asked: can someone explain why deporting people who are here illegally is a bad thing?

I could quote you, but I shouldn't have to. As to this other question you'd rather discuss.....didn't I already answer that question? I mean, you're arguing with my answer up above so it seems like I did.

Quote:So no, I didn't ask what was wrong with any process. I think I asked a very specific question about why, not what. I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind the process than the process itself.

Oh boy........this is the part where I tell you that the reasoning behind the process is bigoted reasoning, and you deny that plainly apparent fact.

Quote:Tiberius

(November 14, 2016 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Did you look at that chart?

What's the problem with it? That chart shows you all the possible ways you can get a visa / green card, it's bound to be complicated.

Its not supposed to represent a single person's route through the system.

Once you have a path defined, following it is long but not complicated. You fill out the forms they tell you to, gather the evidence they ask for, and send them in.

Looks like a "what" question to me.

Quote:I'd love to discuss this stuff with you, provided you actually answer my question rather than deflect my comments onto subjects that weren't even relevant. I think I asked a pretty simple question; I got some decent responses to that actual question from a couple of people. I saw your response from page 7 and have included my response in this post. However I don't think talk of militia was relevant to what C_L and I were talking about.

It is when a racist militia is cavorting around our borders to stop illegals and keep them secure.  Obviously, this is only relevant to what Min and I are talking about, which is the real world, and not immigration to and from your mental safe space. No, Tibs, you don't want to discuss this stuff with me. You want to divorce it from reality, and I'm not interested in that, as I keep saying.

Anyone who was conscious for this election, or spends so much as twenty minutes familiarizing themselves with both the state of immigration and the status of immigrants in this country, or their history of contribution -to- this country , let alone this country's advertised and indoctrinated ethos as enshrined on that little statue just off our coast can very easily see both what is wrong with the process, and why it is wrong to engage in it. So I'm not gonna baby step you there, you're a smart fucking guy Tibs...you can figure it out.

Me, I think we need a freedom of movement agreement over here, it's embarrassing that the EU has that and we don't. We're a country full of immigrants who inexplicable hate and fear immigrants and immigration.