(November 16, 2016 at 12:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: FNM, just to be clear, you do believe there should be a regulation with people from other countries moving here, right? You just don't think it should be as strict as Neo think it should be?

...Or are you saying there should be no limit or regulation whatsoever?

Of course I'm not saying there should be no regulation.  I'm saying that the path to legal citizenship is too difficult for certain people that we have a moral obligation to help and that being an illegal immigrant is not a reason to just abandon them.

They still broke the law.

(November 16, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's got to be a better reason to deport someone than "they committed the crime of being here".  Which is all we're talking about when we talk about deporting illegals, on account of them being illegal.

^Do you agree with this, FNM?

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's got to be a better reason to deport someone than "they committed the crime of being here".  Which is all we're talking about when we talk about deporting illegals, on account of them being illegal.

Ok, I'm going to ask you a very clear question. So as long as someone is able to get here, they should stay... even if they get here illegally. Is that what you're saying?  

...So the dude who traspassed the border yesterday should be allowed to stay, so long as he hasn't committed any other crime in the 24 hours he's been here?

Why not?  I mean, you can do a simple background check on someone and find out if they're a legitimate threat.  I don't think they should let in Jihadi Jeff, but that doesn't describe most of the undocumented immigrants.

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Of course I'm not saying there should be no regulation.  I'm saying that the path to legal citizenship is too difficult for certain people that we have a moral obligation to help and that being an illegal immigrant is not a reason to just abandon them.

They still broke the law.

People who assisted the underground railroad back in the 1800's also broke the law.  Can we agree that "ethical" and "legal" are two different entities?

Has the US gone absolutely insane?

(November 16, 2016 at 12:45 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, I'm going to ask you a very clear question. So as long as someone is able to get here, they should stay... even if they get here illegally. Is that what you're saying?  

...So the dude who traspassed the border yesterday should be allowed to stay, so long as he hasn't committed any other crime in the 24 hours he's been here?

Why not?  I mean, you can do a simple background check on someone and find out if they're a legitimate threat.  I don't think they should let in Jihadi Jeff, but that doesn't describe most of the undocumented immigrants.

Then what's the point of regulating borders and making people go through the legal process to get here, if we're just going to look the other way so long as someone is able to trespass? Then why not just let anyone/everyone walk right in willy nilly at their whim so long as they haven't killed/raped anyone? This is just so unreasonable to me...

(November 16, 2016 at 12:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. it should be easier to get in, but there should still be regulations/limitations

Yes. It's common sense that we're not going to let in people on terrorist watch lists, for example.

(November 16, 2016 at 12:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 2. we shouldn't abandon people who come in here, or are staying here, illegally

Can you explain what you mean by #2? I assume it doesn't mean you don't think anyone should ever get deported ever.

I'm saying that we shouldn't abandon people simply because they are here illegally. The people that don't have the means or resources to take the legal path to citizenship shouldn't be tossed out just because they didn't have the means or resources to take the legal path to citizenship. They should be given a chance to productive members of society.

(November 16, 2016 at 12:42 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's got to be a better reason to deport someone than "they committed the crime of being here".  Which is all we're talking about when we talk about deporting illegals, on account of them being illegal.

Why?

Not a question for me to answer.  Reach down deep and try to grab whatever shred of human decency you have.  Ask it.  

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, I'm going to ask you a very clear question. So as long as someone is able to get here, they should stay... even if they get here illegally. Is that what you're saying?  

...So the dude who traspassed the border yesterday should be allowed to stay, so long as he hasn't committed any other crime in the 24 hours he's been here?

I don't think that the crime of being too poor and being here should -be- a crime.  Trespassing, what is this, your backyard all of a sudden?  

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: They still broke the law.

Some law, some criminals.  If that's all you've got...you're spent.  It was illegal to be gay for quite some time as well.  Want to hear a list of all the things that "they still broke the law" has applied to, over time...?

(November 16, 2016 at 12:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. it should be easier to get in, but there should still be regulations/limitations

2. we shouldn't abandon people who come in here, or are staying here, illegally

1) Of course there should always be regulations. But most of us in the Western world live in aging societies. I don't know exactly how the American system works, but in the case of most European countries, this is an issue as far as pensions are concerned. Less children and more elderly, means less people paying into the pot, while an exceeding amount of funds are needed. So, yes, unless someone thinks their nationalism is keeping them alive, fed and cared for in their old age, immigration is a necessity. It's also a necessity because certain services or goods wouldn't be available anymore. At least not as cheap as they are today.

There's also a distinction to be made between refugees and immigrants. Refugees come from war zones or have other pressing reasons to leave the homes. Usually they don't stay on. And I say that as a citizen of a country that had the last big influx of refugees from the regions of former Yugoslavia, mostly Bosnia. These people came and went for their largest part. Similar to prior incidents such as Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968.

The only common denominators between refugees and immigrant is that they should be screened, which is already done. It only flies below the radar whereas the ones bawling about a non existing problem, make headlines on a regular basis.

2) We should decide on an individual basis. Not, ugha, bugha, throw them all out. Taking a good hard look at who's here and who's willing to be integrated. In the case of illegals, how long are they already here, where did they come from and what record do they have. There have been several cases of villages uniting and fighting for certain families of illegals when the authorities turned up to deport them. It also shines a light on human perception. These people came to know the ones living amongst them. As opposed to the populatio at large only going by the fear mongering narratives.

(November 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: They still broke the law.

People who assisted the underground railroad back in the 1800's also broke the law.  Can we agree that "ethical" and "legal" are two different entities?

^FNM, do you agree with this analysis? If we're equating slaves trying to escape slavery, to non refugee foreigners trying to get into the US, then there shouldn't be a regulated border at all.