RE: Trump on 60 Minutes
November 15, 2016 at 11:05 am
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2016 at 11:06 am by Tiberius.)
Finally getting around to responding to people from several pages ago...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.