RE: Illegal Immigration
January 13, 2019 at 2:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2019 at 2:17 pm by Yonadav.)
(January 13, 2019 at 1:33 pm)camoman Wrote: The real issue is how everyone looks at this. Lots of people believe its a race issue that you don't want them here because they are Mexican or not what ever. Yet the reality is you would not have a party at your house and let just anyone walk in. You invite those you trust. If you have a open door policy eventually someone will enter the party who doesn't like the music and try to change it. The owner of the house then gets up set that his music was changed and then there is a controversy. Its about providing a safety net for those who are already here. Simple solution is for the left to give the money for the wall with stipulations on the amount of immigrants who can come in every year. The right would have to agree to a certain amount of immigration. Then both sides get close to what they want. Then the people who feel death is going to ride in from the south unchecked are happy. The people who feel that the poor and desolate people of Mexico need to have a place to come look for the dream are happy. Yet the dream seems like a night mare anymore. I suppose when your country will let Chevrolet work you for 2 dollars a day though America does seem like a dream. That was a guess on the two dollars don't take that literal.
I don't follow your reasoning. It is pretty much a given that Democrats and Republicans will negotiate immigration quotas. That actually has nothing to do with the wall, since quotas will be negotiated with or without the wall. So you are suggesting that Dems should give money for the wall in exchange for nothing, since quotas will be negotiated with or without a wall. Further, quotas and asylum are different things. We have a quota for immigrants who have the necessary skills (or the necessary relatives) that qualify them for immigration. In addition to that, we accept those who qualify for asylum. The first is accepting 'desirable' immigrants. The second is accepting immigrants for humanitarian reasons. The quota applies to the first category. The second category is additional immigrants.
So the issue is mainly that the Trump administration wants to block requests for asylum by hindering prospective asylum seeker from the opportunity to officially request it, and the administration is also attempting to change the grounds under which a prospective immigrant can qualify for asylum. For example, the administration is attempting to remove those from eligibility who aren't specifically being persecuted by their government in their country of origin. So a prospective immigrant might come from a country in which narco-terrorists are burning down villages, raping the women, killing the men, and forcibly recruiting the boys, and yet those villagers will not qualify for asylum because they are not being persecuted by government officials. This definition would remove pretty much all people south of our border from refugee status.
Further, there is no reason to fund building the wall, even if we wanted to stop asylum seekers, when there is no reason to believe that a wall would effectively stop them. A wall just isn't that much of an obstacle. Its cost to benefit analysis just isn't very promising. It is a dog of an investment.
(January 13, 2019 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 13, 2019 at 1:33 pm)camoman Wrote: The real issue is how everyone looks at this. Lots of people believe its a race issue that you don't want them here because they are Mexican or not what ever. Yet the reality is you would not have a party at your house and let just anyone walk in. You invite those you trust. If you have a open door policy eventually someone will enter the party who doesn't like the music and try to change it. The owner of the house then gets up set that his music was changed and then there is a controversy. Its about providing a safety net for those who are already here. Simple solution is for the left to give the money for the wall with stipulations on the amount of immigrants who can come in every year. The right would have to agree to a certain amount of immigration. Then both sides get close to what they want. Then the people who feel death is going to ride in from the south unchecked are happy. The people who feel that the poor and desolate people of Mexico need to have a place to come look for the dream are happy. Yet the dream seems like a night mare anymore. I suppose when your country will let Chevrolet work you for 2 dollars a day though America does seem like a dream. That was a guess on the two dollars don't take that literal.
The my-country-is-like-my-house analogy is starting to make me sick.
The primary reason for the wall is that Trump doesn't want to 'look foolish' to his base. The primary argument against the wall is that walls don't work. You lot may as well spend the $5 billion on a huge pile of candy floss along the border, hoping migrants will get stuck.
If you think the two sides on the US political divide are going to agree amount of legal migration, you're living in a fantasy world.
Boru
I agree that the wall is one hundred percent a political symbol. And it is probably symbolic of racism. It is certainly symbolic of nativism.
We do not inherit the world from our parents. We borrow it from our children.