Trump on 60 Minutes

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem is that in our national discourse on this topic, far too many people do not make that distinction. Hell, far too many don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, much less refugees. I take you at your word; you seem like a decent person. But as Rhythm pointed out earlier, on this topic talking about Platonic ideals is about as useful as a pinholed condom. Reality gives not one shit about our precious abstractions. And the reality is that for far too many folks, racism is the driving emotion underlying their own stance vis-a-vis immigration. I'm not saying that's the case with you; I do take you at your word.

I'm just not in the habit of ignoring 800-pound gorillas simply because I wish they didn't exist. They do, and only fools ignore them.

Tib already had made that distinction earlier on in the thread. Life/death situations are different for sure.

Yes, I know he did. My point is that that doesn't change the fact that racism is at the root of much concern over immigration, like it or not. It is a cold, hard fact, and one we would ignore only at great risk.

[abaris]

To be clear, I support refugees coming in. The discussion is not about refugees. At least not on my end.

Many people mix all the categories up into one big mash to suit their needs. They don't make distinctions and the fear mongerers don't want them to. It's their political ticket after all.

Many countries, or their leaders rather, have their pants full because of populous sentiment. Some leaders are just despicable little men, such as Orban, inciting and instrumentalising hate even more to change some political dime. They're also not interested in a real debate or in making distinctions. And on top of that they reveal themselves to be cherry pickers, such as being totally illoyal towards a union they collect their subsidies from. To the detriment of the poorest states on the continent.

So, there are quite a few points to consider. First, refugees will come. It's up to the authorities to determine their legal status as refugees. It's up to the governments to create an environment that is within the limits of international laws and humanism. It's also up to them to hold the despicable little creatures in check, who add insult to injury when calling refugees all kinds of names. That they do doesn't come out of the blue. Someone with an agenda invented all the slurs we can even observe on this very board. They didn't invent them. They just felt as if they could finally direct their ire at the most helpless by resorting to witty comments. Witty in their perception. Something from a clogged toilet for anyone having a shred of human decency left.

Secondly, illegals will come. There's a real industry thriving on the myth of a better life up north. It's usually up north. Most of them are disillusioned after the first months having spent in the supposed paradise they spent their life savings to reach. Many of them go back after coming to that conclusion.

Third, I'm still waiting for anyone telling me what harm illegals actually do. Is anyone waiting for finally landing a job scrubbing the toilets? Or to slave away on the fields in some remote province for a pittance? To work as an orderly in a hospital? On the other hand these people are consumers. Have to be since they have to eat. But they got no social security, which is an even bigger issue in Europe than it is in America. So they don't get anything out of the system. If they lose their jobs, the state doesn't provide, since they're under the radar. Again, it's just a narrative invented by someone cashing in some political dimes or by someone not wanting for anyone to take a closer look at the real problems.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok. Well, in that case, I don't think it's unethical to regulate our borders, or to deport some people (not all).

No argument here.

Some people here are saying no one should be deported at all unless they committed a crime (as in, a crime other than coming/being here illegally). Meaning as long as someone can get here, they should be allowed to stay if they are not found to be criminals.  

That is where I disagree.

[The Grand Nudger]

I take you for your word as well Cath.  You're not a racist.  

What's clear from your questions and objections, however, is that you've been steeped in the racists narrative which does exist and -is- the narrative of the debate on the issue, in this country..  

You thought, for example, that a problem with illegals might be their failure to "integrate" - which you defined as being willing to work and follow our laws. Lazy criminals.  Well, they do work, they do follow our laws.  Good god, things would be awfully shitty for them if they didn't, shittier than for you and I.  The last thing they need is to be penniless and pulled over for a tail light being out.  

You thought, for example, that a problem with illegals might be that we ought to take care of our own first.  The takers narrative.  Well, we do take care of our own, the illegals aren't eligible, even though they contribute immensely.

You think that allowing more immigrants or making the process easier, or not deporting illegals makes regulating our borders irrelevant, pointless.  Fortress america, but, apparently the only reason for the border is keeping mexicans out.

Who do you think sold you these narratives...each one of them wholly untrue but, for some reason, compelling to you? Did you imagine all of this factually untrue shit on your own? When, how? Just sitting there, thinking about things? Where did you get these ideas from? Forgive me for proposing that had you actually done some research on this, yourself...being a non racist and decent human being....you just -might- have approached this whole issue from an entirely different context. Am I allowed to make that generous assumption?

[TaraJo]

If everyone seems to agree with the idea that we should allow refugees in, what immigrants do we disagree about? Who shouldn't we let in?

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people here are saying no one should be deported at all unless they committed a crime (as in, a crime other than coming/being here illegally). Meaning as long as someone can get here, they should be allowed to stay if they are not found to be criminals.  

That is where I disagree.

Why?  Why do you disagree? What's the problem. Can you articulate it?

[abaris]

If everyone seems to agree with the idea that we should allow refugees in, what immigrants do we disagree about?  Who shouldn't we let in?

We should regulate who's coming in if they're not fleeing from some life threatening situation. That's already being done, it just flies under the radar of the recipients of the fear mongering messages. It also flies under their radar that illegals are deported on a daily basis. Business as usual doesn't strengthen the agenda after all. Refugees are deported too because the commissions didn't find sufficient reasons for granting them the status according to international standards.

What we certainly shouldn't do is succumbing to irrational fears and prejudices. We shouldn't spend tons of money on pure actionism, such as building walls or fences and we shouldn't fret over what illegals or refugees are taking from us. It's virtually nothing.

[Catholic_Lady]

If everyone seems to agree with the idea that we should allow refugees in, what immigrants do we disagree about?  Who shouldn't we let in?

It's not about not being allowed in. It's about going through a legal process (whatever it may be) to get here and stay here. 

If someone comes here illegally but is a refugee, they can stay. If someone came here illegally years ago but has been well integrated, made a good life, has family, children, etc, they can stay.  But if some dude who is not a refugee veers around the entry gate and crosses the desert/ocean/lake or whatever to get here, and gets caught in the process... yeah, take him back. If he wants to come, he can go through the legal process. What would even be the point of regulating our borders if we're just going to be like "You need these documents and you need to go through these gates to get here. But oh, you managed to get in without doing that? Ok, that's fine. You can stay." That is just not reasonable, folks. 

As Abaris said. When it comes to illegals being here, it should be taken as a case by case basis. Not "they all need to go" and not "they all can stay so long as they are not criminals."

[Catholic_Lady]

If everyone seems to agree with the idea that we should allow refugees in, what immigrants do we disagree about?  Who shouldn't we let in?

We should regulate who's coming in if they're not fleeing from some life threatening situation. That's already being done, it just flies under the radar of the recipients of the fear mongering messages. It also flies under their radar that illegals are deported on a daily basis. Business as usual doesn't strengthen the agenda after all. Refugees are deported too because the commissions didn't find sufficient reasons for granting them the status according to international standards.

What we certainly shouldn't do is succumbing to irrational fears and prejudices. We shouldn't spend tons of money on pure actionism, such as building walls or fences and we shouldn't fret over what illegals or refugees are taking from us. It's virtually nothing.

My bold. Yes. 

And yes to the rest.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about not being allowed in. It's about going through a legal process (whatever it may be) to get here and stay here. 

If someone comes here illegally but is a refugee, they can stay. If someone came here illegally years ago but has been well integrated, made a good life, has family, children, etc, they can stay.  But if some dude who is not a refugee veers around the entry gate and crosses the desert/ocean/lake or whatever to get here, and gets caught in the process... yeah, take him back. If he wants to come, he can go through the legal process. What would even be the point of regulating our borders if we're just going to be like "You need these documents and you need to go through these gates to get here. But oh, you managed to get in without doing that? Ok, that's fine. You can stay." That is just not reasonable, folks. 

Why is it unreasonable, you're just referring, here, to business as usual.  That they have to do it because it's the law.  Maybe it shouldn't be the law.  Particularly since many -can't- satisfy the conditions.  The law says have a job or have money. You could always enter the lottery, and hope you don't starve before you get informed that you didn't win the prize.  If they had a job or money why would they be emigrating in the first place, and is that really the sort of law you want to support?  

As Abaris said. When it comes to illegals being here, it should be taken as a case by case basis. Not "they all need to go" and not "they all can stay so long as they have not killed/raped anyone."

Your case by case basis...and according to your own standards, would lead to amnesty...unless you're just kicking people out because they haven't had kids since they got here. You know "all of it"????