GOP goes from "anchor baby" to "chain migration'.

[Brian37]

When you cant get away with being a flat out dick, change your language, go back to the code.

Now they are hiding their bigotry with "chain migration".

Maybe 45 is becoming too much and the GOP is thinking they should have stuck with their coded bullshit.

OF COURSE if I am coming from overseas, OR south of the boarder, and I am trying to save my family from poverty and or crime and war, OF COURSE I am going to want to save my family as well.

I hate these fuckers selling fear and hate when the truth is if they were put in the same conditions they also would make the same attempts.

Now they wont call it "anchor babies" now they call it "chain migration".

[GUBU]

Isn't funny though, that the party of nativism (who don't like actual natives. Oh no, we can't have them kind of people. Too red) is currently lead by the grandson of an illegal immigrant.

[Brian37]

Isn't funny though, that the party of nativism (who don't like actual natives. Oh no, we can't have them kind of people. Too red) is currently lead by the grandson of an illegal immigrant.

F-U "anchor baby!" 

I love how these assholes forget that there were Natives in the Americas for the past 50,000 years. Funny how Europeans didn't ask permission to invade or share. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...104010.htm

To blame a fellow human for wanting to escape bad conditions is inhumane.

[henryp]

An anchor baby is sometimes a part of chain migration. Chain migration does not always involve an anchor baby.

And it's understandable that everyone wants to come to the US. But they aren't allowed. Just like if a bunch of homeless people snuck into my house. I'd understand why. But they'd still have to leave.

If you want to change that, by all means try to elect someone that feels that way. But as of now, I think people would prefer there not be illegal immigration.

[Minimalist]

Yeah.... good point, Wally.

[Brian37]

An anchor baby is sometimes a part of chain migration.  Chain migration does not always involve an anchor baby.

And it's understandable that everyone wants to come to the US.  But they aren't allowed.  Just like if a bunch of homeless people snuck into my house.  I'd understand why.  But they'd still have to leave.  

If you want to change that, by all means try to elect someone that feels that way.  But as of now, I think people would prefer there not be illegal immigration.

"Wait in line" is a utopia. If you think migration without papers is strictly a United States issue, you might want to ask China how they feel about North Koreans escaping into their country, which happens all the time.

Now again, it is lip service and very easy to say that, when you are not the desperate person trying to flee bad conditions.

Everything needs to be treated as case by case, and if we have to send someone back, we should make sure we can send them to where they can survive. Sending them back to the same or worse conditions solves nothing not to mention it is cruel.

Now, I am not talking about someone who already comes from a stable country who is a college exchange student who simply overstays their visa. If we send say, someone back to Japan, odds are they are not going to die of starvation. In fact, my Japanese X wife told me while we were married that one of our former college mates DID just that, and he was sent back to Japan. I am sure he is fine.

I am talking about war refugees, whom are not interested in taking your jobs or committing crimes, but simply don't want to end up dead. I am talking about families crossing our boarders because they cant feed their KIDS. Again, it is easy to oversimplify it to "wait in line" when you are not the person being affected to the point of starvation or death.

Humans are not a separate species and we should not be using blanket solutions on this issue.

[henryp]

Sounds good in theory, but who really wants to foot the cost? How many people could live in your home? Two in a bed, one on the couch, 4 on the floor? That's how they'd rock it in plenty of countries? And we have homeless people in the US. You looking to add 6 roommates? I'd assume not. Because we like our standard of living.

We spend 60 billion a year on pets while we have humans starving in our country.

The decision has already been made, and it's not "Let's take care of all the humans of the world." It's let's have a really high standard of living, and maybe we'll share some scraps with the less fortunate if we feel like it.

---

Yeah.... good point, Wally.

Why don't the natives take back the land?  Because they can't.  Because the immigrants killed most of them, took all their land, and stuck them on reservations.  That's not a ringing endorsement for immigration.

[The Grand Nudger]

For clarity, are brown people like a gaggle of homeless shamblers in your timeshare, or an invading horde that aims to send white men to the rez?

It seems as if being good at one means you'd be shit at the other.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This is a complex issue but the simple answer is that no alien has the right to bunk in America just because his own dump is a shit hole. Our worthless Congress Critters are supposed to represent American citizens and not the other 7+ Billion people on this rock. When the dummies allow the country to be flooded with aliens they are working against the citizens' interests and should be replaced.

Everyone has a sob story but we simply can't solve everyone's problems. We have to solve our problems first. Immigration has been a problem for the past 400 years when the second ship of people landed and set up a village. No one has solved it in all that time.

This is not 1848 when the Mexicans in the territories the US gained in the Mexican-American War became US citizens. It is also different than what the freed slaves faced after the Civil War when they were leaving the oppressive conditions in the South for new lives in the North and West. They were citizens but were denied their civil rights.

At the very least any provisions for accepting aliens should be based upon reciprocal agreements where Americans can move to their countries without a hassle and buy property and set up businesses. If foreign governments won't accept that then we should immediately deport all of their citizens and end the policy of birthright citizenship for all aliens.

[Brian37]

Sounds good in theory, but who really wants to foot the cost?   How many people could live in your home?  Two in a bed, one on the couch, 4 on the floor?  That's how they'd rock it in plenty of countries?  And we have homeless people in the US.  You looking to add 6 roommates?  I'd assume not.  Because we like our standard of living.  

We spend 60 billion a year on pets while we have humans starving in our country.  

The decision has already been made, and it's not "Let's take care of all the humans of the world."  It's let's have a really high standard of living, and maybe we'll share some scraps with the less fortunate if we feel like it.

---

Yeah.... good point, Wally.

Why don't the natives take back the land?  Because they can't.  Because the immigrants killed most of them, took all their land, and stuck them on reservations.  That's not a ringing endorsement for immigration.

"Wait in line" is the "Sounds nice in theory", not the "Who wants to foot the cost"

I don't even care if we are talking even a stable family. Nobody wants to encounter the unexpected. It isn't about either or. It is about what you would want for yourself if you suddenly sank, and had a family to feed. Even here, even when we are not talking about migration, families can do all the right things, and a sudden huge disruption, like an accident, health issue, lose of a job, or even a sudden robbery, where someone dies, which takes away one of the bread winners, and or the only bread winner. It happens all the time.

I think far too many humans fail to see that this is not a flat surface we live on, it is a globe. While self preservation is evolutionary, it is still the same for everyone, and when we lose our compassion for others, that is when we start becoming cruel to each other.

Nobody wants to foot the cost, and nobody wants to die either, and we all want to provide for ourselves and our families, and all of that is universal. So it still becomes a choice between empathy and coldness.