Some people would argue that being picky about who to let in, is un-american. After all, isn’t America supposed to be the land of opportunities? A place where freedom lovers from anywhere should be able to go?
Some people would argue that being picky about who to let in, is un-american. After all, isn’t America supposed to be the land of opportunities? A place where freedom lovers from anywhere should be able to go?
Some people would argue that being picky about who to let in, is un-american. After all, isn’t America supposed to be the land of opportunities? A place where freedom lovers from anywhere should be able to go?
What’s so wrong for us to expect immigrants to follow our laws in order to gain acceptance into our country? And doesn’t the guvment have a constitutional requirement to protect its citizens from harm? By allowing people to enter illegally we’re potentially allowing dangerous criminals to have free reign in our society.
Again, what are the problems with immigration, other than the lack of enforcement?
Well for a start the process is far too slow and their estimated processing times are worthless, but that’s just me grumbling from personal experience.
Seriously though, I’m not arguing that there are any problems, I don’t really know enough about the issue in a broad sense to really comment with reguard to problems with the legal immigration system.
From your original article though:
In their broad blueprint, Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, call for illegal immigrants to be put on a path to citizenship, offer green cards to keep high-skilled foreign university graduates and would create a temporary program for low-skilled workers, with some also getting the chance to become citizens.
One can deduce that at least Schumer and Graham see 3 problems:
1. The problem of all the people who are currently hear illegally
2. A lack of highly skilled university graduates in certain fields, and thus a need to attract them from abroad
3. A lack of low skill workers, or a need for seasonal (temporary) workers in some industries
We can all agree that number 1 is a problem. Where there is much disagreement is about how to remedy it.
I’ve heard the 2nd one before from business leaders including Bill Gates, he’s the only name that sticks in my head. If there is a need for more of these people now, then I think this is a good way to do it. So far I don’t think I’ve heard any opposition to this idea on these boards (i.e. this fits the ‘legal’ and ‘picky’ requirements)
The third one is not news either. This fits the ‘legal’ requirement. As many of the illegals here today are here for work, and in many cases are known to be good and hard workers, and are in low income jobs, I don’t think there can be any doubt that a need for it exists. The question again is, how best to fill it.
I can see a good argument for what is proposed above, a temporary guest worker program, and in my experience this is usually being pushed by business interests, not typically the Democratic party’s base. On the other hand I can also see a good argument that bringing in foreigners to work at low wages in ‘the jobs Americans don’t want to do’ is exactly what keeps those wages low, and that what we should do is cut off the supply of cheap foreign labour, which means that employers who need people to work for them will have to raise their wages enough to tempt Americans to take the jobs. Seems fair, but of course it will have an impact on the price we pay for all kinds of things from veggies to hotel rooms etc. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing of course.
Anyway, that’s at least what these guys are claiming is wrong with the current process. Your thoughts?
crichton - 22 March 2010 01:46 PM
The biggest problem that I have with the current atmosphere in Washington is that the party in charge sees both healthcare and immigration reform as gateways to an end that they’re not willing to fully expose.
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
As I’ve pointed out several times now (and Dio has chimed in on), Immigration reform is not something tied to the Democratic party. The Republican party have had a few goes at this themselves, and I can’t imagine they do so with a strong belief that the net result will be a guaranteed voting block for the Dems.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
As I’ve pointed out several times now (and Dio has chimed in on), Immigration reform is not something tied to the Democratic party. The Republican party have had a few goes at this themselves, and I can’t imagine they do so with a strong belief that the net result will be a guaranteed voting block for the Dems.
Then you don’t remember me bashing Bush each and every time he tried some sort of political, social and/or fiscal restructuring of society. It isn’t about party it’s about the Constitution. I’ve railed against McCain for his amnesty leanings as well. I’d like to see a point by point analysis of the following:
1) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in Canada.
2) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in the U.K.
3) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in Mexico.
And I have to go back to saying that what is going on with this Congress and this Administration is a form of tyranny. It’s disingenuous to say that we aren’t experiencing tyranny in this country just because people have it so much worse in other parts of the world. When liberty of its citizens is infringed upon by the guvment to any degree, the U.S. is practicing tyranny. Just because things are better here doesn’t mean we can’t experience tyranny by the guvment until our civil rights fall to the level of a Somalia. Tyranny has to start somewhere, doesn’t it?
That being said, what are the positives we can expect to experience by giving amnesty to all illegals currently in the country.
But illegals can’t vote, so I don’t see the incentive.
No taxation without representation. So once made legal you can sure as shit bet the next step will be to give them voting rights.
Ah, and there is the other side of the sword. The Dems want the illegals voting, and they want their tax money. How better to do that in one fell swoop than amnesty?
But illegals can’t vote, so I don’t see the incentive.
No taxation without representation. So once made legal you can sure as shit bet the next step will be to give them voting rights.
Ah, and there is the other side of the sword. The Dems want the illegals voting, and they want their tax money. How better to do that in one fell swoop than amnesty?
But illegals can’t vote, so I don’t see the incentive.
No taxation without representation. So once made legal you can sure as shit bet the next step will be to give them voting rights.
Ah, and there is the other side of the sword. The Dems want the illegals voting, and they want their tax money. How better to do that in one fell swoop than amnesty?
Sneaky isn’t it? ;)
Kinda makes you feel like you’re in the Matrix and everyone but you swallowed the wrong damn pill, doesn’t it?
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
You’ve talked about being on some lefty forums. Do you think they ‘just want healthcare for everyone? Or do they want forced equality (ie, ‘coverage’ in name for everyone, but if it totally sucks thats ok)? And then there are the methods… wage and price controls, government planning (like where people can build hospitals, et cetera).... ie, just plain stupid methods… that also happen to put the government in control of chuncks of the economy… which brings up the point, don’t they also think it is great to take money and profits out of healthcare? Replace it with ‘democratic’ control instead? Well, that turns into another motive that is not just ‘healthcare for everyone’ (it’s lefty ideology for everyone!).
When I talk with them, they tend to say all this stuff....
Some people would argue that being picky about who to let in, is un-american. After all, isn’t America supposed to be the land of opportunities? A place where freedom lovers from anywhere should be able to go?
You should still be invited. We can’t just let in everyone that crashes the gate and/or the people already here should have a say over who they want to have join them.
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
You’ve talked about being on some lefty forums. Do you think they ‘just want healthcare for everyone? Or do they want forced equality (ie, ‘coverage’ in name for everyone, but if it totally sucks thats ok)? And then there are the methods… wage and price controls, government planning (like where people can build hospitals, et cetera).... ie, just plain stupid methods… that also happen to put the government in control of chuncks of the economy… which brings up the point, don’t they also think it is great to take money and profits out of healthcare? Replace it with ‘democratic’ control instead? Well, that turns into another motive that is not just ‘healthcare for everyone’ (it’s lefty ideology for everyone!).
When I talk with them, they tend to say all this stuff....
Nobody seems to be mentioning that it isn’t the Democratic Party anymore. It’s a Progressive movement with a currently Socialist Agenda. There are a few traditional Democrat buried somewhere among the ranks, but they’re too conservative (I know, odd, isn’t it?) to be given a voice. And the Republican Party has changed as well. It used to be that you could equate Conservatism with Republicanism, but not so. The Republican Party is a slightly-right-of-center moderate movement that is being driven further left with every election. You want to see some right-wing radicals, forget the Tea Party (though for the most part they have the right idea) and do some research on Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. Benjamin Franklin. Samuel Adams.
I absolutely agree that this is a power move to promote a new progressive ideology on the people. And they’re doing it by dangling something that everyone wants or thinks he needs (i.e. healthcare) and doing it in such a way that the average person won’t see it as a play to create a nation of government program addicts.
But illegals can’t vote, so I don’t see the incentive.
No taxation without representation. So once made legal you can sure as shit bet the next step will be to give them voting rights.
Ah, and there is the other side of the sword. The Dems want the illegals voting, and they want their tax money. How better to do that in one fell swoop than amnesty?
Sneaky isn’t it? ;)
Kinda makes you feel like you’re in the Matrix and everyone but you swallowed the wrong damn pill, doesn’t it?
They’ll just “deem” them legal and “deem” them the right to vote.
Tripper:
Well for a start the process is far too slow and their estimated processing times are worthless, but that’s just me grumbling from personal experience.
There are four immigrants currently in my family who have all come from Canada and received their U.S. citizenship within the past three years. All of them say that the “process is too slow” is much ado about nothing. One of them (the youngest male who’s 22) said that complaining about the “slow” process time seemed rather like nit-picking.
And besides, we’re not talking about you. You’ve taken the legal approach. Apples and oranges…
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
As I’ve pointed out several times now (and Dio has chimed in on), Immigration reform is not something tied to the Democratic party. The Republican party have had a few goes at this themselves, and I can’t imagine they do so with a strong belief that the net result will be a guaranteed voting block for the Dems.
Then you don’t remember me bashing Bush each and every time he tried some sort of political, social and/or fiscal restructuring of society. It isn’t about party it’s about the Constitution. I’ve railed against McCain for his amnesty leanings as well.
I haven’t missed it at all. I’m well aware that you are against pretty much everything I’ve seen proposed as immigration reform during my time on Moorewatch.
That doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t an issue exclusive to the Democratic Party (as it seems you also recognize) and doesn’t answer the question about why the Republicans would do it, if the end result will only be a few million more in entitlement programs and a solid block of Democratic voters for ever.
crichton - 24 March 2010 04:49 PM
I’d like to see a point by point analysis of the following:
1) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in Canada.
2) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in the U.K.
3) How one achieves citizenship in the U.S. vs. how one achieves citizenship in Mexico.
I’d love to provide you one, it would be interesting reading for me to. At them moment however I’m at the beach in Mexico and just logging in to my work computer to make sure nothing exploded while I’ve been gone. Of course Moorewatch is more tempting than work at this precise moment.
That said, a solid point by point breakdown of the above would be huge. Of the 4 I’m most familiar with the uS process and it is massive. What would you hope to discover from such an analysis? We might be able to make the task a bit smaller.
crichton - 24 March 2010 04:49 PM
[And I have to go back to saying that what is going on with this Congress and this Administration is a form of tyranny. It’s disingenuous to say that we aren’t experiencing tyranny in this country just because people have it so much worse in other parts of the world. When liberty of its citizens is infringed upon by the guvment to any degree, the U.S. is practicing tyranny. Just because things are better here doesn’t mean we can’t experience tyranny by the guvment until our civil rights fall to the level of a Somalia. Tyranny has to start somewhere, doesn’t it?
That being said, what are the positives we can expect to experience by giving amnesty to all illegals currently in the country.
So after you recognize you are not living under tyranny further up the thread, you’re calling yourself wrong and are back on your original rant eh?
I’m certainly not saying that because something else in the world is worse that you can’t have it here, but you don’t. You have a government who were democratically elected (on a platform of reforming healthcare no less), who are now setting about governing in a way that they said they would, perhaps even a lighter version than they promised since they didn’t get everything they wanted out of healthcare, and you have a chance to vote a bunch of them out Democratically later this year, and then another chance to vote more of them out, along with the president in a little over 2 years. Where is the tyranny?
It seems that you see tyranny when the candidate / party you want to win, doesn’t. Or when the government does something you don’t like.
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
You’ve talked about being on some lefty forums. Do you think they ‘just want healthcare for everyone? Or do they want forced equality (ie, ‘coverage’ in name for everyone, but if it totally sucks thats ok)? And then there are the methods… wage and price controls, government planning (like where people can build hospitals, et cetera).... ie, just plain stupid methods… that also happen to put the government in control of chuncks of the economy… which brings up the point, don’t they also think it is great to take money and profits out of healthcare? Replace it with ‘democratic’ control instead? Well, that turns into another motive that is not just ‘healthcare for everyone’ (it’s lefty ideology for everyone!).
When I talk with them, they tend to say all this stuff....
It’s just one other forum and it seems to have died of late so I’ve not been there in a while. It’s not a lefty forum officially but the people on there are overwhelmingly left. I really don’t joke when I say that I was probably the most conservative poster I saw there in my time, at least as a regular.
It’s hard to really answer your questions re. that forum though. Most people there are avid Marxists / Anarchists or something crazy like that. They were hating Obama before it was even fashionable to hate Obama. There were anti-Obama threads before he even won the nomination on the grounds that he’s just at tool of the same old shit that’s been running the US for decades blah blah blah.
They have hated healthcare in any of the forms proposed from day one because it doesn’t go far enough. For them the NHS in the UK is not far enough.
You should have heard the abuse I got when I said I though John Mackey might have a point and that he sounds like he’d be a great guy to work for (CEO of Wholefoods)
Tripper:
So after you recognize you are not living under tyranny further up the thread, you’re calling yourself wrong and are back on your original rant eh?
Either you missed the point or I didn’t explain it well enough--doesn’t matter. The point is that tyranny has to start somewhere and at some level. Under most instances, especially in an industrialized nation, it will start slowly and quietly and not with a BANG!! I believe that we’re in the beginning stages of a tyrannical agenda.
According to the CBO this administration has just saddled us with a 2020 debt that is nearly $1.5 trillion higher than what Obama claimed it was and its a debt that will be at least 90% of GDP. I posted it in a different thread if you want to read it. It is an act of tyranny to impose that kind of future taxation on a country’s citizens as it will severely hamper the citizens earning potential. It’s an act of tyranny to force people to buy something that they may not want or need, but yet it will be done with Obamacare. And to make matters worse, we’ll be paying for this beautiful new car for four years before the guvment will give us the keys.
Biden’s gone on record as saying that the guvment will be controlling the insurance companies. They will be increasing the amount of IRS agents by more than 16,000 yet they (see Senator Weiner on a recent O’Reilly) maintain that the IRS won’t be the agency enforcing the health care mandate. It’s a lie and the action that resulted in the lie is tyrannical. It’s an act of tyranny for a representative republic to go against the desires of 2/3 of its constituents, yet that’s exactly what happened.
In some respects tyranny is relative to the amounts of freedom a people has to begin with. How many more examples does one need to realize that this form of tyranny (from the book of Alinsky) comes in small, continuous waves when compared to a Venezuela, for example?
Some people would argue that being picky about who to let in, is un-american. After all, isn’t America supposed to be the land of opportunities? A place where freedom lovers from anywhere should be able to go?
Yes you’re right. I believe the motto is “give us your huddled drug lords, rapists, child molesters and murderers...”
Tripper:
Actually I think the biggest problem here is that you seem to assume some kind of nefarious intent behind everything the Democratic party do, simply because it’s the Democratic party. You don’t suppose they want healthcare for everyone because they believe it’s the right thing to do?
You’ve talked about being on some lefty forums. Do you think they ‘just want healthcare for everyone? Or do they want forced equality (ie, ‘coverage’ in name for everyone, but if it totally sucks thats ok)? And then there are the methods… wage and price controls, government planning (like where people can build hospitals, et cetera).... ie, just plain stupid methods… that also happen to put the government in control of chuncks of the economy… which brings up the point, don’t they also think it is great to take money and profits out of healthcare? Replace it with ‘democratic’ control instead? Well, that turns into another motive that is not just ‘healthcare for everyone’ (it’s lefty ideology for everyone!).
When I talk with them, they tend to say all this stuff....
It’s just one other forum and it seems to have died of late so I’ve not been there in a while. It’s not a lefty forum officially but the people on there are overwhelmingly left. I really don’t joke when I say that I was probably the most conservative poster I saw there in my time, at least as a regular.
It’s hard to really answer your questions re. that forum though. Most people there are avid Marxists / Anarchists or something crazy like that. They were hating Obama before it was even fashionable to hate Obama. There were anti-Obama threads before he even won the nomination on the grounds that he’s just at tool of the same old shit that’s been running the US for decades blah blah blah.
They have hated healthcare in any of the forms proposed from day one because it doesn’t go far enough. For them the NHS in the UK is not far enough.
You should have heard the abuse I got when I said I though John Mackey might have a point and that he sounds like he’d be a great guy to work for (CEO of Wholefoods)
These guys wanted Denis Kucinich to be president.
They’re lefty, they’re not Dems
Got it… well, all I can say is I live in SF and the SF Dems think the ways I’m describing… and considering progressive dems make up more than half of the democratic party… I think the thoughts are common and/or the majority thought of the democratic party… So, I think it fair to say they have other motives besides just healthcare for all.
Tripper:
So after you recognize you are not living under tyranny further up the thread, you’re calling yourself wrong and are back on your original rant eh?
Either you missed the point or I didn’t explain it well enough--doesn’t matter. The point is that tyranny has to start somewhere and at some level. Under most instances, especially in an industrialized nation, it will start slowly and quietly and not with a BANG!! I believe that we’re in the beginning stages of a tyrannical agenda.
I may have missed it. OK, so you think you have the foundations for tyranny? Is that it?
I still strongly disagree.
crichton - 26 March 2010 12:35 PM
According to the CBO this administration has just saddled us with a 2020 debt that is nearly $1.5 trillion higher than what Obama claimed it was and its a debt that will be at least 90% of GDP. I posted it in a different thread if you want to read it. It is an act of tyranny to impose that kind of future taxation on a country’s citizens as it will severely hamper the citizens earning potential. It’s an act of tyranny to force people to buy something that they may not want or need, but yet it will be done with Obamacare. And to make matters worse, we’ll be paying for this beautiful new car for four years before the guvment will give us the keys.
I haven’t had a chance to look into the numbers of this one, and I’m not a big fan of Obamacare so I’m not going to argue the specifics, but it’s still not tyranny.
crichton - 26 March 2010 12:35 PM
Biden’s gone on record as saying that the guvment will be controlling the insurance companies. They will be increasing the amount of IRS agents by more than 16,000 yet they (see Senator Weiner on a recent O’Reilly) maintain that the IRS won’t be the agency enforcing the health care mandate. It’s a lie and the action that resulted in the lie is tyrannical. It’s an act of tyranny for a representative republic to go against the desires of 2/3 of its constituents, yet that’s exactly what happened.
It’s not an act of tyranny for an elected representative to go against the desires of 2/3 of his/her constituents. They had a choice when voting them in, they have a chance to vote them out again. It’s actually a key part of American government, not tyranny at all.
Also, I call BS on the 2/3 number. You can find polls to support it I’m sure, I can also find polls to dispute it. Do we really have time to waste looking them up and posting them tho?
If I could find a poll saying a significant amount of the population were against the Iraq war, would that make the fact that the government chose to go to war an act of tyranny? How much would the majority have to be? more than 50 or a full 2/3?
In some respects tyranny is relative to the amounts of freedom a people has to begin with. How many more examples does one need to realize that this form of tyranny (from the book of Alinsky) comes in small, continuous waves when compared to a Venezuela, for example?
How many examples? One or two real ones would be a good start.
What do you want to know about American immigration relative to the policies of other countries by the way?
[quote author="crichton" date="1269639344
It’s not an act of tyranny for an elected representative to go against the desires of 2/3 of his/her constituents. They had a choice when voting them in, they have a chance to vote them out again. It’s actually a key part of American government, not tyranny at all.
Also, I call BS on the 2/3 number. You can find polls to support it I’m sure, I can also find polls to dispute it. Do we really have time to waste looking them up and posting them tho?
If I could find a poll saying a significant amount of the population were against the Iraq war, would that make the fact that the government chose to go to war an act of tyranny? How much would the majority have to be? more than 50 or a full 2/3?
I find it extremely amusing that you include representatives going against 2/3 of their constituents to be a key part of American Government… And forget the percentage of Americans who were for and against the bill. The day following the passage of the bill, Obama’s rating dropped to barely over 40% (and I, for one, have my doubts that that wasn’t at all padded) and Pelosi hit a new low at 11%. Reid was barely measuring in the positive single digits at 8%. That sounds like something the American people were really getting behind.
As for the Iraq war - there are plenty of people who are against it. Now. When we caught Saddam Hussein you can bet they secretly smiled and breathed a little easier. What those people do not understand is the power vacuum we would create by withdrawing all troops right now. The average American does not understand military strategy, and therefore his opinion carries very little weight when the President and Congress are face with decisions concerning troop placement and withdrawal.
Tripper, for the polls being BS, the majority of polls showed the American public overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare at the same or worse (for Obamacare) numbers for an entire year. If the public would be in favor of it the dems would have passed it last April, not this March. Some say that this is a huge win for Obama, passing his health care bill in a year’s time while holding the White House and both the House and the Senate. Really, Reagan got his tax breaks passed within a month or two and the Dems controlled Congress. But I digress…
As far as the Iraq war analogy goes, lets look at that. Lefty still says that Bush “rushed us to war” even though the timeline shows a 14-month run-up to the war before Congress (dems included) went along with it. On the other hand, we have to listen to Obama say that the republicans (who can’t block a bill with their votes) dragged their feet on health care for the past 12 or 13 months. The process was going too slowly for lefty. Its just plain hypocritical.
A representative republic is set up in a manner in which the representatives seek the desires of his/her constituency and votes accordingly on state and national matters. They serve the populace and it is their job to listen to and act upon the wishes of the electorate. With Obamacare they clearly didn’t do that. In fact they needed to pass the bill before going back to their districts to avoid their constituency. That’s an act of tyranny. As I said, it starts somewhere and this tyranny started with Obama being elected. How else do you explain Pelosi telling people that “we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.”? That’s an outrage. How else to you explain Obama saying that immediately all children with pre-existing conditions would be covered under the bill when that’s clearly not the case?
Just own up to it. Obama is a liar, a thug and a tyrant.
Tripper:
What do you want to know about American immigration relative to the policies of other countries by the way?
I want to see if our policies are as restrictive, more restrictive or less restrictive than other countries regarding immigrants obtaining citizenship.
