Thank you for taking my statement with the good will in which I made them.
I have been down the red pill rabbit hole . I've read much of the book you keep suggesting. I obviously found it less compelling than you.
DOJ Appoints Special Counsel
- Thread starter GL97
- Start date
Thank you for taking my statement with the good will in which I made them.
I have been down the red pill rabbit hole . I've read much of the book you keep suggesting. I obviously found it less compelling than you.
So, not willing to enter into a discussion with me? I see you respond to JDs posts. Is it because I get so "emotional"?
The strawiest of strawmen.There's little point having this discussion with the persona below (you):
While I'm not looking to defend NZ (he's his own person with his own thoughts and conclusions), I do have a question for the left. How did "open borders" and "amnesty for illegal aliens" get encapsulated as a key tenet of multi-cultural acceptance? I support multi-culturalism. As a libertarian, I believe people can and should have the right to live whatever culture and lifestyle they choose. But I'm having trouble with bridging that to acceptance that every Central American who can manage to cross our borders deserves all the blessings my tax dollars can provide.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the mainstream advocating open borders. Amnesty is just pragmatism, You have 11 million undocumented immigrants, it is far better to bring them out of the shadows allow them to narc on gangsters, pay taxes, and turn in their husbands for domestic abuse, than to hunt everyone of them down. I also see the point of view that amnesty isn't workable without proper border security
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think there is an answer to this question. I don't see any reason why they should be tied together. I don't think "open borders" is a good idea, and I doubt there are many (left or right) who are in favor of the idea.
I don't have a strong opinion on amnesty either, other than to say that my feelings might change depending on the circumstances of a particular individual. As to multi-cultural acceptance, I understand that it comes with negatives and security risks. It is not high on my priority list.
Let me ask you something. Where are you seeing individuals crying for open borders and amnesty and tying it to multi-cultural acceptance? Sounds to me like fake news.
There's little point having this discussion with the persona below (you):
Not an accurate portrayal of me, or what I have posted. I do like the big nose and yamulke, though.
But, what about the discussion I posted in response to your post about the 6 corporate media giants? I noticed you never responded. What about the post I made in response to your (often repeated) post about Ovadia Yosef? You don't want to discuss that topic?
Why are you so hung up on Israel? China's got a pretty big wall, I think. What is it about Israel that has you so focused on them all the time?
Far be it for me to defend Adelson, but that isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. First answers the question "What do you do about the undocumented immigrants?" The second answers "What do you do about border security?" The answers aren't in contradiction, and I have a feeling Sheldon would be fine with a wall here given who he supported in the presidential election.
My take - If China had very powerful vocal people here singing the let all the refugees in but in China they were for not letting any refugees in, he would be beating that drum .. or any other country that was doing that. May not be right as their may be others doing that exact thing and he is straight up antisemitic, but I don't think so. It appears he is more focused on the hypocrisy.
Why does he care so strong about it? I don't know but everyone on the board has had to read this by now so maybe he can quit repeating it over and over and over and .....
There are also narrow thinkers on every side not willing to actually think and/or listen and would rather just throw out a meme with their ear plugs in and blinders on.
What do you mean by "open borders"? That term gets thrown around a lot by those on the right, but it has different meanings to different people.
As for amnesty, again, it depends on what you mean. I support a path to citizenship for many of the undocumented immigrants in this country but I don't support pure amnesty. The reason I support a path to citizenship is because (1) it is the only practical way of fixing a problem our failed immigration system helped create and (2) it is the most humane path forward.
Our immigration system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Fixing it though isn't simply building some silly wall or getting tougher on undocumented immigrants. Actions such as those simply seek to address the symptom, not the cause.
In all fairness, the left doesn't like Israel. Look no further than the previous president and the current deputy chair of the DNC.
Can you at least admit that Israel is different from the U.S. or Poland, or any other country. I mean, let's all agree that every country has its own unique set of circumstances that might affect the mindset, policies, and laws of that particular country. Maybe, just maybe, all countries should not be held to the same standards when it comes to certain philosophies, priorities, etc. Maybe we should not be so judgemental when it comes to another country wanting to conduct themselves differently from how we do things in the U.S.
This is not true at all. Sure, there are some on the left who don't like Israel for whatever reason just as there are some on the right who don't like Israel. Claiming though the "left" doesn't like Israel is wrong.
Obama had problems with Netanyahu. Netanyahu isn't Israel. He is a Likud politician in Israel.
Just because one disagrees with a politician or a political party in Israel doesn't mean one doesn't like Israel.
That would be like saying if one has a problem with a USA Democratic leader, then one doesn't like the USA.
Open borders to me represents the unwillingness to recognize and address illegal immigration issues. Simple items such as a wall, are met with immediate outrage and xenophobe comments. If we want to vet individuals coming from predominantly Muslim countries that are known to harbor (and support) terrorist organizations, the left is rioting at airports and burning Trump effigies. Please don't try to use linguistic gymnastics to pretend that the left doesn't actually do these things and supports a strong border and restrictive immigration. I actually support Amnesty, I just believe we have to have strong controls in place first. As for the term open borders, I think its too generic personally. I think most Libs simply want the status quo and Amnesty for any and all who get here. This is the basis of Sanctuary city status. But explain to me how a policy of "if you get here, you can stay" isn't considered an open border policy? To me, that is a pretty open border. I'd also note that according to Wikileaks (take it with a grain of salt), Hillary was documented stating she's "for open trade and open borders" in one (or more) of her paid, private speeches.
Ok, then I do not support open borders under this definition. And from what I see and read, the majority on the left do not support this form of open borders.
Because many are offended by the notion of building a wall around our country. No, strike that. A wall around the southern part of our country since I don't see Trump advocating for a wall between us and Canada.
Also, again, the wall doesn't fix the cause. It doesn't fix the problems with our immigration system. Not to mention the cost, etc.
btw, most of the outrage from the left is usually directed at claims by Trump and others that seem to imply "all Hispanics" or "all Muslims" or "all foreigners" or "all illegal immigrants" are the same and act the same.
And the reason for this is because it appears individuals are being singled out because of their religion. It is a civil liberties issue and that is what the left is concerned about.
This is incorrect. Those on the left have many policy changes they would like to see take place in terms of our immigration system. And many on the left do no support pure amnesty.
Again though, what did she mean by open borders? She sure didn't mean the definition you gave it because she had proposals on how to address undocumented immigrations and the problems in our immigration system.
The wall and the Muslim ban are both symbolic gestures and I think you know it.
Why spend billions on a wall when net migration has been essentially 0 for years. Why spend billions on a wall when it can be circumvented by simply overstaying a visa? The wall has meaning that goes beyond it's function. The backlash to double the visa enforcement budget and double border patrols in problem areas would have been much smaller (and would have lost to Cruz).
We have already talked about the Muslim ban ad nauseaum on this board.
Again, how you treat undocumented immigrants is not the same as how you treat the border, as evidenced by your support for amnesty on the condition border security is tightened.
Why spend billions on a wall when net migration has been essentially 0 for years. Why spend billions on a wall when it can be circumvented by simply overstaying a visa? The wall has meaning that goes beyond it's function. The backlash to double the visa enforcement budget and double border patrols in problem areas would have been much smaller (and would have lost to Cruz).
We have already talked about the Muslim ban ad nauseaum on this board.
Again, how you treat undocumented immigrants is not the same as how you treat the border, as evidenced by your support for amnesty on the condition border security is tightened.
I disagree. The whole definition of sanctuary city is the acceptance of immigrants as "if you get here and don't commit multiple felonies, then you are welcome to stay". Do you or do you not support this position? Because the majority of the left certainly do. And I believe this is effectively an open border policy.
We've already shown that the cost is negligible. I'd argue the savings in healthcare and government outlays to illegal immigrants alone would pay for it. Its hard to say because different reporting groups reflect significantly differing amounts raging from $10B to $113B per year. While a wall doesn't solve this completely, it would help in preventing the problem from continuing to grow. As for Canada, I'm a proponent of using resources where they solve problems. When 1 million Canadians (or others) enter our country illegally from our Northern border, I promise I will advocate for a wall there too.
Much of this is hyperbole. But regardless, all illegal immigrants are illegal.
This is one of the areas where I disagree the most with the left. The left wants to pretend that the terrorist organizations that we are addressing are not directly tied to the Islamic religion. Does it make all Islamists bad? Its this mentality that leads to the 88 year-old veteran with a hip replacement being patted down at the airport, while the Islamic tourist wearing a Hijab is given expedited access. Somewhere we managed to lose all common sense. But then again, what do you expect when the retort is "why not at wall at Canada?"
I'll believe this when I see it. The DREAM act was pure amnesty. In fact, it gets applied to anyone close to an appropriate age as its next to impossible to document if and when someone actually got here. If they were documented, they likely wouldn't be illegal. Again, I'm actually for Amnesty. But not until we have controls.
Have you read her proposals? Can you list one item that actually prevents illegals from entering our country? She wasn't for stepping up enforcement. She wasn't for additional deportations. She is for expediting the approval and visa process. She is for expanding the visa process. She is for expediting the path to citizenship. She is for Amnesty to those already here. Another Dem who wants the "if you can get here and not commit multiple felonies, then you are welcome to stay". Sounds like my definition of open borders to me.
I have concerns about sanctuary cities. However, pursuing hardline positions on immigration is one of the reasons sanctuary cities exists. Also, once again, sanctuary cities are a symptom of a larger problem: our failed immigration system.
You keep pointing to all these symptomatic problems. What you seem to be ignoring is that they are a response to our failed immigration system that needs to be reformed. Attacking sanctuary cities, building a wall, etc. isn't going to fix the real problem.
No, the right hasn't shown this. To borrow a term from George W. Bush, "fuzzy math" doesn't prove anything.
Look, the wall isn't going to happen so it really doesn't matter. The wall is nothing but something Trump uses to appeal to nativists.
Then he and the right need to stop making such statements. If you don't want to be accused of something, choose your words more carefully.
Not at all. Of course those on the left understand that most foreign terrorist organizations are tied to a radical form of the Islamic religion. However, what the left has a problem with is targeting individuals simply because of their religion. Advocating for a Muslim ban is troublesome because of the civil liberties concerns it raises.
I don't understand why some on the right can't understand this.
Again, what is your definition of amnesty?
Yes and yes.
She claimed to support comprehensive immigration reform that sought to address the problems within our immigration laws that creates the environment which causes many immigrants to come here undocumented (i.e. expand future opportunities for legal entry). Whether some of her proposals would have actually done this is up for debate.
I much prefer Sanders' approach to immigration than Clinton's approach btw. And to be honest, IIRIRA (which Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress passed in 1996) has really done a lot of damage in terms to our immigration system.
What exactly is failed about our immigration system? People say this repeatedly but have never explained what it is that is failed. The only failure I have seen is a refusal to enforce existing laws. I work with 6 people who immigrated here legally. None of the 6 experienced a failed immigration system. Just in case you're wondering, one is from the Domincan Republic, one from Poland, one from Serbia, one from Saudi Arabia, and two from Iran.
Where should we start?
I think one way though to showcase some of the problems is to talk more about the individuals you posted about...
What is the status of these six individuals? Naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, or something else?
Also, how long did it take each one of them to immigrate to the USA and obtain their current status?
As far as I know, 3 have become US citizens and the other 3 are not, but they are legal. I don't know how long it took them to immigrate here but I've never heard them complain about it.
So the speed of the process is what is broken?
Ask each of them sometime how long it took and what they thought about the process. You might be surprised by what they tell you (especially a couple of them).
Check out this link. See if you notice anything:
https://travel.state.gov/content/vi...bulletin/2017/visa-bulletin-for-may-2017.html
So the speed is broken? We wouldn't have illegal immigration if the process was fast?
I have no interest in reading the state department visa shit. Cliff notes would be helpful.
So far we've established that the immigration system is broken because (I'm coming up blank here).
Well you should . . . especially if you want to know at least one way the immigration system is broken and could be reformed.
You are the one who asked the question after all.
Come on dude. Just answer the question. Now I am curious and I wasn't the one who asked it.
I sure did ask. And so far no substantive answer outside of "where should we start." Let's remember I'm not the one that claims it's broken.
For the sake of moving this along, I read the link and find nothing wrong with it at all. What do you see wrong with it?
I'm really not trying to be difficult. But I think it is best for someone to see it first instead of someone telling them what to see.
That link is to the Visa Bulletin for May 2017. It is one of the well-known documents that immigration lawyers use on a regular basis (and that immigrants must be aware of). Look at the tables in the bulletin and pay attention to the dates. Do you notice anything?
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You owe me a keyboard.
Look at just this one example...
Family-
Sponsored
(F1)
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed 08DEC10
INDIA 08DEC10
CHINA-mainland O8DEC10
INDIA 08DEC10
MEXICO 15JUN95
PHILIPPINES 01FEB06
What stands out?
Here is another link that talks about this...
https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line
Family-
Sponsored
(F1)
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed 08DEC10
INDIA 08DEC10
CHINA-mainland O8DEC10
INDIA 08DEC10
MEXICO 15JUN95
PHILIPPINES 01FEB06
What stands out?
Here is another link that talks about this...
https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line
Last edited:
HAHAHAHAHA! I'm fairly certain I've had that happen to me. I did break my neck on a trampoline in 2013.Check this one out. I laugh every time.
