DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Boss Hogg 808]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why is that a problem? 

There’s a limit to how many people you can assimilate into a country/culture at any one time without significant societal disruption. That’s without considering the financial issues of taking in tens of millions more of takers from the welfare system. 

[Biff Tannen 46,165]

1 hour ago, Boss Hogg said:

There’s a limit to how many people you can assimilate into a country/culture at any one time without significant societal disruption. That’s without considering the financial issues of taking in tens of millions more of takers from the welfare system. 

Ok. Again, I don’t think anyone is arguing we should open the border entirely without any regulation or entry system whatsoever. Yet it seems like the right thinks entirely in binary terms (no way!). 
 

Literal open borders or impenetrable (lol) wall  

[hobbes2702 13,473]

1 hour ago, Boss Hogg said:

There’s a limit to how many people you can assimilate into a country/culture at any one time without significant societal disruption. That’s without considering the financial issues of taking in tens of millions more of takers from the welfare system. 

What is “societal disruption”? You think we don’t have the money lol?

[hayden_horn 11,402]

6 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Maybe you should review the posts a little more closely. That is exactly what I’ve proposed. It’s the other posters who’ve said let everyone in that shows up, with no rejection of those who try to enter illegally. If you simply let millions in illegally, what do you think happens next? When the next wave of 5-50 million people sitting in central and South America see what happened, what do you think they are going to do? 

someone needs to review posts more closely that's for sure. 

we probably aren't too far off. I'm saying take these supposed millions, these hordes of...people?; anyways let's suppose they are indeed human people, and let's let them in. 

sure we might need to ask some questions, check for guns or disease or whatever, you know create a process by which these millions of hordes can gain entry into our nation with super low unemployment and a humming economy? we can do that about our laws and processes right? they are OUR processes that WE create amd WE enforce right?

[hobbes2702 13,473]

23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

someone needs to review posts more closely that's for sure. 

we probably aren't too far off. I'm saying take these supposed millions, these hordes of...people?; anyways let's suppose they are indeed human people, and let's let them in. 

sure we might need to ask some questions, check for guns or disease or whatever, you know create a process by which these millions of hordes can gain entry into our nation with super low unemployment and a humming economy? we can do that about our laws and processes right? they are OUR processes that WE create amd WE enforce right?

The only problems anyone can ever seem to articulate are problems entirely regarding process or legality. It’s insane because we control both of those things and can just change them.

[bolverk 30,323]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

The only problems anyone can ever seem to articulate are problems entirely regarding process or legality. It’s insane because we control both of those things and can just change them.

The last two major comprehensive immigration reform bills, one during Bush's presidency and the other under Obama, were both killed by the Right Wing of the Republican Party. Anyone bitching about our fundamentally fucked up immigration system has only that group to blame.

[Dbeasy 15,594]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

someone needs to review posts more closely that's for sure. 

we probably aren't too far off. I'm saying take these supposed millions, these hordes of...people?; anyways let's suppose they are indeed human people, and let's let them in. 

sure we might need to ask some questions, check for guns or disease or whatever, you know create a process by which these millions of hordes can gain entry into our nation with super low unemployment and a humming economy? we can do that about our laws and processes right? they are OUR processes that WE create amd WE enforce right?

 

47 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

The only problems anyone can ever seem to articulate are problems entirely regarding process or legality. It’s insane because we control both of those things and can just change them.

Can you just answer spme simple questions? You are saying that the US should let all of these people coming to the border in. Correct? That’s is exactly what your posts say. Are you trying to say something different?

If so, do you agree that if the people outside the US see the US let all of these people in, they will also just March to the US borders and ask for the same treatment? That is obvious right?

Okay, so if we are on the same page so far, then would you agree that there will be a very large number of people coming in to the country in a constant stream of people? Because that is exactly what will happen. 

And lastly, do you believe that having that many people streaming in is not a problem?

[hobbes2702 13,473]

21 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

Can you just answer spme simple questions? You are saying that the US should let all of these people coming to the border in. Correct? That’s is exactly what your posts say. Are you trying to say something different?

If so, do you agree that if the people outside the US see the US let all of these people in, they will also just March to the US borders and ask for the same treatment? That is obvious right?

Okay, so if we are on the same page so far, then would you agree that there will be a very large number of people coming in to the country in a constant stream of people? Because that is exactly what will happen. 

And lastly, do you believe that having that many people streaming in is not a problem?

I’m asking what the supposed negatives are of “let all these people in”.

I’m asking the supposed negatives of letting all these other people in.

If a very large constant stream of people were coming into the country what would be the problem?

You’re claiming it’s a problem. I’d like to know what exactly that problem is. This shouldn’t be hard.

[Dbeasy 15,594]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m asking what the supposed negatives are of “let all these people in”.

I’m asking the supposed negatives of letting all these other people in.

If a very large constant stream of people were coming into the country what would be the problem?

You’re claiming it’s a problem. I’d like to know what exactly that problem is. This shouldn’t be hard.

With the current volumes of illegal immigrants entering the US, mayors of multiple cities around the country, many of them Democrats, have already said that it’s already overwhelming the system, including NY, Chicago, etc. It’s on your nightly news every week.  Now multiply those problems by 100 when anyone is let in, as you advocate.

Frankly, if you can’t understand something so obvious that: a) there will be a flood of people, and b) the country is I’ll-equipped to handle it, then it means one of two things. You are incredibly dumb, which I don’t believe, or you are just trolling/being disingenuous.  

Either way, I’m not wasting anymore time helping you understand kindergarten level logic.  It’s unfortunate because people like you acting in such a disingenuous manner is exactly how the idiots of this country end up voting for morons. You leave reasonable people thinking the Democratic Party is full of people completely disconnected from reality.

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

The current process by which legal immigration is determined, especially considering the realities of the southern border, is not working efficiently or effectively for immigrants, asylum seekers, or residents of the southern states. It is a problem. 

The process is determined by lawmakers in the United States, and thus it is in their purview to fix the problem. We can talk about solutions to the problem but they all devolve into the same rabbit hole of facts. The people responsible for fixing the problem have not. When any party has controlled the Presidency, House & Senate, zero immigration reform has passed. 

@Dbeasy is making the argument that too much immigration will lead to a snowball effect, which will overload US resources. There is some merit to examining resources, but any slippery slope argument originates in fallacy. 
 

@hobbes2702 is making the argument that immigration is not illegal, and with our economy currently needing more workers, what is the harm in having more immigrants? He is not advocating for illegal immigration, but fixing the current process to allow more immigration 

The resources argument might seem silly considering the billions we spend on [insert hot topic], but no one has unlimited resources, or more importantly the political might to win its approval. 
 

Here is why these topics get so twisted. People strip the layers of nuance down to simple talking points. The issue with boiling things down, is you lose a lot of the meaning

1. Following rules is good. 
2. Sneaking across the border is illegal

3. 50,000 illegal crossings a day is too much 

4. We don’t have a system to deal with that many people 
5. We should correct this problem

i agree with all those talking points. It doesn’t mean I want less immigration. I just want people to follow the rules. I don’t think 50,000 sneaking across the border is a good thing. But I also recognize the current system is not working. How do we fix that? Which comes back to the same problem. Congress 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Neonmoon

[Dbeasy 15,594]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The current process by which legal immigration is determined, especially considering the realities of the southern border, is not working efficiently or effectively for immigrants, asylum seekers, or residents of the southern states. It is a problem. 

The process is determined by lawmakers in the United States, and thus it is in their purview to fix the problem. We can talk about solutions to the problem but they all devolve into the same rabbit hole of facts. The people responsible for fixing the problem have not. When any party has controlled the Presidency, House & Senate, zero immigration reform has passed. 

@Dbeasy is making the argument that too much immigration will lead to a snowball effect, which will overload US resources. There is some merit to examining resources, but any slippery slope argument originates in fallacy. 
 

@hobbes2702 is making the argument that immigration is not illegal, and with our economy currently needing more workers, what is the harm in having more immigrants? He is not advocating for illegal immigration, but fixing the current process to allow more immigration 

The resources argument might seem silly considering the billions we spend on [insert hot topic], but no one has unlimited resources, or more importantly the political might to win its approval. 
 

Here is why these topics get so twisted. People strip the layers of nuance down to simple talking points. The issue with boiling things down, is you lose a lot of the meaning

1. Following rules is good. 
2. Sneaking across the border is illegal

3. 50,000 illegal crossings a day is too much 

4. We don’t have a system to deal with that many people 
5. We should correct this problem

i agree with all those talking points. It doesn’t mean I want less immigration. I just want people to follow the rules. I don’t think 50,000 sneaking across the border is a good thing. But I also recognize the current system is not working. How do we fix that? Which comes back to the same problem. Congress 

 

 

 

 

Nope. That is absolutely not the discussion/argument.

The ONLY point being debated is whether “letting them all in” is a good idea or not. Hayden has a post earlier that says that exactly. Hobbes then follows up with “what’s wrong with that?”  That’s the argument. 

[hobbes2702 13,473]

23 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

With the current volumes of illegal immigrants entering the US, mayors of multiple cities around the country, many of them Democrats, have already said that it’s already overwhelming the system, including NY, Chicago, etc. It’s on your nightly news every week.  Now multiply those problems by 100 when anyone is let in, as you advocate.

Frankly, if you can’t understand something so obvious that: a) there will be a flood of people, and b) the country is I’ll-equipped to handle it, then it means one of two things. You are incredibly dumb, which I don’t believe, or you are just trolling/being disingenuous.  

Either way, I’m not wasting anymore time helping you understand kindergarten level logic.  It’s unfortunate because people like you acting in such a disingenuous manner is exactly how the idiots of this country end up voting for morons. You leave reasonable people thinking the Democratic Party is full of people completely disconnected from reality.

 

Overwhelming a system is not a problem. We can fix the system.

How are we ill equipped to deal with it? Spend some money, hire some people, do some vetting. 
 

Thus far the only argument against letting everyone in is that we don’t have a good system. So do something about it. Unless of course there’s some other reason for not letting these people in that you’re not saying. 

[hobbes2702 13,473]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Nope. That is absolutely not the discussion/argument.

The ONLY point being debated is whether “letting them all in” is a good idea or not. Hayden has a post earlier that says that exactly. Hobbes then follows up with “what’s wrong with that?”  That’s the argument. 

You still haven’t articulated any actual reasons why it’s bad. That’s the point. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Overwhelming a system is not a problem. We can fix the system.

How are we ill equipped to deal with it? Spend some money, hire some people, do some vetting. 

Thus far the only argument against letting everyone in is that we don’t have a good system. So do something about it. Unless of course there’s some other reason for not letting these people in that you’re not saying. 

You don’t think overwhelming a system is a problem? It is in nature. You always believe there is a fix? Like, we can always make a bigger boat? What about individual rights? Meaning am I always morally obligated to add another person to my life raft if the next person tips it over? 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

 

48 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

With the current volumes of illegal immigrants entering the US, mayors of multiple cities around the country, many of them Democrats, have already said that it’s already overwhelming the system, including NY, Chicago, etc. It’s on your nightly news every week.  Now multiply those problems by 100 when anyone is let in, as you advocate.

Frankly, if you can’t understand something so obvious that: a) there will be a flood of people, and b) the country is I’ll-equipped to handle it, then it means one of two things. You are incredibly dumb, which I don’t believe, or you are just trolling/being disingenuous.  

Either way, I’m not wasting anymore time helping you understand kindergarten level logic.  It’s unfortunate because people like you acting in such a disingenuous manner is exactly how the idiots of this country end up voting for morons. You leave reasonable people thinking the Democratic Party is full of people completely disconnected from reality.

 

You posit that immigrants are overwhelmingly our resources. That is true

Who controls our resources? Congress. 

The negative consequence of letting them all in could be fixed by fixing the system aka allocating more resources 

They’re saying the only real problem is Congress. 

[hobbes2702 13,473]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You don’t think overwhelming a system is a problem? It is in nature. You always believe there is a fix? Like, we can always make a bigger boat? What about individual rights? Meaning am I always morally obligated to add another person to my life raft if the next person tips it over? 

Is the country on the verge of tipping over or is this an entirely solvable fake problem? 
Someone present an actual problem please.

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

2018, Trump’s open border 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/29/trump-military-caravan-migrants-945683

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Is the country on the verge of tipping over or is this an entirely solvable fake problem? 
Someone present an actual problem please.

The problem has been presented. Not enough resources to support the additional people. Now you keep saying it’s not a problem. Please explain why it’s not a problem in your opinion. 

[chainsaw 10,291]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Following rules is good. 

That depends entirely on what the rule is, don't you think?

If the rule is something called "Chinese Exclusion Act" does it deserve to be followed?

What if instead of calling it "Chinese Exclusion Act" it has a more marketable name, but is still motivated by the same nativist impulses? Is that a rule that deserves to be followed?

[Willfully Horn 8,262]

7 hours ago, Boss Hogg said:

There’s a limit to how many people you can assimilate into a country/culture at any one time without significant societal disruption. That’s without considering the financial issues of taking in tens of millions more of takers from the welfare system. 

Negged because you are full of shit.

”Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied to “Not Qualified” Immigrants. With some important exceptions detailed below, the law prohibits not-qualified immigrants from enrolling in most “federal public benefit programs.” Federal public benefits include a variety of safety-net services paid for by federal funds”

https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/#:~:text=Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied,paid for by federal funds.

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

You don’t think overwhelming a system is a problem? It is in nature. You always believe there is a fix? Like, we can always make a bigger boat? What about individual rights? Meaning am I always morally obligated to add another person to my life raft if the next person tips it over? 

I believe that God given rights are not dependent upon borders. But, I agree that actual life rafts can be tippy.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That depends entirely on what the rule is, don't you think?

If the rule is something called "Chinese Exclusion Act" does it deserve to be followed?

What if instead of calling it "Chinese Exclusion Act" it has a more marketable name, but is still motivated by the same nativist impulses? Is that a rule that deserves to be followed?

I agree. I was speaking generally 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

What a fucking douche 

 

 

[Captainant 28,538]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What a fucking douche 

 

 

Hurrrrr duuuuuhhhrrrrr both sides are the same amirite?????

[Brisketexan 106,890]

The problem has been presented. Not enough resources to support the additional people. Now you keep saying it’s not a problem. Please explain why it’s not a problem in your opinion. 

Here’s just one teeny tiny small little idea that would directly address your resources problem: LET THOSE PEOPLE WORK.
See, they’re coming in. They’re going to cities and such…where they are not allowed to by law to do anything to earn money. Does that strike you as counterintuitive and utterly stupid? If it does, congratulations! You’ve figured out that our immigration policies are 100% about appearances and grandstanding, and 0% about handling immigration.
For every “problem” the anti-immigration crowd points to, there’s almost always 1) one or more easy and obvious solutions that 2) aren’t “build a wall and deport em all!”….yet, gosh, for SOME reason, the anti-immigration nativist crowd is never interested in a single one of those solutions.
That tells us all we need to know. The purported negative effects of immigrants are NOT problems they want solved. The only thing the anti-immigrant crowd actually wants is…no more brown people. Any solution that does not = “no more brown people” is summarily rejected. Always. 100% of the time.

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

It’s a manufactured crisis to get biden out of office 

 

[Dnaguy 12,628]

The reason for this being an issue is because it plays so damn well for  republicans and their base.

Why?

1.) Working class white racists make up their base

2.) uneducated people threatened by other uneducated people who might compete for jobs make up their base 

3.) Uneducated people who lack the logic to realize that just closing the border with guns and walls or tanks or whatever can’t work make up their base

4.) Business owners who need cheap exploitable labor to maximize profits make up their base

So the system stays the same because #4 likes it as it is: all benefit and they don’t incur any costs (that falls on the state) AND it drives engagement for the 1-3 folks.

 

[hobbes2702 13,473]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The problem has been presented. Not enough resources to support the additional people. Now you keep saying it’s not a problem. Please explain why it’s not a problem in your opinion. 

Because we are plenty capable of allocating the necessary resources. So again, what is the actual problem?

Edited December 31, 2023 by hobbes2702

[hobbes2702 13,473]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here’s just one teeny tiny small little idea that would directly address your resources problem: LET THOSE PEOPLE WORK.
See, they’re coming in. They’re going to cities and such…where they are not allowed to by law to do anything to earn money. Does that strike you as counterintuitive and utterly stupid? If it does, congratulations! You’ve figured out that our immigration policies are 100% about appearances and grandstanding, and 0% about handling immigration.
For every “problem” the anti-immigration crowd points to, there’s almost always 1) one or more easy and obvious solutions that 2) aren’t “build a wall and deport em all!”….yet, gosh, for SOME reason, the anti-immigration nativist crowd is never interested in a single one of those solutions.
That tells us all we need to know. The purported negative effects of immigrants are NOT problems they want solved. The only thing the anti-immigrant crowd actually wants is…no more brown people. Any solution that does not = “no more brown people” is summarily rejected. Always. 100% of the time.

This ain’t hard.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

12 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Nope. That is absolutely not the discussion/argument.

The ONLY point being debated is whether “letting them all in” is a good idea or not. Hayden has a post earlier that says that exactly. Hobbes then follows up with “what’s wrong with that?”  That’s the argument. 

yes. I'm suggesting that we look at this issue with solution oriented goals, not those made up as barriers just because. 

I'm suggesting we merely come from a perspective of humanity and sympathy not hard hearts. I'm simply asking what if we decided to do the good thing and begin with the baseline assumption that these hordes are actually human beings seeking a better life. can we help them find that? 

why don't we? 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Here’s just one teeny tiny small little idea that would directly address your resources problem: LET THOSE PEOPLE WORK.
See, they’re coming in. They’re going to cities and such…where they are not allowed to by law to do anything to earn money. Does that strike you as counterintuitive and utterly stupid? If it does, congratulations! You’ve figured out that our immigration policies are 100% about appearances and grandstanding, and 0% about handling immigration.
For every “problem” the anti-immigration crowd points to, there’s almost always 1) one or more easy and obvious solutions that 2) aren’t “build a wall and deport em all!”….yet, gosh, for SOME reason, the anti-immigration nativist crowd is never interested in a single one of those solutions.
That tells us all we need to know. The purported negative effects of immigrants are NOT problems they want solved. The only thing the anti-immigrant crowd actually wants is…no more brown people. Any solution that does not = “no more brown people” is summarily rejected. Always. 100% of the time.

I agree with you. I was trying to help bridge the gap in understanding. Many times people talk past each other in posts, and reply back with little one line quips in a bread crumb trail posting format that is not conducive to promoting comprehension. To be sure, there are general comprehension issues on the other side.

It would be much easier if people took the time to actually type out their thoughts more thoroughly like you do often 

For example 

Poster 1: Why not let them all in?

Poster 2: We can’t handle that many people. Our resources are overwhelmed! 

Poster 1(actual): No one has suggest an actual problem for letting all immigrants in yet. 

Poster 1 (alternative): The United States has the resources to handle the current volume of immigrants at the southern border, and much more, yes even millions. These immigrants will not overwhelm cities and towns or ruin anything. They will not become part of the welfare state. They can work, in fact, many counties require proof of employment. Could the US implement a similar system? Yes. The United States needs more labor and these immigrants provide that. There are tons of cities and towns in the US that would be happy to receive new labor. The actual issue is the lack of political willpower to fix the current inefficient system and to allocate sufficient resources. Put systems in place to efficiently process applications, issues work permits, and let people contribute 

 

 

 

 

[Dbeasy 15,594]

21 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yes. I'm suggesting that we look at this issue with solution oriented goals, not those made up as barriers just because. 

I'm suggesting we merely come from a perspective of humanity and sympathy not hard hearts. I'm simply asking what if we decided to do the good thing and begin with the baseline assumption that these hordes are actually human beings seeking a better life. can we help them find that? 

why don't we? 

Well I certainly didn’t get that meaning from a post of “let ‘em all in”.  

This thread is shifting like sand to avoid one of the fundamental questions. How many people should be let in per time period, and what process should it follow?

This country has an immigration process.  If you want more people let in, sure let’s allow more in and ensure Congress and governments fund the costs of doing so. The reasonable people of this country would probably agree that is a reasonable decision.  And show compassion and fairness.  Sure. 

But I draw the line at just saying everyone who comes here without following whatever immigration process is in place should be let in because it destroys the whole system and process put in place, and incentivizes tens of millions of people to rush for our border. If you can’t see that as a problem, I’m not wasting time explaining something so obvious.

In terms of republicans purposely faking a desire to fix the problem, yup they are. There is no doubt about it. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a real issue right now and that the current administration shouldn’t be trying very hard to do things to fix the problem as best they can with or without Republicans. And right now the perception is very clear that the administration is seen to be not doing enough.  What could they do?

Mobilize Democrats in the congressional branch and executive branch to call out republicans over and over for stalling and obstructing.  Do executive orders. Announce some actions, instead of just announcing meetings. Promote policies that not only make it easier and more humane to enter the country, but also discourage illegal immigration. Lead.  

As many have said, it’s not that hard, but it is if you just let everyone in who doesn’t follow the process.

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Because we are plenty capable of allocating the necessary resources. So again, what is the actual problem?

My foray into this conversation is to illustrate that everyone in this fucking thread probably actually agrees on the entire issue once you get past the miscommunication, miscomprehension, posting styles, etc., which is likely a microcosm of most issues in this stupid world.

People just love to bitch at each other without trying to understand the other person. 

 

[Dbeasy 15,594]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

My foray into this conversation is to illustrate that everyone in this fucking thread probably actually agrees on the entire issue once you get past the miscommunication, miscomprehension, posting styles, etc., which is likely a microcosm of most issues in this stupid world.

People just love to bitch at each other without trying to understand the other person. 

 

I don’t think everyone is necessarily that close in thinking. For example, note the god given right comment below. Borders? Nah, says this poster. 

12 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Negged because you are full of shit.

”Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied to “Not Qualified” Immigrants. With some important exceptions detailed below, the law prohibits not-qualified immigrants from enrolling in most “federal public benefit programs.” Federal public benefits include a variety of safety-net services paid for by federal funds”

https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/#:~:text=Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied,paid for by federal funds.

I believe that God given rights are not dependent upon borders. But, I agree that actual life rafts can be tippy.

Or, the multitudes of posts that claim all of the problem lies solely on Republican shoulders.  It doesn’t sit solely in Republican shoulders. 

Or the posts that it’s a manufactured crisis. Nope. Trains of people are coming here and a lot of them should not be getting in. They are jumping the line and that’s a real issue. 

Or the posts that imply anyone who shows up should get in.  

So, no I think there are some very divergent view points. And some common ground. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

41 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I don’t think everyone is necessarily that close in thinking. For example, note the god given right comment below. Borders? Nah, says this poster. 

Or, the multitudes of posts that claim all of the problem lies solely on Republican shoulders.  It doesn’t sit solely in Republican shoulders. 

Or the posts that it’s a manufactured crisis. Nope. Trains of people are coming here and a lot of them should not be getting in. They are jumping the line and that’s a real issue. 

Or the posts that imply anyone who shows up should get in.  

So, no I think there are some very divergent view points. And some common ground. 

Fuck it.

I‘ve been trying to help you in this thread because you DO agree on things as shown in this post below where you state more people can be let in and the Government funds the costs of doing so. It’s not a problem. We have the money. We can make a process.

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

This country has an immigration process.  If you want more people let in, sure let’s allow more in and ensure Congress and governments fund the costs of doing so. The reasonable people of this country would probably agree that is a reasonable decision.  And show compassion and fairness.  Sure. 

But I draw the line at just saying everyone who comes here without following whatever immigration process is in place should be let in because it destroys the whole system and process put in place, and incentivizes tens of millions of people to rush for our border. If you can’t see that as a problem, I’m not wasting time explaining something so obvious.

But you lack basic fucking reading comprehension skills 

It’s a manufactured crises because we control the fucking solution. If we wanted to fix it we could. Congress could pass legislation to implement new systems and allocate appropriate resources. Please list all the immigration reform bills submitted by party for the past 50 years? You’re going to be shocked by which party doesn’t submit any plans, or let bills out of committee, or on the floor for a vote. 

People are posting anyone who shows up should get in to shine light of the real problem, which you have a real hard time comprehending for some reason. Immigration is not bad. While illegal immigration is against the law, there wouldn’t be an illegal immigration issue if Congress would do their fucking jobs, which goes back to the original issues of who’s stopping immigration reform from passing. 

[InkaUtexas 26,880]

Just remember this. None of the Irish, Scots, Poles, Danes would be here with the current laws.

So all the "Citizens" can fuck off with their no immigration vision. I know my family's history. It was not easy, but it was allowed.

Edited December 31, 2023 by InkaUtexas
Adding an image.

[Dbeasy 15,594]

34 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Fuck it.

I‘ve been trying to help you in this thread because you DO agree on things as shown in this post below where you state more people can be let in and the Government funds the costs of doing so. It’s not a problem. We have the money. We can make a process.

But you lack basic fucking reading comprehension skills 

It’s a manufactured crises because we control the fucking solution. If we wanted to fix it we could. Congress could pass legislation to implement new systems and allocate appropriate resources. Please list all the immigration reform bills submitted by party for the past 50 years? You’re going to be shocked by which party doesn’t submit any plans, or let bills out of committee, or on the floor for a vote. 

People are posting anyone who shows up should get in to shine light of the real problem, which you have a real hard time comprehending for some reason. Immigration is not bad. While illegal immigration is against the law, there wouldn’t be an illegal immigration issue if Congress would do their fucking jobs, which goes back to the original issues of who’s stopping immigration reform from passing. 

I listed very clearly the issues and you’ve chosen to ignore it. It’s because you have a view that’s different and you don’t want to comprehend what’s right there in black and white. You are not able to comprehend it. 

[hobbes2702 13,473]

You haven’t listed a single issue that isn’t completely controllable.

 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

Lot of truth here ….

 

[Boss Hogg 808]

On 12/30/2023 at 11:37 PM, Willfully Horn said:

I believe that God given rights are not dependent upon borders

Which God given rights are your referencing?

[Willfully Horn 8,262]

2 hours ago, Boss Hogg said:

Which God given rights are your referencing?

Every enumerated right, which absolutely includes the right to privacy.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

This thread has taken a fascinating turn of late. I'm reading along and then it is remarkable how it began to resemble (allegorically but I'm stretching) the Ryan Reynold's movie, Free Guy. You've got a scene where a couple of posters propose a thought experiment, "Hey, what if we let ALL the NPCs into this country who want to come? What would that be like? What problems would that solve or create? Is it actually even a problem or is it manufactured to elicit certain reactions? What policies should or could we have in place? What have other places done? Let's talk about this"

That was what I was interpreting but the thread didn't go that way. It turned into a shooter game just like all the others because well, that's the way things must go I guess.

[Brisketexan 106,890]

8 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

We can all agree that political stunts like chartering a grayhound and dropping off a bunch of abuelas at the doorstep of Eric Adams is stupid and juvenile. I think there is a point to be made about how America should share in the immigration issue, however, and that point could be best articulated by logistics professionals probably, I don't know. I would bet the FedEx executive or the Amazon executive would have a better plan than a run of the mill no-nothing politician.

But anyways, speaking of a thought experiment, what about trying to combine the following points which I am assuming, but also believe and think most people believe (for arguments sake):

a) the realities of immigration can never being fully controlled (people will come here, as long as this place is better than where they are leaving, rules or laws be damned)

b) immigration is actually a net positive and needed in our current flavor of economic system

c) hospitality to immigrants/immigration being an ethical and moral imperative of "good"

If we take the above, why not have, in a rough manner of speaking, a system for processing immigrants and then placing them where the greater good (for both immigrants and America) is needed.

It makes no sense to burden one geographic region or state(s) with the majority of immigration just because it is geographically convenient. Instead you can kindly intake the immigrant, process and match them to their desires (e.g. type of work they want, where their family is, hopes and dreams, etc.) and rank them and then transport them to where the system is optimized for the best outcome of the person and the state (ergo the existing citizens).

Comstock, Iowa has a huge need for pork farmers or whatever? Boom, here is your immigrant class of 2024, a bunch of 5 stars from Guatemala City

Fresno, California is full at the Blue Diamond Almond Orchard? Ship the freshman class of immigrants fresh from Tijuana to the Flagstaff, Arizona quarry where they are needed for all the mcmansions going up for the next real estate bubble in Chandler and Gilbert. 

etc.

 

Stupid idea.  Fails to account for NIL and the transfer portal. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

I didn't really have much to add with respect to specific ideas or policies. I just was noting that the thread derailed because someone positing the concept(?) that 'we' the people of this thread stop and truly discuss, think about, consider what borders mean, what immigration means at its most basic level seemed to really get a charged reaction. It's a fucking thread on a message board so why not take the topic back and tear it down and attempt to rebuild it by considering various ideas, thoughts, preconceptions, biases? Next one of you lot that complains about women being emotional ought to remember that anger is an emotion and some posters get rather emotional for the oddest of reasons. Football excepting of course. Consider the economics, the humanity, the morality, the history, the geography, the inescapable facts (human instinct for survival seems pertinent here) and whatever, but what does it hurt to read (slowly and thoughtfully) what is being presented and then (slowly and thoughtfully) type a response?

IMO, @Neonmoon wasn't wrong about it being tricky to explain oneself in text or to understand what another meant, but that is the method of this board and its limitations. So, give some grace and stop reading and posting while driving or toileting and maybe let a response sit for awhile before hitting submit. It's what professors at most schools would advise and I'd say that's advice worth every penny of tuition.

gotta get back to work, y'all try not to hate on each other so much.

 

[Brisketexan 106,890]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

y'all try not to hate on each other so much.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,999]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the effects on the countries that immigrants are coming from. Most have declining birth rates, and just like us, have an economic system that requires the opposite. I'm all for immigration, but we should be working towards policies that help the countries they are coming from as well. Especially since those countries are on our border. 

[InkaUtexas 26,880]

Yeah it has been discussed 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

Hmmmm

 

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

Give them all a patriot phone !