Great article: "Democrats are in a Bubble on Immigration"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are saying, if we use E-verify, our problems would just go away as that is the issue? Bullish-t.

Undocumented immigrants aren’t going to come if they have no way to earn money to survive. If employers actually used E-Verify (because there was a risk of real penalties if they didn’t), it would be much harder for undocumented immigrants to find employment, and the inability to earn money both for themselves and to send back home would significantly discourage migration.

Are you really this naïve? Of course they're going to come, regardless of E-verify. I agree that employers need to use it, but there are plenty of cash-only employees who will hire anybody and illegal immigrants know this. Everyone (except you, apparently?) knows this.

Because there’s no real penalty for not using it. If business owners could face criminal charges, including the possibility of jail time, for deliberately failing to use e-Verufy, then it would have some teeth.

Kind of like how conservatives are ranting about how we need criminal penalties to deter border crossings because civil penalties have no teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're in a bubble of xenophobia. Immigrants are a net positive to the country; asylum is a fundamental human right; and democrats are demonstrably not against border controls.

We want more LEGAL immigrants. But nice try, PP.

Bans from Muslim countries and how many kids in concentration camps, kids whose parents were LEGALLY seeking refugee status suggests this is not actually the case.

DP. Just the gross misuse of the phrase "concentration camps" is enough for me to discount anything else you might have said.

DP. I'm also a Dem and not Jewish and grossly offended by the comparison. AOC is a complete moron. And we're gonna lose again. Badly.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the op, yes. I am a democrat & have know that my party is more interested in helping folks without Napier’s then in helping my middle class family. We simply cannot solve everyone’s problems. We just can’t. It’s not ‘inhumane’ to say we can’t take you in. It’s inhumane to over extended & pretend like we can.
Yes- Dems are making immigration decisions in an echo chamber.

Why didn’t you listen to what Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Ryan, Sanders, Booker etc had to say during the debates? They talked about struggling families, the high price of education and health care, depressed wages, investing in green technologies of the future that will create jobs. Did you just leave the room whenever those topics were addressed? And why do you think it’s a bad thing to bring together central American and Mexican leaders tonaddress the systemic problems that are causing people to flee those countries and north? It’s always better to do preventative medicine than to try to fix the illness.

What do you think we've been doing, for decades? Can you explain where the billions of dollars in aid we've sent to Central American countries has gone? How have their governments used it to help their people? We'll wait.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the op, yes. I am a democrat & have know that my party is more interested in helping folks without Napier’s then in helping my middle class family. We simply cannot solve everyone’s problems. We just can’t. It’s not ‘inhumane’ to say we can’t take you in. It’s inhumane to over extended & pretend like we can.
Yes- Dems are making immigration decisions in an echo chamber.

Why didn’t you listen to what Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Ryan, Sanders, Booker etc had to say during the debates? They talked about struggling families, the high price of education and health care, depressed wages, investing in green technologies of the future that will create jobs. Did you just leave the room whenever those topics were addressed? And why do you think it’s a bad thing to bring together central American and Mexican leaders tonaddress the systemic problems that are causing people to flee those countries and north? It’s always better to do preventative medicine than to try to fix the illness.

competing interests - So think about these points:

1. The MC and UMC end up paying (b/c we all know that's the case). So what are the benefits to them (us)??? And do you think "we" have enough money to cover these initiatives? show me the economic plan first.
2. Reparations for African Americans are a joke at this point, as the candidates are placing the wants of illegal immigrants over the needs of the AA community. Imagine the tension (and it already exists) in high-minority neighborhoods which provide of ton of services to the Hispanic community - CASA being one, Identity Inc being another.
3. What messages are we sending to those who entered legally? At this point, what message are we sending the world? that it's easier to enter through illegal measures, no?
4. What about our homeless population? I just read a horrifying story about a homeless 16 yo girl in Mass who was repeatedly raped by an officer. Our homeless population runs the gamut regarding demographics. Who addressed their needs?

and working with Central American and Mexican leaders? lol We send millions and millions of $ in aid to those countries. But until you can call them out for being corrupt, you're getting nowhere. So we need to stop the aid, focus on LEGAL immigration, and address our own internal problems.

I'm sorry, but we're not the World Police.

Here's an analogy for you. If I'm physically ill, I cannot help you until I'm better. I can't go to work. I can't help my children. I can't keep the house clean. So those who are affected by my illness need to "man up" by becoming resourceful and dealing on their own. This is the US. We aren't healthy. We have racial tension. We have far too many poor people to help. Our school systems across the nation are falling apart. Kids can barely read and write. Yet we are expected to provide assistance to EVERY other nation.

enough!

Let's get clean and sober and healthy first, and then extend ourselves.

WELL SAID!! Applause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you for whom immigration is your #1 issue -- what exactly is it that bothers you so much?

I am SO much more bothered by the idea that our country is caging children. And I dearly hope there are more voters like me than there are children of immigrants (all of you) rushing to slam shut the door to freedom and opportunity.

If we had proper border controls, we wouldn't be in charge of those children. We wouldn't have unaccompanied minors entering our country when we weren't prepared to take over care for them. We wouldn't have concerns about children being trafficked and needing to separate them from the adults they are with. We would be able to turn away people with criminal records before they entered our country, so we wouldn't need to separate them from their children in order to deal with how we're required to handle adults and children differently.

I agree that "kids in cages" is terrible. The way to handle it is to control our borders so we're not forced into situations we're not prepared for. Other countries do not essentially set up refugee camps within their borders for people attempting to enter illegally. Border controls happen at the border. People wait to enter.

Unfortunately, our politicians have repeatedly sabotaged our border controls and control of our interior, and establishing control is going to be challenging and painful. If we want a robust safety net, including some form of single payer health care, and I think we do, we cannot have open borders. If we're willing to forgo a robust safety net, then open borders might work.

If all we do is cry about "kids in cages" and not how we got here and what all of the causes are, we can guarantee ourselves this same conversation until the US is in a similar situation as our southern neighbors (difficulty handling influx of needy people, lower standards of living, more crime and dissatisfaction with possibilities, more desire for economic migration by citizens), and Canada starts having this conversation and we wail and moan about those meanies maintaining their border.

+ a billion. Thank you for your thoughtful and rational words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the op, yes. I am a democrat & have know that my party is more interested in helping folks without Napier’s then in helping my middle class family. We simply cannot solve everyone’s problems. We just can’t. It’s not ‘inhumane’ to say we can’t take you in. It’s inhumane to over extended & pretend like we can.
Yes- Dems are making immigration decisions in an echo chamber.

Why didn’t you listen to what Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Ryan, Sanders, Booker etc had to say during the debates? They talked about struggling families, the high price of education and health care, depressed wages, investing in green technologies of the future that will create jobs. Did you just leave the room whenever those topics were addressed? And why do you think it’s a bad thing to bring together central American and Mexican leaders tonaddress the systemic problems that are causing people to flee those countries and north? It’s always better to do preventative medicine than to try to fix the illness.

competing interests - So think about these points:

1. The MC and UMC end up paying (b/c we all know that's the case). So what are the benefits to them (us)??? And do you think "we" have enough money to cover these initiatives? show me the economic plan first.
2. Reparations for African Americans are a joke at this point, as the candidates are placing the wants of illegal immigrants over the needs of the AA community. Imagine the tension (and it already exists) in high-minority neighborhoods which provide of ton of services to the Hispanic community - CASA being one, Identity Inc being another.
3. What messages are we sending to those who entered legally? At this point, what message are we sending the world? that it's easier to enter through illegal measures, no?
4. What about our homeless population? I just read a horrifying story about a homeless 16 yo girl in Mass who was repeatedly raped by an officer. Our homeless population runs the gamut regarding demographics. Who addressed their needs?

and working with Central American and Mexican leaders? lol We send millions and millions of $ in aid to those countries. But until you can call them out for being corrupt, you're getting nowhere. So we need to stop the aid, focus on LEGAL immigration, and address our own internal problems.

I'm sorry, but we're not the World Police.

Here's an analogy for you. If I'm physically ill, I cannot help you until I'm better. I can't go to work. I can't help my children. I can't keep the house clean. So those who are affected by my illness need to "man up" by becoming resourceful and dealing on their own. This is the US. We aren't healthy. We have racial tension. We have far too many poor people to help. Our school systems across the nation are falling apart. Kids can barely read and write. Yet we are expected to provide assistance to EVERY other nation.

enough!

Let's get clean and sober and healthy first, and then extend ourselves.

WELL SAID!! Applause.

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the op, yes. I am a democrat & have know that my party is more interested in helping folks without Napier’s then in helping my middle class family. We simply cannot solve everyone’s problems. We just can’t. It’s not ‘inhumane’ to say we can’t take you in. It’s inhumane to over extended & pretend like we can.
Yes- Dems are making immigration decisions in an echo chamber.

Why didn’t you listen to what Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Ryan, Sanders, Booker etc had to say during the debates? They talked about struggling families, the high price of education and health care, depressed wages, investing in green technologies of the future that will create jobs. Did you just leave the room whenever those topics were addressed? And why do you think it’s a bad thing to bring together central American and Mexican leaders tonaddress the systemic problems that are causing people to flee those countries and north? It’s always better to do preventative medicine than to try to fix the illness.

What do you think we've been doing, for decades? Can you explain where the billions of dollars in aid we've sent to Central American countries has gone? How have their governments used it to help their people? We'll wait.

lol! did you miss the whole part where we destablized almost every central american nation through our intervention and propping up of dictators or "freedom" fighters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact is that not everyone who desires or deserves to come and live permanently in the US will be able to. It's time to stop acting like this is a fundamental right.

RACIST!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're in a bubble of xenophobia. Immigrants are a net positive to the country; asylum is a fundamental human right; and democrats are demonstrably not against border controls.

Read the OpEd by David Brooks.

Half of America does not vote.

For every David Brooks lost there are 5 more uninspired non-voters to be gained in his place. Instead of meeting their tangible daily needs, we are catering a handful of Brooks. Bye.

David Brooks, longtime conservative who likes to play "Persuade me to vote for a Democrat, because you know you want me" when the only Democrat he'd support is one who is indistinguishable from a 1970s Republican?

His poor choices are his alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another Democrat here who is deeply disturbed by the Democratic candidates' rhetoric on immigration at the debates. We are going to lose to Trump, AGAIN, because of this - and politics aside, it's just a ridiculous position.

If Democrats truly want to end the appalling conditions on the border, we need to understand that sane policies would discourage people from walking up to the border in the first place, because there are never going to be enough facilities to humanely and decently house them all. We should stop accepting asylum requests at the southern border completely and immediately send back anyone who asks for it at CBP. Require people who are currently flooding the southern border to request asylum at the US Embassy in their home countries through a ticket system like we do for visas (and if they are able to flee to a safe third country, they lose their claim to asylum in the US under international law). I think US taxpayers would be happy to pay relocation costs for anyone who genuinely and truly is being persecuted by their government. Mandate e-Verify across the board. Hire more immigration judges so that claims can be processed within days or weeks. I recognize that this requires Republican cooperation, which can't be counted on, but if the House were to bring up a bill that included this stuff, the Senate and Trump would have to publicly reject it, which after all their rhetoric about immigration, would be politically difficult for them to do. But the answer is NOT to jump hard left on immigration.

Democratic candidates and some of the Democrats on this thread need to realize that there are many, many people in the party who disagree with them on this. It is NOT racist or "Republican" or trolling to say that some of the policies that the Democratic candidates have proposed come functionally very close to open borders, and that the vast majority of this country does not want to open our borders to anyone poor person who wants to come. And for people who disagree that many of the Democrats are advocating for open borders (without actually using the term) - please explain how decriminalizing illegal entry, releasing most "asylum" seekers into the country while they wait years for their hearings and allowing them to work, providing free public education and healthcare while they are in the country, stopping deportations of those who "only" don't show up to their immigration hearings, and advocating a path to citizenship for ALL undocumented immigrants doesn't equal open borders.

Like PPs have said, I will be voting for Klobuchar.

+1,000,000
(Though I won't be voting for Klobuchar.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the op, yes. I am a democrat & have know that my party is more interested in helping folks without Napier’s then in helping my middle class family. We simply cannot solve everyone’s problems. We just can’t. It’s not ‘inhumane’ to say we can’t take you in. It’s inhumane to over extended & pretend like we can.
Yes- Dems are making immigration decisions in an echo chamber.

Why didn’t you listen to what Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Ryan, Sanders, Booker etc had to say during the debates? They talked about struggling families, the high price of education and health care, depressed wages, investing in green technologies of the future that will create jobs. Did you just leave the room whenever those topics were addressed? And why do you think it’s a bad thing to bring together central American and Mexican leaders tonaddress the systemic problems that are causing people to flee those countries and north? It’s always better to do preventative medicine than to try to fix the illness.

competing interests - So think about these points:

1. The MC and UMC end up paying (b/c we all know that's the case). So what are the benefits to them (us)??? And do you think "we" have enough money to cover these initiatives? show me the economic plan first.
2. Reparations for African Americans are a joke at this point, as the candidates are placing the wants of illegal immigrants over the needs of the AA community. Imagine the tension (and it already exists) in high-minority neighborhoods which provide of ton of services to the Hispanic community - CASA being one, Identity Inc being another.
3. What messages are we sending to those who entered legally? At this point, what message are we sending the world? that it's easier to enter through illegal measures, no?
4. What about our homeless population? I just read a horrifying story about a homeless 16 yo girl in Mass who was repeatedly raped by an officer. Our homeless population runs the gamut regarding demographics. Who addressed their needs?

and working with Central American and Mexican leaders? lol We send millions and millions of $ in aid to those countries. But until you can call them out for being corrupt, you're getting nowhere. So we need to stop the aid, focus on LEGAL immigration, and address our own internal problems.

I'm sorry, but we're not the World Police.

Here's an analogy for you. If I'm physically ill, I cannot help you until I'm better. I can't go to work. I can't help my children. I can't keep the house clean. So those who are affected by my illness need to "man up" by becoming resourceful and dealing on their own. This is the US. We aren't healthy. We have racial tension. We have far too many poor people to help. Our school systems across the nation are falling apart. Kids can barely read and write. Yet we are expected to provide assistance to EVERY other nation.

enough!

Let's get clean and sober and healthy first, and then extend ourselves.

Then why aren’t you for mandatory e-verify ? Why isn’t the GOP for mandatory e-verify ? If you cut off the job spigot then it stops the non- desperate economic migrants. Why isn’t trump mandating e-verify in his properties ?

So many of you think that e-verify is the answer. Great, I say! If this is the case, then what do YOU propose WE do to insist this magic measure is used?


So you can scream about e-verify (and you're one of many), but what actions are you taking to ensure it's in place?
- Are you emailing your local reps?
-Are you bombarding the 20+ D candidates who are in love with "loose" borders?
-Are you holding protests around Trump's properties?
- Have you researched the names of others companies who are hiring illegal immigrants? If so, please share.

If you don't have answers to these questions, then I'll just assume you don't have a plan.

my plan? to clean up the mess in the centers by hiring more judges for quicker processing, tighten the borders, focus on legal immigration, and limit the number entering while we address our internal problems of poverty/homelessness and piss poor education

The MC and UMC are the backbone of this nation, yet we're sh*t on each day. So why am I struggling to put away money for my OWN children's college tuition when ultimately I'm paying for everyone else?

see the issue?

THIS ^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're in a bubble of xenophobia. Immigrants are a net positive to the country; asylum is a fundamental human right; and democrats are demonstrably not against border controls.

Wanting to curb illegal immigration doesn't automatically mean one is xenophobic. Ask many legal immigrants and you might be surprised.

I’m a legal immigrant who followed the rules. I had relatives who could not come to the US and ended up in Germany instead.

Why did they need to follow the rules? Maybe they should have gotten a fight to Mexico and crossed the border illegally? Seems this is the behavior we are encouraging!!!!

DP. Also a legal immigrant who followed the rules and jumped through all the hoops and whose career was hampered by the interminable visa and green card wait.


I can't bring my elderly parents here to live with me because health care is unaffordable for them. Even when my mom visits on her 6-month visa that I had to pay $$ for and then $$$ to extend, CBP routinely detains her in secondary for several hours with no explanation (this was under Obama--she hasn't come to visit under Trump) before letting her finally come in. The last time this happened I was commiserating with another immigrant at Dulles who was in the same boat as me, waiting for her mom to come out of secondary, and she was just incensed about the Dem position on ilegal immigration. And that was before Dems jumped the shark.

I also have friends from other places (mostly India) who have been here for 15 years and are still waiting for their green card.

I have to vote against Trump, obviously, but I feel that the Democratic party has lost me.

Why do you have to vote against Trump? Honest question and I'm not trying to be snarky, but would like to understand.

I didn't vote for Trump, and would never have thought that I would. But, I don't think he's doing a terrible job as President.

Is it because Trump is a jerk? Fair enough, but aren't a lot of politicians jerks? Do you ever do business with people who you dislike - maybe car salesmen, family some family members?

DH and I are immigrants, but not Latino and not Muslim, so the Democratic party has established that they don't care about our votes, IMO. DH is not convinced about voting for Trump, but I certainly am.

+1
Democrats are so wrapped up in who is the "nicest" or most "personable" candidate. Great, but I want a president who is effective. Trump is focusing on issues I find important (along with millions of other Americans) - that's enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“NOBODY WANTS OPEN BORDERS. You're pushing a GOP strawman. Shame.”

Maybe not literally open but near about.

Castro is getting all kinds of applause for pushing this idea of turning coming here without permission and just deciding you will stay into a minor offense - and most of the stage agreed with him Thursday.

Many also said let’s give people here illegally free health insurance.

And many Dems are opposing the reasonable idea of not qualifying for asylum in most cases if you have passed up multiple countries to get here rather than getting away from the country where someone is persecuting you and into a different one.

Another idea that got a lot of traction was not deporting people so long as they illegally show up here and then keep their nose clean.

So- unless you decide to commit a major crime like rape or murder sure sounds a lot like anyone around the world can just up and decide they plan to live in the US with virtually no disincentive to doing so.

EXACTLY. Sounds a lot like... open borders, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're in a bubble of xenophobia. Immigrants are a net positive to the country; asylum is a fundamental human right; and democrats are demonstrably not against border controls.

We want more LEGAL immigrants. But nice try, PP.

The ugliness spewed by you and yours on a daily basis belies your claim.

DP. So it's "ugly" to not want people living in the U.S. illegally? Huh. I thought that was simply following the law, something you and your fellow Dems are happy to disregard when it's convenient for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“NOBODY WANTS OPEN BORDERS. You're pushing a GOP strawman. Shame.”

Maybe not literally open but near about.

Castro is getting all kinds of applause for pushing this idea of turning coming here without permission and just deciding you will stay into a minor offense - and most of the stage agreed with him Thursday.

Many also said let’s give people here illegally free health insurance.

And many Dems are opposing the reasonable idea of not qualifying for asylum in most cases if you have passed up multiple countries to get here rather than getting away from the country where someone is persecuting you and into a different one.

Another idea that got a lot of traction was not deporting people so long as they illegally show up here and then keep their nose clean.

So- unless you decide to commit a major crime like rape or murder sure sounds a lot like anyone around the world can just up and decide they plan to live in the US with virtually no disincentive to doing so.

EXACTLY. Sounds a lot like... open borders, doesn't it?

Sure, if you’re functionally illiterate.