Trump assures citizenship for DACA recipients

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all.

How is a wall going to do that? Most people fly in and then never leave.

They are also asking for much more enforcement. Not sure that is most of the illegal immigrants, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

DP.. what "merit" did your ancestors have that enabled them to come here? What about Trump's mother, who was a maid from Scotland?

Cool, we're deciding how to deal with things now based on how people did them here 300 and 400 years ago (when my ancestors came here)?

That's how you want to determine things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

Get in on their merits?

What merit do you have, what makes you so special? Being born here? You had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shooting the natives, occupying the land, and founding the country in my case. Mine were settlers/colonists, not immigrants.

Nah, they were settlers/colonists AND immigrants.

No, there was no "country" to immigrate too.

See the definition of immigrant:


1.
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

Nope! She didn't get in on her own merits! Why should you be allowed to immigrate just because you're related to somebody?!

Incidentally, there is a whole lot of room between believing that US citizens who were immigrants should be allowed to sponsor their family members and believing that there should be no immigration laws. A whole heck of a lot of room.

[Anonymous]

The Trump amnesty could be one of the greatest ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shooting the natives, occupying the land, and founding the country in my case. Mine were settlers/colonists, not immigrants.

Nah, they were settlers/colonists AND immigrants.

No, there was no "country" to immigrate too.

See the definition of immigrant:


1.
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

They crossed the Atlantic and came to North America without leaving the country? That's some high-class hair-splitting you're doing there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

Since nobody is saying that everyone should be able to go to any country they want to, I don't understand how this is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

While we have birthright citizenship, there are people arguing against it.

Are you also suggesting that the child of a US citizen should not be granted US citizenship? Tell me more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

Nope! She didn't get in on her own merits! Why should you be allowed to immigrate just because you're related to somebody?!

Incidentally, there is a whole lot of room between believing that US citizens who were immigrants should be allowed to sponsor their family members and believing that there should be no immigration laws. A whole heck of a lot of room.

Because family! Immigrants who come here to join families succeed! They get a built in safety net that “merit-based” immigrants dont get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shooting the natives, occupying the land, and founding the country in my case. Mine were settlers/colonists, not immigrants.

Nah, they were settlers/colonists AND immigrants.

No, there was no "country" to immigrate too.

See the definition of immigrant:


1.
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

They crossed the Atlantic and came to North America without leaving the country? That's some high-class hair-splitting you're doing there.

There was no Nation at the time in North America back in the 1630's, outside of the Indian Nations, any my ancestors were not part of any of those tribal nations.

A colony is not a country. A colony is not a (political) state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

Nope! She didn't get in on her own merits! Why should you be allowed to immigrate just because you're related to somebody?!

Incidentally, there is a whole lot of room between believing that US citizens who were immigrants should be allowed to sponsor their family members and believing that there should be no immigration laws. A whole heck of a lot of room.

Because family! Immigrants who come here to join families succeed! They get a built in safety net that “merit-based” immigrants dont get.

No, Republicans don't believe in that anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There was no Nation at the time in North America back in the 1630's, outside of the Indian Nations, any my ancestors were not part of any of those tribal nations.

A colony is not a country. A colony is not a (political) state.

PP, you can tell yourself all you want that your ancestors were not immigrants. But I doubt that most people will agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

While we have birthright citizenship, there are people arguing against it.

Are you also suggesting that the child of a US citizen should not be granted US citizenship? Tell me more.

Don't ask me. Ask the people who refer to US citizens as "anchor babies".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In exchange for $25M for the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

I want an explanation for why Mexico is not paying for wall!