Common sense immigration reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:until left stops thinking about getting more votes, it will never get done. All they want is how can we get more votes in the years to come via minorities so we can be in POWER. Fix that ideology and then we talk...

Did someone mention voter fraud? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nc-election-officials-plan-hearing-over-fraud-concerns-in-us-house-race-raising-possibility-of-new-election/2018/11/30/d1fc0450-f4b7-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html

It is ironic that people like you keep citing these hordes of illegals infiltrating our electoral system when in actual reality, it is things like this and what Kemp pulled in Georgia which are the true electoral crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The anchor baby concept that Trump supporters seem to dislike applies to any child born to a person who is not a citizen, so that would include legal immigrants as well (like H2A visa holders having children while in the US), and yes, that would apply to Trump's father because his mother was pregnant when she immigrated to the US. I doubt she became a citizen within six months of arriving here.

The anchor baby concept is wrong to begin with (because a US citizen baby doesn't really help if you have no legal means of staying independently of that) but no, it doesn't include legal immigrants. An anchor baby, by definition, anchors someone without other attachments. So, a baby born to a green card holder is not an anchor baby because a green card holder can stay here regardless of a baby. I don't know what Trump's grandmother situation was, but if she was a legal immigrant, then her child was not an anchor baby because her status in the US did not depend on having a baby.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree 40% proficiency rate is pathetic. So? Low income students generally have a low proficiency rate, and that does apply to even whites and Asians btw. It's about SES, not about skin color. Hispanics and blacks have a large % of low income families, so that's why you see a larger % of students from this background not doing as well in school.

That's true, and that's why it makes sense to limit immigration of low-income people, and enforce immigration laws with regard to the illegal population.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I realize that the hispanic population in MCPS has been increasing, as it has for the rest of the country. The Asian population has also been increasing. The US is becoming less white. Actually, the whole world is becoming less white. So, you can stop blaming non whites for the fact that the white population is declining. It's not like nonwhite people are going around getting rid of white people.

The Asian population is, most of the time, here legally. It also tends to elevate the quality of the schools, not the other way round.

Yes, the world is becoming less white but it doesn't have to become poorer. A country has every right to restrict who comes in; the growth of illegal population, Hispanic or not, is not an act of god. It can be managed and mitigated.

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Again, most liberals are not for open borders.”

Well - sort of. You can’t oppose virtually all enforcement of immigration laws - including deportation of people here illegally - and then say you are not for open borders. These two things do not go together.

I don't think Dems are againt enforcement of virtually all immigration laws. They don't have a problem with deporting people, but realize that there are constraints within our system (overcrowded jails in big metro areas where there are a lot of illegal immigrants; having people afraid of reporting violent crimes to local police for fear of deportation).

They also have sympathy for people who were brought here as children illegally, and if letting them find a path to citizenship = wanting open borders, then by that definition then some Rs are for open borders, too, since several prominent Rs support the Dream Act and amnesty.

Correct. That is open borders. And if we pass a bill like that or one that gives amnesty to those here illegally, you can expect another wave of humanity at our borders. They will all come to wait until we pass another amensty years down the line. Its better to help them in their home countries. There never seems to be any accountability for the presidents/leaders of central america.

? Why should the leaders of those central american countries be held liable for what their citizens do abroad? Should Trump be held accountable for the actions of Americans behaving badly in other countries, of which there are plenty of?

They should be held accountable for not getting control of the crime that drives people here. For not prosecuting abusive men who have women fleeing here after being raped, physically and mentally abused, etc. There doesnt seem to be any discussion about the issues that are driving people here other than acknowledgement that it is crime and poverty that push people to leave. Its like CA leaders are totally removed from the discussion of solutions. And then they have the nerve to wag their fingers at the U.S. when they dont like how migrants are being treated here... Hello! You and your failures are the reason people have to flee here in the first place!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Not really. Lots of immigrants come with no skills and are grateful for the opportunity. Their kids then succeed. Immigration is about humanity and little else.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Not really. Lots of immigrants come with no skills and are grateful for the opportunity. Their kids then succeed. Immigration is about humanity and little else.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34

No one cares about Leviticus so keep it for your Sundays.

Immigration is about what immigration laws say. There is no need to wait a generation: you can decide to let in immigrants who already have skills and they'd be just as grateful for the opportunity. Humanity is mentioned never in the Immigration and Nationalization Act, and that's what decides who gets to go, not bloody Leviticus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The anchor baby concept that Trump supporters seem to dislike applies to any child born to a person who is not a citizen, so that would include legal immigrants as well (like H2A visa holders having children while in the US), and yes, that would apply to Trump's father because his mother was pregnant when she immigrated to the US. I doubt she became a citizen within six months of arriving here.

The anchor baby concept is wrong to begin with (because a US citizen baby doesn't really help if you have no legal means of staying independently of that) but no, it doesn't include legal immigrants. An anchor baby, by definition, anchors someone without other attachments. So, a baby born to a green card holder is not an anchor baby because a green card holder can stay here regardless of a baby. I don't know what Trump's grandmother situation was, but if she was a legal immigrant, then her child was not an anchor baby because her status in the US did not depend on having a baby.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree 40% proficiency rate is pathetic. So? Low income students generally have a low proficiency rate, and that does apply to even whites and Asians btw. It's about SES, not about skin color. Hispanics and blacks have a large % of low income families, so that's why you see a larger % of students from this background not doing as well in school.

That's true, and that's why it makes sense to limit immigration of low-income people, and enforce immigration laws with regard to the illegal population.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I realize that the hispanic population in MCPS has been increasing, as it has for the rest of the country. The Asian population has also been increasing. The US is becoming less white. Actually, the whole world is becoming less white. So, you can stop blaming non whites for the fact that the white population is declining. It's not like nonwhite people are going around getting rid of white people.

The Asian population is, most of the time, here legally. It also tends to elevate the quality of the schools, not the other way round.

Yes, the world is becoming less white but it doesn't have to become poorer. A country has every right to restrict who comes in; the growth of illegal population, Hispanic or not, is not an act of god. It can be managed and mitigated.

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

You had 8 full years to tell that to Deporter-in-Chief Obama while he deported 4.5 million immigrants, betraying them and their families and everyone who trusted his promises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Not really. Lots of immigrants come with no skills and are grateful for the opportunity. Their kids then succeed. Immigration is about humanity and little else.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34

No one cares about Leviticus so keep it for your Sundays.

Immigration is about what immigration laws say. There is no need to wait a generation: you can decide to let in immigrants who already have skills and they'd be just as grateful for the opportunity. Humanity is mentioned never in the Immigration and Nationalization Act, and that's what decides who gets to go, not bloody Leviticus.

Saturdays and Sundays, thank you. And many people do actually operate from a moral compass. The law implements those values, not the other way around.

BTW the INA mentions “humanitarian” lots of times. And plenty of admissions to the United States are indeed for humanitarian reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The anchor baby concept that Trump supporters seem to dislike applies to any child born to a person who is not a citizen, so that would include legal immigrants as well (like H2A visa holders having children while in the US), and yes, that would apply to Trump's father because his mother was pregnant when she immigrated to the US. I doubt she became a citizen within six months of arriving here.

The anchor baby concept is wrong to begin with (because a US citizen baby doesn't really help if you have no legal means of staying independently of that) but no, it doesn't include legal immigrants. An anchor baby, by definition, anchors someone without other attachments. So, a baby born to a green card holder is not an anchor baby because a green card holder can stay here regardless of a baby. I don't know what Trump's grandmother situation was, but if she was a legal immigrant, then her child was not an anchor baby because her status in the US did not depend on having a baby.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree 40% proficiency rate is pathetic. So? Low income students generally have a low proficiency rate, and that does apply to even whites and Asians btw. It's about SES, not about skin color. Hispanics and blacks have a large % of low income families, so that's why you see a larger % of students from this background not doing as well in school.

That's true, and that's why it makes sense to limit immigration of low-income people, and enforce immigration laws with regard to the illegal population.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I realize that the hispanic population in MCPS has been increasing, as it has for the rest of the country. The Asian population has also been increasing. The US is becoming less white. Actually, the whole world is becoming less white. So, you can stop blaming non whites for the fact that the white population is declining. It's not like nonwhite people are going around getting rid of white people.

The Asian population is, most of the time, here legally. It also tends to elevate the quality of the schools, not the other way round.

Yes, the world is becoming less white but it doesn't have to become poorer. A country has every right to restrict who comes in; the growth of illegal population, Hispanic or not, is not an act of god. It can be managed and mitigated.

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

You had 8 full years to tell that to Deporter-in-Chief Obama while he deported 4.5 million immigrants, betraying them and their families and everyone who trusted his promises.

Obama prioritized deportations. Criminals took top priorty. That’s common sense immigration immigration policy. Trump, on the other hand, took away those priorities. When everything is a priority, then nothing is. Under Trump policy, Rhodes scholars DACA kids can be kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Not really. Lots of immigrants come with no skills and are grateful for the opportunity. Their kids then succeed. Immigration is about humanity and little else.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34

No one cares about Leviticus so keep it for your Sundays.

Immigration is about what immigration laws say. There is no need to wait a generation: you can decide to let in immigrants who already have skills and they'd be just as grateful for the opportunity. Humanity is mentioned never in the Immigration and Nationalization Act, and that's what decides who gets to go, not bloody Leviticus.

Saturdays and Sundays, thank you. And many people do actually operate from a moral compass. The law implements those values, not the other way around.

BTW the INA mentions “humanitarian” lots of times. And plenty of admissions to the United States are indeed for humanitarian reasons.

Wrong forum. Go hock that crap on the religion forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:until left stops thinking about getting more votes, it will never get done. All they want is how can we get more votes in the years to come via minorities so we can be in POWER. Fix that ideology and then we talk...

Did someone mention voter fraud? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nc-election-officials-plan-hearing-over-fraud-concerns-in-us-house-race-raising-possibility-of-new-election/2018/11/30/d1fc0450-f4b7-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html

It is ironic that people like you keep citing these hordes of illegals infiltrating our electoral system when in actual reality, it is things like this and what Kemp pulled in Georgia which are the true electoral crimes.

Did someone say "SOUP"??

JT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Citizenship by birth should be granted to the child of Legal Permanent Residents (citizens, greencard holders, HIB or job holders with 3-5+ year visas). Just like most developed countries with laws, processes and sovereign borders.

Not illegals, Not temp visitors.

Agree, Full Stop.

Permanent residents have been well-vetted and verified as has their health records, education transcripts, income and savings, background checks for fraud/felonies/misdemeanors in their country, references.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Not really. Lots of immigrants come with no skills and are grateful for the opportunity. Their kids then succeed. Immigration is about humanity and little else.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34

No one cares about Leviticus so keep it for your Sundays.

Immigration is about what immigration laws say. There is no need to wait a generation: you can decide to let in immigrants who already have skills and they'd be just as grateful for the opportunity. Humanity is mentioned never in the Immigration and Nationalization Act, and that's what decides who gets to go, not bloody Leviticus.

DP.. shouldn't Trump' Evangelicals and Catholics care about the Bible?

But the ^PP is correct, historically, immigration here hasn't been about SES. You might say, "Well, that was then. We don't need those kinds now", but you could apply that same argument to so many other US laws, especially the 2nd amendment. If you open the door to changing things like the 14th amendment, you should be open to changing all the amendments, including the 2nd.

It's funny that for a group that wants to hold on to tradition, you don't seem to want to hold on to the tradition of allowing in poor immigrants, which allowed most of your ancestors, like Trump's grandfather, to come to the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The anchor baby concept that Trump supporters seem to dislike applies to any child born to a person who is not a citizen, so that would include legal immigrants as well (like H2A visa holders having children while in the US), and yes, that would apply to Trump's father because his mother was pregnant when she immigrated to the US. I doubt she became a citizen within six months of arriving here.

The anchor baby concept is wrong to begin with (because a US citizen baby doesn't really help if you have no legal means of staying independently of that) but no, it doesn't include legal immigrants. An anchor baby, by definition, anchors someone without other attachments. So, a baby born to a green card holder is not an anchor baby because a green card holder can stay here regardless of a baby. I don't know what Trump's grandmother situation was, but if she was a legal immigrant, then her child was not an anchor baby because her status in the US did not depend on having a baby.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree 40% proficiency rate is pathetic. So? Low income students generally have a low proficiency rate, and that does apply to even whites and Asians btw. It's about SES, not about skin color. Hispanics and blacks have a large % of low income families, so that's why you see a larger % of students from this background not doing as well in school.

That's true, and that's why it makes sense to limit immigration of low-income people, and enforce immigration laws with regard to the illegal population.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I realize that the hispanic population in MCPS has been increasing, as it has for the rest of the country. The Asian population has also been increasing. The US is becoming less white. Actually, the whole world is becoming less white. So, you can stop blaming non whites for the fact that the white population is declining. It's not like nonwhite people are going around getting rid of white people.

The Asian population is, most of the time, here legally. It also tends to elevate the quality of the schools, not the other way round.

Yes, the world is becoming less white but it doesn't have to become poorer. A country has every right to restrict who comes in; the growth of illegal population, Hispanic or not, is not an act of god. It can be managed and mitigated.

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

You had 8 full years to tell that to Deporter-in-Chief Obama while he deported 4.5 million immigrants, betraying them and their families and everyone who trusted his promises.

Obama prioritized deportations. Criminals took top priorty. That’s common sense immigration immigration policy. Trump, on the other hand, took away those priorities. When everything is a priority, then nothing is. Under Trump policy, Rhodes scholars DACA kids can be kicked out.

BS. Most people deported by Obama while you looked elsewhere had no criminal record.

Even worse, over a million were parents of American children.

If you actually cared about immigrants, you would have spoken then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DP.. shouldn't Trump' Evangelicals and Catholics care about the Bible?

I am neither of these things and I DGAF about the Bible.

Anonymous wrote:
But the ^PP is correct, historically, immigration here hasn't been about SES. You might say, "Well, that was then. We don't need those kinds now", but you could apply that same argument to so many other US laws, especially the 2nd amendment. If you open the door to changing things like the 14th amendment, you should be open to changing all the amendments, including the 2nd.

You don't need to be changing things about immigration. Your immigration is what your immigration laws say it is. They exist, believe it or not, and outline in rather extensive detail who is and is not eligible. Currently being poor is not grounds for immigration. Most grounds of immigration are about family members already in the country (means blind) or sponsorable employment (means blind but implies some level of income). I mean you are welcome to make up stories about what you think immigration "should" be, but immigration officers don't care about legends.

Anonymous wrote:
It's funny that for a group that wants to hold on to tradition, you don't seem to want to hold on to the tradition of allowing in poor immigrants, which allowed most of your ancestors, like Trump's grandfather, to come to the US.

Traditions aren't laws. I mean slavery is a tradition. Women not voting is a tradition. Shall I go on?

I don't know what you mean about "your ancestors". I'm a middle class immigrant. I was born middle class and immigrated while middle class. I've never actually been poor. Or thrown rocks at a border officer.