Reply to Trump assures citizenship for DACA recipients

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump assures citizenship for DACA recipients"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.[/quote]

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. [b] The end to chain migration would also be a big plus.[/b]  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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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

That's how you want to determine things?[/quote]
Why not? That's how you gun lovers determine the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today's world.

Trump's mother immigrated here less than 100 years ago.  What was her "merit"?  Why did we allow Melania's family to immigrate here?[/quote]

Bzzt, derailing, 10 yard penalty! Why assume someone criticizing your comment on what rules applied to one's ancestors is a gun lover? Are people who hate guns or are neutral about guns all committed to handling things now the way they were done hundreds of years ago?

And now rather than using my 400-300 year old ancestors, you want to use Melanie's when they immigrated? Ok.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?[/quote]
The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.[/quote]

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?[/quote]

False.  It was established within the context of a militia, and militia was defined in the Militia Act put into law by the Founding Fathers 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was ratified.  The militia was for national defense and was answerable and accountable to the President as Commander In Chief.[/quote]

For a colony that came to exist as a country after violently taking its independence.

You cannot separate that from our founding documents.[/quote]

NO.  That part was addressed with the part that was in the Constitution about representative government, which is something they didn't have when they were ruled by the British.   If we don't like the people running our government, we vote them out of office, rather than shooting them.[/quote]

Yes, that was also part of it.

I suggest you read more about the history if you don't think the founders were concerned thinking the people of this country might need to defend themselves, violently, from their own government. We were birthed in blood, and its informed our country ever since.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics