Anonymous wrote:Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson is indeed one entitled SOB, as most children of privilege end up being.

The country would be in a lot better shape with more appreciative Dreamers and fewer entitled Tuckers. Who even names their kid “Tucker?”

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson is indeed one entitled SOB, as most children of privilege end up being.

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love Reagan=> Reagan gave illegals amnesty => Republicans love amnesty.

Oooh oooh!

Democrats love Bill Clinton => Clinton sexually harassed or raped women => Democrats love sexual harassment and rape!

Republicans seem to have learned from Reagan. If you give before you get, you'll never get. Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for strong border controls and enforcement. He believed in the negotiation, and was shown to be naive. If I were you, based on your comment above, I'd say that Republicans learned to never trust a Democrat because they're liars. I'm not you, so I'll just say Republicans learned to be more cautious about giving before getting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I understand how the EU works. In practice, that is how we are functioning with illegal immigrants. If we don't deport people here illegally, how are we controlling our borders?

Not enforcing the law is not providing amnesty. Those here illegally are still technically here illegally and are subject to deportation. Amnesty would be granting them rights to be here, moving them to the front of the line ahead of everyone who's been following the rules.

Which line are you referring to, specifically?

The line for legal immigration. It's how the group of people who have legally applied and are waiting is commonly referred to.

Republicans love Reagan=> Reagan gave illegals amnesty => Republicans love amnesty.

Anonymous wrote:

I understand how the EU works. In practice, that is how we are functioning with illegal immigrants. If we don't deport people here illegally, how are we controlling our borders?

Not enforcing the law is not providing amnesty. Those here illegally are still technically here illegally and are subject to deportation. Amnesty would be granting them rights to be here, moving them to the front of the line ahead of everyone who's been following the rules.

Which line are you referring to, specifically?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal heads explode!!! How do we tell voters we want to legalize ALL illegals AND have an OPEN BORDER.

Trump has outflanked them totally with generous DACA proposal plus wall.

What Dem politician said they wanted "open borders"? Are they looking to allow anyone to come without checking papers or have any border control at all? Do they want to get rid of ICE completely? And, no, "they seem to" is not proof that they do. If you say, "well they want amnesty", well, aren't some Rs wanting "amnesty", too. Reagan and both Bushes provided amnesty. By your definition, some Rs want "open borders", too?

If not "open borders" how do you describe people who don't want to limit immigration, to do away with the concept of "illegal" immigration, and all immigrants, whether they followed our legal processes or not, should be accepted and embraced?

Reagan accepted amnesty in exchange for more border protections, that were not followed up on - under both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan's acceptance of amnesty helped create this problem, which is part of why it's so challenging.

Are dems saying that they want zero cap on any immigration? That's not what I'm hearing. They are not advocating for removing all caps. They are against being discriminatory.

Are dems saying that there they don't want to call people undocumented immigrants, ie, illegal? I think some people take offense to the word "illegal" as it applies to a human being, but I don't think they mean it as a way of saying we want open borders? BTW,, I use the term illegal immigrants, because the immigrant is not legally in this country.

If dems aren't asking for border control to stop checking papers at the border, then no, they are not for open borders. Open borders applies to the 27 EU member states where their people can move from one country to another without being detained by the authorities.

Many of the Dems I hear are talking about not penalizing illegal immigrants. How is that maintaining legal, controlled immigration? What is the difference between open borders and not penalizing illegal immigrants (by sending them back to their country of origin)?

Indeed, then some of the Rs are for open borders, too, then based on your definition since 3 recent R POTUS provided amnesty to them.

Again, open border is like the EU. Do you understand how the EU works and the movement of its people?

I understand how the EU works. In practice, that is how we are functioning with illegal immigrants. If we don't deport people here illegally, how are we controlling our borders?

Not enforcing the law is not providing amnesty. Those here illegally are still technically here illegally and are subject to deportation. Amnesty would be granting them rights to be here, moving them to the front of the line ahead of everyone who's been following the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Absolutely. Why do liberals fail to grasp this concept? If the masses of people who came during that Great Immigration (late 1880s to 1920s) went onto government assistant programs, as half of all immigrants do today, there would have been a call for merit-based systems then too. It's an entirely different time now. Just as the "old" immigrants were requires to support themselves, we must require that of new immigrants. The best way to do that is via merit.

Where do you get this number from?

here it is.....51% of immigrants are on some form of assistance compared to 30% of native-born.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

That's a report from the Center for Immigration Studies. It's like citing a report from the Federalist Society on the constitutional foundations of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's opinions.

Also, somebody should tell the author of the piece at the link that there's been no such thing as "welfare" since Bill Clinton ended it in with the so-called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, People can't be on welfare because there's no such thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Absolutely. Why do liberals fail to grasp this concept? If the masses of people who came during that Great Immigration (late 1880s to 1920s) went onto government assistant programs, as half of all immigrants do today, there would have been a call for merit-based systems then too. It's an entirely different time now. Just as the "old" immigrants were requires to support themselves, we must require that of new immigrants. The best way to do that is via merit.

Where do you get this number from?

here it is.....51% of immigrants are on some form of assistance compared to 30% of native-born.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal heads explode!!! How do we tell voters we want to legalize ALL illegals AND have an OPEN BORDER.

Trump has outflanked them totally with generous DACA proposal plus wall.

What Dem politician said they wanted "open borders"? Are they looking to allow anyone to come without checking papers or have any border control at all? Do they want to get rid of ICE completely? And, no, "they seem to" is not proof that they do. If you say, "well they want amnesty", well, aren't some Rs wanting "amnesty", too. Reagan and both Bushes provided amnesty. By your definition, some Rs want "open borders", too?

If not "open borders" how do you describe people who don't want to limit immigration, to do away with the concept of "illegal" immigration, and all immigrants, whether they followed our legal processes or not, should be accepted and embraced?

Reagan accepted amnesty in exchange for more border protections, that were not followed up on - under both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan's acceptance of amnesty helped create this problem, which is part of why it's so challenging.

Are dems saying that they want zero cap on any immigration? That's not what I'm hearing. They are not advocating for removing all caps. They are against being discriminatory.

Are dems saying that there they don't want to call people undocumented immigrants, ie, illegal? I think some people take offense to the word "illegal" as it applies to a human being, but I don't think they mean it as a way of saying we want open borders? BTW,, I use the term illegal immigrants, because the immigrant is not legally in this country.

If dems aren't asking for border control to stop checking papers at the border, then no, they are not for open borders. Open borders applies to the 27 EU member states where their people can move from one country to another without being detained by the authorities.

Many of the Dems I hear are talking about not penalizing illegal immigrants. How is that maintaining legal, controlled immigration? What is the difference between open borders and not penalizing illegal immigrants (by sending them back to their country of origin)?

Indeed, then some of the Rs are for open borders, too, then based on your definition since 3 recent R POTUS provided amnesty to them.

Again, open border is like the EU. Do you understand how the EU works and the movement of its people?

Anonymous wrote:
Absolutely. Why do liberals fail to grasp this concept? If the masses of people who came during that Great Immigration (late 1880s to 1920s) went onto government assistant programs, as half of all immigrants do today, there would have been a call for merit-based systems then too. It's an entirely different time now. Just as the "old" immigrants were requires to support themselves, we must require that of new immigrants. The best way to do that is via merit.

Where do you get this number from?

Anonymous wrote:

DP. No one is saying to send parents back who are already immigranted here legally. I have 77 family members as of now that I can start apply for since I’m a US citizen. My parents, 11 brothers and sisters and theirs spouses and their children. My parents can sponsor my grandparents. My brothers and sisters spouses can sponsor their parents and siblings and list goes on and on and on . If all the legal immigrants sponsor all their families legally as chain migrants, what will happen to this country in 30-50years? Last time I checked there were over 4 million immigrants were on waiting list .


http://debates.numbersusa.com/

And in about 150 years, most of them will have made it to the front of the line, if you and they are still alive.

As you say, there's a waiting list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

You cannot separate that from our founding documents.

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.

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

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.

This is what liberals refuse to acknowledge. 100 years ago, immigrants were welcomed into this country because we needed people to settle it. These people worked the land, creating lives for themselves with absolutely no help from the government, no safety net whatsoever. Nor did they expect any help or handouts.

The situation today is completely different. When will liberals become honest and admit that?

Agree!!! Fiscal Conservative Libertarian here!

Seems like a contradiction there. A true libertarian would not be about dictating who can or can't live here. Conservative yes, but stop calling yourself a libertarian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

You cannot separate that from our founding documents.

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.