Jump to content
Ten oz

U.S. Immigration

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

Our country exists because the people in 1776 were being abused by the law of the crown.

The+Government+said...+005.jpg

Laws are not necessarily ethical, and people who try to abuse people using the law should be stopped.

Your location says you are from Texas.  I assume you are a US citizen.  If you don't like the second amendment work to have it changed.  Yeah, I'll bitch about it if you succeed but I'll follow the law.  I don't pick and choose. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Funny how that turned out... (cough, cough)...

Irony meters off, please gentlemen...

Working out as intended as far as I'm concerned.  

56 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, you're just making that up. A nice distraction attempt from the fact that you aren't answering my question, or providing the evidence I asked for.

You probably break some laws every day.  

Another man of straw.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Funny you list a bunch of infractions and minor misdemeanors to call me a hypocrite.  Illegal immigration is felony.  Maybe you don't know the difference.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-distinguishes-a-misdemeanor-from-a-felony.html

With regard to your questions, you are defending the commission of felonies and the abuse of children.  Perhaps we should get past that first.

 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A bill becomes a law by being voted on and passed through the House and Senate then sign by the President. Currently that process it what happening. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate with counsel from the President is working to determine what the law shall be with respects to DACA. What the law use to be years back was legally deferred by Presidential action. Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress. 

Was the law is the law your position on taxes? Our tax laws are our tax laws and must be enforced period? Were you angered when Trump said finding ways to not pay taxes makes him smart? Were you angry when Congress voted to change tax laws? WTF is the difference? Come down off your high horse. Congress changes laws all the time. Your real position is that you don't want immigrants in the U.S. . That is your prerogative. Feel free to explain why we shouldn't have immigrants. Just stop acting like the law is on your side as though laws are permanent natural structures. 

Negotiations mean give and take.  Trump wants to find a path forward with DACA, but he wants things in return so we don't end up in this situation again.  His list of requests is easy to find on the web.  Which of his request do you agree with?

As long as the way Trump found not to pay taxes were legal I have no problem with it.  I and everyone else does the same thing. 

I celebrated when the tax laws were changed.   The more of my money I earn that the government lets me keep the happier I am.  Who isn't.  

I like immigrants.  I think we should have legal liberal immigration laws  that admits plenty of hispanics.   I belong to both motorcycle and car clubs that have significant Hispanic membership.  We go on rides, work on each other's machines.  We even belong to the same church.  But according to you, because I want immigrants to enter the US legally in your book I'm a racist.  

Immigration is not a race issue.  That is a straw man argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Your location says you are from Texas.  I assume you are a US citizen.  If you don't like the second amendment work to have it changed.  Yeah, I'll bitch about it if you succeed but I'll follow the law.  I don't pick and choose

Working on an immigration bill is exactly what is happening. 

17 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Negotiations mean give and take.

What was the give and take on tax negotiations? It isn't a given that both sides will get something.

22 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

As long as the way Trump found not to pay taxes were legal I have no problem with it.

We don't know if it was legal he refuses to release his taxes and has publicly attacked Mueller's investigation for looking into his finances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 Funny you list a bunch of infractions and minor misdemeanors to call me a hypocrite.  Illegal immigration is felony.  Maybe you don't know the difference.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-distinguishes-a-misdemeanor-from-a-felony.html

 

It is, in fact, a misdemeanor

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 

"for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months"

As your link says, felonies are generally crimes which carry a sentence of greater than 1 year

 

Quote

With regard to your questions, you are defending the commission of felonies and the abuse of children.  Perhaps we should get past that first.

Now that we've established that you are wrong, perhaps you will revisit this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Your location says you are from Texas.  I assume you are a US citizen.  If you don't like the second amendment work to have it changed.  Yeah, I'll bitch about it if you succeed but I'll follow the law.  I don't pick and choose.

I am a natural citizen of the US, born and reared therein. I am in favor of changing any law that harms anyone either overtly or otherwise. I doubt that will ever happen, but we should approach that ideal compared to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Which of his request do you agree with?

Any funding for the wall is a giant waste of money. That isn't even a partisan position. Even the majority of Republicans say as much. Even John Kelly has said as much. I also disagree with Trump's plan to curtail visa lotteries; legal immigration. If you like immigrants as you claim and want liberal immigration laws than you should object to limiting visas as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress.

This is a useful point. Repeating it so it's not missed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 11:13 AM, waitforufo said:

Negotiations mean give and take.  Trump wants to find a path forward with DACA, but he wants things in return so we don't end up in this situation again.  His list of requests is easy to find on the web.  Which of his request do you agree with?

 

I like immigrants.  I think we should have legal liberal immigration laws  that admits plenty of hispanics.   I belong to both motorcycle and car clubs that have significant Hispanic membership.  We go on rides, work on each other's machines.  We even belong to the same church.  But according to you, because I want immigrants to enter the US legally in your book I'm a racist.  

 

Trump proposal would allow nearly 2 million people who were brought into the U.S. illegally to become citizens in exchange for curtailing the number of legal immigrants allow each year and money for his border wall.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-turns-tables-immigration-n841326

It seem that Trump's proposal is the opposite of what you have been posting. You have repeated said in this thread that you have no issue with legal immigration and that it is only illegal immigration you take issue with. Trump is pitching to make 2 million that came here under illegal circumstances illegal as part of a deal to limit legal immigration moving forward. In an early post I mentioned that this debate wasn't really about illegal vs legal but rather less immigrants periods. This is more evidence of that. Trump doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal; just his idea of shithole vs Norwegian. Trump wants the Haitians and Salvadorians who have been here legally to leave because he doesn't like where they are from, "shitholes", and want to limit legal immigration moving forward. It is absolutely not the "liberal immigration laws" you claim to support. It also is plainly racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 8:13 AM, Ten oz said:

A bill becomes a law by being voted on and passed through the House and Senate then sign by the President. Currently that process it what happening. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate with counsel from the President is working to determine what the law shall be with respects to DACA. What the law use to be years back was legally deferred by Presidential action. Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress. 

 Congress changes laws all the time. Your real position is that you don't want immigrants in the U.S. . That is your prerogative. Feel free to explain why we shouldn't have immigrants. Just stop acting like the law is on your side as though laws are permanent natural structures. 

Well currently the law is on my side.  If one president can defer law, another can decide to enforce it.  That's the problem with executive action.  Funny you didn't have any problems with Obama's executive actions.   I have stated over and over again that the law can be changed.  Even the constitution can be changed.  Those of your political persuasion just don't wan't to play by the rules or put in the work.  

On 1/25/2018 at 8:30 AM, Ten oz said:

We don't know if it was legal he refuses to release his taxes and has publicly attacked Mueller's investigation for looking into his finances. 

Just because you didn't know it was legal to refuse, doesn't mean it wasn't.  Also this is a topic about immigration.  Please stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Well currently the law is on my side.  If one president can defer law, another can decide to enforce it.  That's the problem with executive action.

Deferred action is common place in our legal system. Numerous court cases end in various amount of withheld judgement or withheld adjudication pending future mitigation or action. You can say "that's the problem" all you want but it is a standard legal step. It is normal when someone with a clean record is arrested for the judge to withhold adjudication pending completion of classes or fines. 

 

14 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Funny you didn't have any problems with Obama's executive actions.  

I didn't, what is your point? You are the one ignoring the executive action and calling those protected by DACA illegal.

 

16 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Those of your political persuasion just don't wan't to play by the rules or put in the work.  

Trump has proposed an immigration deal. I have responded to you twice now about the proposal yet you are ignoring it. How about you address the actual policy being proposed and render an opinion that deals with the specifics being negotiated in real time. Apply your "play by the rules" stuff to what is being proposed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 5:14 AM, Ten oz said:

I didn't, what is your point? You are the one ignoring the executive action and calling those protected by DACA illegal.

Well, there is a new executive, and he has a pen and phone too, and he is writing new executive actions now.  So with the stroke of a pen he can remove any reason to adjudicate pending future mitigation or action on illegal immigration.   Also Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals doesn't mean that they are not her illegally,  It just means we are deciding not to prosecute them at the moment.  The criminal cases against them are prima facie.  There is no doubt of their guilt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Well, there is a new executive, and he has a pen and phone too, and he is writing new executive actions now.  So with the stroke of a pen he can remove any reason to adjudicate pending future mitigation or action on illegal immigration.   Also Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals doesn't mean that they are not her illegally,  It just means we are deciding not to prosecute them at the moment.  The criminal cases against them are prima facie.  There is no doubt of their guilt.  

2

Trust you to hide behind a technicality to further your selfish desires; I pity the culture that blames children for its woes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

There is no doubt of their guilt.  

I understand and accept your broader argument as valid, but do have some doubt on this last point. It suggests the children are “guilty,” but I’m unconvinced of that.

If we MUST assign some sort of “guilt” here, then surely it rests with the DACA parent. Two and three year old children strike me as innocents in all of this. Your comment above suggests you disagree, but I’m not sure you do. 

Will you please clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 11:13 AM, waitforufo said:

Negotiations mean give and take.  Trump wants to find a path forward with DACA, but he wants things in return so we don't end up in this situation again.  His list of requests is easy to find on the web.  Which of his request do you agree with?

Why did you ask this question if you are just going to ignore the answer? Trump has present a proposal and you are avoiding discussing it. 

 

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Well, there is a new executive, and he has a pen and phone too, and he is writing new executive actions now.

True, Trump's plan would make nearly 2 million of those here by illegal means citizens in exchange for a limit on future legal immigration and money for a wall. How do you feel about Trump's proposal?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 8:07 AM, iNow said:

I understand and accept your broader argument as valid, but do have some doubt on this last point. It suggests the children are “guilty,” but I’m unconvinced of that.

If we MUST assign some sort of “guilt” here, then surely it rests with the DACA parent. Two and three year old children strike me as innocents in all of this. Your comment above suggests you disagree, but I’m not sure you do. 

Will you please clarify?

I have been blaming the DACA parents from the start.  What they did to there children was child abuse.  Those parents should be prosecuted for it.  

On 1/28/2018 at 9:49 AM, Ten oz said:

Why did you ask this question if you are just going to ignore the answer? Trump has present a proposal and you are avoiding discussing it. 

 

True, Trump's plan would make nearly 2 million of those here by illegal means citizens in exchange for a limit on future legal immigration and money for a wall. How do you feel about Trump's proposal?????

I''m generally happy with it as long as it includes other proposed immigrqation changes.  Nuclear chain migration only, no lottery,  all immigrants vetted, v-verify for employment.   Things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

What they did to there children was child abuse. 

Thanks for clarifying. This stance is way too extreme for me, especially given their motivation of giving those children a better life with greater opportunity and lower risk from crime and poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for clarifying. This stance is way too extreme for me, especially given their motivation of giving those children a better life with greater opportunity and lower risk from crime and poverty.

Don't think I don't have empathy for these DACA children.  The law however must be followed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Don't think I don't have empathy for these DACA children.  The law however must be followed.  

Understood, and that's why we're talking about changing existing law and giving them a chance to continue contributing to our society. I'd also like to avoid punishing their families and unnecessarily breaking them up, but there I go again with my family values stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I''m generally happy with it as long as it includes other proposed immigrqation changes.  Nuclear chain migration only, no lottery,  all immigrants vetted, v-verify for employment.   Things like that.

Than as I mentioned before, and you denied, you want to see less immigration period. To include legal immigration. The changes you reference and Trump has proposed would limit legal immigration. 

37 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Don't think I don't have empathy for these DACA children.  The law however must be followed.  

Trump's proposal would make nearly 2 million of those you call illegal in trade to limit future legal immigration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, at one time, immigrants to the US were greeted by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
Even the ones from 'sh*thole' countries that had suffered famines and world wars.
( I believe D Trump's grandfather immigrated from Germany in the 1890s, and made his fortune building hotels/whorehouses during the Yukon rush )

Those immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century made America great, and, the economic powerhouse that it has been since.
How can D Trump make America great again without a similar immigration strategy ?

Times sure have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to the dreamers per se, but it really seems that the administration is increasingly try to redefine the US and how it sees the immigration.

 

Quote

This is the previous mission statement:

“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”

And this is the new version:

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

Though it should be a small wonder considering that Trump and some of the closest confidants of Trump are clearly exhibiting ethon-nationalist views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On separating families the Trump admin hit the news circuit this weekend blaming Congress, the media, and Democrats.  The First Lady appealed to the tired "both sides" platitude apparently unaware her own husband could stop this at any time with executive action.

Quote

 

“Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform," according to a statement from her spokeswoman. "She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart.”

 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/first-lady-melania-trump-makes-statement-family-separations-protests-grow-n884081

Sec of DHS blamed the media and flatly denied anything there has been any change in policy.

Quote

The head of the Department of Homeland Security bashed the media Sunday for their reporting on the increasingly volatile immigration controversy, writing in a string of tweets: “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen added: “This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.”

She noted that no one is “breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/17/dhs-secretary-nielsen-slams-irresponsible-media-says-no-policy-separating-families-at-border.html

While Trump himself blamed Democrats.

Quote

 

“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law,” Trump said during an impromptu media appearance on the White House lawn. “That’s their law and we can change it tonight.”

But White House officials haven’t been able to cite any part of U.S. law that requires the policy, which was initiated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The president, his aides and congressional Republicans all have given differing rationales for it: Sessions and Chief of Staff John Kelly said children were being taken away as a deterrent while Republicans in Congress recently have said it’s based on a 1997 court settlement regarding the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.

http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/trump-border-kids-separated/

 

The incompetence in even having a consistent message on this matter would have been enough to damage previous administrations. Sadly people have grown so use to Trump's dishonest approach to governance that the clear contradictions and lies coming from his own inner circle doesn't really matter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2018 at 1:25 PM, dimreepr said:

I haven't said your evil, but anyone who thinks their status (accidental birth privilege) is better than others is certainly selfish, and I for one think that's immoral.

Never forget to thank your lucky stars to be born in your country/family. 

You're a legal immigrant and no one gave your predecessors permission.

Do you think any human being born anywhere in the world has a right to live in any country in the world unchallenged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Do you think any human being born anywhere in the world has a right to live in any country in the world unchallenged?

Why not? Hundreds of millions of people living today have migrated to other countries and historically entire countries like Australia, U.S., Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Japan,  and etc, etc, etc were built by migrating populations. All humans would still be in Africa today if not for migration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.