What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[AZGAL]

This thread was concerned with the human cost of immigration. All immigration is a privilege except for the human rights of true asylum candidates and the true rights of unaccompanied children to a fair process including a chance at asylum. Of course there are some special visas allowed as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

I'm not pissy. I didn't want to have this big discussion about it. I just made a passing comment. No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?

Not you, dear. Happy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?

I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.

The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?

I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.

Actually, our current immigration system doesn't require high-end work skills. One of the many things that's broken about it is that, thanks to Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy, we went from expecting immigration to benefit the US to thinking it exists because people "deserve" to upgrade their country.

It's my opinion - shared by a lot of people - that we should GIVE them something to lose by "trying to get in any way they can". Yeah, you may have to wait on line for a long time. You may have to look for ways to make yourself more valuable to the US (although, as I said, we now seem to think there's something wrong with preferring a nuclear physicist over a farm worker with a 2nd-grade education). You may even be stuck with trying to find some way to improve your own shithole country. I dunno. But we definitely need to put a stop to it being no big deal to break our laws.

And spare me the "survival" argument. The vast majority of these people are not in an invade-the-US-or-die situation. If they were, they'd be able to apply for asylum, which doesn't require sneaking through the scrub brush at all.

I fail to see how there's any question about what WE should do to improve other countries at all, as if it's our fault and responsibility. Unless we're planning to invade and occupy the damned places, and thereby at LEAST get the benefits of the real estate, it is not our business to try to remake the world.

 

[Flopper]

Good. I only wish it was true.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.

We could certainly take more people. 300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here. Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation. You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.

Why should we take a single additional person? How do we benefit?

America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy. We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.

Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.

What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows. They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035

we need to end our alleged wars on drugs and terror. those policies create refugees.

Why not?
We lost the war on drugs years ago and there was never a real war on terror.

 

[Kondor3]

Dear World:

Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.

That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.

We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.

We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.

Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.

We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.

Very best regards,

Your distant cousins,

The United States of America

 

[kaz]

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

I'm not pissy. I didn't want to have this big discussion about it. I just made a passing comment. No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?

Not you, dear. Happy.

At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost. But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?

I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.

The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?

I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.

The other option is to allow these breeding grounds continue to keep making children and then coming here. It's not like there is an immediate problem and the solution is asylum. The problems will continue to grow whether we take in one refugee or 10 million. It's not going to stop as long as people can have kids and come here.

The US legally takes in one million foreigners a year. I think that's pretty generous. Because they are not assimilating, they are already turning our country into a bilingual nation. Between the cost to taxpayers, lowering our pay scale, taking jobs Americans should be working, I think we've done more than enough.

There are a lot of places around the world that suck. But the planet has 7.6 billion people on it, and we simply don't have the room for most of them. If we put a stop to this nonsense now, perhaps word will get back to these territories and they will quit having children because there will be no place to go.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear World:

Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.

That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.

We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.

We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.

Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.

We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.

Very best regards,

Your distant cousins,

The United States of America

Blame the Right Wing, if we have to give our Statue of Liberty back!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie. More people cross the border than VISA overstays.

And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems. Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue. We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays. Two things??? Blows your mind, huh?

That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.

Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.

I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals.

In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.

A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are. DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa. Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.

Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.

You're right that we do need serious legislation. We also need a database of when VISA holders entered, if they left, the expiration date and so on. Then when their VISA expires and they haven't left, we need to issue an arrest warrant

I find it unbelievable that we just issue VISAs like number slips from those little machines at the Post Office, and then never bother to keep track of them.

Visa's should require a down payment; maybe 2K or something like that. If you don't turn it in and leave the country on time, you lose your deposit. On top of the 2K, we hold 10% of your net pay in escrow.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

/----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact and vote Democrat for goodness sake.

And?

It seems to me that you guys would have an equal chance to get these people to vote for you if you weren't going all Nazi on them.

No, much easier to play on the racial fears of stupid white people about their inevitable minority status.

That's ridiculous. Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party. Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.

So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.

Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man

Idiot

Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.

Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.

Today, yes they do, but they've been coming here long before that, so that kite doesn't fly.

 

[danielpalos]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.

Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man

Idiot

Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.

Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.

Today, yes they do, but they've been coming here long before that, so that kite doesn't fly.

yes, they have.

 

[Flopper]

Dear World:

Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.

That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.

We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.

We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.

Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.

We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.

Very best regards,

Your distant cousins,

The United States of America

It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth. Can't argue with success.

 

[danielpalos]

The Point is, Gentlemen; that we have a Statue of Liberty.

If we have to give it back; the right wing gets the blame.

 

[HappyJoy]

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

I'm not pissy. I didn't want to have this big discussion about it. I just made a passing comment. No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?

Not you, dear. Happy.

At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost. But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack

I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.

Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]

https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

sic
sik/
adverb

1. used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [sic ] life.”.

You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.

 

[Kondor3]

...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth. Can't argue with success.

Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

we separated a number of kids from a family simply b/c leftists didn't like the names they were given.

but if criminals risk the lives of their kids by running through the desert...

 

[Votto]

its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz . This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby . -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle mexicans Coyote .

We can have another debate about birthright citizenship, this is another matter altogether so maybe stick to the topic.

No, no we can't.

So long as there is no border wall, the decision has already been made. They have the rights of a citizen but don't have to pay taxes.