POTUS consorting with Illegals to show his contempt for the rule of law

[lilpixieofterror]

True! But it's also true that, for the most part, we've outsourced a lot of our low-skill jobs, e.g. manufacturing. Where once the people who sewed our clothes and manufactured our knickknacks lived a few neighborhoods away and had a chance of climbing the American socioeconomic ladder, now they live an ocean or more away and have no opportunity to enjoy the economic prosperity to which they contribute.

Which is true, but I don't know of many American citizens who want to go and pick food in a field, clean offices, etc either. Plus, even if the opportunity for advancement isn't as good as it was a century ago (at least without education); it still beats much of what they had over in their home country.

Answering that question would require a bit more expertise in immigration policy and law enforcement than I have. We could start by talking to people familiar with how these criminal organizations operate. That said, it's necessarily unlikely that such organizations would prefer to work under the radar, anyway.

Yes, but these are not as easy to spot as you might think. It isn't as though they scream out, "Hey, I'm a criminal. Please stop me." because just as law enforcement has worked on ways of spotting them; they work on ways to avoid getting spotted. This does highlight one of the big issues we have today vs what we had yesterday when it comes to immigration. We had quite a bit of control over who we accepted and who we rejected a century ago. We ran them though processing stations (Ellis Island being one among these), picked out the ones we wanted and sent back the ones we didn't. Today we have a bunch of illegal ones around our country and we can't really say for sure what their status is. Are they criminals? Do they have diseases (such as TB)? It is a valid question that would need to be solved.

[Darth Executor]

Which is true, but I don't know of many American citizens who want to go and pick food in a field, clean offices, etc either.

There's millions on welfare, who cares if they want to or not? Plus, plenty of people will do crap jobs if they pay well, which they will once Big Businesses can't cart in some Mexicans they scraped off the bottom of the Rio Grande to kill wages.

[lilpixieofterror]

There's millions on welfare, who cares if they want to or not? Plus, plenty of people will do crap jobs if they pay well, which they will once Big Businesses can't cart in some Mexicans they scraped off the bottom of the Rio Grande to kill wages.

And do you really think those who are on welfare want to get off welfare or that our Democrat friends want them off welfare and possibility turning on them and voting Republican?

[Darth Executor]

And do you really think those who are on welfare want to get off welfare

Plenty do since welfare pays crap, but even if they don't, who cares what they want?

or that our Democrat friends want them off welfare and possibility turning on them and voting Republican?

Let's not work towards any good policy because the Democrats will fight it.

[Juvenal]

His narcissism ...

College has ruined you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Plenty do since welfare pays crap, but even if they don't, who cares what they want?

Those who get their votes, care quite a bit.

Let's not work towards any good policy because the Democrats will fight it.

Never said we shouldn't. I'm just stating the reality. Democrats don't want it to change because it could affect their poll numbers and Republicans don't want to rock the boat too much because the Democrats could hold something over their heads to affect their polls. It isn't about 'good policy' anymore. It is about who can win the next election.

[Cow Poke]

College has ruined you.

I was educated FAR beyond my intelligence way back in the second grade.

[rogue06]

I was educated FAR beyond my intelligence way back in the second grade.

And competence after kindergarten

Love ya brother

[Paprika]

It's not just the eligibility that should concern us, but the extremely long wait times... which might be partially solved just by restructuring the bureaucracy.

But why should that concern us beyond the fact that it reveals the bureaucracy's ineptness which results in loss due to the delay of accepting useful immigrants?

Oh wait, you think that generally any one who wants to immigrate or have residency should be allowed to.

To get to the point: even if the bureaucracy was the most efficient in the world, your main beef is still with the fact that there are stringent restrictions put in place (besides the two conditions you stated earlier): you must be a close relative or have certain skill value or whatever.

[Spartacus]

But why should that concern us beyond the fact that it reveals the bureaucracy's ineptness which results in loss due to the delay of accepting useful immigrants?

Oh wait, you think that generally any one who wants to immigrate or have residency should be allowed to.

To get to the point: even if the bureaucracy was the most efficient in the world, your main beef is still with the fact that there are stringent restrictions put in place (besides the two conditions you stated earlier): you must be a close relative or have certain skill value or whatever.

my opinions on immigration policy are for the most part not set in stone, though I admit to having pro-immigrant sympathies (and by sympathies I mean precisely that).

What is perfectly clear to me is that that anyone who repeats the argument "they should have come here legally" is either insincere or stupid and ought to be promptly called out as such. If we can all agree on that, I'll let you start dissecting my less-formed sentiments on the issue.

[Paprika]

What is perfectly clear to me is that that anyone who repeats the argument "they should have come here legally" is either insincere or stupid and ought to be promptly called out as such. If we can all agree on that, I'll let you start dissecting my less-formed sentiments on the issue.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that. Do you seriously mean that or is this part of your exaggerated reductio style?

[Cow Poke]

What is perfectly clear to me is that that anyone who repeats the argument "they should have come here legally" is either insincere or stupid and ought to be promptly called out as such. If we can all agree on that, I'll let you start dissecting my less-formed sentiments on the issue.

So, let's be even more perfectly clear. Are you talking specifically about the alleged DREAMers here, or are you talking about ANY illegal immigrant?

[Spartacus]

So, let's be even more perfectly clear. Are you talking specifically about the alleged DREAMers here, or are you talking about ANY illegal immigrant?

Illegal immigrants generally, though I think it would also include most DREAMers. I am operating under the assumption that a considerable proportion of those who come here illegally are neither in the immediate family of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, nor do they have a college degree and potential employer who is prepared to jump through all those hoops designed to make sure American jobs stay American. If most of these people had waited in line, we would have told them "no."

I just want us to have the necessary honesty to recognize that, when we say "you should have come here legally," we actually tend to mean "we don't want you here at all."

[Darth Executor]

Illegal immigrants generally, though I think it would also include most DREAMers. I am operating under the assumption that a considerable proportion of those who come here illegally are neither in the immediate family of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, nor do they have a college degree and potential employer who is prepared to jump through all those hoops designed to make sure American jobs stay American. If most of these people had waited in line, we would have told them "no."

I just want us to have the necessary honesty to recognize that, when we say "you should have come here legally," we actually tend to mean "we don't want you here at all."

And who makes it borderline socially suicidal to say the latter?

[Cow Poke]

Illegal immigrants generally, though I think it would also include most DREAMers.

It would be rather silly for it NOT to include "DREAMers", if you were applying it to illegals.

I am operating under the assumption that a considerable proportion of those who come here illegally are neither in the immediate family of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, nor do they have a college degree and potential employer who is prepared to jump through all those hoops designed to make sure American jobs stay American. If most of these people had waited in line, we would have told them "no."

Ah, so as long as a law doesn't make sense to us, it is, for all intents and purposes, not a law at all!

I just want us to have the necessary honesty to recognize that, when we say "you should have come here legally," we actually tend to mean "we don't want you here at all."

So, what immigration limitations would you support, IF ANY?