There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
1)The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, 2)for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandable—snark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confess—but holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
3) But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
4) No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None. But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true.5) I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. 6) We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
Well golly gee willickers, Wally. It looks like I conflated refugees with asylum seekers. It was late and I also read your unrelated interjection of refugees into this discussion about immigration before replying. The thought stuck in my mind. I do not know why you injected refugees into this. It is indeed a separate subject with its own set of issues. And considering how nearly everyone around here openly conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration I do not feel badly about my unintended conflation of refugees and asylum seekers. So with that thought in mind I will correct my post and you can have at it again. Though please do comment on my rejection of the the notion that there are no lines for getting into this country legally. After all, some 1 million people do it every year ... You skipped right over that.
You or someone else posted the "possible" blog when it was first written. I read it again anyway.
I have been aware of all of the realities for over 55 years. This provided me with no new insights or understanding the first time around.
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
Yeah, about that repeating a lie thing ... The author states over and over and over and over again that "there is no line". That is patently false. There are many lines and they start at various ports of entry and embassies and consulates, if you come here legally. And somehow I million people found a line to get into and are legally admitted every year.
On the 1951 treaty obligations you cited ...
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are.
Only recently was the US policy defining refugee asylum status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees asylum seekers are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee seeking asylum. It is the first broken rule that comes before the second broken rule of crossing our border illegally.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades. (bolded this time because you glossed over it as well)
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon off the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except when it doesn't go where intended. So there you have it ...
1) yeah, I'm dumber than a box of rocks because I support Trump.
2) yes there are rules, the same rules for everyone. How can you say otherwise ?
3) yes I did read the article twice, once when it was first posted a year or so ago and again last night. I am not lying.
4) economic hardship was added during Obama's administration to the rules for granting asylum.
5) as usual I'm a xenophobic and bigot for even thinking about discussing the subject of legal vs illegal immigration.
6) that responsibility lies with FDR and his party. They effectively closed the borders to all from shortly after his election all the way through WW II.
And please tell me and the 1 million immigrants that come in here legally every year that there is no line ... wasn't that the reason for your snarky linked article ?
Oh and according to the article, I would be of the colonists. That used to be something to be proud of. Now it is viewed as being that of a racist slave owner. This is the view of this nation's founding and founders that seems to be circulating this country presently, that before the Civil War everyone either owned slaves or were slaves. So much for studying history ...
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandableâsnark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confessâbut holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except whenit doesn't go where intended.
We have the best economy ever! Things are booming because of these great policies making America great again! We're overwhelmed with citizens suffering economic hardship!
Can you at least pick one story and stick to it?
No? Whatever. Even if we were talking about just ordinary immigration rather than asylum seekers/refugees we could reflect back on...oh, I don't knowâthe entire history of our country, sayâfor evidence that immigrants cause economic hardship. It's been a frequent rallying cry for those afraid of new people but it has never proven true. Immigrants tend to be highly motivated and bust their asses to improve their lots. They end up making the rest of us better off as well as making the country a stronger, more-interesting place to live.
But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true. I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
I really don't what type of response there can be from that, other than; "Yeah, I guess I just don't like immigrants."
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ... Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think (sic) there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
You certainly seem to share the fondness for (classic) straw...
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandableâsnark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confessâbut holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except whenit doesn't go where intended.
We have the best economy ever! Things are booming because of these great policies making America great again! We're overwhelmed with citizens suffering economic hardship!
Can you at least pick one story and stick to it?
No? Whatever. Even if we were talking about just ordinary immigration rather than asylum seekers/refugees we could reflect back on...oh, I don't knowâthe entire history of our country, sayâfor evidence that immigrants cause economic hardship. It's been a frequent rallying cry for those afraid of new people but it has never proven true. Immigrants tend to be highly motivated and bust their asses to improve their lots. They end up making the rest of us better off as well as making the country a stronger, more-interesting place to live.
But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true. I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
I'd settle for "possible" for now, at least for purposes of immigration/asylum.
Go click that link. Read it. Once you have absorbed the information you will begin to have an idea why people enter the country illegally.
Would fair and easy mean that meaningful identification documents are optional and we take your word as to who you are why you are coming here ? I say that because asking that of US citizens when they show up to vote is now considered racist and hateful.
Also come January 2020 anyone who tries to board a commercial plane in the US will have to prove their identity with a certified Federal ID. It will require having your birth certificate as proof of who you are. The freedom of travel is now formally restricted within our borders. Thought that by the time I reached my present age I would never need to have my birth certificate to prove who I am anymore. Seems that the state issued DL I have had for over 40 years is not considered valid enough. Silly me ...
Silly you indeed.
For most of our lives you could cross our northern or southern border without a passport. A driver's license and oral declaration of citizenship sufficed. I never had to do it as a Mexican or Canadian citizen (maybe someone in the audience could help with that) but I was able to travel in both countries pretty painlessly.
That all changed in 2001, but for most of the county's history the papers required to travel to the US if arriving by land were minimal.
You're asking about this because it's an easy distraction from having to defend your position. Our rights to travel (or vote) being violated don't even justify themselves, let alone justify further violations. The fact that it changed is not rustication for the change.
What else would be part of a fair and easy and enforceable solution ?
It is unreasonable for me to expect a reply based upon my mostly rhetorical question. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be the bad guy and say no, you cannot come in because ...
Until we agree on what because is, there will be no solution(s).
It's likely that the only reply I'll get is a Trump-rally slogan chanted over and over. Pro tip: repeating a lie doesn't make it truer. Getting all your friends to repeat it doesn't make it truer. Riding that lie to en election victory doesn't make it truer.
Solutions have been held hostage to overcoming ignorance and bigotry. For now ignorance and bigotry are winning.
You or someone else posted the "possible" blog when it was first written. I read it again anyway.
I have been aware of all of the realities for over 55 years. This provided me with no new insights or understanding the first time around.
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
Yeah, about that repeating a lie thing ... The author states over and over and over and over again that "there is no line". That is patently false. There are many lines and they start at various ports of entry and embassies and consulates, if you come here legally.
On the 1951 treaty obligations you cited ...
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except when it doesn't go where intended.
I'd settle for "possible" for now, at least for purposes of immigration/asylum.
Go click that link. Read it. Once you have absorbed the information you will begin to have an idea why people enter the country illegally.
Would fair and easy mean that meaningful identification documents are optional and we take your word as to who you are why you are coming here ? I say that because asking that of US citizens when they show up to vote is now considered racist and hateful.
Also come January 2020 anyone who tries to board a commercial plane in the US will have to prove their identity with a certified Federal ID. It will require having your birth certificate as proof of who you are. The freedom of travel is now formally restricted within our borders. Thought that by the time I reached my present age I would never need to have my birth certificate to prove who I am anymore. Seems that the state issued DL I have had for over 40 years is not considered valid enough. Silly me ...
Silly you indeed.
For most of our lives you could cross our northern or southern border without a passport. A driver's license and oral declaration of citizenship sufficed. I never had to do it as a Mexican or Canadian citizen (maybe someone in the audience could help with that) but I was able to travel in both countries pretty painlessly.
That all changed in 2001, but for most of the county's history the papers required to travel to the US if arriving by land were minimal.
You're asking about this because it's an easy distraction from having to defend your position. Our rights to travel (or vote) being violated don't even justify themselves, let alone justify further violations. The fact that it changed is not rustication for the change.
What else would be part of a fair and easy and enforceable solution ?
It is unreasonable for me to expect a reply based upon my mostly rhetorical question. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be the bad guy and say no, you cannot come in because ...
Until we agree on what because is, there will be no solution(s).
It's likely that the only reply I'll get is a Trump-rally slogan chanted over and over. Pro tip: repeating a lie doesn't make it truer. Getting all your friends to repeat it doesn't make it truer. Riding that lie to en election victory doesn't make it truer.
Solutions have been held hostage to overcoming ignorance and bigotry. For now ignorance and bigotry are winning.
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
Would fair and easy mean that meaningful identification documents are optional and we take your word as to who you are why you are coming here ? I say that because asking that of US citizens when they show up to vote is now considered racist and hateful.
Also come January 2020 anyone who tries to board a commercial plane in the US will have to prove their identity with a certified Federal ID. It will require having your birth certificate as proof of who you are. The freedom of travel is now formally restricted within our borders. Thought that by the time I reached my present age I would never need to have my birth certificate to prove who I am anymore. Seems that the state issued DL I have had for over 40 years is not considered valid enough. Silly me ...
What else would be part of a fair and easy and enforceable solution ?
It is unreasonable for me to expect a reply based upon my mostly rhetorical question. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be the bad guy and say no, you cannot come in because ...
Until we agree on what because is, there will be no solution(s).
If you are going to try control the natural flow of humanity...from a high pressure system to low pressure system, then no, there is no fair and easy method. But that approach is not going to solve the problem. So yes, make it fair and easy- if you have no record, clean bill of health and follow a few simple rules to confirm the former, come on in. If you dont follow those rules, throw em into a detention center, chain gang, or "back where they came from."
As for the source of the problem, we need to continue to work with these countries to improve their situation; diffuse the pressure. Not with passive aid, but with our people working in these countries (its the economy, stupid). It was my understanding we had been making at least some efforts in this regard, but funding was pulled (was it another socialist O'bama program?)
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
As if your hero wouldn't have built them.
Right. He can't even get the funding he requested to increase the space and improve the conditions. Pelosi barely gave him half of what he requested and the money for that is still being withheld. He is blocked in every effort to improve conditions on the border.
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
Seems they're mostly privately owned/run/invested in. Sure, Obama used them and the fake news complained (how dare they!). And yet, he was unleashing them on unsuspecting and vulnerable patriots...
Still, no proof for those supposed "open borders" policies. Au contraire. We're back to Obama also doing bad things to immigrants! (And Bush, Clinton, etc.)
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
But patriots prefer putting people in concentration camps indefinitely (while turning a handsome profit). Win-win!
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
Rhetorically, the trope of widespread, pernicious âcatch and releaseâ should be understood as a new variation on Trumpâs favorite themes: that immigrants are infiltrating the homeland and importing violence and crime, and border agents canât be as tough as they need to be because of feckless politicians â Democrats, mostly â who donât believe in borders.
What you canât tell by listening to Trump is that âcatch and releaseâ doesnât refer to a single policy practiced by the government. Itâs a label that gets applied to a handful of different practices that all have the same result: The US keeps trying to deport an immigrant, but it releases her from physical custody.
Deporting someone isnât as simple as spotting her, handcuffing her, and putting her on a plane. Immigrants have to be issued an official order of removal â and usually, it needs to be issued by an immigration judge. Immigration courts are so backlogged right now that a wait to see a judge could take weeks; if an immigrant actually has an argument to be allowed to stay in the United States, it could be years before the case is resolved.
But patriots prefer putting people in concentration camps indefinitely (while turning a handsome profit). Win-win!
I don't see a policy proposal for de jure open borders. I see proposed reform in the margins on existing law for trespassers (as offered in a televised debate). Still a(nother) straw man.
So you already have open borders, and yet some want (more?) open borders. I guess all these Border Patrol people are twiddling their thumbs and posting on Facebook as they just let everybody through... "Walk right through, we don't need no stinkin' visas. Have a great day!"
Catch and Release is in fact a de facto open border ...
I don't see a policy proposal for de jure open borders. I see proposed reform in the margins on existing law for trespassers (as offered in a televised debate). Still a(nother) straw man.
So you already have open borders, and yet some want (more?) open borders. I guess all these Border Patrol people are twiddling their thumbs and posting on Facebook as they just let everybody through... "Walk right through, we don't need no stinkin' visas. Have a great day!"
