(03-03-2018 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries.
Well, that is one way to spin it. A superficial judgement at best. He certainly did not say he preferred white over black or brown immigrants. But that is the inference drawn by those who want to draw it.
Another way is that he expressed a preference for immigrants from more developed countries over immigrants from less developed countries.
Or it could be said he expressed a preference for immigrants with education and skills over those with neither.
I would prefer that we have quality immigrants, where quality is defined by being a person with no criminal or terrorist background with education and/or skills that will enable them to support themselves here.
Who would you prefer?
(03-03-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.
The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.
I take it you do not believe that one of the fundamental aspects, rights, and duties of any sovereign is the control and determination of issues relating to its own borders and passage thereof?
And, sorry that your 1/4 is mad about the issue of 'illegal' immigration. Do you share the same sympathy for Scots, or Northern Irish? Sorry but I do not. Using your logic one should be pissed off that modern Scotland engages in the practices of the United Kingdom in immigration policy, especially when Britain engaged in that union through force of arms.
Nor am I pissed that modern Nicaragua has their own inedependt immigration policy aside from the deposed Sandinistas, or the preceding Somoza regime that was toppled by the Sandinistas.
I wonder who authorized the progenitors of “Native Americans” to come to the Americas - or any of the subsequent migrations within the Americas that occurred in the millennia before 1500?
(03-03-2018 04:41 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.
The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.
I take it you do not believe that one of the fundamental aspects, rights, and duties of any sovereign is the control and determination of issues relating to its own borders and passage thereof?
And, sorry that your 1/4 is mad about the issue of 'illegal' immigration. Do you share the same sympathy for Scots, or Northern Irish? Sorry but I do not. Using your logic one should be pissed off that modern Scotland engages in the practices of the United Kingdom in immigration policy, especially when Britain engaged in that union through force of arms.
Nor am I pissed that modern Nicaragua has their own inedependt immigration policy aside from the deposed Sandinistas, or the preceding Somoza regime that was toppled by the Sandinistas.
I wonder who authorized the progenitors of “Native Americans” to come to the Americas - or any of the subsequent migrations within the Americas that occurred in the millennia before 1500?
Often, in these discussions, instead of "Native Americans" I use the phrase "Earliest Immigrants". There were no humans in the Western Hemisphere until about 11,000 years ago.
(03-03-2018 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries.
Well, that is one way to spin it. A superficial judgement at best. He certainly did not say he preferred white over black or brown immigrants. But that is the inference drawn by those who want to draw it.
Another way is that he expressed a preference for immigrants from more developed countries over immigrants from less developed countries.
Or it could be said he expressed a preference for immigrants with education and skills over those with neither.
I would prefer that we have quality immigrants, where quality is defined by being a person with no criminal or terrorist background with education and/or skills that will enable them to support themselves here.
Who would you prefer?
There are many immigrants who came to the US from less developed countries with education and skills, which is why not many people would take that as a serious defense of what Trump said. That plus Trump’s history of racially insensitive (at best) remarks and actions. I don’t put that on other conservatives or Republicans though, that is just Trump.
(03-03-2018 05:47 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries.
Well, that is one way to spin it. A superficial judgement at best. He certainly did not say he preferred white over black or brown immigrants. But that is the inference drawn by those who want to draw it.
Another way is that he expressed a preference for immigrants from more developed countries over immigrants from less developed countries.
Or it could be said he expressed a preference for immigrants with education and skills over those with neither.
I would prefer that we have quality immigrants, where quality is defined by being a person with no criminal or terrorist background with education and/or skills that will enable them to support themselves here.
Who would you prefer?
There are many immigrants who came to the US from less developed countries with education and skills, which is why not many people would take that as a serious defense of what Trump said. That plus Trump’s history of racially insensitive (at best) remarks and actions. I don’t put that on other conservatives or Republicans though, that is just Trump.
If we take 1000 engineers, and most of them are from more developed countries, and do not accept 1000 second grade dropouts, and most of them are from "less developed countries", will you still see that as racist?
I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
(03-03-2018 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
Sensible.
Now I will reduce your statement to the gist.
"I’d prefer an engineer or doctor over a bum".
It doesn't matter where they come from or what race they are. Just let in the ones with something to offer or who at least can support themselves. I am not part of the movement that some imagine exists to bring in bums from Norway only because they are white. I also am not part of the movement that some imagine exists to keep doctors and engineers from Somalia out only because they are black.
Let in 1000 doctors and engineers from wherever. do not define that X must be Norway or Y from Somalia. Ignore race, look at qualifications.
I think the left will have a hard time with the "ignore race" part.
(03-03-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 04:41 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.
The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.
I take it you do not believe that one of the fundamental aspects, rights, and duties of any sovereign is the control and determination of issues relating to its own borders and passage thereof?
And, sorry that your 1/4 is mad about the issue of 'illegal' immigration. Do you share the same sympathy for Scots, or Northern Irish? Sorry but I do not. Using your logic one should be pissed off that modern Scotland engages in the practices of the United Kingdom in immigration policy, especially when Britain engaged in that union through force of arms.
Nor am I pissed that modern Nicaragua has their own inedependt immigration policy aside from the deposed Sandinistas, or the preceding Somoza regime that was toppled by the Sandinistas.
I wonder who authorized the progenitors of “Native Americans” to come to the Americas - or any of the subsequent migrations within the Americas that occurred in the millennia before 1500?
Often, in these discussions, instead of "Native Americans" I use the phrase "Earliest Immigrants". There were no humans in the Western Hemisphere until about 11,000 years ago.
Sure, but the immigration from Asia was not a single wave. By definition, all waves after the first we’re not “Earliest Immigrants”? Are these later waves invaders/ oppressors/ colonizers, or do they too count as virtuous - and if so, why?
And within The Americas (as on every continent) there have been waves of migration over many milllennia in which one group has displaced another. Are all of those waves evil, or is it only post- Medieval Europeans who are evil?
(03-03-2018 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 04:41 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.
The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.
I take it you do not believe that one of the fundamental aspects, rights, and duties of any sovereign is the control and determination of issues relating to its own borders and passage thereof?
And, sorry that your 1/4 is mad about the issue of 'illegal' immigration. Do you share the same sympathy for Scots, or Northern Irish? Sorry but I do not. Using your logic one should be pissed off that modern Scotland engages in the practices of the United Kingdom in immigration policy, especially when Britain engaged in that union through force of arms.
Nor am I pissed that modern Nicaragua has their own inedependt immigration policy aside from the deposed Sandinistas, or the preceding Somoza regime that was toppled by the Sandinistas.
I wonder who authorized the progenitors of “Native Americans” to come to the Americas - or any of the subsequent migrations within the Americas that occurred in the millennia before 1500?
Often, in these discussions, instead of "Native Americans" I use the phrase "Earliest Immigrants". There were no humans in the Western Hemisphere until about 11,000 years ago.
Sure, but the immigration from Asia was not a single wave. By definition, all waves after the first we’re not “Earliest Immigrants”? Are these later waves invaders/ oppressors/ colonizers, or do they too count as virtuous - and if so, why?
And within The Americas (as on every continent) there have been waves of migration over many milllennia in which one group has displaced another. Are all of those waves evil, or is it only post- Medieval Europeans who are evil?
Only Post-Medieval Europeans, I think.
(03-03-2018 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries.
Well, that is one way to spin it. A superficial judgement at best. He certainly did not say he preferred white over black or brown immigrants. But that is the inference drawn by those who want to draw it.
Another way is that he expressed a preference for immigrants from more developed countries over immigrants from less developed countries.
Or it could be said he expressed a preference for immigrants with education and skills over those with neither.
I would prefer that we have quality immigrants, where quality is defined by being a person with no criminal or terrorist background with education and/or skills that will enable them to support themselves here.
Who would you prefer?
I agree with your preferences, OO, and would also add I would greatly prefer only those who would strongly wish to assimilate and become Americans in full spirit rather than just live here as separate little enclaves of their previous countries with little apparent real attachment to this country except where some may be getting government benefits, not making a strong concerted effort to learn American English, etc... Being an American should mean something more to those who want to come and stay...and we would do well to have strong assimilation be near the top requirements as should your points about skills and like-minded ideas. Otherwise, why bother?
(03-03-2018 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
Someone who wants to over-populate the country with engineers? I notice you left lawyers out of your comment...
I have actually met doctors from Haiti and Africa. Don't think I have ever met anyone from Norway.
I would prefer refugees from war-torn countries who want to assimilate into American culture over engineers or doctors. I have no problem with bums that want to assimilate. Plenty of bums who are born here who have kids who become great contributors. Plenty of bums who have immigrated to the United States who have had descendants who have become great contributors. As long as they aren't criminals, I'm good. I probably have a preference for families immigrating, just because I think having kids go to school here helps the whole family assimilate.
Quote:Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(03-04-2018 01:05 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
Someone who wants to over-populate the country with engineers? I notice you left lawyers out of your comment...
I have actually met doctors from Haiti and Africa. Don't think I have ever met anyone from Norway.
I would prefer refugees from war-torn countries who want to assimilate into American culture over engineers or doctors. I have no problem with bums that want to assimilate. Plenty of bums who are born here who have kids who become great contributors. Plenty of bums who have immigrated to the United States who have had descendants who have become great contributors. As long as they aren't criminals, I'm good. I probably have a preference for families immigrating, just because I think having kids go to school here helps the whole family assimilate.
Quote:Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
"Engineers or doctors" was meant as a figure of speech. I'd be happy with lawyers--and dentists and others. Willingness to assimilate should be mandatory, we agree there. But that is hard to measure abstractly before they get here. I'm fine with refugees, sorry if I did not make that clear. Mainly I would seek to increase the number of legal immigrants and decrease the number of illegals.
Good poetry does not always make good policy.
Why is it your assumption that bums are more likely to produce high achieving children than high achievers? It sounds like you want to run a lottery. Let in X bums, and in 30 years we wil have xy productive members of society. And xz bums. Maybe you should define “plenty”. I think you mean “some”.
refugees are are a different category than legal immigrants, the group you complained Trump wants to reduce. Red herring.
You have made a case for accepting the worst the world has to offer in lieu of the best.
Yes, I have met Norwegians. Fine people, like the Mexicans I know. What is the problem with Norwegians? Too pale?
(03-04-2018 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 01:05 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
Someone who wants to over-populate the country with engineers? I notice you left lawyers out of your comment...
I have actually met doctors from Haiti and Africa. Don't think I have ever met anyone from Norway.
I would prefer refugees from war-torn countries who want to assimilate into American culture over engineers or doctors. I have no problem with bums that want to assimilate. Plenty of bums who are born here who have kids who become great contributors. Plenty of bums who have immigrated to the United States who have had descendants who have become great contributors. As long as they aren't criminals, I'm good. I probably have a preference for families immigrating, just because I think having kids go to school here helps the whole family assimilate.
Quote:Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
"Engineers or doctors" was meant as a figure of speech. I'd be happy with lawyers--and dentists and others. Willingness to assimilate should be mandatory, we agree there. But that is hard to measure abstractly before they get here. I'm fine with refugees, sorry if I did not make that clear. Mainly I would seek to increase the number of legal immigrants and decrease the number of illegals.
Good poetry does not always make good policy.
And this is what frustrates me about Trump at the moment. I think the majority of both sides of the aisle generally agree on the big picture of immigration - and have some disagreements on the finer details. There are some on both ends of the spectrum that vary greatly, and prefer basically very strict migration or very open migration, but the middle, say, 75%, are in this boat.
But when Trump makes comments about not wanting people from shithole countries, it raises hackles on the left because it obviously isn’t a comment that considers a person’s worth or situation, just country of origin. And when those hackles are raised, it results in a polarization and a digging in on both sides by both tribes. And that isn’t a constructive comment with regards to actually tackling our immigration issues. And all we end up doing is either attacking Trump for his classless comment, or defending him as not being a racist for said comment.
I fall very closely in with Big on immigration. I want people who want to assimilate in the sense of becoming part of the community, but as you mention, that is hard to measure. And I have a small preference for refugees over professionals who want to immigrate. But that’s why I wouldn’t prefer to increase the amount of legal immigrants who can enter the country. No immigrant is stealing jobs from Americans, so let’s welcome in those who want to be productive members of our community.
(03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 01:05 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2018 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I’d prefer an engineer or doctor from Haiti over a bum from Norway, and an engineer or doctor from Norway over a bum from Haiti. What does that make me?
Someone who wants to over-populate the country with engineers? I notice you left lawyers out of your comment...
I have actually met doctors from Haiti and Africa. Don't think I have ever met anyone from Norway.
I would prefer refugees from war-torn countries who want to assimilate into American culture over engineers or doctors. I have no problem with bums that want to assimilate. Plenty of bums who are born here who have kids who become great contributors. Plenty of bums who have immigrated to the United States who have had descendants who have become great contributors. As long as they aren't criminals, I'm good. I probably have a preference for families immigrating, just because I think having kids go to school here helps the whole family assimilate.
Quote:Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
"Engineers or doctors" was meant as a figure of speech. I'd be happy with lawyers--and dentists and others. Willingness to assimilate should be mandatory, we agree there. But that is hard to measure abstractly before they get here. I'm fine with refugees, sorry if I did not make that clear. Mainly I would seek to increase the number of legal immigrants and decrease the number of illegals.
Good poetry does not always make good policy.
And this is what frustrates me about Trump at the moment. I think the majority of both sides of the aisle generally agree on the big picture of immigration - and have some disagreements on the finer details. There are some on both ends of the spectrum that vary greatly, and prefer basically very strict migration or very open migration, but the middle, say, 75%, are in this boat.
But when Trump makes comments about not wanting people from shithole countries, it raises hackles on the left because it obviously isn’t a comment that considers a person’s worth or situation, just country of origin. And when those hackles are raised, it results in a polarization and a digging in on both sides by both tribes. And that isn’t a constructive comment with regards to actually tackling our immigration issues. And all we end up doing is either attacking Trump for his classless comment, or defending him as not being a racist for said comment.
I fall very closely in with Big on immigration. I want people who want to assimilate in the sense of becoming part of the community, but as you mention, that is hard to measure. And I have a small preference for refugees over professionals who want to immigrate. But that’s why I wouldn’t prefer to increase the amount of legal immigrants who can enter the country. No immigrant is stealing jobs from Americans, so let’s welcome in those who want to be productive members of our community.
In unlimited numbers, without vetting? How will you know which ones to welcome?
(03-04-2018 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why is it your assumption that bums are more likely to produce high achieving children than high achievers? It sounds like you want to run a lottery. Let in X bums, and in 30 years we wil have xy productive members of society. And xz bums. Maybe you should define “plenty”. I think you mean “some”.
refugees are are a different category than legal immigrants, the group you complained Trump wants to reduce. Red herring.
You have made a case for accepting the worst the world has to offer in lieu of the best.
Yes, I have met Norwegians. Fine people, like the Mexicans I know. What is the problem with Norwegians? Too pale?
Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.
Perhaps my most recent post was wrong about most of us agreeing about the big picture of immigration, but disagreeing on the small details.
(03-04-2018 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2018 01:05 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who wants to over-populate the country with engineers? I notice you left lawyers out of your comment...
I have actually met doctors from Haiti and Africa. Don't think I have ever met anyone from Norway.
I would prefer refugees from war-torn countries who want to assimilate into American culture over engineers or doctors. I have no problem with bums that want to assimilate. Plenty of bums who are born here who have kids who become great contributors. Plenty of bums who have immigrated to the United States who have had descendants who have become great contributors. As long as they aren't criminals, I'm good. I probably have a preference for families immigrating, just because I think having kids go to school here helps the whole family assimilate.
"Engineers or doctors" was meant as a figure of speech. I'd be happy with lawyers--and dentists and others. Willingness to assimilate should be mandatory, we agree there. But that is hard to measure abstractly before they get here. I'm fine with refugees, sorry if I did not make that clear. Mainly I would seek to increase the number of legal immigrants and decrease the number of illegals.
Good poetry does not always make good policy.
And this is what frustrates me about Trump at the moment. I think the majority of both sides of the aisle generally agree on the big picture of immigration - and have some disagreements on the finer details. There are some on both ends of the spectrum that vary greatly, and prefer basically very strict migration or very open migration, but the middle, say, 75%, are in this boat.
But when Trump makes comments about not wanting people from shithole countries, it raises hackles on the left because it obviously isn’t a comment that considers a person’s worth or situation, just country of origin. And when those hackles are raised, it results in a polarization and a digging in on both sides by both tribes. And that isn’t a constructive comment with regards to actually tackling our immigration issues. And all we end up doing is either attacking Trump for his classless comment, or defending him as not being a racist for said comment.
I fall very closely in with Big on immigration. I want people who want to assimilate in the sense of becoming part of the community, but as you mention, that is hard to measure. And I have a small preference for refugees over professionals who want to immigrate. But that’s why I wouldn’t prefer to increase the amount of legal immigrants who can enter the country. No immigrant is stealing jobs from Americans, so let’s welcome in those who want to be productive members of our community.
In unlimited numbers, without vetting?
Huh?
If the numbers are limited, choices must be made. How do you make them?
If you do do get, how do you which ones want to be productive members of the community, and are able to do so. How do you know which ones want to assimilate?
If we have any limit at all, choices must be made who gets in and who doesn’t. On what basis do you think the rejects should be chosen?
If we vet them at all, there must be criteria that must be met, or they must be disqualified What do you think those criteria should be? Obviously, membership in a jihadist organization might be a red flag, unless of course they tell us they just want a better life for their family. But they could still get in, right?
Get real, both of you. The US is not a refugee camp, not a soup kitchen. We want productive members of our society, and the best way to get those is to select them, not to open our borders and hope some of the unfortunates and unaccomplished pouring through have kids who turn out well.
So, on what basis should we make our choices? What kind of people do you think we need? Certain ly, we need some bottom of the pyramid manual labor. But is it better to let them wade the river and cross the desert, anonymous and illegal, or to let them register as guest workers, carry identification, pay taxes, and be of use to both their families and this country? I think so.
Maybe we need doctors or pharmacists or architects. People with that training can not only contribute, but support themselves. But we do not need to restrict those types of people to one country, continent, or race. We need to do that on merit. so is a doctor trained in Somalia or Sudan equal or better to one trained in Switzerland? Maybe, but the odds are, no. It’s like equating the medical students I Guadalajara to the ones at Harvard Med.
I have watched the so called immigrants actually immigrating, as they waded the river and came up into the US through my parking lot. I have dealt with illegals from childhood on. Some were fine peole, some were terrible people. Why should we let in the whole spectrum, when we could keep out a lot of the terrible ones?