Minimum 7 years experience required for applicants for immigration judge.
(11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 02:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mig...li=BBnb7Kz
The arrival of so many caravan travelers and images of clashes with police have exposed an unseemly underbelly of xenophobia. A poll in the newspaper El Universal showed 49 percent of Mexicans saying caravans shouldn’t be allowed to cross the country.
“First Mexico and Mexicans,” read one comment in response to the polls.
I think these quotes are telling:
Quote: But the tough treatment at the border brought home a rude reality for many migrants in the caravan: that their idealized vision of the United States—a kind and just country willing to welcome people wanting nothing more than to work or seek safety—has put obstacles in their path.
and
Quote:“This was their idea and their actions are going to hurt us,” said Javier Pineda, 31, a construction worker who put his name on the asylum list at the border. “We’re going to wait our turn. This is our dream.”
We're now seeing that our country is no longer welcoming with open arms the tired, poor, huddled masses, and instead lobbing tear gas at them.
And for those who came before the caravan, we're seeing those people wait increasingly longer times because the administration has slowed down all immigration processing to a snails pace. I even had a coworker who was worried about his legal status when he left our firm for another company because of the current admin - and he went from an engineering firm to a tech giant.
Beyond the 
melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
(11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 02:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mig...li=BBnb7Kz
The arrival of so many caravan travelers and images of clashes with police have exposed an unseemly underbelly of xenophobia. A poll in the newspaper El Universal showed 49 percent of Mexicans saying caravans shouldn’t be allowed to cross the country.
“First Mexico and Mexicans,” read one comment in response to the polls.
I think these quotes are telling:
Quote: But the tough treatment at the border brought home a rude reality for many migrants in the caravan: that their idealized vision of the United States—a kind and just country willing to welcome people wanting nothing more than to work or seek safety—has put obstacles in their path.
and
Quote:“This was their idea and their actions are going to hurt us,” said Javier Pineda, 31, a construction worker who put his name on the asylum list at the border. “We’re going to wait our turn. This is our dream.”
We're now seeing that our country is no longer welcoming with open arms the tired, poor, huddled masses, and instead lobbing tear gas at them.
And for those who came before the caravan, we're seeing those people wait increasingly longer times because the administration has slowed down all immigration processing to a snails pace. I even had a coworker who was worried about his legal status when he left our firm for another company because of the current admin - and he went from an engineering firm to a tech giant.
Beyond the melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
(11-28-2018 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Minimum 7 years experience required for applicants for immigration judge.
Thanks for pulling that information up. I'd agree that we wouldn't be able to fill positions as fast as I would have thought, but I doubt that if funding we made available to increase salaries and open more positions, that more people with 7 years of experience wouldn't be interested in taking the position.
(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think these quotes are telling:
and
We're now seeing that our country is no longer welcoming with open arms the tired, poor, huddled masses, and instead lobbing tear gas at them.
And for those who came before the caravan, we're seeing those people wait increasingly longer times because the administration has slowed down all immigration processing to a snails pace. I even had a coworker who was worried about his legal status when he left our firm for another company because of the current admin - and he went from an engineering firm to a tech giant.
Beyond the melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
OK, so people would still attempt to cross the border illegally. So I'll repeat OO's question to you: if you were president, what would you have the border guards do when a group of people rush the fence? Obama and Trump approved tear gas, etc. to repel them. What's your solution? Would it be in accordance with the will of those that elected you?
(11-29-2018 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Beyond the melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
OK, so people would still attempt to cross the border illegally. So I'll repeat OO's question to you: if you were president, what would you have the border guards do when a group of people rush the fence? Obama and Trump approved tear gas, etc. to repel them. What's your solution? Would it be in accordance with the will of those that elected you?
So if we're doing everything we can to facilitate people applying for asylum, worker visas, etc. and these problems persist, then riot control techniques such as deploying tear gas may be a necessary evil should things along the border escalate.
But being that the former part of that sentence, even just the processing of asylum claims and keeping the border crossing open, is not being met, I think the heavy hand of tear gas was incorrect. I'd rather us proactively address the issue instead of reacting to it, and doing so with tear gas. If I had my way, I'd send resources to the border to set up asylum processing centers to try and accommodate all of those seeking asylum, track those who are waiting for their request to be processed, and then immediately deport those that aren't granted asylum. Couple that with either increasing or overhauling the aid we're giving to the Latin American countries they are fleeing, and increasing/overhauling worker/seasonal visas, and I think tear gas can be used to target drug haulers and human trafficers, not a group that contained a lot of women and children.
(11-29-2018 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
OK, so people would still attempt to cross the border illegally. So I'll repeat OO's question to you: if you were president, what would you have the border guards do when a group of people rush the fence? Obama and Trump approved tear gas, etc. to repel them. What's your solution? Would it be in accordance with the will of those that elected you?
So if we're doing everything we can to facilitate people applying for asylum, worker visas, etc. and these problems persist, then riot control techniques such as deploying tear gas may be a necessary evil should things along the border escalate.
But being that the former part of that sentence, even just the processing of asylum claims and keeping the border crossing open, is not being met, I think the heavy hand of tear gas was incorrect. I'd rather us proactively address the issue instead of reacting to it, and doing so with tear gas. If I had my way, I'd send resources to the border to set up asylum processing centers to try and accommodate all of those seeking asylum, track those who are waiting for their request to be processed, and then immediately deport those that aren't granted asylum. Couple that with either increasing or overhauling the aid we're giving to the Latin American countries they are fleeing, and increasing/overhauling worker/seasonal visas, and I think tear gas can be used to target drug haulers and human trafficers, not a group that contained a lot of women and children.
So, detention camps instead of tear gas. "Asylum processing center" is a nice euphemism.
And when they want out of the detention camp, and aren't willing to wait? I presume your asylum processing center will have fences and guards. Is that really any better, or just a better look?
Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress.
Quote:On Thursday, Cohen admitted to making false statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Trump Organization's plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Lawmakers on the committee questioned Cohen extensively about the deal when he appeared before the panel in October 2017, and Cohen also expanded on it in a statement he sent to the committee in August of last year.
Many of the questions focused, in particular, on Cohen's email exchanges with the Russian-born businessman Felix Sater about the deal, as well as whether Russia had any involvement in the Trump Organization's push to build the tower during the election.
In a criminal information unsealed on Thursday, prosecutors said Cohen knowingly misled congressional investigators when he made the following statements:
- That the "Moscow Project ended in January 2016 and was not discussed extensively with others in the Company," likely referring to the Trump Organization.
- That he never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the project and "never considered" asking someone denoted as "Individual 1," and believed to be Trump, to travel for the project.
- That he did not recall any Russian government response or contact about the deal.
https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-...rt-2018-11
There has been news story, after news story, breaking in regards to the Russia investigation. I wonder if that means we'll see the end of the tunnel soon.
(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think these quotes are telling:
and
We're now seeing that our country is no longer welcoming with open arms the tired, poor, huddled masses, and instead lobbing tear gas at them.
And for those who came before the caravan, we're seeing those people wait increasingly longer times because the administration has slowed down all immigration processing to a snails pace. I even had a coworker who was worried about his legal status when he left our firm for another company because of the current admin - and he went from an engineering firm to a tech giant.
Beyond the melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
(11-29-2018 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
OK, so people would still attempt to cross the border illegally. So I'll repeat OO's question to you: if you were president, what would you have the border guards do when a group of people rush the fence? Obama and Trump approved tear gas, etc. to repel them. What's your solution? Would it be in accordance with the will of those that elected you?
So if we're doing everything we can to facilitate people applying for asylum, worker visas, etc. and these problems persist, then riot control techniques such as deploying tear gas may be a necessary evil should things along the border escalate.
But being that the former part of that sentence, even just the processing of asylum claims and keeping the border crossing open, is not being met, I think the heavy hand of tear gas was incorrect. I'd rather us proactively address the issue instead of reacting to it, and doing so with tear gas. If I had my way, I'd send resources to the border to set up asylum processing centers to try and accommodate all of those seeking asylum, track those who are waiting for their request to be processed, and then immediately deport those that aren't granted asylum. Couple that with either increasing or overhauling the aid we're giving to the Latin American countries they are fleeing, and increasing/overhauling worker/seasonal visas, and I think tear gas can be used to target drug haulers and human trafficers, not a group that contained a lot of women and children.
So you would allow what happened at the Mexico/Guatemala border to not just be allowed, but to be essentially tolerated? Sounds fun.
Mob rule wins the day in your book as long as there are no drug haulers or traffickers involved. Sounds peachy.
(11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 05:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Beyond the melodrama of your post, what's your point? Open borders?
If not open borders, then what?
Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]]
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder ]b]who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system[/b].
People who want to come here legally and be productive follow the rules. My cousin's husband is a Mexican national who came here legally, following the rules. Miguel has been been living here as a legal resident alien for 40 years now. I think if his introduction to the US had been swimming the river behind my office, things would have bee very different for him and my cousin.
People who have the tools to be productive and law abiding - education, skills, and the desire to do things right - are not in the caravans and not swimming the river.
Still dealing with the pollyanna-ish image of the noble immigrant, I guess. maybe this is where my "anecdotal" experience kicks in. Maybe if you had a little anecdotal experience, you would think differently. Have you even met an illegal? have you any experience with them that doesn't involve a rolled-up car window?
Want them in your neighborhood?
Quote:. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay,[
So the solution is to let them all in and check up in a couple of years to see which ones are working/paying income taxes and which ones aren't? Then deport the losers, who surely will submit meekly?
I guess we can call that plan open borders with probation.
Not very pragmatic.
Quote: offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
Why is the path to citizenship such a big thing with you and other liberals? That's why I suspect creating Democratic voters is the impetus behind the let 'em in movement. You mentioned guest workers. I approved. One reason is that guest workers, as guests, do not have a path to citizenship.
I would require guest workers to check in with administrators of the guest worker program at least annually to prove employment. I would require 20% of their pay to be withheld for federal income taxes, most of which they could reclaim by filing a return. I would deport any convicted of a crime.
This requires the creation of an infrastucture, the reason we cannot just wave a wand and say Abracadabra, you are all now guest workers. Line up here for citizenship.
(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?
My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.
But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.
Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?
(11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.
When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.
And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?
Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.
And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.
Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.
(11-29-2018 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?
Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.
And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.
Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.
Sounds like you are good with the recent use of tear gas to stop those trying to enter illegally. Is that right?
(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]]
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder ]b]who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system[/b].
People who want to come here legally and be productive follow the rules. My cousin's husband is a Mexican national who came here legally, following the rules. Miguel has been been living here as a legal resident alien for 40 years now. I think if his introduction to the US had been swimming the river behind my office, things would have bee very different for him and my cousin.
People who have the tools to be productive and law abiding - education, skills, and the desire to do things right - are not in the caravans and not swimming the river.
Still dealing with the pollyanna-ish image of the noble immigrant, I guess. maybe this is where my "anecdotal" experience kicks in. Maybe if you had a little anecdotal experience, you would think differently. Have you even met an illegal? have you any experience with them that doesn't involve a rolled-up car window?
Want them in your neighborhood?
Quote:. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay,[
So the solution is to let them all in and check up in a couple of years to see which ones are working/paying income taxes and which ones aren't? Then deport the losers, who surely will submit meekly?
I guess we can call that plan open borders with probation.
Not very pragmatic.
Quote: offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
Why is the path to citizenship such a big thing with you and other liberals? That's why I suspect creating Democratic voters is the impetus behind the let 'em in movement. You mentioned guest workers. I approved. One reason is that guest workers, as guests, do not have a path to citizenship.
I would require guest workers to check in with administrators of the guest worker program at least annually to prove employment. I would require 20% of their pay to be withheld for federal income taxes, most of which they could reclaim by filing a return. I would deport any convicted of a crime.
This requires the creation of an infrastucture, the reason we cannot just wave a wand and say Abracadabra, you are all now guest workers. Line up here for citizenship.
I prefer a pathway to citizenship because if you can prove you're here for 20 years, working, and paying taxes, you're the type of person we want in this country.
I agree with guest workers having a rather strict monitoring program and have no issues with your other comments. I just want to increase the number of worker visas that are available. There are more immigrants willing to come here and abide by those rules than spots available, and we currently make the process of obtaining those worker visas rather difficult (there are basically requirements in place that require the employer and the employee to identify each other, which is obviously a bit difficult for many manual labor jobs that currently rely on illegal immigrants.
And you're darn right that this requires infrastructure, which is what we could start putting in place, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border for a publicity stunt.
I don't see why you keep railing against my positions and calling me someone who supports open borders, when we really don't disagree on probably the most central position to immigration reform. Why do you think we're so different in the positions we hold?
(11-29-2018 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.
Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?
Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.
And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.
Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.
If you make it easier to enter legally by promising more and faster asylum claims processing, and if you offer a path to citizenship for those who enter illegally, then it stands to reason you'll increase the numbers heading for the border, and incentivize them to cross illegally. Your last sentence is completely at odds with observed facts, since most trying to cross are not trying to commit crimes and do so in hopes of living in the United States, and your proposal wouldn't reduce those numbers and may very well increase them.
Unless, that is, you are proposing giving work visas to all that request them along with their immediate family, which for all
practical purposes is open borders.
And since you agree that tear gas should be used on those that are mobbing the fences, then why did you decry that earlier?
(11-29-2018 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.
I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".
You again...
Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).
I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!
You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?
Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.
And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.
Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.
Sounds like you are good with the recent use of tear gas to stop those trying to enter illegally. Is that right?
In the end, yes. But there were so many things I would have done differently along the way to the use, that it likely wouldn't have been necessary because the situation would not have arose.
Our administration should be making all efforts to put people into the asylum queue as quick as possible, and they didn't. Instead, they resorted to the most brutish tactics.
(11-29-2018 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]]
From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder ]b]who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system[/b].
People who want to come here legally and be productive follow the rules. My cousin's husband is a Mexican national who came here legally, following the rules. Miguel has been been living here as a legal resident alien for 40 years now. I think if his introduction to the US had been swimming the river behind my office, things would have bee very different for him and my cousin.
People who have the tools to be productive and law abiding - education, skills, and the desire to do things right - are not in the caravans and not swimming the river.
Still dealing with the pollyanna-ish image of the noble immigrant, I guess. maybe this is where my "anecdotal" experience kicks in. Maybe if you had a little anecdotal experience, you would think differently. Have you even met an illegal? have you any experience with them that doesn't involve a rolled-up car window?
Want them in your neighborhood?
Quote:. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay,[
So the solution is to let them all in and check up in a couple of years to see which ones are working/paying income taxes and which ones aren't? Then deport the losers, who surely will submit meekly?
I guess we can call that plan open borders with probation.
Not very pragmatic.
Quote: offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.
Why is the path to citizenship such a big thing with you and other liberals? That's why I suspect creating Democratic voters is the impetus behind the let 'em in movement. You mentioned guest workers. I approved. One reason is that guest workers, as guests, do not have a path to citizenship.
I would require guest workers to check in with administrators of the guest worker program at least annually to prove employment. I would require 20% of their pay to be withheld for federal income taxes, most of which they could reclaim by filing a return. I would deport any convicted of a crime.
This requires the creation of an infrastucture, the reason we cannot just wave a wand and say Abracadabra, you are all now guest workers. Line up here for citizenship.
I prefer a pathway to citizenship because if you can prove you're here for 20 years, working, and paying taxes, you're the type of person we want in this country.
I agree with guest workers having a rather strict monitoring program and have no issues with your other comments. I just want to increase the number of worker visas that are available. There are more immigrants willing to come here and abide by those rules than spots available, and we currently make the process of obtaining those worker visas rather difficult (there are basically requirements in place that require the employer and the employee to identify each other, which is obviously a bit difficult for many manual labor jobs that currently rely on illegal immigrants.
And you're darn right that this requires infrastructure, which is what we could start putting in place, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border for a publicity stunt.
I don't see why you keep railing against my positions and calling me someone who supports open borders, when we really don't disagree on probably the most central position to immigration reform. Why do you think we're so different in the positions we hold?
It requires a lot of infrastructure, and personnel. It's cheaper, simpler, and a more efficient use of resources to stop them at the border. Stopping them at the border also avoids the bad optics of detention camps (what you call "asylum processing centers").