(03-04-2018 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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:  "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?

And this is why I said many agree on big picture views, but not the details.

I would keep refugees and immigrants separate. For refugees, I believe our current system is sufficient for both vetting and resettlement. There is already a fairly robust vetting process to help reduce the chance of people who want to take advantage of the system in ways that go against our interests from entering our country. But in 2016, the ceiling for entrants was only 85,000 people, so I would be happy to increase that number and provide extra funding to proportionally increase support staff (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.o...d-policy).

For non-refugee immigration, I’m not deadset on any policy, but if you had to choose how to select applicants for entry, I would use a combination of time of application, criminal record, questionnaires/interviews that help evaluate someone’s understanding of the US and apparent willingness to become a contributing member of the community. I’m also fine with our current policy on family immigration, which only extends to children and parents, with the only possible exception being the removal of siblings from the process. I’m also generally fine with our current employment immigration policy, which provides preferences to employees with high-level skills.

I’d like to see a change in how we handle those who basically aren’t white color workers nor refugees. Basically the type of people who fall into the current diversity lottery program. I think if we expand the amount of people who can become a citizen in this path, we reduce illegal immigration because we provide a path to citizenship for more people who basically only have a high school education, but who have a willingness to break their back. So you could basically do a similar screening process for this category of people that you do for refugees, and attempt to evaluate who they are as a person.

I honestly don’t think our current immigration policy is that broken when you look at what it is, I mainly think we just don’t do enough to allow in enough immigrants. As I said before, Americans are not losing jobs to immigrants.

(03-04-2018 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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?

OO, do you know how current immigration law works?

I won’t lie, I just learned a lot more than I previously knew, and wasn’t happily surprised at how we generally handle family and worker immigration.

(03-04-2018 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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?

And this is why I said many agree on big picture views, but not the details.

I would keep refugees and immigrants separate. For refugees, I believe our current system is sufficient for both vetting and resettlement. There is already a fairly robust vetting process to help reduce the chance of people who want to take advantage of the system in ways that go against our interests from entering our country. But in 2016, the ceiling for entrants was only 85,000 people, so I would be happy to increase that number and provide extra funding to proportionally increase support staff (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.o...d-policy).

It is unclear if by extracts you mean refugees or legal immigrants. If the latter, I would point out that actual immigration is 85,000 plus an unknown number of illegal.

Additional funding means either higher taxes or higher deficits. Ok by you?

Quote:For non-refugee immigration, I’m not deadset on any policy, but if you had to choose how to select applicants for entry, I would use a combination of time of application, criminal record, questionnaires/interviews that help evaluate someone’s understanding of the US and apparent willingness to become a contributing member of the community. I’m also fine with our current policy on family immigration, which only extends to children and parents, with the only possible exception being the removal of siblings from the process. I’m also generally fine with our current employment immigration policy, which provides preferences to employees with high-level skills.

So, essentially the Trump olicy.. Me too.

Quote:I’d like to see a change in how we handle those who basically aren’t white color workers nor refugees. Basically the type of people who fall into the current diversity lottery program. I think if we expand the amount of people who can become a citizen in this path, we reduce illegal immigration because we provide a path to citizenship for more people who basically only have a high school education, but who have a willingness to break their back. So you could basically do a similar screening process for this category of people that you do for refugees, and attempt to evaluate who they are as a person.

High school education? Most of the illegals have little or no education. One I know signs her name with an X. But she can clean houses.

I think a guest worker program would do this. Instead of making people who want to work at low level or physical jobs swim the river or do other illegal and dangerous things, let them apply for a guest worker status. Live and work here legally, but not under the radar.

Quote:I honestly don’t think our current immigration policy is that broken when you look at what it is, I mainly think we just don’t do enough to allow in enough immigrants. As I said before, Americans are not losing jobs to immigrants.

Well, some are, but that is not the problem. Whether we need more or less immigrants, we need to know who they are and where they are.

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is it your [mrbig] 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”.

Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.

Thanks. I never said I had a preference (which was the point). I also never expressed a preference for Africans or Haitians over Norwegians. Again, I have no preference (which was my point).

I think our current vetting system does well, both for refugees and immigrants. I would prefer to increase refugees and legal immigrants, with some efforts to reduce illegal immigration. We have a big border and we can't stop all illegal immigrants, so I want to focus on humanitarian methods. This isn't an issue I know a lot of details about, which I readily admit. But I think the US should be a shining beacon on the hill and I think immigration and refugee policy needs to reflect that. People want to come here for a reason, "The American Dream". My mom was one of 9 kids and the first in her family to go to college. I grew up in a trailer park in Alaska. I graduated from Rice and Tulane law, have a good job, my kids go to a great school. I want to make sure all citizens have that opportunity and I think part of what makes America great is that people from other countries see this opportunity as well.

(03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Have to disagree with you here. I think, based on the locus of where and backers of "Sanctuary Cities", and the fundamental goal of the sanctuary 'region' (including California as a whole here, mind you), I think this is a *stark* issue that shows how far apart the 'sides of the aisle' are here.

If they truly were in 'agreement on the big picture', there would not be the pervasive and widespread move to flip the middle finger at Federal governmental policy on what is fundamentally basic enforcement.

(03-04-2018 02:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is it your [mrbig] 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”.

Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.

Thanks. I never said I had a preference (which was the point). I also never expressed a preference for Africans or Haitians over Norwegians. Again, I have no preference (which was my point).

I think our current vetting system does well, both for refugees and immigrants. I would prefer to increase refugees and legal immigrants, with some efforts to reduce illegal immigration. We have a big border and we can't stop all illegal immigrants, so I want to focus on humanitarian methods. This isn't an issue I know a lot of details about, which I readily admit. But I think the US should be a shining beacon on the hill and I think immigration and refugee policy needs to reflect that. People want to come here for a reason, "The American Dream". My mom was one of 9 kids and the first in her family to go to college. I grew up in a trailer park in Alaska. I graduated from Rice and Tulane law, have a good job, my kids go to a great school. I want to make sure all citizens have that opportunity and I think part of what makes America great is that people from other countries see this opportunity as well.

No national or racial preference was my point as well, and was specifically stated a few posts back. preference given on ability to self-support. more preference given to needed skills, as nursing. If you oppose giving preference to these people, I need more than a shining beacon to explain why.

So you like our current vetting system. Ok, so that implies vetting is OK.

Why do you want to increase refugees and legal immigrants? Separate answers for each category, please.

Why just "some" efforts to reduce illegal immigration? why not a lot of effort?

sure, we cannot stop all people who want to do illegal things. (seems to me this belongs in the gun discussion).

Define humanitarian and inhumanitarian methods. what are we doing now that is inhumane? What would you rather do that is humane?

All "citizens" or all the world? Somewhere between those two numbers, we must draw a line. or do we? We could just disband all the people who check IDs at the border. But if we are to keep them, what should they do? Tell the illegals, you cannot come in here, but head down the river about ten miles, that's OK? If you can get across, you can stay?

Common sense is losing out to idealism here. Look at the problems Germany has had with their immigration policy and France has had with theirs. It's as if we were trying to adopt every stray creature in the world, which ideally we would and could, but is impossible as a practical matter.

You argue an idealism, I argue a pragmatism. No wonder we find no common ground.

(03-04-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Have to disagree with you here. I think, based on the locus of where and backers of "Sanctuary Cities", and the fundamental goal of the sanctuary 'region' (including California as a whole here, mind you), I think this is a *stark* issue that shows how far apart the 'sides of the aisle' are here.

If they truly were in 'agreement on the big picture', there would not be the pervasive and widespread move to flip the middle finger at Federal governmental policy on what is fundamentally basic enforcement.

Disagree with your assertion.

Most importantly, what you're talking about is not how to deal with people immigrating to the US (which is where I said there is general agreement), but how to deal with people who are currently illegal immigrants. Big difference in both issue, and generally, how people view the issue.

Also, a sanctuary city is a city where law enforcement officers do not enforce immigration policies because that is not their job, nor their jurisdiction. The theory being that officers will have an easier time policing the city if illegal immigrants that are there do not have to worry about their immigration status if they are reporting crimes. I think you can be both be for an increase in immigration that still has some strict rules to follow, and supporting/opposing sanctuary cities.

Same thing for DACA.

In short, your conflating people's opinions about how to handle immigration with how to handle illegal immigrants.

(03-04-2018 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is it your [mrbig] 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”.

Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.

Thanks. I never said I had a preference (which was the point). I also never expressed a preference for Africans or Haitians over Norwegians. Again, I have no preference (which was my point).

I think our current vetting system does well, both for refugees and immigrants. I would prefer to increase refugees and legal immigrants, with some efforts to reduce illegal immigration. We have a big border and we can't stop all illegal immigrants, so I want to focus on humanitarian methods. This isn't an issue I know a lot of details about, which I readily admit. But I think the US should be a shining beacon on the hill and I think immigration and refugee policy needs to reflect that. People want to come here for a reason, "The American Dream". My mom was one of 9 kids and the first in her family to go to college. I grew up in a trailer park in Alaska. I graduated from Rice and Tulane law, have a good job, my kids go to a great school. I want to make sure all citizens have that opportunity and I think part of what makes America great is that people from other countries see this opportunity as well.

No national or racial preference was my point as well, and was specifically stated a few posts back. preference given on ability to self-support. more preference given to needed skills, as nursing. If you oppose giving preference to these people, I need more than a shining beacon to explain why.

So you like our current vetting system. Ok, so that implies vetting is OK.

Why do you want to increase refugees and legal immigrants? Separate answers for each category, please.

Why just "some" efforts to reduce illegal immigration? why not a lot of effort?

sure, we cannot stop all people who want to do illegal things. (seems to me this belongs in the gun discussion).

Define humanitarian and inhumanitarian methods. what are we doing now that is inhumane? What would you rather do that is humane?

All "citizens" or all the world? Somewhere between those two numbers, we must draw a line. or do we? We could just disband all the people who check IDs at the border. But if we are to keep them, what should they do? Tell the illegals, you cannot come in here, but head down the river about ten miles, that's OK? If you can get across, you can stay?

Common sense is losing out to idealism here. Look at the problems Germany has had with their immigration policy and France has had with theirs. It's as if we were trying to adopt every stray creature in the world, which ideally we would and could, but is impossible as a practical matter.

You argue an idealism, I argue a pragmatism. No wonder we find no common ground.

OO, since you're asking for so many specifics, why not provide some of your own, based on your own opinions?

You say you are arguing for pragmatism - what does that look like?

(03-04-2018 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Have to disagree with you here. I think, based on the locus of where and backers of "Sanctuary Cities", and the fundamental goal of the sanctuary 'region' (including California as a whole here, mind you), I think this is a *stark* issue that shows how far apart the 'sides of the aisle' are here.

If they truly were in 'agreement on the big picture', there would not be the pervasive and widespread move to flip the middle finger at Federal governmental policy on what is fundamentally basic enforcement.

Disagree with your assertion.

Most importantly, what you're talking about is not how to deal with people immigrating to the US (which is where I said there is general agreement), but how to deal with people who are currently illegal immigrants.

Its a temporal issue. 'Conservatives' tend to say let's actually do a cost benefit on allowing people in, and actually enforce the current immigration laws with respect to illegal immigrants.

'Progressives' tend to say 'perhaps let us just open the floodgates' and like to pass sanctuary status to regions, thus hampering enforcement of illegal immigration.

Quote:Also, a sanctuary city is a city where law enforcement officers do not enforce immigration policies because that is not their job, nor their jurisdiction.

How do you classify the ones that refuse to honor ICE detainer requests? Or ones where mayors actively warn a populace of upcoming steps up in ICE enforcement? Or how about the recent California laws that bar any private employer from giving permission to ICE to search?

Sorry, your definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction is a greatly watered down version of the active resistance and obstruction of ICE functions, that increase in flouting ICE and Federal government growing somewhat exponentially.

Quote:The theory being that officers will have an easier time policing the city if illegal immigrants that are there do not have to worry about their immigration status if they are reporting crimes. I think you can be both be for an increase in immigration that still has some strict rules to follow, and supporting/opposing sanctuary cities.

I understand 'sanctuary light' as you described it. And it makes sense to not require active enforcement of immigration statutes at the local level. Active resistance to Federal officials is an entirely different ball of wax, and one that is growing in popularity on especially one side of the political divide.

And that promotion of active obstruction to current immigration laws does have a place in the discussion.

Quote:In short, your conflating people's opinions about how to handle immigration with how to handle illegal immigrants.

Interesting. It always appears that I am of the type that is rapidly noted by progressives as anti-immigration due to my anti-illegal immigration stance. And I am the one conflating the issue? lolz....

(03-04-2018 04:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is it your [mrbig] 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”.

Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.

Thanks. I never said I had a preference (which was the point). I also never expressed a preference for Africans or Haitians over Norwegians. Again, I have no preference (which was my point).

I think our current vetting system does well, both for refugees and immigrants. I would prefer to increase refugees and legal immigrants, with some efforts to reduce illegal immigration. We have a big border and we can't stop all illegal immigrants, so I want to focus on humanitarian methods. This isn't an issue I know a lot of details about, which I readily admit. But I think the US should be a shining beacon on the hill and I think immigration and refugee policy needs to reflect that. People want to come here for a reason, "The American Dream". My mom was one of 9 kids and the first in her family to go to college. I grew up in a trailer park in Alaska. I graduated from Rice and Tulane law, have a good job, my kids go to a great school. I want to make sure all citizens have that opportunity and I think part of what makes America great is that people from other countries see this opportunity as well.

No national or racial preference was my point as well, and was specifically stated a few posts back. preference given on ability to self-support. more preference given to needed skills, as nursing. If you oppose giving preference to these people, I need more than a shining beacon to explain why.

So you like our current vetting system. Ok, so that implies vetting is OK.

Why do you want to increase refugees and legal immigrants? Separate answers for each category, please.

Why just "some" efforts to reduce illegal immigration? why not a lot of effort?

sure, we cannot stop all people who want to do illegal things. (seems to me this belongs in the gun discussion).

Define humanitarian and inhumanitarian methods. what are we doing now that is inhumane? What would you rather do that is humane?

All "citizens" or all the world? Somewhere between those two numbers, we must draw a line. or do we? We could just disband all the people who check IDs at the border. But if we are to keep them, what should they do? Tell the illegals, you cannot come in here, but head down the river about ten miles, that's OK? If you can get across, you can stay?

Common sense is losing out to idealism here. Look at the problems Germany has had with their immigration policy and France has had with theirs. It's as if we were trying to adopt every stray creature in the world, which ideally we would and could, but is impossible as a practical matter.

You argue an idealism, I argue a pragmatism. No wonder we find no common ground.

OO, since you're asking for so many specifics, why not provide some of your own, based on your own opinions?

You say you are arguing for pragmatism - what does that look like?

As I said before, again and again:

The guest worker program suggested by Owl 69 is a good thing. We need unskilled labor. let us get it in a controlled manner where we can keep track of who is in our borders, where they are, and get tax returns from them. Without a guest worker program, my idea to have a short amnesty period for all illegals in the US. They can use this amnesty period to get legal by starting the paperwork to be a resident alien. At the end of the amnesty period, zero tolerance.

As for refugees, that is a shifting sand of policy. So I have no upper or lower limit, and would expect that to change from year to year. But all refuges need to be at least vetted. heck if the high school students have to run from the school with their hands over over their heads to show they aren't the shooter, the least we can do is check out people coming into our country.

Legal immigrants: same vetting, and then filling of limited spots by merit, not country of origin, not race, just merit. Merit includes education and skills we want or need, the ability to support oneself, and either speaking English or willing to take a ESL course, and of course, passing a background check for criminal actions. I have no recommendation on how many should be admitted, just a recommendation that it should not be unlimited. Trump wants less: Big and you want more. Nobody has made a case for what he wants.

DACA: Something has to be done. Trump has offered for 1.8 million, and given Congress six months to work it out. But generaqlly I am in favor of a tempory amnesty for those here NOW. Let them get paperwork started to become a legal resident alien. Then zero tolerance, so we don't have to do this again in five years.

Extended family: Nuclear family.

Zero tolerance for those trying to circumvent the rules. No "three strikes, and then we will pitch you another chance". And another. and another.

Look back, you will find most of these, maybe all, enumerated. Well, all of them, more than once, if you go go back far enough. But some of them in the last couple of days.

Well, what do you think?

(03-04-2018 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 04:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure if I saw Big indicate a preference for bums over professionals.

Thanks. I never said I had a preference (which was the point). I also never expressed a preference for Africans or Haitians over Norwegians. Again, I have no preference (which was my point).

I think our current vetting system does well, both for refugees and immigrants. I would prefer to increase refugees and legal immigrants, with some efforts to reduce illegal immigration. We have a big border and we can't stop all illegal immigrants, so I want to focus on humanitarian methods. This isn't an issue I know a lot of details about, which I readily admit. But I think the US should be a shining beacon on the hill and I think immigration and refugee policy needs to reflect that. People want to come here for a reason, "The American Dream". My mom was one of 9 kids and the first in her family to go to college. I grew up in a trailer park in Alaska. I graduated from Rice and Tulane law, have a good job, my kids go to a great school. I want to make sure all citizens have that opportunity and I think part of what makes America great is that people from other countries see this opportunity as well.

No national or racial preference was my point as well, and was specifically stated a few posts back. preference given on ability to self-support. more preference given to needed skills, as nursing. If you oppose giving preference to these people, I need more than a shining beacon to explain why.

So you like our current vetting system. Ok, so that implies vetting is OK.

Why do you want to increase refugees and legal immigrants? Separate answers for each category, please.

Why just "some" efforts to reduce illegal immigration? why not a lot of effort?

sure, we cannot stop all people who want to do illegal things. (seems to me this belongs in the gun discussion).

Define humanitarian and inhumanitarian methods. what are we doing now that is inhumane? What would you rather do that is humane?

All "citizens" or all the world? Somewhere between those two numbers, we must draw a line. or do we? We could just disband all the people who check IDs at the border. But if we are to keep them, what should they do? Tell the illegals, you cannot come in here, but head down the river about ten miles, that's OK? If you can get across, you can stay?

Common sense is losing out to idealism here. Look at the problems Germany has had with their immigration policy and France has had with theirs. It's as if we were trying to adopt every stray creature in the world, which ideally we would and could, but is impossible as a practical matter.

You argue an idealism, I argue a pragmatism. No wonder we find no common ground.

OO, since you're asking for so many specifics, why not provide some of your own, based on your own opinions?

You say you are arguing for pragmatism - what does that look like?

As I said before, again and again:

The guest worker program suggested by Owl 69 is a good thing. We need unskilled labor. let us get it in a controlled manner where we can keep track of who is in our borders, where they are, and get tax returns from them. Without a guest worker program, my idea to have a short amnesty period for all illegals in the US. They can use this amnesty period to get legal by starting the paperwork to be a resident alien. At the end of the amnesty period, zero tolerance.

As for refugees, that is a shifting sand of policy. So I have no upper or lower limit, and would expect that to change from year to year. But all refuges need to be at least vetted. heck if the high school students have to run from the school with their hands over over their heads to show they aren't the shooter, the least we can do is check out people coming into our country.

Legal immigrants: same vetting, and then filling of limited spots by merit, not country of origin, not race, just merit. Merit includes education and skills we want or need, the ability to support oneself, and either speaking English or willing to take a ESL course, and of course, passing a background check for criminal actions. I have no recommendation on how many should be admitted, just a recommendation that it should not be unlimited. Trump wants less: Big and you want more. Nobody has made a case for what he wants.

DACA: Something has to be done. Trump has offered for 1.8 million, and given Congress six months to work it out. But generaqlly I am in favor of a tempory amnesty for those here NOW. Let them get paperwork started to become a legal resident alien. Then zero tolerance, so we don't have to do this again in five years.

Extended family: Nuclear family.

Zero tolerance for those trying to circumvent the rules. No "three strikes, and then we will pitch you another chance". And another. and another.

Look back, you will find most of these, maybe all, enumerated. Well, all of them, more than once, if you go go back far enough. But some of them in the last couple of days.

I'm a bit confused. Based on how you've responded to me and Big, it seems like you are world's apart from us on policy, yet it actually seems like we're in a general agreement, with a few exceptions. I think that we just use different language to describe your opinions, no?

Your current thoughts generally line up with current immigration policy. We have a guest worker program in place, already (we all likely support the continuation of this). We are already vetting refugees and do not allow them in without vetting (we all likely support the continuation of this).

You differ in general immigration, which seems like you want just merit based. As I mentioned, I would like to keep merit based immigration, while adjusting the diversity lottery system to allow for immigration not solely based on less-represented countries. I see the merit in that program, but would prefer that we open that avenue up to basically people who want to join our country and contribute, but who don't necessarily have a job lined up.

So in short, the only difference appears to be that you seem to favor a worker visa/merit based immigration path only, and at least for me, I would like to keep open an avenue not directly connected to merit or labor.

It seems like we let the language on both sides rile us up and keep us from seeing that we aren't too far off from each other.

I am against saying we have to let in so many from this country or that country. I am against saying we must have have so many who fit this racial characteristic or that one.

Merit. Merit. Merit. When you have limited spots, merit must be the factor.

Now Trump wants to reduce legal immigration. I don't know why. But I know of no reason to automatically think of that as good or bad. Big thought it was bad, but didn't give a coherent reason why that would be so, other than something about a shining beacon. Sounds a bit idealistic to me.

If you and/or Big want to expand immigration, tell me why that would be a good thing for the USA. I am for good things for the USA.

Lad, you said this:

"I would like to keep open an avenue not directly connected to merit or labor."

1. why?
2. Define it.

I ask, because I cannot see an american Immigration official telling an applicant, " you don't qualify on merit, having no discernible skill, and you cannot/will not work, but there is another category". I need to know that category.

I cannot find it now, but somebody here said something that implied they thought the illegals coming up from the south had high school diplomas.

I doubt that high school graduates are a significant portion of the illegals. Probably in the single digits, percentage wise. The low single digits is my guess.

They are the poorest and least educated portion of the populations they come from. Think of the people who live in the poorest parts of our country, in Appalachia and inner cities. They are more educated and better skills than the people coming up from Mexico, Salvador, and Guatamala.

I sold a house to an illegal immigrant couple once. Owner financed. They had been here 16 years, and his English was poor and hers nonexistent, but he had worked the same job for 16 years and had a character reference from his boss, so I took a chance on him. At the signing, when we asked her to sign, she looked bewildered. Turned out she could not even sign her name. Not even her name. We did the big "X" like you see in the western movies.

Turned out to be a good gamble. Enrique was as honest as the day was long, never missed a payment. When he developed cancer, his kids (citizens? Dreamers? I never knew) paid off the house so he could die in his own home. His widow still lives there, and I have no doubt she still speaks no English and still cannot write her name. Seemed like a nice lady, though.

Point is, maybe some of us should stop assuming that the people wading the rivers and running through the desert are well equipped to contribute. Sometimes you need more than a chance. You need tools.

I know of another who lived in a cave, and did not know how to answer a telephone or use a toilet.

Let's stop idealizing the illegals. many are nice people, and I have been able to help many of them over the years. But many are not so nice. Just as everybody in the poorer areas of the US are not noble, so everybody in the poorer areas of Central America are not noble.

Big, a lot of us came up out of poverty. Not all of us were born with silver spoons in our mouths. The main reason my parents were thrilled with my admission to rice was the zero tuition.

I also did not have an affair with Donald Trump.

I'd like my $130k, damn it.

(03-08-2018 01:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I also did not have an affair with Donald Trump.

I'd like my $130k, damn it.

Nice change of subject.

But I'll play.

I also did not have sex with Bill Clinton. I would like my character assassination now, please.

Thoughts on DPRK denuclearization summit? Seems like a long putt, but a lot better path than anyone else has given us. Are the name tags at the table going to be "Dotard" and "RocketMan"? I can't wait for the memes to come out.

If anything the "We came, we saw, we killed" foreign policy of Clinton provided motivation for DPRK to continue their weapons program.

(03-09-2018 12:59 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  Thoughts on DPRK denuclearization summit? Seems like a long putt, but a lot better path than anyone else has given us. Are the name tags at the table going to be "Dotard" and "RocketMan"? I can't wait for the memes to come out.

If anything the "We came, we saw, we killed" foreign policy of Clinton provided motivation for DPRK to continue their weapons program.

If he can pull it off, I'll give him credit.
As someone noted this morning, all three parties want peace.

So, in contrast to DACA or gun control, he may be hearing a more unified message.

Maybe everyone can have a vanity nametag.

(03-09-2018 09:21 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 12:59 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  Thoughts on DPRK denuclearization summit? Seems like a long putt, but a lot better path than anyone else has given us. Are the name tags at the table going to be "Dotard" and "RocketMan"? I can't wait for the memes to come out.

If anything the "We came, we saw, we killed" foreign policy of Clinton provided motivation for DPRK to continue their weapons program.

If he can pull it off, I'll give him credit.
As someone noted this morning, all three parties want peace.

So, in contrast to DACA or gun control, he may be hearing a more unified message.

Maybe everyone can have a vanity nametag.

I think more than just those three want peace.

I will wait and see.

I hope Dennis Rodman comes along for the trip.

Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.