(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?