(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?