(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?