Points about Caravan nobody is talking about.......
Nov 7, 2018 22:04:43 #
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Oh; I hadn't heard that. br br So, then, one of t... (show quote)
I'm sad our flag doesnt mean anything to you. Because it means everything that this great country try stands for to me!
Nov 8, 2018 16:27:34 #
[quote=Smedley_buzkill] As for "gaming the system," your statement that US citizens do it is a little disingenuous. US citizens, 'nuff said. [end quote]
You've obviously missed my point about that, which is that "gaming the system" is not a behavior particular to non-citizens. So if non-citizens are found doing it, it doesn't mean much about them, because so many other groups do the same kinds of things. And (moreover) this "so many other groups" includes a lot of citizens, which also goes to show that citizens aren't much (if at all) better in this respect than those they deride for the same kind of behavior!
And I may have missed _your_ point about it, if you really had one, so you'd have to be more clear about it than just to say " 'nuff said " and use italics on the word "citizens", if you want to get that point across to me.
I can guess that somebody might try to make the case that non-citizens game the system _more_, or in _worse_ ways, than citizens do. I'm not yet convinced that it is true. Thus far, I'm more concerned about what some citizens are doing, which is mass murders; and why they are doing it: what is the mentality that leads them to do it; is it the same mentality that makes people hate immigrants or people outside the shooter's own little ethnic bubble?
"Why is caring for a bunch of foreigners a moral imperative more important than taking care of our own first, especially when a goodly number of those are veterans who have service related disabilities?": It isn't. Respecting a person requesting asylum, at least until the request has been fully heard and evaluated, does not obviate taking care of veterans or other citizens. The fact that our society has failed to support some veterans does not imply we should deride or abuse foreigners. Rather, it just means we should do better for those veterans. You seem to be assuming that there's a zero-sum game about it: that if one group wins then another group has to lose an equivalent amount; and I would concede that there can be some economic tradeoffs like that; but to apply such a notion across the board is oversimplifying; there are ways we can treat asylum seekers a lot better than we are currently doing, without much (if any) adverse effect on veterans or other citizens.
You describe an "anchor baby" and food stamps. Well okay then, you could also have described my "anchor" exwife, a citizen, who really gamed the system right in front of my eyes; or you could have described all the other people on food stamps, with children. Plenty of economically stable people have spoken contemptuously of those who are on welfare. You could have more productively criticized the political leader who fans the flames of hatred which lead to mass shootings. _Yes_ I concede that there are some immigrants who take unfair advantage of the system.
I'm tired of the corrosive rhetoric like "anchor baby", as though that were how we should regard a child and its parents. There are other ways to state the necessary facts and motivations. There are some people, presumably, who deliberately give birth in the best place _and_ are illegal immigrants at the same time. They will not all have the same motivations. But even if they deliberately give birth _here_ to establish a foothold in the new country, I don't hold it against them as much as you do.
Jesus's mother Mary gave birth in a place that didn't belong to her; she was probably not an illegal alien, but that depends partly on luck regarding the whims of corrupt rulers who set the laws. We don't have to despise her for trespassing or freeloading to use the barn. Or, maybe we could spend a little time despising her & Joseph's "freeloading" status, but spend _more_ time and energy respecting them as people doing the best they can.
There are a lot of other immigrants, some of whom could have been illegal immigrants at one time, who contribute a lot to this society. In a few other posts or reply posts on onepoliticalplaza I've described my positive experience of immigrants. Recently you asked me a question in Spanish. It happens that my Spanish teacher was in immigrant, who probably resembled some of the illegal immigrants. When he arrived in the U.S., he didn't know any English and he washed dishes in Miami. He had been a judge in Cuba. He left Cuba in bad circumstances; from what I've heard from his story, I'd call him a political refugee. You could have called him an "anchor" immigrant, because he had a wife and child who could have immigrated later to join him.
So what; "anchor" or some other derogatory term for the unfortunate person who is struggling. What I call him is the best teacher I ever had, and that wasn't even about the Spanish.
His Spanish was very clear. I can still hear his memorable pronounciation and memorable phrases in Spanish, in my head, decades after I last saw him. But that's not what he was really about.
He wanted us to open our eyes to a greater part of the world. He thought I in particular was the most ethnocentric, narrow-minded person in the class, which could have been true, since I came from a small village, but I was irritated at his characterization of me and I finally stopped him one day by angrily saying "that's what you _think_" and then he finally stopped talking about me like that.
He never did learn really good English. He told me that he understood about 85% of what people said in English. From when he arrived in Miami knowing only Spanish, it took him three years to become a college instructor, teaching Spanish, in our English language environment in Kansas where I went to college. Hearing him say he did it in three years, I exclaimed, "Wow, you really did it fast!" And he replied, bitterly and angrily, "I _had_ to do it _fast_."
His classes were immersion environments, not in Spanish, but in his personality. He was passionate about what was going on in Latin America. I think he was sort of like Carmen Aguirre in the way she wrote her 2011 bestselling book Something Fierce: Memoirs of a Revolutionary Daughter. That's a "memoir of her childhood, spent moving around regularly with her parents, who were part of the Chilean Resistance against Augusto Pinochet".
Our teacher wanted us to be _aware_ of what was going on in Latin America and to not just accept the usual USA narratives about it.
In class, he would typically start off with something in Spanish, but by the end of the class period each day he would often be talking about some social movement or something happening in Latin America or some injustice being done to some minority and how society reacts to that. I could not keep up with him and after class each day I could not remember whether he had been talking in Spanish or English (I think most of it was in English -- that he abandoned the teaching of Spanish about midway through the hour and devoted himself and us to the social justice topic of the day); it didn't seem to make any difference which language it was; the thing that seemed to matter was the _topic_ he was talking about and how passionate he was about it.
I didn't learn as much awareness as he wanted me to, about Latin America. (I had enough other experience, that _he_ didn't know much about.) After a few decades passed, I have finally come to understand Latin America more like he described it.
He was one person who knew a lot about Latin America, and the U.S. role in Latin America, and being an immigrant, and social justice, and U.S. lack of awareness.
Here is what he had to say, to us USA people; and he said it with a fine angry sarcasm: "We don't want your money."
* * *
What I do not concede is that we should disrespect a whole caravan en masse without understanding them.
It is not _they_ who are doing mass shootings.
It is not _they_ who are secretively overthrowing _our_ government.
* * *
Are we to presume that one set of people has to be fully satisfied before we can stop hating another? No. I'm not asking for too much: respect for immigrants and hearing cases before judging cases. You've made the valid point that it's difficult; I'm saying that it's not hard to do _better_ than what the Trump administration does regarding the caravan; the Trump administration's behavior is rooted, in large part, in a disrespect of people, and if you doubt that, you can just listen to or read what he says about all kinds of people including but not limited to the caravan.
You quote a law about executive power to refuse immigrants. Fine. I heard about some other law that says the U.S. has to consider asylum requests. Now about this law that you are bringing up, what I say is that just because he's legally _can_ to do a thing doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.
(
To wit: My landlord gave me a seven-day courtesy notice, out of the blue, and just before I left with my family on a four-day weekend. This courtesy notice asked me to re-landscape most of my yard, paint my house, and repair or replace the skirting around the whole house, and do it all in seven days. And I couldn't afford to hire it done because I was in the middle of retiring and I knew it would be several months before my financial situation would stabilize, and I didn't have the necessary 6,000 spare dollars to pay for all that (even if it had been even theoretically possible to set up the just the initial estimating appointments in the mere seven-day period of the "request"). (And, by the way, my house already looked better than some of the other houses around in the same mobile home park, even _after_ they'd been painted.) I explained this in a letter but the landlord told me that landlords legally can give seven-day notices. I replied: Just because you _can_ do it doesn't mean it's a good idea! They later threatened me with eviction. That's how they treat tenants.
)
Now if Trump wants to exercise some law like the one you're referencing, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, even if it's legal. What about all the other laws that he cares less about? What about the law that says the U.S.has to consider (hear & evaluate) asylum requests?
You also list some times when other presidents used the law you reference. My Iranian office-mate and several of my students might have had to leave before completing their degrees, I suppose, depending on some technicality about their Visas, but mainly depending on when the President chooses to exercise such a law. Carter (the president just before I entered grad school) has always been one of my favorite presidents, but I probably would have disagreed with his position about this item, if I'd been aware of it. What I was aware of was going into a bar with my office-mate one evening and seeing a sign prominently displayed at the cash register saying F*ck Iran. It's like another time I was out in a restaurant with a friend and some people at another table were loudly despising gay people in general; my friend had two gay children; I'm glad they didn't happen to be there while this was going on. It's _like_ this other time, I say, because what it means to me, foremost, is the xenophobic attitude that leads some people to behave with unnecessary hatred and spread as much discomfort and misery as they can. That was _also_ my experience growing up in the little village in the middle of the USA where everybody was white, legal USA citizens. Boy am I glad I escaped from that place. My experiences in colleges and cities and universities, where there's a greater mix of different kinds of people and many immigrants, has always been better than my experience of high school among white legal USA citizens.
So Trump has this law (which you cite) and maybe _this_ one is the law that he decides to respect -- the kind of law that says he can do whatever he wants to do, basically. Then we will see how it plays out. There would probably be some court case about it soon afterward, to determine how a couple of possibly mutually-conflicting laws (the one you mentioned and the one I mentioned) shall be evaluated. I hope that in the current situation Trump does not exercise the option in the law that you cite. My modest hope is that the law which says asylum requests shall be considered will be honored, both in _spirit_ and literally. It would be wise to do so. Truly unworthy asylum requests, or even just those without sufficient justification in them, can always be refused with honor (that is, the Trump Administration would be seen as honorable because they did the honorable thing, which was to hear first and judge second, and fairly). Of course it gets more difficult the longer the Trump Administration denies it has any responsibility to prepare to consider the asylum requests.
Here I'm sometimes described as a "defender" of immigrants and of illegal immigrants; and maybe that's partly true, that I defend their character or their circumstances, in how I write. But even that is not my main purpose in this topic:
I agree that some people have broken laws, and I also agree that laws may have to be enforced, and I even agree that probably some illegal immigrants are bad influences, dangerous, and/or are freeloading too much. But I disagree with almost everyone here in the attitude and the degree of concern about these things.
To me the immigrants, including a lot of illegal immigrants whom I haven't actually met, and including the people in the caravan, are people first and have various legal statuses second.
What I see around me in onepoliticalplaza is mostly an overblown despising of illegal immigrants and of immigrants who in any way resemble illegal immigrants or who might someday become illegal immigrants (like some of the people in the cavavan might). To me the caravan's significance is primarily its statement or statements, secondly the good value its people might bring into this country (as with almost all the many immigrants I've been acquainted with), and only thirdly the detrimental effects they may have on the U.S.
I cannot address all your points in detail. It looks like you have done some research that I don't know how to do. I've been thinking of going back to school to maybe get smarter. I never did learn much about doing research, even though I did go to graduate school. Last night I listened to a friend, who happens to be an immigrant, and _she_ is concerned about the danger of some illegal immigrants. Also she thinks they freeload too much. (It is not surprising that she would think that, because she herself freeloads too much, and she probably assumes other people are like her.) I sat and listened for at least ten minutes without saying much, and then it was time to go, so I left. I think maybe I need to learn how to do research and then I will be able to argue in a different way.
You've obviously missed my point about that, which is that "gaming the system" is not a behavior particular to non-citizens. So if non-citizens are found doing it, it doesn't mean much about them, because so many other groups do the same kinds of things. And (moreover) this "so many other groups" includes a lot of citizens, which also goes to show that citizens aren't much (if at all) better in this respect than those they deride for the same kind of behavior!
And I may have missed _your_ point about it, if you really had one, so you'd have to be more clear about it than just to say " 'nuff said " and use italics on the word "citizens", if you want to get that point across to me.
I can guess that somebody might try to make the case that non-citizens game the system _more_, or in _worse_ ways, than citizens do. I'm not yet convinced that it is true. Thus far, I'm more concerned about what some citizens are doing, which is mass murders; and why they are doing it: what is the mentality that leads them to do it; is it the same mentality that makes people hate immigrants or people outside the shooter's own little ethnic bubble?
"Why is caring for a bunch of foreigners a moral imperative more important than taking care of our own first, especially when a goodly number of those are veterans who have service related disabilities?": It isn't. Respecting a person requesting asylum, at least until the request has been fully heard and evaluated, does not obviate taking care of veterans or other citizens. The fact that our society has failed to support some veterans does not imply we should deride or abuse foreigners. Rather, it just means we should do better for those veterans. You seem to be assuming that there's a zero-sum game about it: that if one group wins then another group has to lose an equivalent amount; and I would concede that there can be some economic tradeoffs like that; but to apply such a notion across the board is oversimplifying; there are ways we can treat asylum seekers a lot better than we are currently doing, without much (if any) adverse effect on veterans or other citizens.
You describe an "anchor baby" and food stamps. Well okay then, you could also have described my "anchor" exwife, a citizen, who really gamed the system right in front of my eyes; or you could have described all the other people on food stamps, with children. Plenty of economically stable people have spoken contemptuously of those who are on welfare. You could have more productively criticized the political leader who fans the flames of hatred which lead to mass shootings. _Yes_ I concede that there are some immigrants who take unfair advantage of the system.
I'm tired of the corrosive rhetoric like "anchor baby", as though that were how we should regard a child and its parents. There are other ways to state the necessary facts and motivations. There are some people, presumably, who deliberately give birth in the best place _and_ are illegal immigrants at the same time. They will not all have the same motivations. But even if they deliberately give birth _here_ to establish a foothold in the new country, I don't hold it against them as much as you do.
Jesus's mother Mary gave birth in a place that didn't belong to her; she was probably not an illegal alien, but that depends partly on luck regarding the whims of corrupt rulers who set the laws. We don't have to despise her for trespassing or freeloading to use the barn. Or, maybe we could spend a little time despising her & Joseph's "freeloading" status, but spend _more_ time and energy respecting them as people doing the best they can.
There are a lot of other immigrants, some of whom could have been illegal immigrants at one time, who contribute a lot to this society. In a few other posts or reply posts on onepoliticalplaza I've described my positive experience of immigrants. Recently you asked me a question in Spanish. It happens that my Spanish teacher was in immigrant, who probably resembled some of the illegal immigrants. When he arrived in the U.S., he didn't know any English and he washed dishes in Miami. He had been a judge in Cuba. He left Cuba in bad circumstances; from what I've heard from his story, I'd call him a political refugee. You could have called him an "anchor" immigrant, because he had a wife and child who could have immigrated later to join him.
So what; "anchor" or some other derogatory term for the unfortunate person who is struggling. What I call him is the best teacher I ever had, and that wasn't even about the Spanish.
His Spanish was very clear. I can still hear his memorable pronounciation and memorable phrases in Spanish, in my head, decades after I last saw him. But that's not what he was really about.
He wanted us to open our eyes to a greater part of the world. He thought I in particular was the most ethnocentric, narrow-minded person in the class, which could have been true, since I came from a small village, but I was irritated at his characterization of me and I finally stopped him one day by angrily saying "that's what you _think_" and then he finally stopped talking about me like that.
He never did learn really good English. He told me that he understood about 85% of what people said in English. From when he arrived in Miami knowing only Spanish, it took him three years to become a college instructor, teaching Spanish, in our English language environment in Kansas where I went to college. Hearing him say he did it in three years, I exclaimed, "Wow, you really did it fast!" And he replied, bitterly and angrily, "I _had_ to do it _fast_."
His classes were immersion environments, not in Spanish, but in his personality. He was passionate about what was going on in Latin America. I think he was sort of like Carmen Aguirre in the way she wrote her 2011 bestselling book Something Fierce: Memoirs of a Revolutionary Daughter. That's a "memoir of her childhood, spent moving around regularly with her parents, who were part of the Chilean Resistance against Augusto Pinochet".
Our teacher wanted us to be _aware_ of what was going on in Latin America and to not just accept the usual USA narratives about it.
In class, he would typically start off with something in Spanish, but by the end of the class period each day he would often be talking about some social movement or something happening in Latin America or some injustice being done to some minority and how society reacts to that. I could not keep up with him and after class each day I could not remember whether he had been talking in Spanish or English (I think most of it was in English -- that he abandoned the teaching of Spanish about midway through the hour and devoted himself and us to the social justice topic of the day); it didn't seem to make any difference which language it was; the thing that seemed to matter was the _topic_ he was talking about and how passionate he was about it.
I didn't learn as much awareness as he wanted me to, about Latin America. (I had enough other experience, that _he_ didn't know much about.) After a few decades passed, I have finally come to understand Latin America more like he described it.
He was one person who knew a lot about Latin America, and the U.S. role in Latin America, and being an immigrant, and social justice, and U.S. lack of awareness.
Here is what he had to say, to us USA people; and he said it with a fine angry sarcasm: "We don't want your money."
* * *
What I do not concede is that we should disrespect a whole caravan en masse without understanding them.
It is not _they_ who are doing mass shootings.
It is not _they_ who are secretively overthrowing _our_ government.
* * *
Are we to presume that one set of people has to be fully satisfied before we can stop hating another? No. I'm not asking for too much: respect for immigrants and hearing cases before judging cases. You've made the valid point that it's difficult; I'm saying that it's not hard to do _better_ than what the Trump administration does regarding the caravan; the Trump administration's behavior is rooted, in large part, in a disrespect of people, and if you doubt that, you can just listen to or read what he says about all kinds of people including but not limited to the caravan.
You quote a law about executive power to refuse immigrants. Fine. I heard about some other law that says the U.S. has to consider asylum requests. Now about this law that you are bringing up, what I say is that just because he's legally _can_ to do a thing doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.
(
To wit: My landlord gave me a seven-day courtesy notice, out of the blue, and just before I left with my family on a four-day weekend. This courtesy notice asked me to re-landscape most of my yard, paint my house, and repair or replace the skirting around the whole house, and do it all in seven days. And I couldn't afford to hire it done because I was in the middle of retiring and I knew it would be several months before my financial situation would stabilize, and I didn't have the necessary 6,000 spare dollars to pay for all that (even if it had been even theoretically possible to set up the just the initial estimating appointments in the mere seven-day period of the "request"). (And, by the way, my house already looked better than some of the other houses around in the same mobile home park, even _after_ they'd been painted.) I explained this in a letter but the landlord told me that landlords legally can give seven-day notices. I replied: Just because you _can_ do it doesn't mean it's a good idea! They later threatened me with eviction. That's how they treat tenants.
)
Now if Trump wants to exercise some law like the one you're referencing, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, even if it's legal. What about all the other laws that he cares less about? What about the law that says the U.S.has to consider (hear & evaluate) asylum requests?
You also list some times when other presidents used the law you reference. My Iranian office-mate and several of my students might have had to leave before completing their degrees, I suppose, depending on some technicality about their Visas, but mainly depending on when the President chooses to exercise such a law. Carter (the president just before I entered grad school) has always been one of my favorite presidents, but I probably would have disagreed with his position about this item, if I'd been aware of it. What I was aware of was going into a bar with my office-mate one evening and seeing a sign prominently displayed at the cash register saying F*ck Iran. It's like another time I was out in a restaurant with a friend and some people at another table were loudly despising gay people in general; my friend had two gay children; I'm glad they didn't happen to be there while this was going on. It's _like_ this other time, I say, because what it means to me, foremost, is the xenophobic attitude that leads some people to behave with unnecessary hatred and spread as much discomfort and misery as they can. That was _also_ my experience growing up in the little village in the middle of the USA where everybody was white, legal USA citizens. Boy am I glad I escaped from that place. My experiences in colleges and cities and universities, where there's a greater mix of different kinds of people and many immigrants, has always been better than my experience of high school among white legal USA citizens.
So Trump has this law (which you cite) and maybe _this_ one is the law that he decides to respect -- the kind of law that says he can do whatever he wants to do, basically. Then we will see how it plays out. There would probably be some court case about it soon afterward, to determine how a couple of possibly mutually-conflicting laws (the one you mentioned and the one I mentioned) shall be evaluated. I hope that in the current situation Trump does not exercise the option in the law that you cite. My modest hope is that the law which says asylum requests shall be considered will be honored, both in _spirit_ and literally. It would be wise to do so. Truly unworthy asylum requests, or even just those without sufficient justification in them, can always be refused with honor (that is, the Trump Administration would be seen as honorable because they did the honorable thing, which was to hear first and judge second, and fairly). Of course it gets more difficult the longer the Trump Administration denies it has any responsibility to prepare to consider the asylum requests.
Here I'm sometimes described as a "defender" of immigrants and of illegal immigrants; and maybe that's partly true, that I defend their character or their circumstances, in how I write. But even that is not my main purpose in this topic:
I agree that some people have broken laws, and I also agree that laws may have to be enforced, and I even agree that probably some illegal immigrants are bad influences, dangerous, and/or are freeloading too much. But I disagree with almost everyone here in the attitude and the degree of concern about these things.
To me the immigrants, including a lot of illegal immigrants whom I haven't actually met, and including the people in the caravan, are people first and have various legal statuses second.
What I see around me in onepoliticalplaza is mostly an overblown despising of illegal immigrants and of immigrants who in any way resemble illegal immigrants or who might someday become illegal immigrants (like some of the people in the cavavan might). To me the caravan's significance is primarily its statement or statements, secondly the good value its people might bring into this country (as with almost all the many immigrants I've been acquainted with), and only thirdly the detrimental effects they may have on the U.S.
I cannot address all your points in detail. It looks like you have done some research that I don't know how to do. I've been thinking of going back to school to maybe get smarter. I never did learn much about doing research, even though I did go to graduate school. Last night I listened to a friend, who happens to be an immigrant, and _she_ is concerned about the danger of some illegal immigrants. Also she thinks they freeload too much. (It is not surprising that she would think that, because she herself freeloads too much, and she probably assumes other people are like her.) I sat and listened for at least ten minutes without saying much, and then it was time to go, so I left. I think maybe I need to learn how to do research and then I will be able to argue in a different way.
Nov 8, 2018 17:09:22 #
Comment
Loc: California
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Even for you, that one was over the top. You shoul... (show quote)
outstanding post.
Check out topic: USA: CDC admits killing 1.2 Million during Covid Scam
Nov 8, 2018 19:09:04 #
When I describe "anchor babies" I am referring to the hordes of wetbacks, (YES, WETBACKS, as opposed to those people who respect our laws and wish to immigrate in the lawful manner;) who sneak across our sieve-like border with their already preggers esposa, amiga, or rent-a-puta in tow, to give birth to a SNAP card and all sorts of benefits. You seem to never tire of the "obligations" the US has to hear mountains of asylum claims by people who are almost all ineligible.
The Social Security Administration and the IRS have stated that there are currently well over a million illegals in this country who are using stolen ID's. Stolen from US citizens. This is a felony. It is a real crime with real victims; me being one of them. It is a felony for an illegal to possess a fraudulent ID in this country. It is another felony if they use that ID to obtain employment or benefits. For that matter, it is a felony for an illegal to work a job in which taxes are taken out of his or her paycheck.
You advocate a kinder, gentler way of dealing with trespassing criminals. They know they are committing crimes, but they depend on our overwhelmed system to escape answering for them.Contrary to what some claim, sneaking into this country is a serious misdemeanor the first time, and if you are removed and sneak in again it is a felony.
What is it you wish? For us to just dissolve the border and let in anyone who cares to come, while Mexico and Central America maintain their own sovereignty?
How about if I set up a tent in your backyard and declare I live there now whether you like it or not, and any children I father while I am trespassing on your property are automatic citizens of your backyard? Oh, yes, and since I had my own little meal ticket, I get housing assistance, financial assistance, food stamps and my little darling anchor babies qualify for all sorts of freebies that are denied to US citizens?
The Social Security Administration and the IRS have stated that there are currently well over a million illegals in this country who are using stolen ID's. Stolen from US citizens. This is a felony. It is a real crime with real victims; me being one of them. It is a felony for an illegal to possess a fraudulent ID in this country. It is another felony if they use that ID to obtain employment or benefits. For that matter, it is a felony for an illegal to work a job in which taxes are taken out of his or her paycheck.
You advocate a kinder, gentler way of dealing with trespassing criminals. They know they are committing crimes, but they depend on our overwhelmed system to escape answering for them.Contrary to what some claim, sneaking into this country is a serious misdemeanor the first time, and if you are removed and sneak in again it is a felony.
What is it you wish? For us to just dissolve the border and let in anyone who cares to come, while Mexico and Central America maintain their own sovereignty?
How about if I set up a tent in your backyard and declare I live there now whether you like it or not, and any children I father while I am trespassing on your property are automatic citizens of your backyard? Oh, yes, and since I had my own little meal ticket, I get housing assistance, financial assistance, food stamps and my little darling anchor babies qualify for all sorts of freebies that are denied to US citizens?
Nov 8, 2018 19:21:33 #
Replying to Mr. Correspondent:
Every argument like your rather long winded one amounts to your saying that we should just open our borders, "come one, come all," to anyone who wants to come into this country, and to hell with whatever befalls those born here and those here legally.
One of thez things that define a country and its sovereignty is it's borders, and it's ability to control who crosses them and who doesn't.
Personally, I prefer living in a real country, as opposed to some vague no man's land like what you seem to prefer America to become.
Every argument like your rather long winded one amounts to your saying that we should just open our borders, "come one, come all," to anyone who wants to come into this country, and to hell with whatever befalls those born here and those here legally.
One of thez things that define a country and its sovereignty is it's borders, and it's ability to control who crosses them and who doesn't.
Personally, I prefer living in a real country, as opposed to some vague no man's land like what you seem to prefer America to become.
Nov 9, 2018 15:54:40 #
"saying that we should just open our borders"
No; there's a difference between hearing an asylum request, which is a legal process, on the one hand, and "just opening our borders" on the other hand.
It is true that I don't care as much (or in just the same way) about borders as the other commentators do. That doesn't mean I would do something irresponsible or rash about it.
You and the others are conflating too much. The purpose of hearing asylum requests is to distinguish one thing from another.
No; there's a difference between hearing an asylum request, which is a legal process, on the one hand, and "just opening our borders" on the other hand.
It is true that I don't care as much (or in just the same way) about borders as the other commentators do. That doesn't mean I would do something irresponsible or rash about it.
You and the others are conflating too much. The purpose of hearing asylum requests is to distinguish one thing from another.
Seth wrote:
Replying to Mr. Correspondent: br br Every argume... (show quote)
Nov 9, 2018 15:59:53 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
"saying that we should just open our borders&... (show quote)
If they come from Point of Entry they will be heard for asylum,but illegal entry....game over!!!1
Nov 9, 2018 16:48:54 #
"You advocate a kinder, gentler way of dealing with trespassing criminals."
That would be kinder and gentler than you do, anyway.
But it's not my main point; rather, I advocate a nonjudgmental attitude, and a reasonable, legal process regarding those who come to the border to request a legal process. Hear each case first, before judging it. Those are people who haven't committed any crime. They haven't tresspassed either.
You are conflating two sets of people, one set who has committed crimes and the other set who hasn't.
There _are_ lots of worthy immigrants. One who comes with a legal request deserves to be heard respectfully.
When you convict a criminal, then you can more rightly say bad things about that person, although I might not say so many of them as you do. Even then there's no reason to slur a whole large group of people because of what _some_ people who resemble them in some way did.
The hostile attitude toward a large group such as the caravan is particularly hard to take, for one who believes, as I do according to what I've read & heard, that the U.S. is doing a lot of illegal meddling in those people's homelands, overthrowing democratically elected governments and fostering violence. How much one knows about it depends on one's sources of news. The Iran-Contra affair is just the handy example of such operations.
Since you think and feel as you do, it would make sense for you to work to get the law changed so that the U.S. does not have such an obligation to hear asylum requests. The people who made the existing law, that the U.S. should hear them, had a different idea than what you have.
You mentioned a different law that would allow Trump to do something else. If the laws conflict then there will probably be some court case(s) about it.
My imperfect long post has a line worth repeating: "We don't want your money." I suspect that most people who come from Latin America to become immigrants in the USA are like most immigrants I've seen: hardworking people, not looking for charity nor to cheat anybody. You are thinking about your money. They are not interested in your money. They want to work honorably.
And by the way, regarding when some of them _do_ get some of your tax money in benefits: I have received charitable things, not called charity, but still more than I was owed at the time, in some parts of my life. I've given back, at other times and in other ways. I don't begrudge other people being helped the same way I was helped. Sometimes I did not like being helped, but I had to accept it because I needed it. I say these things now, because I am not just describing myself; I am describing how many people are and how they feel. You might discard all this and say the people in the caravan are not worth any respect, but you'd be wrong.
There's plenty of room for guarding the border and guarding against crime without stereotyping and slurring a whole class of people.
That would be kinder and gentler than you do, anyway.
But it's not my main point; rather, I advocate a nonjudgmental attitude, and a reasonable, legal process regarding those who come to the border to request a legal process. Hear each case first, before judging it. Those are people who haven't committed any crime. They haven't tresspassed either.
You are conflating two sets of people, one set who has committed crimes and the other set who hasn't.
There _are_ lots of worthy immigrants. One who comes with a legal request deserves to be heard respectfully.
When you convict a criminal, then you can more rightly say bad things about that person, although I might not say so many of them as you do. Even then there's no reason to slur a whole large group of people because of what _some_ people who resemble them in some way did.
The hostile attitude toward a large group such as the caravan is particularly hard to take, for one who believes, as I do according to what I've read & heard, that the U.S. is doing a lot of illegal meddling in those people's homelands, overthrowing democratically elected governments and fostering violence. How much one knows about it depends on one's sources of news. The Iran-Contra affair is just the handy example of such operations.
Since you think and feel as you do, it would make sense for you to work to get the law changed so that the U.S. does not have such an obligation to hear asylum requests. The people who made the existing law, that the U.S. should hear them, had a different idea than what you have.
You mentioned a different law that would allow Trump to do something else. If the laws conflict then there will probably be some court case(s) about it.
My imperfect long post has a line worth repeating: "We don't want your money." I suspect that most people who come from Latin America to become immigrants in the USA are like most immigrants I've seen: hardworking people, not looking for charity nor to cheat anybody. You are thinking about your money. They are not interested in your money. They want to work honorably.
And by the way, regarding when some of them _do_ get some of your tax money in benefits: I have received charitable things, not called charity, but still more than I was owed at the time, in some parts of my life. I've given back, at other times and in other ways. I don't begrudge other people being helped the same way I was helped. Sometimes I did not like being helped, but I had to accept it because I needed it. I say these things now, because I am not just describing myself; I am describing how many people are and how they feel. You might discard all this and say the people in the caravan are not worth any respect, but you'd be wrong.
There's plenty of room for guarding the border and guarding against crime without stereotyping and slurring a whole class of people.
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
When I describe "anchor babies" I am ref... (show quote)
Nov 9, 2018 17:17:54 #
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
"saying that we should just open our borders&... (show quote)
The only reason for a "caravan" such as the one in topic and for so many sneaking across our border or outstaying visas is the message they receive from liberal politicians that there are safe zones (sanctuary cities) in our country, meaning that our FEDERAL immigration policies are not homogeneously applied, and the only reason that "anchor babies" have become legion here is because, again, they receive mixed messages from our politicians depending upon their respective geographic subdivisions within the United States.
Unless liberal politicians begin to comprehend the meaning of the term "federal law" this will not cease.
Nov 11, 2018 20:11:44 #
I find that I cannot edit my post; too much time has passed so the system doesn't allow the editting.
I want to clarify a few things here, for the record.
(I had written a careless and ambiguous paragraph. This is just brushing up a few details that were in it. My clarification may not matter to anyone else, but it matters to me! I like to say clearly what I mean and not be misinterpreted.)
(My purpose of the original paragraph was not argumentative; I was just freely narrating a frustrating experience of having to listen to something I didn't want to hear.)
In my last paragraph of a post a few days ago, I mentioned that a friend was concerned about the danger of "some illegal immigrants". It's unlikely she knows whether they are illegal or not (or even exactly immigrants).
It's likely there really is some danger in the place she's talking about (a neighborhood about 30 miles from here), and that some of the people involved are children of immigrants. I wouldn't spend much energy on that though, because I've found that children of non-immigrants behave as badly, and that a vast number of children of immigrants don't.
She is an immigrant but not the same kind; she's from a completely different part of the world from what they'd be.
I also mentioned:
(a) that she thinks they freeload too much. This probably doesn't have much basis in fact, if any -- she would easily say such a thing carelessly without factual basis.
And:
(b) that I find she does (I should have said, _did_ for a while in the past) freeload too much and is probably projecting what she is onto them. This (b) about her does have basis in fact but doesn't have much, if anything, to do with immigrant status -- besides which, she has _also_ worked very hard and has also been a positive contributor to the community.
I am reducing my time here, for a while, and have stopped reading the replies.
I want to clarify a few things here, for the record.
(I had written a careless and ambiguous paragraph. This is just brushing up a few details that were in it. My clarification may not matter to anyone else, but it matters to me! I like to say clearly what I mean and not be misinterpreted.)
(My purpose of the original paragraph was not argumentative; I was just freely narrating a frustrating experience of having to listen to something I didn't want to hear.)
In my last paragraph of a post a few days ago, I mentioned that a friend was concerned about the danger of "some illegal immigrants". It's unlikely she knows whether they are illegal or not (or even exactly immigrants).
It's likely there really is some danger in the place she's talking about (a neighborhood about 30 miles from here), and that some of the people involved are children of immigrants. I wouldn't spend much energy on that though, because I've found that children of non-immigrants behave as badly, and that a vast number of children of immigrants don't.
She is an immigrant but not the same kind; she's from a completely different part of the world from what they'd be.
I also mentioned:
(a) that she thinks they freeload too much. This probably doesn't have much basis in fact, if any -- she would easily say such a thing carelessly without factual basis.
And:
(b) that I find she does (I should have said, _did_ for a while in the past) freeload too much and is probably projecting what she is onto them. This (b) about her does have basis in fact but doesn't have much, if anything, to do with immigrant status -- besides which, she has _also_ worked very hard and has also been a positive contributor to the community.
I am reducing my time here, for a while, and have stopped reading the replies.
Nov 26, 2018 21:38:39 #
proud republican wrote:
Diseases that these migrants may bring...Nobody is... (show quote)
If you are worried about a little ole disease like TB or Polio or any of the other of a hosts of 3rd world diseases then you must be a raciest.
Check out topic: Due to inflation...
Nov 26, 2018 21:53:18 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
Hogback wrote:
If you are worried about a little ole disease like TB or Polio or any of the other of a hosts of 3rd world diseases then you must be a raciest.
Oh well!!!
Nov 26, 2018 22:28:02 #
Hogback wrote:
If you are worried about a little ole disease like TB or Polio or any of the other of a hosts of 3rd world diseases then you must be a raciest.
They can shove their repetitive word "racist". I'm sick of it!.
Nov 26, 2018 23:36:49 #
kankune wrote:
They can shove their repetitive word "racist". I'm sick of it!.
There is no escape from being a "something."
RACIST if you didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012, or if today you are alarmed at the concept of thousands of unvetted illegals from a number of foreign countries, among them criminals and possible carriers of diseases we have eradicated here, that they might bring back.
ISLAMOPHOBE if you have concerns about taking in 100,000 or so refugees from terrorism exporting countries, and having seen the gang rapes, violent attacks on Jews and other "infidels, no-go zones, vandalism, enormous social services costs and crime these "refugees" have piled on in Europe, are skeptical about inviting the same problems into the United States (sharing the European Experience©).
FACIST if you prefer limited government, low taxes, the rule of law, a strong and well cared for military, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to worship without the government penalizing you for refusing to violate the tenets of your religion.
*Unless you are a hardcore left winger, it is inevitable that you fall into one or more of these categories.
Nov 27, 2018 09:07:19 #
kankune wrote:
They can shove their repetitive word "racist". I'm sick of it!.
No, you have it all wrong. When a Liberal says racist, he or she pronounces it RAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIST!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.