Why do you support #MexicanPrivilege ?

a reply to: Puppylove

That helps no one and hurts everyone. By having a strong border, yeah people have to wait, but at least those that do get to move somewhere better, and not somewhere their problems are following them.

I do agree but the first thing that needs to be done and no one seems to talk about it creating an efficient system for the applicants who want to come in. I know someone whose Family applied and after filling out forms and going through hell waiting many years, the whole application was "lost'. The immigration methods and the time it takes is ridiculous and some give up take the illegal route out of frustration. Especially considering if they hide long enough here amnesty happens

You see many would die before they got in if they waited!

The waiting times in the family categories range from 19 months to 33 years. The waits in the employment categories range from none to just over 11 years.

More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 percent) are citizens of Mexico, and the wait for them is just over 18 years.

cis.org...

a reply to: Puppylove

Here's the problem with that, if we open the doors wide open and let everyone trying to escape in, along with the very people predating on them, since no way to sort them from your escapees, we suddenly become exactly the same as the very place they ran from.

That's a complete non sequitur. Starting in the mid-19th Century, we had a massive influx of immigrants from Germany and other European countries. The last of my ancestors arrived in this country in 1853 (third great-grandparents) from a small village near Baden-Baden. What's particularly interesting is that they were literally sent here like a lot of other German immigrants. Following three years of crop failures, their village took a collection to pay for passage to America for what ultimately grew to be about 25% of the population.

These were dirt poor farmers who didn't speak a word of English.

Despite the fact that due to this influx, German became the most common ancestry group in the United States and as Donald Trump would say — "they didn't send the best" (and these immigrants were actually SENT in many cases) — the US didn't magically become Germany any more than it became Ireland due to the arrival of Irish immigrants (the third most common ancestry in the US).

While I'm sure you're not doing it deliberately, you're essentially implying that there's something fundamentally different about these more recent immigrants from Latin America that is responsible for the conditions in their countries of origin.

Frankly, it's just nonsense that people pick up from nativist rhetoric and believe to be true. You'd think we would have gotten past this at some point since it's been the same old song and dance whenever any immigrant group arrived in significant numbers and the nativist rhetoric has always been proven wholly false by history.

originally posted by: Grambler
First, Obama has vowed to veto any crackdown on sanctuary cities.

www.washingtontimes.com...

You may have missed it, but I did acknowledge earlier in one of my responses that Obama was allowing this to go on. I've just been speaking hypothetically since then.

And second my point is he did the action with Dreamers, why couldn't he come up with an action to end sanctuary cities.

But we both agree, congress is too blame also.

I just don't think it is so simple. We'll leave it at that. I guess. Plus like you said, he is still on the side of them existing.

Ridiculous, these agents know what the administration is telling them. So now i am just to believe that the very people that are emplyed to control the border do not know how the policies work. They know Obama's administration has asked them to let people go and not arrst them in the first place, and this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS ruling just said that overcrowded prisons weren't allowed, it was the Obama administration that said to stop arresting illegals. They chose the target of who not to arrest.

Well yeah, SCOTUS made the ruling and it is up to Obama to make sure it is carried out correctly. That is our judicial and executive branches in action.

Also, why has Obama wasted money then on the border patrol increaes if he knows the SCOTUS won't let him enforce the law?

Maybe because the prisons aren't overcrowded around the country and only in certain parts of the country, like California? I really don't know. Maybe he started increasing boarder patrols before the SCOTUS decision. That's the problem with government compartmentalism. You try to do something within government and another compartment within it appears to be working against your interests so you have to adapt and change. It happens all the time.

Imprisoning people costs much more money. Should we not arrest anyone then, because it costs money? This also runs counter to the argument you made about the child immigrants. So apparently according to this logic, they do know they can stay if they come, because we don't want to waste money deporting them.

All I'm saying is that it is a cluster# right now. We are doing what we can. We arrest all we can, probably keep the worst offenders (that we are aware of), and release the ones we think are harmless. Sure some bad eggs probably slip through the cracks, because nothing is perfect, but at the end of the day you can only do all you can with the resources available.

It appears you are questioning my rhetoric because reality is saying we don't have the resources to carry out what the right wing wants carried out. There is nothing I can do about that.

That fine you dont care. But then don't come on here yelling that the very people that are being called racist for their stance won't compromise. You lose all credibility on that front.

I don't care who calls me any name. My point is that I want to have a real discussion about these serious problems. When one of the two people running for president, and a huge portion of her party and the MSM calls anyone who wants to have any deportations a racist, how can the problem ever be solved. It is a way of silencing debate, which supposedly you are all for. Yet you come on here criticizing the right for not compromising, all the while ignoring that the are silenced before they even begin by accusations of racism.

I am not talking about internet chat people or trolls, I am talking about people with political power silencing anyone who disagrees with them by shouting racism.

As far as my side I guess you mean conservatives. I do condemn personal attacks, especially if they are used to avoid discussing issues. Give me an example of a Republican politician shouting racism to refuse to debate an issue. When you find one, I will condemn it.

You however will not condemn it from your side, and instead demand that the right compromise with people that call them racist.

Dude. I've spent the entirety of Trump's campaign frustrated because I haven't had a serious conversation the level we are having currently with any of them previously. Most Trump supporters shout any resistance down with hyperbole and slurs. If you can't see this going on, then I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason I've curtailed my participation on these forums within the last year. It's because the quality of discussions has seriously gone downhill in direct correlation with the start of Trump's campaign.

PS: Anyone with any political power who thinks they are silenced by someone calling them a name like racist is a weeny and needs to grow some thicker skin. Political discourse does get nasty and insults shouldn't silence you.

I don't disagree we can nuanced discussions. However, there will always be struggling countries, no matter how hard we try. Neocons try to fix these countries all of the time, like Afghanistan, and it doesn't work out. That is why we need a solution to getting rid of the violent illegals here now, and in securing our border.

I really don't think blowing up and bombing Afghanistan was "fixing" it. It's more akin to America just lashing out at a country we think supported a terrorist we were mad at.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: kaylaluv

Your point is valid and compassionate, but I have to respectfully disagree.

We are either a Nation of laws or we are not. I can't disregard certain laws to better myself, why should they get that opportunity?

Some laws need amending. We amend laws all the time. Maybe we need to amend immigration laws so that people who are suffering in 3rd world countries get an easier and quicker path here.

Yes our laws are ridiculous. My sister and Family moved to Australia, they had to prove they had enough money and a useable skill to make a living. They spent several years and could not make a good living in their line of work, they came back to the US but the process made sense and didn't take 20 years.

Another 806,000 applicants are adult married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. The wait for most applicants in this category is just over 11 years. However, about 40 percent of those waiting in this category are from Mexico and the Philippines, and their wait is more than 20 years.

cis.org...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

a friend in school with me from austraila was almost sent packing because he couldnt renew his visa. he is an electromechanical engineer and they were heavy handed on him. luckily he did get a temp visa long enough to graduate but he has to seek employment out of the us since no one will sponsor a visa.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So true. I brought up the movie Gangs of New York earlier in the thread. If you watch it you'll see the actors making a lot of the same nativist arguments that are made today about Mexicans and that movie is historical bi-op on the immigration waves at the turn of the 20th century.

A review of the history of immigration in this country will prove just about all of the right wing's fears about illegals to be false.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Dude. I've spent the entirety of Trump's campaign frustrated because I haven't had a serious conversation the level we are having currently with any of them previously. Most Trump supporters shout any resistance down with hyperbole and slurs. If you can't see this going on, then I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason I've curtailed my participation on these forums within the last year. It's because the quality of discussions has seriously gone downhill in direct correlation with the start of Trump's campaign.

PS: Anyone with any political power who thinks they are silenced by someone calling them a name like racist is a weeny and needs to grow some thicker skin. Political discourse does get nasty and insults shouldn't silence you.

I definitely feel your frustration. It is hard to have a constructive conversations with emotions so high. I know I myself have fell into the trap of not being the most accessible conversationalist, and it is something I am trying to limit.

And I have criticized this behavior when it gets ridiculous. I often find myself myself disagreeing with someone on one thread that I was with on another. My only suggestion is to ignore the posters that don't want to have an honest conversation, or approach it with humor, or to try to see if you can get beneath the insults to some kind of common ground. But it can be tough.

I think there is a difference between this behavior coming from posters like us, as opposed to politicians and media people. I agree that no politician worth their salt should leave an accusation of racism stop them from spreading their opinion, but the truth is it does affect them. Racism is a powerful charge, and when audiences here a politician or celebrity they like call someone a racist, is has power. Careers have been destroyed over such charges. So now we see people in the public eye falling all over themselves to not be thought of as racist.

Also, many normal people get their news from msm sources, and when the call anyone who has a problem with illegals racist, it affects a large amount of the populace. This stifles nuanced conversations like we are having. That is why I am so focused on pointing out that people like Obama and Bernie have also suggested things like deporting illegals, because people on the left know these people aren't racist towards Hispanics. This may open their eyes to the fat that it is a complex problem that reasonable people can have different opinions on how to handle.

I really don't think blowing up and bombing Afghanistan was "fixing" it. It's more akin to America just lashing out at a country we think supported a terrorist we were mad at.

Exactly. But war mongers on all sides of the political aisle will use the excuse of "Well we need to go into country x and fix it so immigrants don't come here" to invade countries. I feel the US government is responsible for the US, and that is it. Therefore, it should protect our borders and come up with immigration policies that work within the borders, as opposed to having to go into other countries.

Now this doesn't mean that we should cause damage in other countries without consequence, nor does it mean that we shouldn't totally revamp our legal immigration system. I just think our government has a responsibility to look after its own people first.

a reply to: thinline

If they would incarcerate the criminals, tax remittance payments, and start a backtax repayment plan I wouldn't have a problem at all. But when wages stay low because of illegal immigrants, and 80% are on some form of gov. Support but don't pay in-i have a problem.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Puppylove
That's a complete non sequitur. Starting in the mid-19th Century, we had a massive influx of immigrants from Germany and other European countries. The last of my ancestors arrived in this country in 1853 (third great-grandparents) from a small village near Baden-Baden.

You should probably brush up on your knowledge of cultural assimilation over the years.
Immigration isn't and can't always an open door policy.
Your ancestors were probably required to pass a literacy test to enter America. 2/3 of all immigrants in the 19th century eventually went back because there was no welfare state. The best and brightest stayed like your ancestors and mine in the late 17th century. That was a way of slowing the influx of immigrants while allowing them to assimilate and adopt the host nations cultures and ideals while preserving their own heritage, religions, and beliefs.

What you and others here promote and advocate by all this is the dilution and eventual destruction of the American culture. Something I can't sit idly by and watch. If you think we should have an open door policy in regards to the borders then practice what you preach and have an open door policy on your house where everyone and anyone is allowed to couch surf and raid your fridge for free. Because that is what you all are basically asking the American people to do with a no/open border policy.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Very detailed post as always. I think the problem is slightly more nuanced than is being provided here.

First, the immigrants of the 1800's that you speak of here came legally. The US wanted immigrants, and these people responded to the call and used legal channels. Many Hispanic immigrants also used these legal channels, and by all accounts, most of them are great productive people, just like the 1800's immigrants were. In fact, I can honestly say, the two hardest workers I have ever met were legal immigrants, one from Mexico that I worked with at a tree patch, and one from the Middle East. If I had half of the work ethic of these people, I would be proud of myself.

The problem is with the illegal immigrants, and for me I don't care where they are from, rather it be Asia, Europe, Central America, etc. No country in the world can sustain itself with a totally open immigration policy. Therefore limits have to be placed. You may disagree with the limits the US has placed, but they exist. By illegals coming in, they can be an excess on what a country accounted for. Then they can fall through the cracks and be a burden on wages, or entitlements, and other such things.

Now there is an huge discussion on how much illegals affect the economy, ranging from they really help to they really hurt it. But the point is by them coming here illegally, the force down the amount of legal immigrants the US will accept, thereby hurting the immigrants who want to do things the right way and spend years trying to get in because they love the US.

I think are definitely some people who would prefer to see no immigrants, particularly if they are a different color or religion (just like in the example you give), and those people suck. But there are also a lot of people that welcome legal immigrants like me, but have problems with illegal immigrants.

originally posted by: Grambler
I definitely feel your frustration. It is hard to have a constructive conversations with emotions so high. I know I myself have fell into the trap of not being the most accessible conversationalist, and it is something I am trying to limit.

And I have criticized this behavior when it gets ridiculous. I often find myself myself disagreeing with someone on one thread that I was with on another. My only suggestion is to ignore the posters that don't want to have an honest conversation, or approach it with humor, or to try to see if you can get beneath the insults to some kind of common ground. But it can be tough.

This is what I've been doing. I go on breaks for up to a week at a time and many times I'll respond to hyperbole and assholery with jokes and humor.

I think there is a difference between this behavior coming from posters like us, as opposed to politicians and media people. I agree that no politician worth their salt should leave an accusation of racism stop them from spreading their opinion, but the truth is it does affect them. Racism is a powerful charge, and when audiences here a politician or celebrity they like call someone a racist, is has power. Careers have been destroyed over such charges. So now we see people in the public eye falling all over themselves to not be thought of as racist.

Also, many normal people get their news from msm sources, and when the call anyone who has a problem with illegals racist, it affects a large amount of the populace. This stifles nuanced conversations like we are having. That is why I am so focused on pointing out that people like Obama and Bernie have also suggested things like deporting illegals, because people on the left know these people aren't racist towards Hispanics. This may open their eyes to the fat that it is a complex problem that reasonable people can have different opinions on how to handle.

I really don't see it the way you see it though. I don't see the media calling anyone demanding deportations to be racist. I see the media calling specific people racist because they say racist things in conjunction to their support of deporting illegals. If you are going to cite hyperbole and unsourced rhetoric as to your reasoning to support illegal deportations then it looks like you are being racially judgemental, so people call it like they see it. Racist.

Exactly. But war mongers on all sides of the political aisle will use the excuse of "Well we need to go into country x and fix it so immigrants don't come here" to invade countries. I feel the US government is responsible for the US, and that is it. Therefore, it should protect our borders and come up with immigration policies that work within the borders, as opposed to having to go into other countries.

Now this doesn't mean that we should cause damage in other countries without consequence, nor does it mean that we shouldn't totally revamp our legal immigration system. I just think our government has a responsibility to look after its own people first.

For me. There are plenty of issues I think the government should be addressing other than illegal immigration. Our country was born on, raised on, and thrives on immigration. Demonizing it is just a tired song and dance that has cropped out periodically throughout our country's history and the rhetoric used against it ALWAYS looks the same and always ends up being proven false.

Similar Anti-immigrant Rhetoric Used Throughout U.S. History
Anti-Immigration in the United States A Historical Encyclopedia
The Founding Immigrants

A PROMINENT American once said, about immigrants, “Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.”

This sentiment did not emerge from the rancorous debate over the immigration bill defeated last week in the Senate. It was not the lament of some guest of Lou Dobbs or a Republican candidate intent on wooing bedrock conservative votes. Guess again.

Voicing this grievance was Benjamin Franklin. And the language so vexing to him was the German spoken by new arrivals to Pennsylvania in the 1750s, a wave of immigrants whom Franklin viewed as the “most stupid of their nation.”

To me, immigration is a media created bogeyman to distract from other issues or to push detrimental agendas. For instance, people are always complaining about how immigrants steal jobs; well they also create jobs too when they start businesses.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is what I've been doing. I go on breaks for up to a week at a time and many times I'll respond to hyperbole and assholery with jokes and humor.

I found that what works for me is to just not read Trump threads, I have a strict limit of only checking ~1/3 of those threads, and I refuse on principal to read/post in The Mud Pit. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of not caring. Most Trump supporters are pretty entrenched and it's just an argument for the sake of arguing rather than to inform or change opinions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

So true. I brought up the movie Gangs of New York earlier in the thread. If you watch it you'll see the actors making a lot of the same nativist arguments that are made today about Mexicans and that movie is historical bi-op on the immigration waves at the turn of the 20th century.

A review of the history of immigration in this country will prove just about all of the right wing's fears about illegals to be false.

That was a movie. You act as if the lines spoken in the movie are from that time period. They're not..............What a stupid argument.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Then why does the person I replied to appear to want gun laws equal for both legal and illegal residents?

a reply to: ksiezyc

That was me and you missed my point. I was responding to the poster who claimed I refused to lump the bad immigrants with the good, but I was willing to lump the bad gun owners with the good. My point was, I don't want any bad guys to have guns - I don't care where they come from.

a reply to: ksiezyc

Probably because that person didn't know and after re-reading what they said it didn't look like they wanted equal laws for both IMO.

The most outspoken gun person on here has often gone off his rocker concerning the 2nd amendment to the point where he was telling everyone that simply asking him why he needs a gun would infringe his 2nd amendment rights.

Rights and amendments are often misconstrued by the public. Especially the first amendment. Anyway, the reason I know that illegal residents can not legally own a firearm is because I came across it about a year ago. I was looking up something to do with the 14th amendment and illegal residents at the time.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: thinline

If walls worked, the states would have already built them. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.

Uh-huh tell that to Arizona that tried to pass a law allowing its officers to check for proof of citizenship when they arrested someone.

The Feds said no.

I'm pretty sure the Feds would do the same claiming that they and only they can make and enforce immigration law, just like they did with the Arizona law.

a reply to: thinline

I support Mexican Privilege,,,
when I am in Mexico.

Tranquilo.

a reply to: thinline

The same people that say "AMERICA WAS BUILT ON IMMIGRATION" are the same people that want to remove the second amendment. They call on American tradition and constitutional values when it suits their agenda.

a reply to: kaylaluv

So what happens if we go full open borders and 2 billion people show up?

Wouldn't they all be entitled to an entitlement? When is enough enough?

What if there was a country full of white right wing conservative Christians migrating over in droves? I'm sure you'd have a problem with that one.