Immigration

[SicemDawgz]

The Mexicans are pretty smart. They're taking old Mexico back without ever firing a shot.

[FriscoDog]

ACLU now sues Fed Govt. Wants Government to pay for attorney's for illegal immigrants in hearings. This is something even U.S. Citizens don't have right to. Amazing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...rant-kids.html

[JuBru]

What is oppressive about the Constitution? It makes men free and puts us in control of the government. It tells the government what they are not allowed to do to us.

How is the Constitution a symbol of oppression?

Please don't mistake that as my position. I am parroting the words of the left. But the answer is found into the second sentence I wrote. Just rehash in your head any and every race, sex, sexual orientation, income, etc. argument you ever heard, and you'll have your answer.

We have adequate immigration laws, it's the upholding of those laws that give us trouble. We view the legal immigrant and the illegal immigrant as equals and that gets us in trouble every 30 years or so when we have too many illegals and don't know what to do with them. We need a system that forces them to come legally. A fence? I don't know, but something!

Upholding our laws is a problem indeed, but they also aren't adequate. But I'm not sure how far to go or pull back. And as long as we are as prosperous as we are, there will never be a system that stops illegal immigration until we begin to ignore some "rights" and laws.

There are laws on the books that address immigration. The government should enforce them. If they feel it necessary to rewrite the laws, do so in a way that any person applying for citizenship has the ability to help our country by bringing skills we need. That would make sense. But the idea that America should allow people in the country to collect government money, to be educated at tax payer expense, or qualify for food stamps is absurd and certainly is not "for the prosperity of the nation and her people."

Skills we need are skills Americans are pushing themselves out of more and more. We need people to fill those spots. Legal immigration isn't getting it done (part of the inadequacy of our laws). Illegal immigrants take those jobs. You are not going to get Americans back into them no matter how desperate we are. We can not be so stringent to the point where there is a labor "shortage" for those crappy jobs.

Yes, welfare needs reform too. Separate but related issue.

I'm not aware of anyone having a "completely closed" position on immigration policy. My understanding is that the Republican Party wants the borders secured first, and then will agree to an immigration overhaul. In the meantime, the current immigration policies would continue to be in force, allowing thousands of immigrants to come to America legally.

In my opinion, our immigration policy needs to favor skilled labor over family reunification. Any student who graduates from a 4-year university in the United States should be given the option to stay with a defined path to citizenship. While family reunification can still be given consideration, it should not be the priority.

It was an intentional hyperbolic statement. But there are pockets on the right that want completely closed immigration. They haven't mainstreamed yet, thankfully.

Family unification should not be a consideration, imo.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

This is getting worse by the hour.

[mikedog]

It was an intentional hyperbolic statement. But there are pockets on the right that want completely closed immigration. They haven't mainstreamed yet, thankfully.

Family unification should not be a consideration, imo.

Not sure why it's even worthwhile talking about the extreme fringes. I'm sure there are just as many wacko liberals who want completely open borders. These positions are indefensible (on both sides).

Family reunification is why 30% of our immigrants are from Mexico, many of which are low-skilled workers having lower levels of English proficiency and education compared to immigrants from other countries. So long as Democrats perceive these people to be solid Democratic votes, I don't think immigration reform will abandon the focus on family unification.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Here's what a real leader does. I just wish he would have done it sooner.


'OUR CITIZENS UNDER SIEGE'
PERRY SENDS TROOPS TO BORDER

[Woof!]

Here's what a real leader does. I just wish he would have done it sooner.


'OUR CITIZENS UNDER SIEGE'
PERRY SENDS TROOPS TO BORDER

Great! Be sure to vote for him if he runs for president. :icon_wink:

[maverick]

Here's what a real leader does. I just wish he would have done it sooner.
'OUR CITIZENS UNDER SIEGE'
PERRY SENDS TROOPS TO BORDER

Real leaders pay $12 million per month to be a visible presence, to refer and deter, but not detain anyone??? You probably will say "at least he's doing something." I see this as the kind of thing you would bash Obama for--looking like he's doing something, spending lots of money doing it, and accomplishing very little.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...men-to-border/

[T1]

Real leaders pay $12 million per month to be a visible presence, to refer and deter, but not detain anyone??? You probably will say "at least he's doing something." I see this as the kind of thing you would bash Obama for--looking like he's doing something, spending lots of money doing it, and accomplishing very little.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...men-to-border/

I don't understand how Perry can order troops to the border, but Obama can't.

"It seems to me that a much more powerful symbol would be the bipartisan passage of legislation that would actually make a historic investment in border security and send an additional 20,000 personnel to the border." Josh Earnest

Why not just send them if it's powerful? Is Obama playing politics? He can bomb Libya without legislation! I just don't understand our government anymore.

[Woof!]

Real leaders pay $12 million per month to be a visible presence, to refer and deter, but not detain anyone??? You probably will say "at least he's [Perry] doing something." I see this as the kind of thing you would bash Obama for--looking like he's doing something, spending lots of money doing it, and accomplishing very little.

Yeah, Perry is "leading from behind".
http://news.yahoo.com/border-sheriff...142109129.html

[JuBru]

Deterrents only work if there is the possibility of actual use. MAD was successful because everyone had an itchy trigger finger and was not afraid to kill everyone. You do not have to go to that extreme for border security and illegal immigration, but maybe halfway.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

National Guard troops on the border will have the same effect that National Guards had in post-Katrina NOLA: a successful deterrent.

[JuBru]

National Guard troops on the border will have the same effect that National Guards had in post-Katrina NOLA: a successful deterrent.

Except two things are wrong here.
1) LNG was not a successful deterrent, it was a successful supplement of the NOPD, sort of. The mission of the LNG under Blanco is completely different and practically opposite of what Perry is doing. LNG had power to detain, arrest, investigate, engage, etc. TNG will not have any of those abilities.

2) Putting the National Guard, along with Reserve and Regular, on the border has been done before. It did nothing to deter illegal immigration, stop any smuggling, or close the border.

[maverick]

I don't understand how Perry can order troops to the border, but Obama can't.

"It seems to me that a much more powerful symbol would be the bipartisan passage of legislation that would actually make a historic investment in border security and send an additional 20,000 personnel to the border." Josh Earnest

Why not just send them if it's powerful? Is Obama playing politics? He can bomb Libya without legislation! I just don't understand our government anymore.

He can. Both have the authority to deploy, but whoever authorizes foots the bill.

[T1]

He can. Both have the authority to deploy, but whoever authorizes foots the bill.

So what's the hold up?