Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Sure then make legal immigration easier. I’d be all about it

but we can’t take in everyone who wants to come here so where do you draw the line

Why not? We managed for the first hundred and fifty years or so of this country's history, at times when we were a lot smaller geographically. We managed to absorb roughly a million immigrants a year around 1900, at a time when that was about one percent of the population.

A country isn't a pie, more people doesn't mean less pie for you. It means there's more people making pies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many disenfranchised, oppressed, or impoverished people are there on the planet? 1 billion? 2 billion? How many do we take in? 50? 1 million? 100 Million? All of them? I'm just looking for a starting point in the debate. 

We need immigrants but not controlling who and how many will not benefit anyone in the long run. Regarding pies, the American taxpayer is currently paying $113 Billion a year to make pies for those that show up to the party without a pie. 

Edited by TreeA10
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That’s an important point. The responsibility of the national government is to its citizens, not all of humanity. A purely open border ends up serving neither the citizens, nor even the global community, really. 

And here is one of the foundational pieces of the argument.  Progressives do not agree with your philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now that we've aired the reductio ad absurdum argument of open borders, can we put it to bed? No one of consequence I know on any side of any aisle is calling for open borders or unlimited immigration to the US.

The debate then is between a significant negative immigration flow, by lowering legal immigration to historic lows, working hard to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and deporting all the illegal immigrants currently in the country on the one hand, and some other upper bound on the other.

My view is that our country has it at its foundational core the responsibility and privilege to welcome immigrants and refugees and that we should welcome as many as is practicable.

The details of what that means are obviously up for debate, but I would start with much higher allowances for legal immigration, long-term work permits for all non-citizens already in the country who want them, tight border controls for national security reasons, and strict enforcement of labor laws and work permitting requirements when it comes to employers. In general, if an immigrant or refugee shows up at the door and wants to work in the US, we (within reason) should let them do so in a legal way, but we must prevent employers from hiring them under illegal work arrangements that undercut citizens looking for work.

When employers hire illegal immigrants, they often underpay and abuse them, to the detriment of both those workers as well as every American worker who might be looking for a job but isn't willing to work in illegal conditions. If the vast majority of (or ideally all) foreign workers in the US had valid work permits and were not subjected to illegal work conditions, that's better for everyone, foreigners and citizens alike.

This story was local where I live, and it demonstrates how our priorities around immigration aren't right IMHO: http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/tennessee-town-grapples-fear-after-ice-raid-shakes-community#stream/0

This rural meat packing plant is working folks 60+ hour weeks and pays them $300 in cash weekly under the table. Not only is that well below minimum wage, the owner is also defrauding the US government by not paying payroll taxes (to the alleged tune of $2.5m).

But what happens when ICE finds out? They raid the plant, arresting over 100 people, but notably not the owner of the plant. In a town of 3,000 people, more than 3% of their total population, all folks who are working and putting food on their families' plates, are suddenly rolled up but not ole' Mr. Brantley who employed and abused these people for years while stiffing the government on taxes he owed and repelled local citizens with the abhorrent work conditions and criminally low in his plant.

The message being sent right now is clear: employee illegal immigrants, and you only stand to benefit from cheap, easily abused labor, and your tax bill is so much lower! No need to raise wages or improve conditions in order to attract Tennesseans who are citizens that might be looking for work.

But if you dare to work without proper documentation, Uncle Sam is out to get ya. It's completely back-asswards and unnecessarily inhumane.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one of consequence is actually controlling the borders. And these people of " No consequence", assuming senators, governors, and mayors are inconsequential, are saying we should do away with the federal agency that exercises what little control over the border we actually enforce. Which leads us back to open borders without actually having to say they want open borders. 

'Abolish ICE' goes mainstream as Gillibrand, de Blasio back calls

Alex Pappas3 hours ago
 

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are joining the calls to gut the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are joining the calls to gut the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.  (AP)

The idea was once relegated to the far-left. But the liberal push to abolish the federal agency that enforces federal immigration laws is going mainstream in the Democratic Party, with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Mayor Bill de Blasio adding their support to the cause in the last 24 hours. 

"I believe that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has become a deportation force … and that's why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works," Gillibrand said in a CNN interview Thursday night.

“We should abolish ICE,” de Blasio said Friday morning on WNYC radio. 

Gillibrand's endorsement is notable as she's the first sitting senator to back the 'abolish ICE' push -- and is considered a potential 2020 presidential contender. 

They join numerous other Democratic candidates, House members, liberal commentators and writers who have fought back against the Trump administration's immigration policies by calling to gut ICE -- which identifies, arrests and deports illegal immigrants inside the United States. 

Left-wing Democrats push to abolish ICE

Democratic lawmakers and candidates are increasingly seeking the elimination of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Here's a look at some of the most prominent figures looking to dissolve the agency.

The growing influence behind the push was underscored earlier this week with liberal primary challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's shocking victory over Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., a member of party leadership.

Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her support for abolishing ICE during the campaign, and even protested outside an ICE center in Texas. 

DEMS DEMAND ELIMINATION OF ICE AMID IMMIGRATION FUROR

“Its extra-judicial nature is baked into the structure of the agency and that is why they are able to get away with black sites at our border, with the separation of children,” the Democrat said in an interview this week.

The focus on ICE comes in the wake of the controversy over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, which called for all illegal border crossers to be prosecuted. This in turn led to the separation of families due to longstanding detention rules, until President Trump signed an executive order last week ordering families be detained together.

With that controversy in the headlines, the abolition of ICE -- which has long been the purview of far-left sections of the Democratic Party base advocating for open borders and no deportations -- has moved from being a slogan on protest placards to an idea being mulled by rumored 2020 hopefuls. 

"Every country needs reasonable law enforcement on their borders. ICE is not reasonable law enforcement. ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished," de Blasio tweeted Friday. 

 

 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also has come under heavy pressure from the left to call for the elimination of ICE, particularly amid a far-left challenge from actress and activist Cynthia Nixon -- who called it a terrorist organization.

And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who has been floated as a 2020 Democratic contender, said that the U.S. should consider “starting from scratch” for ICE -- though stopped short of calling to abolish it.

In Oregon, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who voted against the agency’s creation in 2002, doubled down on his opposition in a recent Medium post in which he called for it to be shut down.

“We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion,” he said.

In January, the idea was endorsed by Brian Fallon, a former top aide to 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general.

“ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force,” Fallon tweeted. “Dems running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form.”

The idea isn’t limited to deep-blue Democratic enclaves.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., announced Monday that he will introduce a bill to abolish the agency, set up during President George W. Bush’s administration in the wake of 9/11.

“I’m introducing legislation that would abolish ICE and crack down on the agency’s blanket directive to target and round up individuals and families,” Pocan said in a statement. “The heartless actions of this abused agency do not represent the values of our nation and the U.S. must develop a more humane immigration system, one that treats every person with dignity and respect.”

The shift to the left on immigration has some Republicans and conservatives delighted, thinking that it may move Democrats into unelectable territory.

"Based on the last week, Democrats apparently want to campaign on open borders, mass migration, & abolishing ICE," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said on Twitter. "Give them points for honesty. Let's vote."

Fox News’ Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really all about abolishing government agencies (Hi Rick Perry! What's it like running a department you wanted to abolish?), so let's call it "Reform ICE."

And ICE isn't the same as CPB even though they are related and in the same department. I'm for a strong CBP, a vibrant USCIS (helps immigrants naturalize and become citizens), and a reformed ICE that focuses on helping make sure all immigrants here to work receive and use valid work permits, and that all employers enforce employment law.

Maybe you can take Senator Gillibrand seriously without taking her literally, like I did with Rick Perry. "Abolish" in a political campaign often means "reform" once in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you agree nsplayr that anyone who came here illegally that is allowed to stay should never be allowed to vote? I think people should not be rewarded for breaking the law, and if they want to become full citizens, then they should go back to where they came from and immigrate legally. If they don’t want to do that, then fine - give them a permanent foreign worker status but they do not get to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Would you agree nsplayr that anyone who came here illegally that is allowed to stay should never be allowed to vote? I think people should not be rewarded for breaking the law, and if they want to become full citizens, then they should go back to where they came from and immigrate legally. If they don’t want to do that, then fine - give them a permanent foreign worker status but they do not get to vote.

I think there should be a careful process to become a citizen, which we have, and that process should be open to all immigrants who aspire to be citizens.

If we need to make some kind of special rules for naturalization that make it "extra-hard" for people who came here as undocumented immigrants initially, I'm open to that depending on the details. That is at the core of basically all bipartisan comprehensive immigration deals over the years - an uphill (but not impossible) path to citizenship for those who came here as undocumented immigrants, paired with significantly more resources to enforce the border and various legal immigration tweaks depending on which bill you're talking about.

I'm also open to the concept that not all Americans need to be citizens, because that's essentially what we have now. There are people that have been living and working in our communities for 30+ years, and they are Americans just like me even if they are undocumented and I'm a citizen. To me, being an American is about what you do while you're here, not who you are or where you came from or whether or not you have a specific piece of paper. If that big-picture idea means we end up designing a system where we have long-term residents who are ineligible for citizenship, and they are ok with that and we as citizens are ok with that, great.

Unlike the caricature often painted, speaking as a Democrat, I sincerely do not care what political party immigrants may support one day way down the road if they naturalize and become citizens, nor is it a deal breaker necessarily if we end up deciding that these folks shouldn't be allowed to become citizens at all (although I would push back on that). It's not a political play, it's a moral principle.

Welcoming immigrants and especially refugees is the American thing to do, it's the christian thing to do if that applies to you, and it's the moral thing to do, at least based on the morals I live by.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem lies with the order of implementation. You have to secure the border first, before allowing any sort of talk about any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. We see the mess we’re in now after the amnesty of the 1980s. Locking down the border not only secures our country, but it helps protect the people struggling to cross desolate landscapes using help from illegal traffickers. How many times have we seen truck loads of these people abandoned in summer heat in TX because the POS trafficking in humans abandoned them because he was afraid of getting caught?

The caveat I would put on a pathway to citizenship would be only post wall completion, and actual illegal crossings would have to be virtually stopped both according to CBP/ICE and border state law enforcement (to prevent number fudging). I’d also put a time limit of 15-20 years of productive membership in society before applying for citizenship. Anyone caught trying to cross after implementation should be immediately deported no questions asked. We have to eliminate the incentive to cross illegally which I believe is the main problem with a pathway to citizenship in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

The caveat I would put on a pathway to citizenship would be only post wall completion, and actual illegal crossings would have to be virtually stopped both according to CBP/ICE and border state law enforcement (to prevent number fudging).

Sooo....never then?  The only way you are going to "virtually stop" illegal immigration to the US is to 1. Significantly increase the number of visas given to these countries or 2. help improve conditions in their country to dissuade them from making the trip.  These people are already so desperate to leave that they have already accepted kidnapping, trafficking, and even death as an outcome.  Building a wall isn't going to make someone change their mind.  They will just find another way around it, and the smugglers will because it will become even more profitable to do so.  Strategically we need mexico to be a stronger neighbor, and we should be working to help them become that...moreso than other countries we have been courting.

Republicans love the two bucket method of negotiations (can't put that in the close bucket, but instead put what you want in the far bucket and we promise to get to it), and should never be trusted to follow through with any sort of deal like this.  It's hard to trust the other party will provide a path to citizenship and increase legal immigration when things settle down when a significant part of the base is screaming to end family reunification visas, and the visa lottery.  That's not how negotiations in congress work, and each party has to give and take to get something everyone can agree on.  If you split the issues they you end up with party line voting and we get nowhere until someone gets a supermajority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2018 at 1:17 PM, TreeA10 said:

No one of consequence is actually controlling the borders. And these people of " No consequence", assuming senators, governors, and mayors are inconsequential, are saying we should do away with the federal agency that exercises what little control over the border we actually enforce. Which leads us back to open borders without actually having to say they want open borders. 

Yup all while insisting on virtually no verification to participate in the political process, voting, or legal receipt of public benefit(s).

You can't have a democratic republic if one side is trying to break, bend or encourage the disregard for laws and the rule of law.  Trying to use inherent weaknesses in the open society to gain political advantage.

I'll believe the Democrat line on immigration when they want strict, strong and tough voter ID and citizenship/legal resident verification for public benefits, until then just stopping them at anytime, anywhere from advancing their agenda of open borders and the destruction of the concept of citizenship is acceptable.

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we issue valid work permits to immigrants already living here who want them, and if we issue free, widely-available national ID cards to every citizen so that they can access public benefits that are only for citizens, then I'm on totally board.

Progressive objections to current voter ID laws aren't based on some kind of esoteric opposition to secure voting or wanting non-citizens to vote. I want secure, interference elections that reflect the will of the citizens! Progressives object to recent efforts to enact and enforce strict ID laws because even though the concept is foreign and unthinkable to most of us, not every citizen has an acceptable ID nor the means to easily get one. Enforcing strict ID laws therefore deprives those citizens of their most important right as a citizen, to cast a vote equal to that of any other citizen. If we solve the underlying problem with an effort to get every citizen, and I mean every single citizen, free, legal, secure IDs, then great, let's require them at the polls to keep non-citizens from voting and let's require them to be shown in order to access benefits not meant for non-citizens.

If the surface-level problem with undocumented immigrants is the concept of law-breaking rather than an opposition to immigrants in general, I vote we solve that very specific problem by legalizing more short- and long-term economic immigration. Strong market forces are attracting people to the US and we are greatly strengthened by them coming here, so let's not fight forces that compel people to cross harsh terrain under the guidance of extortionist, criminal coyotes. Instead, let's welcome people in the front door in a legal way and allow them to help make our country even better.

FWIW I also want to secure the southern border, the northern border, and all ports of entry for national security purposes. I care deeply about the welfare of other people, even those from other countries, but I still lock my doors at night. I also support deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes; when you're a guest you have to be on your best behavior. All that said, and I'm on the progressive side of the Democratic party! I think there's lots that most of us can agree on in principle and there are many moderate Democrats and elected party leaders who are very much ready to play ball on comprehensive immigration reform that would require implementing some conservative priorities on this issue.

But while we're talking about this, keep in mind that many conservatives have been against a national ID program in the past or even making state IDs more easily accessible to citizens who need them. Many conservatives are arguing for sharp reductions in legal immigration. Some on the far-right have quite explicitly said that they care about maintaining a white majority in the United States and therefore oppose immigration by non-white people. Plenty of progressives have also opposed national ID programs and have differed amongst themselves about how to secure the border and what levels of immigration will work best.

I think there's work to be done by everyone to find a workable solution if we actually want to fix our immigration system rather than just use the problems with the current system every 2-4 years as campaign issues.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which state does not offer a non-driving ID card?

Standing in line for an hour with your birth certificate, passport, or whatever is not too high a price for a valid ID. 

Nobody has any problem bringing their ID for beer, but ask someone to bring the ID to the voting station you’d think you were asking the impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Which state does not offer a non-driving ID card?

Standing in line for an hour with your birth certificate, passport, or whatever is not too high a price for a valid ID. 

Nobody has any problem bringing their ID for beer, but ask someone to bring the ID to the voting station you’d think you were asking the impossible. 

Yet progressives are all for making it harder for citizens to exercise their 2A Rights (which I would argue is the most important protected right) because they would requires the same ID to buy/carry a firearm which would be required to vote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you think it’s valid or not, there are millions of citizens that lack the type of IDs needed to vote. I am certainly invested in our democratic processes enough to ensure I’m registered and have the right ID and etc., but not everyone is like me, yet their vote counts equally if they are a citizen.

Having the empathy to understand and accommodate people who’s circumstances are different than yours is important to me and most on the left, and in fact feeling a personal social responsibility to protect and promote the rights and wellbeing of others is at the heart of progressive morality, but I don’t necessarily expect most of you guys to agree or see it that way.

My view of the second amendment is that its important that citizens have access to firearms in a way that preserves the safety of everyone. Where I might disagree with some conservatives is on the scope of what types of firearms should be accessible and if they should be carried in certain places or not, but the right to bear arms in the US is well established in the constitution and case law.

38 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

This is bullshit and we all know it.

I sincerely believe that the right to vote and the sanctity of that right is the most fundamental aspect of a representative form of government. Depriving people of their right to vote is one of the worst things the government could do to a citizen beyond killing them outright or inprisoning them unjustly. Do you disagree? Why?

I’ve written a lot lately and y’all know my POV. Feel free to make a detailed and impassioned case for the opposite of what I’m saying, I’m genuinely interested. But just calling BS with no other inputs isn’t gonna really benefit anyone.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 But just calling BS with no other inputs isn’t gonna really benefit anyone.

I don’t have to argue or “narrate” anything, it’s bullshit.  If you can’t adult enough to have some form of ID, then why should I be concerned about your ability to vote on either side.

Edited by matmacwc
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Agree. If you can’t function at a level to have ID in this day and age, you should not be voting.

This is completely at odds with protecting and defending the constitution man. It’s not up to you or me whether or not a fellow citizen should be voting or not, and it’s a betrayal of democracy to work to prevent citizens from voting.

Why is it fire and brimstone from a lot of y’all to in any way limit access to firearms but it’s super blasé about denying citizens their ability to vote? If you are calling me hypocritical for wanting some limits to the 2A, I am absolutely saying the same when you casually shrug off the disenfranchisement of fellow citizens, and I’d argue the later is much worse. Plenty of representatives forms of government function without unfettered acccess to guns, by definition they cannot when people can’t vote. 

Edited by nsplayr
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I do, make voter ID mandatory, never question an election again.  But then again, Democrats love to question election results, except when they don’t.

Make those IDs free and truly universal and I’m down. A 90% solution photo ID ( what we have now) isn’t acceptable. I won’t leave those other 10% of citizens behind. Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Make those IDs free and truly universal and I’m down. A 90% solution photo ID ( what we have now) isn’t acceptable. I won’t leave those other 10% of citizens behind. Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

Cool - if the Dems / Progressives want to show their sincerity (using your words as a proxy) then they should at the state level show the red states how to get 100% photo ID done along with other vote integrity assurance technology / procedures, then you guys win points in the national debate by removing this legitimate point of contention.

Photo ID is only one part of a well defended, high integrity voting system.  Include bio-metric/video recording of voters and compared to other voting facilities to prevent double dipping, no electronic tallying machines - physical ballots only, and a law enforcement presence (to include ICE) at all voting facilities to ensure no intimidation by any side and I as a conservative would have no problem with liberal ideas on increasing voter participation (same day registration, weekend voting, etc...).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...