E46Fanatics

E46Fanatics (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/index.php)
-   Political Talk (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Evangelicals are coming around on immigration (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=980988)

rapier7 04-09-2013 10:10 AM

Evangelicals are coming around on immigration
 
Guess they wanna win elections too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

In all seriousness, this is a good thing. It looks like comprehensive immigration reform might actually happen. And that should be a good shot in the arm for the economy.

2000_328CI 04-09-2013 10:16 AM

Rapier, immigration is one of the areas where we will clearly never agree.. and that's totally fine.

But I am still interested in your view on "the more, the merrier". If the notion is that every (or the large majority) of individuals who wish to immigrate to this country are looking to work hard and be productive citizens, then sure, maybe it makes sense... but employment numbers of second and third generation Latinos does NOT really support that position. And that's where this idea falls apart. If you have tens of thousands of immigrants coming across the border every year, and if a disproportionate chunk of them (ie: a % above our national unemployment %) are doing so to simply collect unemployment, send their kids to public schools, and be a burden to our annual deficit, that's NOT helpful.

I've said for years that I am fine with legalizing those immigrants who are in the US right now, would like to work and pay taxes, and do NOT have any incarcerations. Those that have been locked up or are caught committing a crime need to be kicked out, that simple... no sense in spending taxpayer dollars to feed, warm, house, and clothe them in our prison system. BUUUUUT, I'm only fine offering this IF we first close off the border.. and that doesn't seem to be of interest to just about anyone in the democratic party. And you can't just start offering citizenship to anyone who steps foot in this country while we leave the back door wide open to Latinos and everyone else (think national security issues when a terrorist can ride a donkey into our country).

There needs to be a secure border, control (and documentation) of who is coming and going for security purposes, and THEN we can have discussions in immigration.

evolved 04-09-2013 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15324639)

There needs to be a secure border, control (and documentation) of who is coming and going for security purposes, and THEN we can have discussions in immigration.

How do we effectively secure our border? I'm genuinely curious.

2000_328CI 04-09-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved (Post 15324646)
How do we effectively secure our border? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, with the war in the middle east "hopefully" winding down, our defense budget will be comfortably reduced... allowing for funds to be allocated towards automated systems (drones, cameras, infrared, etc) to do most of the monitoring electronically. But that is for CBP to figure out (and, through the work we've been doing with them, I can tell you they have PLENTY of electronic solutions.. many of which are underfunded or completely shut down as a result of budget cuts).

But we can NOT justify legislation to legalize anyone who wants to cross our porous border and expect that will somehow solve problems... and if we say "hey anyone who wants to come here is welcome", we're ringing the dinner bell not to the poor and tired who want to work for a living.. but for those living in situations far worse than a life of welfare here in the US... and that's the last thing our nation needs. It's not a shot in the arm.. it's a shot to the side of the bow that is our deficit.

casino is no lie 04-09-2013 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15324660)
Well, with the war in the middle east "hopefully" winding down, our defense budget will be comfortably reduced... allowing for funds to be allocated towards automated systems (drones, cameras, infrared, etc) to do most of the monitoring electronically.

So you want to divert funds from the DOD to the DHS?

Act of God 04-09-2013 11:56 AM

I don't think you can effectively secure the border, you just need to eliminate the cheese on the other side. Also, it already has been shown that being pro-immigration does not translate to votes. These people are voting democrat no matter what.

rapier7 04-09-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15324639)
But I am still interested in your view on "the more, the merrier". If the notion is that every (or the large majority) of individuals who wish to immigrate to this country are looking to work hard and be productive citizens, then sure, maybe it makes sense... but employment numbers of second and third generation Latinos does NOT really support that position. And that's where this idea falls apart. If you have tens of thousands of immigrants coming across the border every year, and if a disproportionate chunk of them (ie: a % above our national unemployment %) are doing so to simply collect unemployment, send their kids to public schools, and be a burden to our annual deficit, that's NOT helpful.

I've said for years that I am fine with legalizing those immigrants who are in the US right now, would like to work and pay taxes, and do NOT have any incarcerations. Those that have been locked up or are caught committing a crime need to be kicked out, that simple... no sense in spending taxpayer dollars to feed, warm, house, and clothe them in our prison system. BUUUUUT, I'm only fine offering this IF we first close off the border.. and that doesn't seem to be of interest to just about anyone in the democratic party. And you can't just start offering citizenship to anyone who steps foot in this country while we leave the back door wide open to Latinos and everyone else (think national security issues when a terrorist can ride a donkey into our country).

And let's say your statistics are valid. That immigrants rely more on welfare and government subsidies than natural born Americans. Let's look at a subsection of Americans who rely disproportionately on welfare and government subsidies: blacks. If your primary arguments is to exclude immigrants from this country because they leech off welfare, why not strip blacks of their citizenship and legal status? Or just deport anybody, black, white, Asian, or Hispanic on welfare?

The alternative is to instead reform public services so that people who are unproductive can't abuse them. I'm perfectly okay with gutting welfare.

You're advocating a government solution to solve a problem the government created in the first place. Somehow I don't think that's gonna work out. The real answer is to fix the problem where it is. Not to slap on additional restrictions and regulations to counterbalance bad restrictions and regulations elsewhere.

Quote:

There needs to be a secure border, control (and documentation) of who is coming and going for security purposes, and THEN we can have discussions in immigration.
Net illegal immigration has dropped to zero and may have even become negative. The fact is illegal immigration is highest when the economy is booming. That means people are looking for work.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a streamlined, efficient, and quick process for integrating new workers into the economy instead of letting them illegally traverse the borders to find work at sub-par wages?

If every seasonal or temporary worker could come here legally, do you think they would rely on coyotes to move them across the border? That frees up border patrol to actually focus on people who have other reasons for evading legal authorities (drugs, terrorists, etc).

Ultimately, I believe immigrants came here to make a better life for themselves and their families. And that the vast majority choose to do so through an honest living. That makes us stronger, not weaker. And if they happen to have higher poverty and dependency rates than natural born Americans (the vast majority of whom are white), then that's okay, because eventually they'll integrate and establish themselves here.

2000_328CI 04-09-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rapier7 (Post 15324924)
If your primary arguments is to exclude immigrants from this country because they leech off welfare, why not strip blacks of their citizenship and legal status? Or just deport anybody, black, white, Asian, or Hispanic on welfare?

If caught "abusing" the system, I'd be all for it. We know that won't happen but sure I'd support removing those that have no interest in caring for themselves

The alternative is to instead reform public services so that people who are unproductive can't abuse them. I'm perfectly okay with gutting welfare.

We agree

You're advocating a government solution to solve a problem the government created in the first place. Somehow I don't think that's gonna work out. The real answer is to fix the problem where it is. Not to slap on additional restrictions and regulations to counterbalance bad restrictions and regulations elsewhere.

We agree here as well. The problem is that certain individuals in power have expressed they have zero interest in fixing the real problem... welfare policies.

Net illegal immigration has dropped to zero and may have even become negative. The fact is illegal immigration is highest when the economy is booming. That means people are looking for work.

True. Which is why I harped on second and third generation workers. THAT is the real problem as those individuals are, when born here, legal citizens. If people come here to work hard, fantastic... if they then have children that abuse our generosity, fawk that

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a streamlined, efficient, and quick process for integrating new workers into the economy instead of letting them illegally traverse the borders to find work at sub-par wages?

For sure. And I'm all for it.. but that isn't what's being proposed. Instead, we're looking to make people citizens.. largely to "buy votes" for a certain party.

If every seasonal or temporary worker could come here legally, do you think they would rely on coyotes to move them across the border? That frees up border patrol to actually focus on people who have other reasons for evading legal authorities (drugs, terrorists, etc).

This is possibility and nothing more.. who knows what that process would look like and if it would still be advantageous for whatever reason to just sneak past them...

Ultimately, I believe immigrants came here to make a better life for themselves and their families. And that the vast majority choose to do so through an honest living. That makes us stronger, not weaker. And if they happen to have higher poverty and dependency rates than natural born Americans (the vast majority of whom are white), then that's okay, because eventually they'll integrate and establish themselves here.

Immigrants DO come here to make a better life for themselves. We have a better infrastructure, more jobs, higher paying jobs (even when they are under the table), and more overall opportunity. But we also have a welfare system that, in and over itself, can provide a better life than that which they live south of the border.. and that is the fundamental problem. When people are in a situation where they can sneak across the border, pop out a kid, and ensure that kid has a better quality of life doing NOTHING, that's a problem... unless we can control admission (which we can't and it has expressed we have given up on the idea of doing so).

Dependency doesn't just mature.. people don't grow out of it. And that is the issue with the welfare trap... people born into this lifestyle in the inner cities have a far lower chance of making something of themselves... so when you bring in Latino A and he goes out to work hard, as soon as his wife pops out Latino B, that individual is now entitled to a life far better (if not, at least equal) to that his parents worked so hard to provide... and that WON'T foster a growth from dependency. It encourages continued dependency because they don't know anything else.

A kid who grows up in a nice household, sees the luxuries of the world, and fails in business.. he will be inspired to make a better tomorrow through hard work. An individual who grows up and only sees mediocrity will have very little impetus to rise from that... especially when common practice dictates that he and his impoverished friends simply badmouth hard working americans who "work for the man" for their wealth. We have to go back to appreciating, appluading, and supporting those that make the country go around.. not badmouth them for "exploiting people".

Just my two cents my friend. As I've always said, I respect your position and know we won't agree on this one.. I just want to play devil's advocate cause I can actually discuss this with you like two mature people :hi:

NFRs2000nyc 04-09-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved (Post 15324646)
How do we effectively secure our border? I'm genuinely curious.

Depends who you ask and what you are willing to do to protect them. Russia doesn't have this problem, but if they see you sneaking in, they go "bang." 100 foot concrete barriers work pretty well, land mines, park the military there, etc. There are 1000 ways to skin this cat, it's just a matter of how important we think securing our borders is and what we are willing to do to achieve that goal.

NFRs2000nyc 04-09-2013 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 15324883)
I don't think you can effectively secure the border, you just need to eliminate the cheese on the other side. Also, it already has been shown that being pro-immigration does not translate to votes. These people are voting democrat no matter what.

Disagree. You can, it's just a matter of what you are willing to do to get it done.

casino is no lie 04-09-2013 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325224)
100 foot concrete barriers work pretty well, land mines, park the military there, etc. There are 1000 ways to skin this cat, it's just a matter of how important we think securing our borders is and what we are willing to do to achieve that goal.

100 foot walls = you have now idea ho tall 100 feet is
Mines = advocating death for trespassing
Military force/presence = violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

NFRs2000nyc 04-09-2013 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casino is no lie (Post 15325237)
100 foot walls = you have now idea ho tall 100 feet is
Mines = advocating death for trespassing
Military force/presence = violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Apologies, I just said 100 feet as an exaggeration. I believe the real ones are 40 feet or so.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...nk-sep-001.jpg

As for the act, I thought it was a federal law prohibiting the feds from using federal military personell to enforce state law? Immigration isn't state law. Furthermore, I find it funny that legislators like Feinstein would have no problem repealing the second Amendment but not an act.

Again, I don't know what the appropriate solution is, but saying a border can't be secured is nonsense.

bimmerfan08 04-09-2013 02:20 PM

:spit: Political discussions bring the lolz. NFR and CINL are great.

badfast 04-09-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325224)
Russia doesn't have this problem, but if they see you sneaking in, they go "bang." 100 foot concrete barriers work pretty well, land mines, park the military there, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325277)

Discusses Russia's 100 ft walls. Posts picture of Israel/Gaza border.

NFRs2000nyc 04-09-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badfast (Post 15325299)
Discusses Russia's 100 ft walls. Posts picture of Israel/Gaza border.

When did I say anything about Russia's walls?:hmm: The period at the end of the sentence clearly separates the point.

badfast 04-09-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325300)
When did I say anything about Russia's walls?:hmm: The period at the end of the sentence clearly separates the point.

Do you always change subjects without referring to what the new subject is? Discussing Russia, jump to Israel without mentioning the transition?

2000_328CI 04-09-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casino is no lie (Post 15325237)
100 foot walls = you have now idea ho tall 100 feet is
Mines = advocating death for trespassing
Military force/presence = violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

I'm not opposed to the land mine suggestion.

casino is no lie 04-09-2013 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325277)
Apologies, I just said 100 feet as an exaggeration. I believe the real ones are 40 feet or so.

[IMG]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/11/4/1352036991006/The-Israeli-West-Bank-sep-001.jpg[IMG]

Israels borders are a fraction of our own making it more costly and difficult to monitor. Plus what good is a wall when border crosses are notorious for building tunnels?


Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15325277)
As for the act, I thought it was a federal law prohibiting the feds from using federal military personell to enforce state law?

Immigration is regulated at the Federal level per the Immigration and Nationality Act

badfast 04-09-2013 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casino is no lie (Post 15325364)
Israels borders are a fraction of our own making it more costly and difficult to monitor. Plus what good is a wall when border crosses are notorious for building tunnels?

Walls 100ft high and 100 ft deep.

NFRs2000nyc 04-09-2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casino is no lie (Post 15325364)
Israels borders are a fraction of our own making it more costly and difficult to monitor. Plus what good is a wall when border crosses are notorious for building tunnels?



Immigration is regulated at the Federal level per the Immigration and Nationality Act

Do you think it is more costly to secure and monitor the border, or to administer a revolving door system of verification, detainment, deportation, etc etc etc.? I was also under the impression that tunnels are usually built into the cities, and not really into the middle of the desert. The areas that are hard to monitor (the middle of the desert can be secured with other measures) like landmines, and those near cities can be secured with walls, rebar in the ground, and boots.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use