Rick wrote: So you believe highly skilled Mexicans (doctors, scientists, etc.) are risking their lives to get into the US illegally? Does that make any sense to you? I know you like to debate in maybes and I don't knows, but at some point a little reason and common sense has to slip in somewhere.
To accommodate you - you don't "know" with 100% certainty that doctors, scientists, etc. are NOT risking their lives to get into the U.S, now do you? Reality is there are some who flee their own homeland for a variety of reasons, not many of which we, here in the U.S., are fully aware of, nor do we fully understand the motivation. Granted, the number of "unskilled" workers outnumber the "skilled" by a pretty wide margin, but we are also talking about third world, underdeveloped nations for the most part. So, before getting on that skilled/unskilled bandwagon, please take the time to consider where they are coming from and what they are probably leaving behind.
To further accommodate you - when your question regarding common sense is looked at from a perspective of "face value", one would probably tend to agree with it common sense wise - as long as it's from a person like you, like me sitting at our computers comfortable in our knowledge we don't have to "worry" about much of anything, really. However, when one looks at actual facts regarding illegal immigration and those who've done so, one must also come to the realization that skilled workers have come here illegally just as have unskilled workers. Look it up. Facts can sometimes be really pesky things, R.
Gregory Siskind, a Memphis-based immigration lawyer, saw partisan undertones in the ruling.
"Wow, this judge really went out of his way to get to issuing this. Neither the government nor the defendant raised this [question about the executive action]," he said in an email. "His language looks pretty partisan — 'sanctuary cities'? Quoting President Obama as a source of legal authority here is also too cute by half. The President is not a court nor was he speaking as a legal scholar. A speech is not a legitimate source to cite here."
Gregory Siskind, a Memphis-based immigration lawyer, saw partisan undertones in the ruling.
"Wow, this judge really went out of his way to get to issuing this. Neither the government nor the defendant raised this [question about the executive action]," he said in an email. "His language looks pretty partisan — 'sanctuary cities'? Quoting President Obama as a source of legal authority here is also too cute by half. The President is not a court nor was he speaking as a legal scholar. A speech is not a legitimate source to cite here."
HEARTLESS wrote: Until a higher court overturns this decision, I'm going with the Federal Judge as opposed to the opinion of an immigration attorney, or his barista.
"Until" sounds an awful lot like you expect it to be overturned.
Rick wrote: So you believe highly skilled Mexicans (doctors, scientists, etc.) are risking their lives to get into the US illegally? Does that make any sense to you? I know you like to debate in maybes and I don't knows, but at some point a little reason and common sense has to slip in somewhere.
To accommodate you - you don't "know" with 100% certainty that doctors, scientists, etc. are NOT risking their lives to get into the U.S, now do you? .
No, I don't, but as a human myself, I understand the concept of risk and reward. Using a small amount of common sense, I can't imagine large numbers of highly skilled Mexicans risking their lives for a very unlikely reward. Are these skilled people going to get legitimate jobs as doctors, scientists, or even lawyers if they are not here legally? Think about it... how are they going to make a living...drywall installers, lettuce pickers?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Rick wrote: No, I don't, but as a human myself, I understand the concept of risk and reward. Using a small amount of common sense, I can't imagine large numbers of highly skilled Mexicans risking their lives for a very unlikely reward. Are these skilled people going to get legitimate jobs as doctors, scientists, or even lawyers if they are not here legally? Think about it... how are they going to make a living...drywall installers, lettuce pickers?
Interesting you chose one very small snippet from my post to address and to ignore the rest, and to stay with the very same argument you used previously even though I addressed it. That you can't imagine it does not mean it isn't happening or hasn't already happened. Maybe not in the numbers you ARE trying to imagine, but happening none-the-less.
HEARTLESS wrote: Until a higher court overturns this decision, I'm going with the Federal Judge as opposed to the opinion of an immigration attorney, or his barista.
"Until" sounds an awful lot like you expect it to be overturned.
I expect the commie dictator king and his minions in the DOJ to continue to try to make a mockery of our system of government and challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court. But at least if your name is Estefania Isaias and your family donates tens of thousands of dollars to the Democratic campaigns you can have your barring lifted for obtaining fraudulent documents by the hypocrites.
Rick wrote: No, I don't, but as a human myself, I understand the concept of risk and reward. Using a small amount of common sense, I can't imagine large numbers of highly skilled Mexicans risking their lives for a very unlikely reward. Are these skilled people going to get legitimate jobs as doctors, scientists, or even lawyers if they are not here legally? Think about it... how are they going to make a living...drywall installers, lettuce pickers?
Interesting you chose one very small snippet from my post to address and to ignore the rest, and to stay with the very same argument you used previously even though I addressed it. That you can't imagine it does not mean it isn't happening or hasn't already happened. Maybe not in the numbers you ARE trying to imagine, but happening none-the-less.
This is what you quoted in your post:
"So you believe highly skilled Mexicans (doctors, scientists, etc.) are risking their lives to get into the US illegally? Does that make any sense to you? I know you like to debate in maybes and I don't knows, but at some point a little reason and common sense has to slip in somewhere"
I just kept to that question since it was the actual point I was trying to make.
And on the subject of name abbreviations, it's rally quite simple. If I'm going to call you by your actual screen name, then I'm going to put it as ZHawke, because that's how you want it written out. Problem is, it's not only unnatural to have two capital letters at the beginning of a name, it's just a pain to hold the shift key down for two letters when I'm a crappy two finger typist. Who else on this board has ever complained about a name abbreviation? Nobody. Even SC who is arguably the most respected poster here... who types out Science Chic every time? You are the only member who has a name that starts with Z, so we all know what Z means. I changed my name from Critical Bill to my real name, but before that, I was known as CB. You can call me R or r or rick or Rick... if I know who you are referring to, that's all that matters... it doesn't change the discussion a bit.
So please don't be offended if I don't want to waste the extra steps typing your name as you have it, it's not meant as a insult.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
