Some perspective on "immigration"?

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.

As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?

I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.

I wouldn't want any of my elected representatives to vote on any half-assed bill that doesn't stress border security above all else. We are going to repeat this nonsense every couple decades and the really bad people we don't want here will continue to walk across the border. To invoke the "you just hate Obama" card, is to discount the real problem of our porous border. Now, tell me how it's impossible to secure it with all the technology we have today.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.

As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?

I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.

I wouldn't want any of my elected representatives to vote on any half-assed bill that doesn't stress border security above all else. We are going to repeat this nonsense every couple decades and the really bad people we don't want here will continue to walk across the border. To invoke the "you just hate Obama" card, is to discount the real problem of our porous border. Now, tell me how it's impossible to secure it with all the technology we have today.

Like what, specifically?

Do you believe that there is no way to secure the border or are we doomed to take in millions of new illegals every few years?

Rick wrote: Do you believe that there is no way to secure the border or are we doomed to take in millions of new illegals every few years?

It doesn't matter whether I believe the border can, or even should, be secured. Obviously, you do. In light of that, what do YOU recommend? A wall. A larger Border Patrol? What?

Rick wrote: Do you believe that there is no way to secure the border or are we doomed to take in millions of new illegals every few years?

When you say "border", I can only assume you mean our border with Mexico, right? What about our border with Canada? Should that be secured, as well? If so, how would you go about doing that?

As far as being "doomed to take in millions of new illegals every few years" is concerned, why should we consider that to be something that would doom us?

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Do you believe that there is no way to secure the border or are we doomed to take in millions of new illegals every few years?

It doesn't matter whether I believe the border can, or even should, be secured. Obviously, you do. In light of that, what do YOU recommend? A wall. A larger Border Patrol? What?

It's so hard to squeeze a straight answer out of you without getting another question to my question.

If you don't think we need to secure the border much better than we do now, say so.
If you don't think the border needs to be secured much better, please say so.

I'm trying to establish some points that we can debate without constantly running off into the weeds with deflections. Sheesh

Rick wrote: It's so hard to squeeze a straight answer out of you without getting another question to my question.

If you don't think we need to secure the border much better than we do now, say so.
If you don't think the border needs to be secured much better, please say so.

I'm trying to establish some points that we can debate without constantly running off into the weeds with deflections. Sheesh

Get used to it. Your questions/points invite deflection because they have no viable answers. I'm trying to bring some reason into the discussion by pointing out things that need to be considered, and you keep on insisting that I follow your rules.

The fact our borders, both South and North, are as open/closed as they are is something you and I are not going to settle here. My concern is for both borders, not just our Southern one. My concern is also for costs involved in securing our borders any further than they already are. When talking about building a wall, increasing Border Patrol budget and manpower, don't the costs associated with doing so concern you? After all, conservatives in Congress keep on touting themselves as being "fiscally responsible". How can anyone justify costs associated with virtually closing our borders? Closing our borders would, to me, be the only way to actually and realistically stop what you call illegal border crossings. How would you pay for that?

ZHawke wrote: This nation used to welcome immigrants, no matter their stripe.

Before the dawn of the welfare state that was true. The one thing you can't have, unless one is trying to bankrupt the Union, is a generous immigration policy and a generous welfare state. That math simply doesn't work, you run out of other people's money to spend subsidizing an ever larger percentage of the population, much like what has been happening for the last 6 years.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Please note your admitting there were no laws prior to 1900 regarding immigration. So the passage of any law is simply a morph to Liberals and can be cherry picked as to what to follow or not then?

From the article:

Prior to 1875’s Page Act and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no national immigration laws. None. There were laws related to naturalization and citizenship, to how vessels reported their passengers, to banning the slave trade. Once New York’s Castle Garden Immigration Station opened in 1855, arrivals there reported names and origins before entering the U.S. But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren't legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.

Please note I said there "really aren't any" which may be construed, as you have apparently done, to there being none prior to 1900. The two immigration laws mentioned above are very real, however. The article goes on to give a history of immigration laws enacted over a period of time. To me, that's morphing.

And the influx of immigrants was desired in order to fulfill the "manifest destiny" populist ideas of the time. That, by the way, is why the indigenous peoples of this land had it taken from them, to fulfill the manifest destiny. Andrew Jackson was a big proponent of that policy. You remember Jackson, the president who lost a case before the Supreme Court and then went about doing what he wanted to do anyway and put the Cherokees on the "Trail of Tears"? Rather a lot of similarities between Jacksonian democracy and Obama's democracy when you get right down to it.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: This nation used to welcome immigrants, no matter their stripe.

Before the dawn of the welfare state that was true. The one thing you can't have, unless one is trying to bankrupt the Union, is a generous immigration policy and a generous welfare state. That math simply doesn't work, you run out of other people's money to spend subsidizing an ever larger percentage of the population, much like what has been happening for the last 6 years.

That's exactly right, and like Obama and the Dems love to say "they didn't build that"... "that" being this country built primarily by individual taxpaying citizens for two and a half centuries. In the early days of this country you either stepped up and worked or you died... now there's a third choice. But even if you want to come here today and work, that doesn't mean you've earned the same rights to what was built by everybody before us and currently.

I believe a good immigration policy must include having skin in the game, and at the very least learning English and some sort of skill if none currently exists. We need to import more assets than liabilities... something that is not being considered at all with this executive overreach. This may not seem like necessary common sense to the left, but it makes sense to me.