Is there anyone else out there who thinks my bolded question is unreasonable, unanswerable, or irrelevant?
One of the requirements of Obama's new self-imposed law is that in order to be given these new American gifts is that you must have been living here illegally for at least 5 years... is that not correct? So for illegals who have been here less than 5 years, isn't there a huge incentive to lie? And if one is willing to break our laws by illegally crossing the border, do you really think they would have a problem with lying?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: Is there anyone else out there who thinks my bolded question is unreasonable, unanswerable, or irrelevant?
One of the requirements of Obama's new self-imposed law is that in order to be given these new American gifts is that you must have been living here illegally for at least 5 years... is that not correct? So for illegals who have been here less than 5 years, isn't there a huge incentive to lie? And if one is willing to break our laws by illegally crossing the border, do you really think they would have a problem with lying?
Seems reasonable and relevant and pretty likely to me. Which guarantees this clueless admin hasn't considered any of it.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Rick wrote: Is there anyone else out there who thinks my bolded question is unreasonable, unanswerable, or irrelevant?
One of the requirements of Obama's new self-imposed law is that in order to be given these new American gifts is that you must have been living here illegally for at least 5 years... is that not correct? So for illegals who have been here less than 5 years, isn't there a huge incentive to lie? And if one is willing to break our laws by illegally crossing the border, do you really think they would have a problem with lying?
The fact there will obviously be abuses of the executive action pretty much negates a reason for the question you asked. That's all I'm trying to say. If you want me to say yes, there will be some who are willing to lie about how long they've been in the country illegally, then, yes there will be some who are willing to lie about how long they've been in the country. That's just one of the reasons an attempt was made to address that possibility with the "accountability" portions of the executive action. Perfect? Not by any stretch of the imagination. A start? That depends on how the Congress decides to move forward with legislation of their own for the President to enact into law and then have the responsibility to enforce said law.
And, now, Rick, it's time for you to offer what you think might work as an alternative to Obama's executive action. You said in another thread:
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.
How would you enforce that? Who would pay for the training that would be required of immigrants to learn some sort of skill? Or would you deny entry to the country if the "skills" they have do not meet with the standards set? Assets vs liabilities? Please define in more detail.
I've also heard talk of "securing our border"? That's apparently a big one. But, what does that mean, exactly? What would it entail? How much would it cost, both direct and indirect costs? Would the U.S. be willing to pay for it, or should the states along the border have that responsibility? What about volunteer militias that choose to patrol the border?
Another thing to consider with regard to doing nothing (as, apparently, this Congress wants to continue to do) is the costs associated with that. If illegals getting welfare is a concern, as has been brought up in another thread, how are you going to prevent them from doing that - especially if our welfare laws, regulations, policies, and standards are as lax as some would have us believe?
Would you have a law passed establishing English as the official language of this country?
How would you address the currently estimated 11 million illegals already in this country? Deport them? Would you also then be willing to break up families whose children were born here and are, as a result, already citizens? Or would you deport them along with their parents?
There's more, but this is a good start in my opinion.
For starters we could try enforcing laws already on the books. If you recall AZ tried enforcing federal immigration laws and were sued by the feds to stop enforcing the federal laws the feds refused to enforce.
BlazerBob wrote: For starters we could try enforcing laws already on the books. If you recall AZ tried enforcing federal immigration laws and were sued by the feds to stop enforcing the federal laws the feds refused to enforce.
If not, would you consider pointing me in the right direction? If so, I'm not so sure your posit that Arizona was trying to enforce federal immigration laws is actually correct.
Last edit: 22 Nov 2014 13:46 by ZHawke. Reason: Clarification
BlazerBob wrote: For starters we could try enforcing laws already on the books. If you recall AZ tried enforcing federal immigration laws and were sued by the feds to stop enforcing the federal laws the feds refused to enforce.
If not, would you consider pointing me in the right direction? If so, I'm not so sure your posit that Arizona was trying to enforce federal immigration laws.
LOL,probably not, that is 76 pages long.
No. If you are not aware of ignored immigration laws we just have no common ground to have a conversation. Rather like trying to have a conversation about Keystone with someone who has read about"Koch profits" and has presumably never heard of Tom Steyer.
Just like you I do not care to by led around by the nose with ridiculous questions.
BlazerBob wrote: LOL,probably not, that is 76 pages long.
No. If you are not aware of ignored immigration laws we just have no common ground to have a conversation. Rather like trying to have a conversation about Keystone with someone who has read about"Koch profits" and has presumably never heard of Tom Steyer.
Just like you I do not care to by led around by the nose with ridiculous questions.
Well, that went South rather quickly, didn't it? The link I shared was what I am familiar with. The state of Arizona obviously overstepped their authority in this case. I was not aware then, nor am I aware now, of any immigration laws at the Federal level that the state of Arizona tried to enforce and was told not to by the Feds. You made the statement. Now I'm asking you to back it up by providing info on it. Otherwise, to me your statement has no merit.
As far as Keystone is concerned, at least I did some research and found out a bit more about Buffet and his railroad. As far as Steyer is concerned, you still haven't answered the question I asked of you as to how you see him fitting into that conversation.
ZHawke wrote: I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I gave it due consideration as deemed by myself that it deserved.
That right there should give you pause enough to re-evaluate whether it's worth the effort to continue this, or any other for that matter, conversation/debate/argument with your opponent.
Why? Everyone does it. That's what these forums are all about - stating our opinions and hoping to get into a discussion/debate to prove we are right. That some play by one set of rules and others play by another set does NOT require that anyone play by anyone else's rules except as required by the owner of this site.
Should it bother anyone that when questions are asked, some are answered but others are not? I see it all the time. We try to paint each other into a neat little box from which we believe our adversary (using that term very loosely here) cannot possibly escape. When someone responds with something others consider to be denial and/or deflection, we tend to take sides depending upon where our own personal biases take us.
For some, offering an apology when proven wrong is anathema to them. For others, dodgeball is the answer. And, still for others, apologies are forthcoming. In my short time back in this forum, I have yet to see very many apologies from anyone, including myself. I have apologized in the past. I will do so again if proven wrong. I will not, however, apologize to accommodate someone else's discomfort over what I consider to be their irrational, unreasonable questions regarding inconsistencies and/or what I consider to be possible fallacies in some of the posts I see.
Time and effort are qualitative in the end. Your comment does nothing but give me reason to believe you think my comments/opinions, etc., aren't worthy of inclusion. I could say the same thing about all the comments/opinions offered previously by others, both here and in every other post in The Courthouse. But I won't do that.
Kind of makes me wonder if these forums are "worth the effort", especially since so many of the efforts I see from so many others could be interpreted as efforts to drive others with differing views away.
The BOLDED "to prove we are right"....JMO...in participating (within a thread)I generally do NOT believe that I will change anyone's mind or alter their perception. I participate to offer ANOTHER point of view
on the topic (since I am NOT main stream in my views)...MANY times I do not get a response,it does not indicate I have failed, just that the thought is "out there" for anyone who wishes to "ponder" on it.
When someone responds with something others consider to be denial and/or deflection, we tend to take sides depending upon where our own personal biases take us.
