• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gutierrez Urges Obama to Let Undocumented Immigrants Stay [W:128]

Montecresto said:
You asked me the same thing many months ago, and I confirmed to you that I was.
Click to expand...

Then why would you spell the word 'Neighbour' with a 'U' rather than writing it as 'Neighbor', as the Americans do. That is the British and Canadian way to spell the word, not American. You seem to have your spell check wired to the wrong country.
 
Grant said:
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador all have 'impediments known as borders'. Canada too. All these countries seem to think that borders are a good thing because it defines their country. If America wants to throw away the concept of borders it should first get an agreement and cooperation with every other country involved before acting unilaterally.

Who told you 'globalization' has no use for borders?
Click to expand...
Allowing more immigration and throwing away borders are two completely different things. Nobody is advocating that the US abolish its borders and cease to be a country.

Citizens of European Union member states and their families have the right to live and work anywhere within the EU because of EU citizenship. Germany is still Germany. France is still France. The map looks the same--both countries still have their borders and their identity.
 
Montecresto said:
The two aren't exclusive.

A world without borders makes economic sense | Michael A Clemens | Global development | theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Not surprising that DC based think tank economist educated at California Institute of Technology is of this opinion.
Michael A. Clemens is an American development economist.
He is a senior fellow and research manager at the Center for Global Development (CGD), a Washington D.C.-based think tank as well as a visiting scholar at the Financial Access Initiative, a research center housed at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University.
Click to expand...
Michael Clemens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nation without secured borders is no longer a nation. A territory perhaps, but not a nation.
 
Paxaeon said:

Technology has taken globalization from a mere concept to an actualized paradigm. The Industrial Revolution was the kick start. Capitalism fuels it. All for the .00001%. If borders interfere with profits, get rid of them.
Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense....

To people arguing for the dissolution of the US southern border, consider for a second how Mexico treats illegal aliens in its country....

"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.


Read more: Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Why should we not do the same?
 
TeleKat said:
Ok, so if you won't give them amnesty and you won't even provide a reasonable path to citizenship, what exactly are you going to do with the thousands of immigrants that have already crossed the border and have made lives here? I see no viable way of sending them all home without infringing on the 4th amendment and wasting a ton of taxpayer money. You must also keep in mind that you will end up tearing families apart and damaging the lives of those who aren't "legal" but have lived their whole lives here.
Click to expand...

Round them up and send their butts back. Once the word gets out that the crackdown has started most will self deport.
 
The Biggest part of the Problem is the Perception that Obama has promulgated.. Open Borders.. especially for the young.
Photo: AP/Dallas Morning News.


In this June 20 photo, immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally
stand in line for tickets at the bus station after they were released
from a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility in McAllen, Texas.

NAVARRETTEDIG.JPG
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Then why would you spell the word 'Neighbour' with a 'U' rather than writing it as 'Neighbor', as the Americans do. That is the British and Canadian way to spell the word, not American. You seem to have your spell check wired to the wrong country.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but then WHO CARES.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps we should move back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days. Life was so much less complicated then.
Click to expand...

Are you just bored in CR today? Grant, go fishing or fly a kite, something, anything.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not surprising that DC based think tank economist educated at California Institute of Technology is of this opinion.
Michael Clemens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nation without secured borders is no longer a nation. A territory perhaps, but not a nation.
Click to expand...

You must think I'm an advocate for a world without borders. I've pointed out what I have to demonstrate the agenda for globalisation, driven by big business that has no use for secure borders. That's what's comical about watching these guys beat Obama up over the borders issue. Big business hasn't had an interest in secure borders for decades. Secure, tight or sealed borders are counter intuitive to their interests. Both parties pander to big business and you WILL NOT see our border secured.
 
apdst said:
Round them up and send their butts back. Once the word gets out that the crackdown has started most will self deport.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But why are you just now calling for that while Obama's president? Was this of any concern to you during the Clinton or reagan administrations.
 
Montecresto said:
Agreed. But why are you just now calling for that while Obama's president? Was this of any concern to you during the Clinton or reagan administrations.
Click to expand...

I've been calling for it every since I was od enough to form an opinion about such things.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps we should move back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days. Life was so much less complicated then.
Click to expand...

Somebody always wants to throw the baby out along with the bath water.

The plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused severe damage to poor nations. What's more, there's no point denying that multinationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human-rights abuses as they pursue profit around the globe.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_45/b3706001.htm
 
apdst said:
For someone who claims not to be a flaming Liberal, you sure are quick on the draw when you think someone is criticizing Obama.
Click to expand...

I criticise Obama. I asked if you were concerned about this before, or if you had just become concerned with it when Obama became president. You said you've always been concerned about it, and I said fair enough. Wasn't that good enough?
 
Montecresto said:
I criticise Obama. I asked if you were concerned about this before, or if you had just become concerned with it when Obama became president. You said you've always been concerned about it, and I said fair enough. Wasn't that good enough?
Click to expand...

Yeah! Sure!
 
apdst said:
Yeah! Sure!
Click to expand...

Here's a post from the "most transparent presidency thread. See right here wher I criticise Obama for being less transparent than Bush?!?!

There's no question that Obama turns out to have a less transparent presidency than Bush-2, however, he too was far less transparent than his predecessors. The real shame in all this is that you and yours failed (or refused) to spot it in the last administration just as good partisan lefties fail/refuse to acknowledge it in the current administration. So, like everything else that's wrong, watch for more and worse in the next administration.
 
Montecresto said:
Here's a post from the "most transparent presidency thread. See right here wher I criticise Obama for being less transparent than Bush?!?!

There's no question that Obama turns out to have a less transparent presidency than Bush-2, however, he too was far less transparent than his predecessors. The real shame in all this is that you and yours failed (or refused) to spot it in the last administration just as good partisan lefties fail/refuse to acknowledge it in the current administration. So, like everything else that's wrong, watch for more and worse in the next administration.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm supposed to just take your word for it?
 
apdst said:
I guess I'm supposed to just take your word for it?
Click to expand...

What's that suppose to mean. I just SHOWED you where I criticised Obama, stating that in regards to transparency, he has a worse record than Bush, and your response is that you'll have to take my word for it. **** dude!
 
Montecresto said:
What's that suppose to mean. I just SHOWED you where I criticised Obama, stating that in regards to transparency, he has a worse record than Bush, and your response is that you'll have to take my word for it. **** dude!
Click to expand...

You left out the link and I'm supposed to take your word for it? Sorry...dude.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
That is simply not true.

At the time the Mayflower arrived, there was no established nation on this continent, and no set of laws regarding who could settle here. It was a large mass of land, only very sparsely inhabited by random tribes of savages here and there.

It took the arrival of many shipfulls of settlers from Europe to create a nation here, such that there could possibly be any laws regarding any further immigration.
Click to expand...

Is that what they teach in your schools?
 
Montecresto said:
What's that suppose to mean. I just SHOWED you where I criticised Obama, stating that in regards to transparency, he has a worse record than Bush, and your response is that you'll have to take my word for it. **** dude!
Click to expand...

It's possible he's not that obtuse, that he's doing it on purpose to rattle your chain. Either way, I don't see a happy ending here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom