• 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!

So then, what is a reasonable DACA/Border deal look like?

Absentglare said:
I'm still not understanding your issue.

Merit is NOT a requirement to be a citizen. You're arguing that it should be. Now, do you only apply this merit requirement to select groups, or does it apply to everybody?

Because i would find it hilarious if we revoked the citizenship of conservatives who wouldn't meet their own expectations for immigrants.
Click to expand...
I would find it hilarious if we revoked voting rights for anyone who does not pay any income tax

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Absentglare said:
I'm still not understanding your issue.

Merit is NOT a requirement to be a citizen. You're arguing that it should be. Now, do you only apply this merit requirement to select groups, or does it apply to everybody?

Because i would find it hilarious if we revoked the citizenship of conservatives who wouldn't meet their own expectations for immigrants.
Click to expand...

I'm aware merit is not a requirement for citizenship. Merit based on our needs is a requirement for immigration and work visas and it should be. If we have plenty of low skilled workers and a lack of software developers, then we approve software developers and say no thank you to the low skilled. Why is that a difficult concept?

The only select groups I'm addressing is legal immigrants and illegals. I didn't mention political party.
 
trouble13 said:
I perferr landmines, trip wires, armed drones, poisioned water stations, etc... but in the spirit of compromise im ok with trying the wall

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Too much risk of collateral damage for my blood.

40% of illegal immigrants fly here in planes, a wall will do nothing to stop them. Any attempt to stem illegal immigration without addressing employers is doomed to fail, as generally when there is nonzero demand, there will be nonzero supply.

trouble13 said:
Im all for amending the constitution to no longer give anchor babies automatic cirizenship. Its an antiquated law designed to help the children of slaves. Its outlived its usefullness.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's:

(1) jus sanguinis, right of blood; if your parents were US citizens but gave birth on foreign soil, you have a right to citizenship through blood.
(2) jus soli, right of soil; if you're born on American soil, you have a right to citizenship through soil.
(3) naturalization; if you follow the legal framework to obtain citizenship, whatever the law says that is, then you can become a citizen.

I'm not so sure that (1) and (2) have outlived their usefulness. Are you suggesting that we eliminate (2) entirely, or that we combine (1) and (2) (which could penalize US citizens who give birth prematurely, say, while on vacation or work overseas)?
 
Vetplus40 said:
I listened to SHS tells the WH press corps the list of what DJT calls compromise and could hardly keep from laughing out loud. Her list of "compromise" being EVERYTHING Trump wants that he isn't going to get. If memory serves, I seem to remember compromise being both sides giving a little.

Now, in the spirit of compromise, what can you folks live with on this issue?
Click to expand...

* Wall funding in totality (The Wall idea became such a focal point of the Trump campaign that he needs to come through on it to appease his base.)
* DACA extension with legalization but no citizenship. (Democrats can't have a deal without DACA, but they can't be given the right to vote for political fairness reasons. Don't reward one party over another with people who broke the law.)
* E-verify (A policy historically Democratic, popularized in the GOP by President Trump.)
* Elimination of sanctuary cities (Historically bipartisan and the right thing to do.)
* Increased border patrol (Historically bipartisan and necessary for border protection.)
* Increased border technology (Effectively a part of the wall, and historically bipartisan.)
* Reform legal immigration reducing the lottery system but not entirely, leaving some lottery for those with family in the USA. (More of a Republican position, with a slight compromise for Democrats.)
* Expand the court systems to allow more cases to be heard and hopefully increase due process of the accused of illegal immigrants. (Important to Democrats.)
* Stop including illegal immigrants when considering population size for state districts, which influences the House of Representatives and Electoral College. (My own little touch, as I think it's wrong that states like California and Texas get more Electoral College votes and House of Representatives at the expense of other states, because they have more illegals in their population. This is not likely to happen, though.)

Keep in mind that Republicans hold a majority so they should get more than the Democrats. The people voted in favor of Republican policy over Democratic policy.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
I'm aware merit is not a requirement for citizenship. Merit based on our needs is a requirement for immigration and work visas and it should be. If we have plenty of low skilled workers and a lack of software developers, then we approve software developers and say no thank you to the low skilled. Why is that a difficult concept?

The only select groups I'm addressing is legal immigrants and illegals. I didn't mention political party.
Click to expand...

There's nothing difficult about that concept, i was simply asking for clarification:

Absentglare said:
Should we exile people who are already here but we find useless?
Click to expand...

Your answer to that seems to be NO, you want to make immigrants jump through hoops and prove their worth but have no problem extending a free ride to existing citizens. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a double standard.
 
Keep the funding already agreed to for the border wall and additional border security, end the lottery, Merit based immigration.

DACA qualified get amnesty and speedy path to full citizenship.
 
flex said:
My understanding is that Trump was referring to the group in that meeting. Then a small subset of that group came up with a bill that the larger group would not have agreed to.
Click to expand...

And again you misunderstand the situation. This bill has been in the works for months and it was agreed to by enough legislators to pass IF Trump kept his word. Everyone in that room knew what was in the bill and went there in support of it as the best possible deal they could get.
 
Absentglare said:
Too much risk of collateral damage for my blood.

40% of illegal immigrants fly here in planes, a wall will do nothing to stop them. Any attempt to stem illegal immigration without addressing employers is doomed to fail, as generally when there is nonzero demand, there will be nonzero supply.



There's:

(1) jus sanguinis, right of blood; if your parents were US citizens but gave birth on foreign soil, you have a right to citizenship through blood.
(2) jus soli, right of soil; if you're born on American soil, you have a right to citizenship through soil.
(3) naturalization; if you follow the legal framework to obtain citizenship, whatever the law says that is, then you can become a citizen.

I'm not so sure that (1) and (2) have outlived their usefulness. Are you suggesting that we eliminate (2) entirely, or that we combine (1) and (2) (which could penalize US citizens who give birth prematurely, say, while on vacation or work overseas)?
Click to expand...

I agree that stopping the inflow without stopping the reasons for coming here is futile. One raid on a Tysons plant with a hundred dollar a day fine will do more good than a wall.
 
Absentglare said:
There's nothing difficult about that concept, i was simply asking for clarification:



Your answer to that seems to be NO, you want to make immigrants jump through hoops and prove their worth but have no problem extending a free ride to existing citizens. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a double standard.
Click to expand...

That's not a double standard at all. Different strokes for different folks. Citizens have rights illegals don't.
 
Absentglare said:
Incorrect, those stats should be flushed as Mostly False.

Donald Trump says illegal immigration costs $113 billion a year | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

They aren't false... Politifact leans hard left and does what ever they need to in order to give leftist like yourself the propaganda necessary to justify your positions.... or in this case, so liberals like yourself can avoid discussing the mountain of negatives surrounding the influx of both legal, and illegal immigrants.

Remember in 2009 when Politifact rated Obama's statement "You can keep your doctor" as "true", and rated it again in 2012 (during the presidential campaigns) as "half-true"? They lost what little credibility they had back then, but I expect that's part of the reason you use them as a source to begin with.


.
 
jimbo said:
I agree that stopping the inflow without stopping the reasons for coming here is futile. One raid on a Tysons plant with a hundred dollar a day fine will do more good than a wall.
Click to expand...

And what's that going to do to stop drug and gun trafficking? How is that $100/day fine going to stop sex trafficking? How is the fine even going to be implemented without e-verify, a Trump-supported policy he campaigned in favor of? Not to mention, we don't have to choose one or the other. We can have a wall, and we can fine businesses for hiring illegals.
 
independentusa said:
Question, who decides who "merits" immigration? I have read that the immigrants from Nigeria have higher education levels than the average American, but it seems the President feels they all live in huts. If you want merit based, then we should have a lottery for all those who apply for merit based immigration. I agree with doing away with chain immigration. I have a better plan for anchor babies. When the child is born the parents have a choice, leave the baby here with legal relatives or friends or take them back to the parents home country with an American passport so the anchor baby may reenter the USA when they want. The parents can not reenter except for short visits. No damn wall as it is an outdated idea. Increase border security using electronic means and additional agents. For the over 18 billion dollars even a partial wall will cost we can do a lot more electronically and with staff.
Click to expand...

You probably missed this post in another thread:

Captain Adverse said:
Not really. The sticking point has always been around the "Birthright Citizenship" issue.

However, it is best resolved by issuing the parents an American birth certificate for the child, and then sending them ALL back to the parent's country of origin. When the child becomes a legal adult at 18, he/she can return.

To prevent the sale of the Birth Certificate to a third party, a DNA sample can be taken and preserved in INS files and then used to verify the returning "citizen" when they apply at the Consulate for re-entry.

Meanwhile, the parents can apply through the normal immigration channels and if they qualify can then re-enter with the child under the normal immigration process.

Either that, or the birth parents can put the child in an American orphanage for adoption by an American family, or foster care until the child reaches adulthood.
Click to expand...

1. The problem with "anchor babies" is not the babies, it is the parents who use that process to anchor themselves in the USA.

If illegal immigrants know the adults don't get to stay, and either get deported with the child or must give up the child and leave without it...that would be one more disincentive to try coming here.

2. As for a "partial wall?" If there is any open territory granting access there will be illegals who will try using it.

Walls alone can't stop someone from coming in, they do have to be guarded...and THAT's where the high tech comes in.

That wall makes it more difficult to cross and the high tech alert systems allow rapid reaction at any point a breach occurs.

Without a Wall we face the problems we have now...not enough manpower to patrol the entire area. What people don't realize is that for years we've already tried using just technology and it doesn't work alone.

What you get are "herds" of immigrants in some areas who simply rush in, scatter alone or in small groups so some get caught while others make it in.

The ones who get caught...just try again until THEY succeed.
 
Last edited:
Middle_Ground said:
......
Click to expand...

Chain migration family migration whatever. When someone gets a green card their spouse and all their kids under the age of 18 get green cards too. This is the way it is and this is the way it will continue. Ending the family migration is to end there parents from getting a green card too and ending them being able to sponsor their extended family and putting ahead in line of others that have applied before them.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm still not understanding your issue.

Merit is NOT a requirement to be a citizen. You're arguing that it should be. Now, do you only apply this merit requirement to select groups, or does it apply to everybody?

Because i would find it hilarious if we revoked the citizenship of conservatives who wouldn't meet their own expectations for immigrants.
Click to expand...

The merit based idea is only for immigrants who want a green cards into this country. Not citizens, you seriously cant be this dumb
 
jimbo said:
That's not a double standard at all. Different strokes for different folks. Citizens have rights illegals don't.
Click to expand...

Immigrants are not the same as illegals.

And i see that you are rejecting the idea that the constitution enumerates natural rights which are extended to all humans.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
And what's that going to do to stop drug and gun trafficking? How is that $100/day fine going to stop sex trafficking? How is the fine even going to be implemented without e-verify, a Trump-supported policy he campaigned in favor of? Not to mention, we don't have to choose one or the other. We can have a wall, and we can fine businesses for hiring illegals.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to start a couple or 6 new threads?
 
Absentglare said:
Immigrants are not the same as illegals.

And i see that you are rejecting the idea that the constitution enumerates natural rights which are extended to all humans.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Immigrants are not illegal.

I don't think the Constitution addresses natural rights.
 
Grim17 said:
They aren't false... Politifact leans hard left and does what ever they need to in order to give leftist like yourself the propaganda necessary to justify your positions.... or in this case, so liberals like yourself can avoid discussing the mountain of negatives surrounding the influx of both legal, and illegal immigrants.

Remember in 2009 when Politifact rated Obama's statement "You can keep your doctor" as "true", and rated it again in 2012 (during the presidential campaigns) as "half-true"? They lost what little credibility they had back then, but I expect that's part of the reason you use them as a source to begin with.


.
Click to expand...

What an absolutely pathetic response.

The politifact article explains their methodology in deciphering your source, and all their errors in exaggerating the costs of illegal immigrants while undervaluing their contributions. The irony is that you're whining about a "left" source being false on the basis of being "left" while appealing to a source so hard to the right their estimate was more than 1/3rd greater than that of the right leaning Heritage Institute. By your own "logic", both Heritage Institute and your source are false because "lean right".

But that's really the problem, the facts appear to lean left so it's only natural for fact checkers to appear to lean left as well.

I don't remember your unsubstantiated claims about Politifact but i know that they rated the statement you're referring to as Lie of the Year so it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.
 
jdog21 said:
Chain migration family migration whatever. When someone gets a green card their spouse and all their kids under the age of 18 get green cards too. This is the way it is and this is the way it will continue. Ending the family migration is to end there parents from getting a green card too and ending them being able to sponsor their extended family and putting ahead in line of others that have applied before them.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that's not the way I'm reading it...no family immediate or otherwise. If I'm wrong then sorry.

Maybe you are unaware but anyone can sponsor someone and they get to the head of the line. So are you for ending all sponsorship or just family sponsorship.
 
jdog21 said:
The merit based idea is only for immigrants who want a green cards into this country. Not citizens, you seriously cant be this dumb
Click to expand...

I was trying to understand if you're endorsing a double standard where foreigners have to jump through hoops while giving a free ride to entitled natives, or if you're suggesting that all people must prove their value to earn citizenship.

Of course your attempt to make it even harder for people to come and live here will incentivize more sham marriages and anchor babies to easily work around your xenophobic immigration requirements.
 
Absentglare said:
I was trying to understand if you're endorsing a double standard where foreigners have to jump through hoops while giving a free ride to entitled natives, or if you're suggesting that all people must prove their value to earn citizenship.

Of course your attempt to make it even harder for people to come and live here will incentivize more sham marriages and anchor babies to easily work around your xenophobic immigration requirements.
Click to expand...
If you cared to learn about whats being proposed at a merit based system. It isnt a requirement besides the norm but it ranks the people based on certain merits, (like having a phd gives you more points then have just a high school diploma) (or having exsisting family here gives you more points then not having any) and excepts the top million every year.
 
Middle_Ground said:
Sorry but that's not the way I'm reading it...no family immediate or otherwise. If I'm wrong then sorry.

Maybe you are unaware but anyone can sponsor someone and they get to the head of the line. So are you for ending all sponsorship or just family sponsorship.
Click to expand...

Were talking about ending family reunification visas
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is something I could get behind. I'm not big on The Wall myself but recognize that its better than nothing. This though would be far more preferable to me. Along with a few other things like requiring e-verify for all work applications, rental applications, bank accounts while signing up for bank accounts, car rental and buying applications, and a few others. The best way to end illegal immigration is to make it hard for them to get what they are wanting.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find anything that doesnt fund the wall, or at least a double fencing with access roads and car barriers, immediatly to be no go for alot of Trump supporters. The whole idea that we can increase funding for the border partrol to allow them new toys and more employees and more funding for ICE agents, although its a good thing, is that the next spending bill that gets passes wether that be in 1 year or 4 years, a democratic congress can and will remove those funds. Thats what happened to the 700 mile border fence act of 2006 and thats why the amnesty deal during Reagons admin that fined employees heavily for hiring illegals was reduced down to almost nothing. A wall once its built can not be later takin down by democrats. Also to the notion that walls dont work you'll find all the evidance says that they do work. Wether or not they are cost effective is another question entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom