• 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!

If you watched both sides let’s have a discussion

MrShangles said:
Could we please just have open minded Americans that actually watched both the President’s address and the democrats address. If you only wanted one then you’re close minded, please go to another post.
I thought the president was very professional, he put the facts that he gets from professional border security agents out for us to see, and told Americans about how the democrats are on video saying we must stop the illegal immigrant flow at our southern border, and he addressed the murders, rapes, and assaults. Now I listened to democrats hoping they would lay out their plan for the more advanced technology to stop border crossing, but all I heard was about putting technology at border crossings to catch drugs, I didn’t hear anything about stopping illegal criminals, or the murdered Americans. I gave them an open mind but they had nothing that sounded feasible, they did say open the government and discuss wall later, but they’ve already voted for it before so why do they need to discuss.
I also watched Bernie, his statement had more ideas than democrats, but he had also voted for border security before also. He got off on free stuff and old folks and such.
I personally think our president has our safety in mind so I like his ideas.
Tell us what you got from the addresses. But only if you watched both sides!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Trump: Super scripted. Read from a teleprompter. Tried to create illusion of a crisis about influx of migrants. Talked a lot about drugs and crime but didn't really make a case how a wall would deter this given both enter the country through the legal ports far more than through illegal crossings. Took some swings at the Dems.

Chuck and Nancy: Stiff and creepy. Sticking to narrative that they would talk about border security after government opened. Emphasized humanitarian issues. Didn't do a good job offering other solutions.
 
What is there to say? Trump said nothing new and he literally used the Oval Office to boost his re-election campaign's coffers.
 
JasperL said:
OK, and....? Let's punch down and screw the kids of immigrants?
Click to expand...

They are not immigrants. Immigrants are people legally entering our country. Criminal is the right word for people breaking our laws entering our country illegally.
 
Mach said:
I'd be sad. What does that have to do with the discussion? Nothing.
Click to expand...

You’d just say oh well? Bet you’re loved ones would be glad to know that, so just go tell your kids, or parents that if someone that’s not supposed to be here kills them, then you wouldn’t care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I watched both "sides" ignore why we have an illegal immigration problem and a drug problem - lack of interior law enforcement aimed at reducing demand. If not for plentiful job offers paying far better than those available in their homelands and "access to" better social programs illegal immigration would drop to a trickle. If not for US demand for illegal drugs there would be no supply of illegal drugs.

That leaves only the alleged crime/terror problem mentioned by Trump (and ignored by both Pelosi and Schumer) which should be addressed by using increased interior law enforcement because, no matter how secure that you pretend the border and/or ports of entry to become, crime/terror will continue to be a problem requiring increased interior law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Interior law enforcement doesnt work. Look at the war on drugs. All youll do is INCREASE criminal activity.
 
jonny5 said:
Interior law enforcement doesnt work. Look at the war on drugs. All youll do is INCREASE criminal activity.
Click to expand...

If you don't reduce illegal demand then you won't reduce illegal supply - it's really that simple. If having/using X (by adults) is not illegal then why should selling X (to adults) be illegal?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
They are not immigrants. Immigrants are people legally entering our country. Criminal is the right word for people breaking our laws entering our country illegally.
Click to expand...

Well, they are immigrants. You can call them criminals if you want, but you don't get to redefine words to suit your purposes.

BTW, what do you call the employers (like Trump and Rep. Nunes) who hire them or the people who eat cheaper food, buy cheaper houses, get roof repairs done more cheaply, less expensive hotel rooms? How about the government, Republicans and Democrats, that has encouraged the criminals!!!!! for decades to come here and work?
 
JasperL said:
Well, they are immigrants. You can call them criminals if you want, but you don't get to redefine words to suit your purposes.
Click to expand...

Alien
An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.

Immigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on their job skills. An alien who has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience, and is otherwise eligible, may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Alien
An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.

Immigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on their job skills. An alien who has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience, and is otherwise eligible, may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.
Click to expand...

I noticed you ignored the rest of my comment and the substance of that comment and of my overall argument that you jumped into. So I'll pass. If you want to go back and address those points, I'll be happy to have a conversation. This is semantics. If it makes you happy if I call them "illegal immigrants" that's fine.

My basic question was is it the right answer to punch DOWN and punish KIDS versus the criminal employers and the homeowners and others who benefit from hiring the kids' parents, and who all (consumers, employers, homeowners) provide the draw for the "illegal immigrants" to make the trek and cross our border to take one of the MILLIONS of jobs employers are more than happy to offer them?
 
jdog21 said:
https://goo.gl/images/cHNidu
Public union government workers make to much money as it is, who cares if they miss a paycheck
Click to expand...

That's a good talking point. Please, please send that along to the GOP and Trump, and let's all hope they adopt it and use it at every opportunity. Thanks in advance.
 
JasperL said:
If it makes you happy if I call them "illegal immigrants" that's fine.
Click to expand...

That is silly since an immigrant is an alien legally immigrating to our country. The key word is legal. An immigrant is someone entering our country LEGALLY in accordance with our IMMIGRATION LAWS. It is not some lawless alien sneaking into our country. It is not some lawless alien overstaying their visa. Those are illegal aliens that have not been granted immigrant status in our country. Now I know every lefty is trying to be politically correct and does not want to call an apple and apple. You can change the name but an apple is still and apple and an orange is still an orange. An apple will never be an undocumented orange.
 
JasperL said:
I noticed you ignored the rest of my comment and the substance of that comment and of my overall argument that you jumped into.

My basic question was is it the right answer to punch DOWN and punish KIDS versus the criminal employers and the homeowners and others who benefit from hiring the kids' parents, and who all (consumers, employers, homeowners) provide the draw for the "illegal immigrants" to make the trek and cross our border to take one of the MILLIONS of jobs employers are more than happy to offer them?
Click to expand...

My answer to that has not changed in 45 years. Everyone should have to obey the law. No if, ands, or buts. My ancestors were immigrants. They came to this country legally. They did not sneak in. They did not break our laws. I cannot understand how that is such a problem for the left.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
That is silly since an immigrant is an alien legally immigrating to our country. The key word is legal. An immigrant is someone entering our country LEGALLY in accordance with our IMMIGRATION LAWS. It is not some lawless alien sneaking into our country. It is not some lawless alien overstaying their visa. Those are illegal aliens that have not been granted immigrant status in our country. Now I know every lefty is trying to be politically correct and does not want to call an apple and apple. You can change the name but an apple is still and apple and an orange is still an orange. An apple will never be an undocumented orange.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about the semantics. Sorry.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
My answer to that has not changed in 45 years. Everyone should have to obey the law. No if, ands, or buts. My ancestors were immigrants. They came to this country legally. They did not sneak in. They did not break our laws. I cannot understand how that is such a problem for the left.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question or address any point I've been making in the conversation you jumped into. Why did you bother?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you don't reduce illegal demand then you won't reduce illegal supply - it's really that simple. If having/using X (by adults) is not illegal then why should selling X (to adults) be illegal?
Click to expand...

You cant reduce demand with law enforcement. Its really that simple. Instead we should LEGALIZE demand.
 
jonny5 said:
You cant reduce demand with law enforcement. Its really that simple. Instead we should LEGALIZE demand.
Click to expand...

Are you now advocating open borders to legalize any and all immigration?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you now advocating open borders to legalize any and all immigration?
Click to expand...

No, I support legalizing anyone who has a job. If an employer has a job opening they cant fill, and a foreigner is willing to take it, give them a work visa.
 
jonny5 said:
No, I support legalizing anyone who has a job. If an employer has a job opening they cant fill, and a foreigner is willing to take it, give them a work visa.
Click to expand...

I partly agree, but why would you give a work visa to someone that has illegally entered the country on the condition that they remain employed to a specific employer/position? Granting "guest worker" visas based on a specific class of job skills (say carpenters) is OK but when that visa is for a specific employer then it is only one notch above slavery. If the work visa expires (or is deemed invalidated) simply because that "guest worker" decides to work for a different US employer then it allows too much opportunity for worker exploitation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I partly agree, but why would you give a work visa to someone that has illegally entered the country on the condition that they remain employed to a specific employer/position? Granting "guest worker" visas based on a specific class of job skills (say carpenters) is OK but when that visa is for a specific employer then it is only one notch above slavery. If the work visa expires (or is deemed invalidated) simply because that "guest worker" decides to work for a different US employer then it allows too much opportunity for worker exploitation.
Click to expand...

They wont have entered illegally. Everyone employed on farms or as maids, or whatever, will have been hired from a pool of people waiting for a job. Without the excessive govt laws and law enforcement that caused employers to hire illegals in the first place, why would they continue to do so? Anyone who wants a job will be able to enter legally, so why would they be sneaking in? Theres no jobs for them. Problem solved.
 
jonny5 said:
They wont have entered illegally. Everyone employed on farms or as maids, or whatever, will have been hired from a pool of people waiting for a job. Without the excessive govt laws and law enforcement that caused employers to hire illegals in the first place, why would they continue to do so? Anyone who wants a job will be able to enter legally, so why would they be sneaking in? Theres no jobs for them. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

The obvious problem with that (bolded above) is that assumes that such job openings exist. Where would this pool of foreign national job seekers reside and how could employers possibly interview them?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The obvious problem with that (bolded above) is that assumes that such job openings exist. Where would this pool of foreign national job seekers reside and how could employers possibly interview them?
Click to expand...

Im not writing a bill here. Im simply pointing out that illegal behavior is caused by govt, not solved. IE, excessive regulation. Get rid of it and the problem goes away. Instead youre suggesting some war on illegal labor, which like all the other wars on X, dont work. They just make it more enticing for criminals to game the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom