• 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!

Should we open the borders?

Should We open the borders?


  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
Yeah, let's just ignore those people that go on to get PhDs and to discover cures for diseases, develop new technologies, etc.

He's not saying we should ignore them, he's saying HE won't give them preferential treatment when it comes to employment just because they're Americans.

If you think about it, a lot of Americans get useless degrees that don't help them much later in life. The man has a point.
 
I don't think that we should have 100% open boarders, but we should have very liberal immigration policies. Immigrants are important to a healthy culture and economy. With immigration we're pretty much right on replacement with our population as well.

Closed boarders are stupid and harmful to the Republic, most calls to closed boarders are typically rooted in ignorance, emotion, and hysteria.

and most calls to open borders are rooted in trust fund babys with no job and no idea of the labor market............
 
wooptee **** for you.

In my youth I watched the textile industry of the South collapse and get sent overseas. I watched as millions of people lost good-paying jobs and ended up working for peanuts, or on welfare, or losing their homes. The economy in many parts of the south has STILL not recovered.


In 1980 you could make a GOOD living in home construction. Now most of those jobs are taken by illegals and pay miniumum wage and houses STILL cost four times what they cost in 1980.

Yeah we're winning just great.

Next we should let those Ph.D engineers in India who make $5,000 a year compete with American engineers accustomed to making $100,000 a year or more...

I bet if that happened with every profession that required a costly degree I bet illegal immigration and work visa programs would be halted.
 
You just drank a little too much of the open borders koolaid which purports that to be against illegal aliens is to be against immigration and immigrants. It's a lovely meme but entirely false.



No, nor do we need to. With current law we could refuse pretty much all services to illegals, we do NOT do that now. The IRS could easily report the source and destinations of that income that is taxed and not claimed to the INS for investigation. Currently by law one must identify themselves if they are sending 10K to someone. Adjust that require to cover ANY amount sent to a foreign destination. Levy the fines, levy the fines, levy the fines. Enforce, enforce, enforce.

We have seen what happens as states start to enforce their laws against illegals - the illegals leave and go to a state that doesn't enforce.



Honestly don't know. My speculation is that it's a papa knows best move, but there are so many [conspiracy] theories as to why presidents do this (we're not the first to notice) that I find it hard to speculate.

Pro-illegals tend to make it seem that the only solutions to illegal immigration are build a wall or a mass round up and pretend that those solution are impossible and act as though amnesty is the only option.
 
And brings me to my next thought. We should amend the constitution to rescind the automatic citizenship rule. Made sense when we were nation-building in the 1800's and early 1900's (when nearly all immigrants came through Ellis Island and were processed).


The intent of the 14th was never to grant citizenship to the children of forigners. This is why section 1 of the 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. " instead of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the dangerous misinterpretation of the birthright citizenship clause - DA King - the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship -
Before its ratification in 1868, Michigan's Senator Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause, made the intent crystal clear to the Senate: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include all other classes of persons."

Does not make sense now, especially when "anchor babies" (yes, I know some people get uppity about the term, but that's exactly what it is) encourage illegals to give birth here to American citizens, which are then immediately afforded access to entitlements... otherwise known as taxpayer money. I'd rewrite the law to state that at least one biological parent must already be a citizen, by birth or naturalization.

The anchor baby is the result of part of the Immigration Nationality Act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.
 
Exactly. Put yourself in their shoes. If I'm a drug cartel king in Mexico, and some towel-wearing dude with sandals comes in to my barrio trying to build bombs and whatnot, I'm not exactly going to welcome him with open arms.

People tend to operate on the basis of self-interest, and it's against their self-interest to allow Muslim extremists in to their country.

The whole idea is nothing but a xenophobic scare tactic. Fear is the worst motivator.

I'd rather be driven by the opportunity that the influx of new workers, new ideas, etc could bring than be driven by the fear of xenophobia.
You think Al Qaeda doesn't have money to pay off the drug lords? LOL! The cartels will do almost anything for money.
 
You think Al Qaeda doesn't have money to pay off the drug lords? LOL! The cartels will do almost anything for money.

Yes and no. They're greedy, immoral, but not stupid. The last thing they want to do is provoke the United States in to coming after them. This is why you don't see drug violence spill over the border from the border towns. They know that they can get away with quite a bit in Mexico by paying off or intimidating local politicians/police, but if they fight their drug wars in the United States, it's curtains for their organization.

Similarly, they wouldn't be stupid enough to accept money from Al Qaeda. It's bad for business.
 
Yes and no. They're greedy, immoral, but not stupid. The last thing they want to do is provoke the United States in to coming after them. This is why you don't see drug violence spill over the border from the border towns. They know that they can get away with quite a bit in Mexico by paying off or intimidating local politicians/police, but if they fight their drug wars in the United States, it's curtains for their organization.

Similarly, they wouldn't be stupid enough to accept money from Al Qaeda. It's bad for business.
:lamo That's about the most naive view of drug lords I've seen yet. :lamo
 
:lamo That's about the most naive view of drug lords I've seen yet. :lamo

While I'm sure you have plenty of experience with South American drug lords, I have actually known a couple in my day, believe it or not. Not well, mind you, but I have known a couple.

This is years ago, so maybe Mexicans are nothing like the Colombians were, but from what I know, they treat drugs like a business. Now, maybe the Mexicans are different, who knows. But what I'm telling you is true. There is no way they would even entertain the idea of getting in bed with Al Qaeda. They don't give two ****s about politics either way. Everything is a cold-blooded cost/benefit analysis.

They can pump drugs in to this country all day (and they do), and nobody will do much about it... in spite of the "war on drugs." The public interest just isn't there.

Anybody with any brains at all knows the number one way to provoke the wrath of the United States is to get in to bed with Al Quaeda. Everyone knows that.

The USA are these guys' biggest customer. There is zero chance they're going to kill the goose that's laying the golden egg. That's just how it is, believe it or not.

Right now they're flying under the radar. They'll do what it takes to keep it that way.

If an al Qaeda guy walked in to Colombia and wanted passage in to the United States, honestly, they'd probably kill him.
 
Anybody with any brains at all knows the number one way to provoke the wrath of the United States is to get in to bed with Al Quaeda. Everyone knows that.
They don't have to do that. All they have to do is put one more illegal in the same truck with all the other illegals - and they'll probably charge him more to do it. They're making more money than they would off a Mexican illegal so they're happy. This is what drug lords do, they smuggle illegal goods across the border, which includes people.
 
They don't have to do that. All they have to do is put one more illegal in the same truck with all the other illegals - and they'll probably charge him more to do it. They're making more money than they would off a Mexican illegal so they're happy. This is what drug lords do, they smuggle illegal goods across the border, which includes people.

Yeah, but nobody cares about another gardener, but they know damn well that if they smuggle a terrorist they will have the full attention of the USA. Goodbye lucrative drug business. That's a very poor business decision.
 
They don't have to do that. All they have to do is put one more illegal in the same truck with all the other illegals - and they'll probably charge him more to do it. They're making more money than they would off a Mexican illegal so they're happy. This is what drug lords do, they smuggle illegal goods across the border, which includes people.

You know, what I COULD see happening is if a terrorist managed to fool the coyotes somehow. If somehow he managed to slip through their cracks, then I could see a terrorist coming in through Mexico. But NEVER with the knowledge of the cartel. Ain't no way.
 
What about teachers in what you may consider "tough courses" such as statistics? One does not even has to be physically in USA neither (if you find your borders as sensitive) and could benefit from online teaching.

How about lowering virtual working visas rather than the whole thing then?
 
I still don't understand why some people are suggesting that all immigration be halted. Like I said, I want to live there, I can take care of myself, and I don't mind opening another business to employ a few people if the market conditions are right for it. Why shouldn't I be allowed in? I have a slightly dodgy haircut, but apart from that there is nothing defective about me. I believe in peace, love, and being nice to people. What's the big deal?

I also still think my "citizenship trade" is a good idea. You have lots of socialists who would be very happy in England, and I think I'd be happier in America, so why can't we be allowed to just trade places? Everyone would win out of it.

Edit,
 
Yeah, but nobody cares about another gardener, but they know damn well that if they smuggle a terrorist they will have the full attention of the USA. Goodbye lucrative drug business. That's a very poor business decision.
You really think we'll figure out they came through Mexico? LOL! I think you give us too much credit.
 
I still don't understand why some people are suggesting that all immigration be halted. Like I said, I want to live there, I can take care of myself, and I don't mind opening another business to employ a few people if the market conditions are right for it. Why shouldn't I be allowed in? I have a slightly dodgy haircut, but apart from that there is nothing defective about me. I believe in peace, love, and being nice to people. What's the big deal?

I also still think my "citizenship trade" is a good idea. You have lots of socialists who would be very happy in England, and I think I'd be happier in America, so why can't we be allowed to just trade places? Everyone would win out of it.

Edit,

There is something called legal citizenship. I'm all for allowing more people to come in here legally, but I am definitely not for allowing our laws on the books to go unenforced.
 
Mantenlo prendido = Keep it turned on.

Interesting, Grimm

Wanna explain what that means in the context of this thread?
 
Mantenlo prendido = Keep it turned on.

Interesting, Grimm

Wanna explain what that means in the context of this thread?

Keep it lit, like a fire.

I picked that as my sig line because it matches my avatar. I'm also fascinated by fire in general. It's both constructive and destructive at the same time. Kind of like the flame doing the peace sign.
 
That's called groundwork. If a terrorist is ever smuggled in to the US by the drug cartels, now we can declare war on the drug cartels.

A congressional report like that is a warning shot.

"She said "Iranian agents and members of Hezbollah" are thought to be learning Spanish in Hugo Chavez-run Venezuela before trying to obtain false documents to enter the United States as purported Mexicans."

Read more: Congresswoman Raises Red Flag on Hezbollah-Cartel Nexus on U.S. Border | Fox News

Can you tell the difference?
 
We should abandon our silly and futile notion of trying to "seal the borders" and just "let the markets work," so to speak.

I think there should be two conditions that, if satisfied, should allow anyone and everyone to enter or exit the United States at will. First, do they have a job? If yes, then they are productive, and they should be allowed to stay. If not, is there someone willing to claim them as a dependent? Is there someone willing to feed, clothe, school them? If so, there is no reason to keep them out of the country. The second condition is that they don't have a criminal record.

Why not seal the border? Well, for one, futility. No matter what we do, people find ways to enter the country. So really, we're kicking and screaming, we're pouring countless resources in to fight a "problem" that is probably never going to be resolved.

Second, aside from pure xenophobia and/or racism, I haven't heard a good argument yet for why we should try to stem the tide of immigrants in to this vast country of ours. You have to admit, that's part of the equation. Nobody would complain if a bunch of blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking Canadians were crossing the border en masse. So I think we need to be mature and ask ourselves if xenophobia is really a good enough reason to literally build a fence between ourselves and our neighbors.

No. Population migrations are a natural phenomenon. It's been going on forever. Massive governments and their laws and walls are artificial phenomenon. Nature will find a way.

First, the government involvement in order to perform background checks (for criminal activity), verification of valid employment (not the bs of just saying they have a job), making sure they are paying taxes as an employee should, would far exceed what exists now in rounding people up after the fact, and attempting to prevent new illegal immigrants.

Second, not all illegal immigrants are coming from the south. Russians, Uzbekistanis, Jamaicans, Asians are coming on assorted Visas just to get here, and finding employment and staying long past the expiration of those Visas.

Illegal is the key here. I don't care where they come from, as long as they follow proper channels, such as a close family member did. Took 6 months to do so, but they did it the right way.
 
Back
Top Bottom