• 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!

How Do We Fix Immigration?

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems you are refusing to accept that one can be a refugee and an illegal immigrant at the same time. Someone runs away from oppression, then they cross the border illegally. Bingo! They are both. I dealt with hundreds of cases of people who crossed illegally and were granted asylum. If they walked into the immigration office, they could apply for asylum before an immigration official, an asylum officer after that group came to be. If they were captured by immigration, they could claim asylum as a defense against deportation.
No matter how you attempt to spin it....declaring asylum does not make sneaking over a nation's border legal. I am sympathetic regarding oppression whereever they came from, however if they do not emigrate legally, they are pond scum. An illegal act should not be rewarded.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Get a grip. It means that by their actions, they are pretty much inviting them.

Ever viewed the entire border? Ever heard of the Rio Grande? No wall needed there. The plan was for roughly 700 miles of border wall. Roughly 450 miles were completed before Dopey Joe stopped construction.

I would like to assume that you are smart enough to work out that getting things passed in congress is not as simple as having a majority.

However they did successfully repeal the individual mandate. Now nobody has to fear a 2% tax on their annual income if they refuse to buy overpriced health insurance.

Obamacare is enriching the profits of those power corporations.

Baloney.



Baloney.

Too much TDS is that rant to take you seriously.

See above.
The bottom line is that Biden is attempting to abide by law and treaty obligations the US has, and that Trump couldn’t give a shit about such things. End of story.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The bottom line is that Biden is attempting to abide by law and treaty obligations the US has, and that Trump couldn’t give a shit about such things. End of story.
What Biden should be doing is enforcing our immigration laws. And what Treaty obligations did Trump refuse to abide by?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What Biden should be doing is enforcing our immigration laws. And what Treaty obligations did Trump refuse to abide by?
Our immigration laws prohibit people from entering illegally, the technical phrase being “without inspection.” The US Refugee Act of 1980, and the three relevant ratified treaties are the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified 1951 I believe), the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967?) and the Convention Against Torture (1980s sometime, I believe). The first guaranties the right to apply for asylum, the latter three prohibit the return of someone who faces persecution or torture.

The two sets of obligations, immigration enforcement and the principle of “non-refoulement,” (non return) are obviously in tension. Trump suggested breaking the treaties and Refugee Act, not allowing people to apply for asylum at all. I imagine his advisors disabused him of the notion.
 

AZRWinger

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
712
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Our immigration laws prohibit people from entering illegally, the technical phrase being “without inspection.” The US Refugee Act of 1980, and the three relevant ratified treaties are the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified 1951 I believe), the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967?) and the Convention Against Torture (1980s sometime, I believe). The first guaranties the right to apply for asylum, the latter three prohibit the return of someone who faces persecution or torture.

The two sets of obligations, immigration enforcement and the principle of “non-refoulement,” (non return) are obviously in tension. Trump suggested breaking the treaties and Refugee Act, not allowing people to apply for asylum at all. I imagine his advisors disabused him of the notion.
Couldn't find a reference for Trump attempting to deny all filing for asylum. He did institute a rule requiring people to file requests for asylum in the third country they entered first in keeping with the UN treaty on Refugees. Of course Biden ignores this treaty requirement, the objective being to flood in as many illegal but future Democrat voters as possible.

Turns out the SCOTUS agreed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-asylum-idUSKCN1VW2U4
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Couldn't find a reference for Trump attempting to deny all filing for asylum. He did institute a rule requiring people to file requests for asylum in the third country they entered first in keeping with the UN treaty on Refugees. Of course Biden ignores this treaty requirement, the objective being to flood in as many illegal but future Democrat voters as possible.

Turns out the SCOTUS agreed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-asylum-idUSKCN1VW2U4
There is no requirement in US law for someone to apply for asylum in the first country they enter or pass through, generally called a “third country.” Asylum can be denied if a person was “firmly resettled” in that third country. Such people, if in danger in their home country and the “third country” will not accept them, can be granted “withholding of deportation,” wh status can be revoked if conditions change at home. I reviewed hundreds, perhaps thousands of such cases professionally and remember no one denied protection for having passed through a country, whether Iranians coming through France or Guatemalans thru Mexico. Most of this worry done 20 years ago, but the most recent time was in El Paso as a volunteer two years back. People arriving in El Paso from Central America were not denied the right to apply b/c they had passed thru Mexico. But if you have a reference or vote for that rule, perhaps things have changed.

As to Trump, he asked advisors something like “couldn’t we just simply send them back.” He apparently didn’t pursue the matter, as that would have been too far over the line. As to the SCOTUS case, can’t imagine that it stood up, as it contradicted previous findings. I’d have to do more research. Will try and get back. Key to its legality might be if Mexico had a functioning asylum system, a dubious assumption.
 
Last edited:

AZRWinger

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
712
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no requirement in US law for someone to apply for asylum in the first country they enter or pass through, generally called a “third country.” Asylum can be denied if a person was “firmly resettled” in that third country. Such people, if in danger in their home country and the “third country” will not accept them, can be granted “withholding of deportation,” wh status can be revoked if conditions change at home. I reviewed hundreds, perhaps thousands of such cases professionally and remember no one denied protection for having passed through a country, whether Iranians coming through France or Guatemalans thru Mexico. Most of this worry done 20 years ago, but the most recent time was in El Paso as a volunteer two years back. People arriving in El Paso from Central America were not denied the right to apply b/c they had passed thru Mexico. But if you have a reference or vote for that rule, perhaps things have changed.

As to Trump, he asked advisors something like “couldn’t we just simply send them back.” He apparently didn’t pursue the matter, as that would have been too far over the line. As to the SCOTUS case, can’t imagine that it stood up, as it contradicted previous findings. I’d have to do more research. Will try and get back. Key to its legality might be if Mexico had a functioning asylum system, a dubious assumption.
The link was to an article documenting where the SCOTUS upheld Trump's rule regarding third country asylum application. No doubt Biden did away with the rule as part of his open borders policy.

Seeing as how there is nothing proving Trump wanted to deny asylum applications it ought to be dismissed as another smear by partisan zealots.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The link was to an article documenting where the SCOTUS upheld Trump's rule regarding third country asylum application. No doubt Biden did away with the rule as part of his open borders policy.
Will try to do more research on the topic and get back to you. But as I noted, towards the end of Trump’s time I volunteered on the border helping plenty of Central Americans, and heard nothing about people being unable to apply for asylum because they passed through Mexico. What would the US do, return them to persecution in their home countries for breaking a rule they were unaware of? Makes no sense legally or from a humanitarian perspective. Can you imagine someone being returned to Cuba because they stopped in Jamaica before heading for Miami? And again, did/does Mexico have a functioning asylum system? And please, stop with the right wing “open border” baloney. They are still apprehending and returning people on the border. Biden has however, done what Obama did, focus limited resources on arrest and deportation of people who have committed crimes.
Seeing as how there is nothing proving Trump wanted to deny asylum applications it ought to be dismissed as another smear by partisan zealots.
I heard Trump say it. Don’t remember what medium. As I noted, I assume the idea was quickly dismissed by his advisors.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Our immigration laws prohibit people from entering illegally, the technical phrase being “without inspection.” The US Refugee Act of 1980, and the three relevant ratified treaties are the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified 1951 I believe), the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967?) and the Convention Against Torture (1980s sometime, I believe). The first guaranties the right to apply for asylum, the latter three prohibit the return of someone who faces persecution or torture.

The two sets of obligations, immigration enforcement and the principle of “non-refoulement,” (non return) are obviously in tension. Trump suggested breaking the treaties and Refugee Act, not allowing people to apply for asylum at all. I imagine his advisors disabused him of the notion.
Again, no matter how you attempt to spin it, the Refugee Act does not apply to illegals sneaking across our southern borders. It was passed largely for the sake of post Vietnam War relocation of Vietnamese Refugees, where those relocated to the US were in dire danger of persecution and torture had they remained in Vietnam. It also applied to Cuban refugees fleeing the Castrol regime. It was never intended for illegal border crossers just looking for work or a better lifestyle. America is available to those seeking work or a better lifestyle, however such must come here legally. To suggest otherwise is a massive insult to those who follow the rules and emigrate to America legally.
 

AZRWinger

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
712
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Will try to do more research on the topic and get back to you. But as I noted, towards the end of Trump’s time I volunteered on the border helping plenty of Central Americans, and heard nothing about people being unable to apply for asylum because they passed through Mexico. What would the US do, return them to persecution in their home countries for breaking a rule they were unaware of? Makes no sense legally or from a humanitarian perspective. Can you imagine someone being returned to Cuba because they stopped in Jamaica before heading for Miami? And again, did/does Mexico have a functioning asylum system? And please, stop with the right wing “open border” baloney. They are still apprehending and returning people on the border. Biden has however, done what Obama did, focus limited resources on arrest and deportation of people who have committed crimes.

I heard Trump say it. Don’t remember what medium. As I noted, I assume the idea was quickly dismissed by his advisors.
Try using ignorance as an excuse to avoid paying a speeding ticket. Doesn't work. But a far more serious offense, illegal immigration, that recurs for a lifetime and acts as a gateway to other crimes like identity theft and tax fraud, is supposed to be ignored because the perpetrators didn't know.

Hundreds of thousands surge accross the border every day inspired by the knowledge the Biden administration not only admit them but provide for their every need and reward them with free cell phones and transportation at taxpayer expense. Sure some get deported but enough are granted admission that it's an open border. Biden is even discarding Title 42 canceling health screening.

Focusing on criminals is doublespeak for turning the Border Patrol into a concierge service.

Sorry, "hearing" Trump say something with no supporting evidence isn't credible
Democrats are very selective and inaccurate.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Try using ignorance as an excuse to avoid paying a speeding ticket. Doesn't work. But a far more serious offense, illegal immigration, that recurs for a lifetime and acts as a gateway to other crimes like identity theft and tax fraud, is supposed to be ignored because the perpetrators didn't know.
One is breaking the law by speeding. Failing to seek asylum in a country you pass through is not illegal. And Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor routinely waived when one applies for asylum. If denied, the person is deported at the end of the process. I repeat, if one “firmly resettles” in another country, they can be denied asylum as a matter of discretion by the adjudicator of the claim. A grant of “withholding of deportation” is mandatory, however, if the person is in significant danger, as it is the way we adhere to the treaties we ratified. This latter status is not a path to permanent residency as is asylum, and can be revoked if conditions in one’s gone country improve. No decider is going to say, well you didn’t know it, but you should have applied in x country, and tho your life is in danger, and x country won’t take you, I am ordering you removed to the country that wants to harm you.
Hundreds of thousands surge accross the border every day inspired by the knowledge the Biden administration not only admit them but provide for their every need and reward them with free cell phones and transportation at taxpayer expense. Sure some get deported but enough are granted admission that it's an open border. Biden is even discarding Title 42 canceling health screening.
You have a source for this. I repeat that Biden appears to try tp adhere to laws Trump scorned. Don’t like it, lobby to get the laws and treaties done away with. Law and order is a bitch sometimes. The Title 42 screening was eliminated as the danger declined. If the pandemic comes back strong, he can reinstate it.
Focusing on criminals is doublespeak for turning the Border Patrol into a concierge service.

Sorry, "hearing" Trump say something with no supporting evidence isn't credible
Democrats are very selective and inaccurate.
Found the reference. Reuters story in June 2018. In a fairly unclear statement, Trump proposed sending people back with no process. His tweet, “When someone comes in, we must immediately with no judges or court cases bring them back from where they came.” Finally, resources are limited, so why wouldn’t you to deport criminals first?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Again, no matter how you attempt to spin it, the Refugee Act does not apply to illegals sneaking across our southern borders.
No matter how you spin it, the Act *does* apply, as it specifically states that one can apply “irrespective of status.” The Act was passed to bring the US definition of a refugee in line with the international one. Prior to the Refugee Act, the US defined a refugee as one coming from a communist or communist-dominated country, or from certain areas of the Middle East.
It was passed largely for the sake of post Vietnam War relocation of Vietnamese Refugees, where those relocated to the US were in dire danger of persecution and torture had they remained in Vietnam.
By the previous definition of a refugee, there was no reason for the creation of Refugee Act of 1980 to help Vietnamese, and many of them were brought to the US before the 1980.
It also applied to Cuban refugees fleeing the Castrol regime.
Cubans were covered by Cold War legislation, I believe called the “Cuban Readjustment Act.” They were welcomed automatically.
It was never intended for illegal border crossers just looking for work or a better lifestyle. America is available to those seeking work or a better lifestyle, however such must come here legally. To suggest otherwise is a massive insult to those who follow the rules and emigrate to America legally.
Then you better get busy repealing the Refugee Act, as I helped hundreds of people who had crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas get asylum, with no complaints from the immigration service.
 

Peacenik

We Live In Societies
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
1,287
Location
USA
Political Leaning
Progressive
... It means that by their actions, they are pretty much inviting them.
That's just more BS. No welcome to illegal immigration has been issued nor implied. The laws are being enforced to the best of the ability of the institutions assigned to that task.

Ever viewed the entire border? Ever heard of the Rio Grande? No wall needed there. The plan was for roughly 700 miles of border wall. Roughly 450 miles were completed before Dopey Joe stopped construction.
The length of the border is far greater than any wall construction plans. Increased wall construction merely forces people to travel further with greater risks. This results in more cruelty, more death. We need a better plan.

However they did successfully repeal the individual mandate. Now nobody has to fear a 2% tax on their annual income if they refuse to buy overpriced health insurance.
That wasn't what Trump campaigned on. He distinctly said: "Repeal and Replace."

Obamacare is enriching the profits of those power corporations.
Yes. Health care, big pharma and big insurance are profiting heavily from our system. They were profiting heavily before Obamacare and they are profiting heavily with Obamacare. Obamacare was an attempt to strike a deal between We, The People, and they the corporations. We could have gotten a far better deal if Republicans were on the side of the people instead of being on the side of the corporations.

People with preexisting conditions can now get coverage thanks to Obamacare. That is a good thing for America. Democrats care about America. Republicans only care about themselves and their deplorable extremist misinformed supporters. Millions more people got coverage thanks to Obamacare. That's what caring about America means. Helping the needy, not being selfish and greedy.

People who only care about how much they themselves are paying? But they are really pretty well off? And they don't want to pay a dime more to help somebody who's got nothing? We don't want those ugly sentiments reinforced by law. Democrats want America to be a great nation.

Making America great means caring about Americans. All of us, not just the ones who are well enough off to complain about the size of their paychecks that buy houses, trucks, cars, boats, RVs, vacations, beer, cable, etc. They should count their lucky stars that they even GET a paycheck and quit complaining about how much gets taken out for America's health care system. If they really wanted to do something about it they should have voted for Bernie, who would strive to set up a European-style health care system which clearly works a lot better for them than ours does for us.

Democrats: Selflessly trying to help those who really need help.

Republicans: Selfishly trying to help themselves.

I think Trump got the wrong slogan. If he really wanted to be accurate, it should have been Make America Selfish Again. MASA.
 

Doug64

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
535
Reaction score
201
Political Leaning
Conservative
The bottom line is that Biden is attempting to abide by law and treaty obligations the US has, and that Trump couldn’t give a shit about such things. End of story.
Let's try this once again. Since in the case of any conflict between federal law and properly ratified treaties the one that was passed or updated most recently takes priority, please point to the treaty that was ratified after our current immigration laws were last updated by Congress. If you can't, then there are no treaty obligations to abide by. As for the law, I've already pointed out how current Federal law requires that any illegal migrants requesting asylum be detained until their status is determined.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let's try this once again. Since in the case of any conflict between federal law and properly ratified treaties the one that was passed or updated most recently takes priority, please point to the treaty that was ratified after our current immigration laws were last updated by Congress. If you can't, then there are no treaty obligations to abide by. As for the law, I've already pointed out how current Federal law requires that any illegal migrants requesting asylum be detained until their status is determined.
Baloney. The treaties still apply unless abrogated. And what recent legislation had the US withdraw its ratification? Are you suggesting that every time the US amends or introduces legislation regarding immigration, it automatically eliminates treaty obligations whose topics have nothing to do with the legislation.


As to detention, I have already pointed out that the president through his agencies has great discretion to release those detained. It happens all the time.
 

Doug64

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
535
Reaction score
201
Political Leaning
Conservative
Baloney. The treaties still apply unless abrogated.
Correct. And Congress passing a law that contradicts an already existent treaty, in whole or in part, abrogates the treaty--in whole or in part.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the president as part of the president’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.

An alternative view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the president and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).

A third view is that Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under President John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications. Moreover, when there is a conflict between a statute and a treaty, the Supreme Court has concluded that for purposes of U.S. law the last expression of the sovereign will controls, so that a later-enacted statute overrides an earlier-enacted treaty and vice versa. The Cherokee Tobacco (1870). [emphasis added]

As to detention, I have already pointed out that the president through his agencies has great discretion to release those detained. It happens all the time.
And I already pointed out that the example you gave of police officers choosing whether to hand out traffic tickets actually is written into state law codes, and challenged you to give us a similar statutory discretion for immigration laws, which you declined to provide. Are you honestly asserting that the executive branch can decide whether it wishes to enforce any and all laws passed by Congress? That when Congress passes a law stating that such-and-such shall be done, the President and all his officers can choose to decide that it actually reads such-and-such may be done? If that is the case, what is the point in making the distinction when writing and passing laws?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Correct. And Congress passing a law that contradicts an already existent treaty, in whole or in part, abrogates the treaty--in whole or in part.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
I imagine a source differen from Heritage might have a different spin on that. But operative language in the 1967 Protocol is that "no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion..." (It then inserts the other categories of protection). That seems to be pretty strong language to overturn through an unrelated immigration law. The UNHCR is pretty specific and strong about this. What language in the legislation passed post-treaty ratification makes you think the US can ignore the explicit language in the Protocol?
And I already pointed out that the example you gave of police officers choosing whether to hand out traffic tickets actually is written into state law codes, and challenged you to give us a similar statutory discretion for immigration laws, which you declined to provide. Are you honestly asserting that the executive branch can decide whether it wishes to enforce any and all laws passed by Congress? That when Congress passes a law stating that such-and-such shall be done, the President and all his officers can choose to decide that it actually reads such-and-such may be done? If that is the case, what is the point in making the distinction when writing and passing laws?
I do not know if there is statutory discretion written into the law. Perhaps we are talking past one another, arguing semantics, as the term used by the authorities when an undocumented asylum seeker is let go is not "released," tho that is literally what happens, but "paroled," suggesting that the person is still in the "custody" of the authorities. Thus a case I heard about in Texas where an alien was released because there was no room for him. Told to report once a month, he did so, and incredibly - but lawfully - was jailed when he did because there then was room for him, with no need for a hearing. But the fact is that whatever we call it, many aliens are let go. I organized a letter-writing action aimed at immigration officials about one asylum-seeking woman whose health was deteriorating in detention and she was freed/paroled. The authorities never brought up to me in her case or any other that I brought up over the years that they were required to keep her in jail.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's just more BS. No welcome to illegal immigration has been issued nor implied. The laws are being enforced to the best of the ability of the institutions assigned to that task.

The length of the border is far greater than any wall construction plans. Increased wall construction merely forces people to travel further with greater risks. This results in more cruelty, more death. We need a better plan.

That wasn't what Trump campaigned on. He distinctly said: "Repeal and Replace."

Yes. Health care, big pharma and big insurance are profiting heavily from our system. They were profiting heavily before Obamacare and they are profiting heavily with Obamacare. Obamacare was an attempt to strike a deal between We, The People, and they the corporations. We could have gotten a far better deal if Republicans were on the side of the people instead of being on the side of the corporations.

People with preexisting conditions can now get coverage thanks to Obamacare. That is a good thing for America.

Democrats care about America. Republicans only care about themselves and their deplorable extremist misinformed supporters. Millions more people got coverage thanks to Obamacare. That's what caring about America means. Helping the needy, not being selfish and greedy.
If you are referring to democrats and republican in government, largely neither party at least in congress gives a shit about the people. You are a diehard partisan. To you it's about nothing but democrat vs republican. You are truly part of the establishment cult. And the claaim that millions more get coverage through Obamacare is both misleading and false. The numbers of people without healthcare before Obamacare were largely fudged, however that's another topic.
People who only care about how much they themselves are paying? But they are really pretty well off? And they don't want to pay a dime more to help somebody who's got nothing? We don't want those ugly sentiments reinforced by law. Democrats want America to be a great nation.
You would make a perfect socialist/communist. The massive increase in cost when Obamacare was passed is not just a dime more. My health insurance was outright canceled by Obamacare and the policy I was expected to move over to amounted to a 300% increase in premiums and a 500% increase in deductible. And that was just in the first year. As for helping others who in your words "whos got nothing". it's not that simple. The way Obamacare is set up, a healthy 30 year old with good health habits and a low income gets stuck with much higher premiums, often in the hundreds to help cover some fat chain smoking beer guzzling 55 year old couch potato with a big income and poor health habits.
Making America great means caring about Americans. All of us, not just the ones who are well enough off to complain about the size of their paychecks that buy houses, trucks, cars, boats, RVs, vacations, beer, cable, etc. They should count their lucky stars that they even GET a paycheck and quit complaining about how much gets taken out for America's health care system. If they really wanted to do something about it they should have voted for Bernie, who would strive to set up a European-style health care system which clearly works a lot better for them than ours does for us.
Someone must be paying for your healthcare besides you. I left the private health insurance system when Obamacare took effect because I was not willing to pay premiums higher then my home mortgage payments for a policy with a deductible higher then I typically spend in a year for healthcare.
Democrats: Selflessly trying to help those who really need help.

Republicans: Selfishly trying to help themselves.
You are pathetically naive.
I think Trump got the wrong slogan. If he really wanted to be accurate, it should have been Make America Selfish Again. MASA.
Just more TDS.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No matter how you spin it, the Act *does* apply, as it specifically states that one can apply “irrespective of status.” The Act was passed to bring the US definition of a refugee in line with the international one. Prior to the Refugee Act, the US defined a refugee as one coming from a communist or communist-dominated country, or from certain areas of the Middle East.

By the previous definition of a refugee, there was no reason for the creation of Refugee Act of 1980 to help Vietnamese, and many of them were brought to the US before the 1980.

Cubans were covered by Cold War legislation, I believe called the “Cuban Readjustment Act.” They were welcomed automatically.

Then you better get busy repealing the Refugee Act, as I helped hundreds of people who had crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas get asylum, with no complaints from the immigration service.
I have no desire to repeal the Refugee Act. It has a good purpose and it does not include idiots sneaking across the border screaming: "I request asylum".
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have no desire to repeal the Refugee Act. It has a good purpose and it does not include idiots sneaking across the border screaming: "I request asylum".
The aforementioned idiots are included according to the language of the statute. No need to repeal it to change things, but you may have to amend it to exclude "idiots sneaking across the border." Once again, here is the statute. Go to section 208 (a).

 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
31,678
Reaction score
18,415
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Decades and decades of immigration, both legal and illegal have brought us to this point in time. Immigration has built our nation, but some people think immigration is destroying our nation. Congress has failed to act during both Republican and Democratic majorities.

What needs to be done?

What should Congress do?

Let's hear all the ideas.

Maybe we can brainstorm a solution.

Here are some ideas, all over the map:
Machine gun towers every quarter mile? No more visas? No foreigners allowed into america?

Maybe stop demonizing those seeking to enter america?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
24,066
Reaction score
8,143
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Immigration and our attitudes towards it in the US are a subject that has interested and fascinated me both personally and professionally. The cycle repeats itself: a period of large immigration, followed by resentment and restrictions. Each time demagogues or groups spring up saying we are losing something, the country is changing in ways that will make it unrecognizable. These immigrants are not like my grandparents for this or that reason. Even people from the same country disliked newcomers. Latest are the Trump/Carlson complaints. Trump focused on demonizing illegals, though not the folks who hire them, but his policies were a full court press on all immigrants: legal, illegal, refugees from abroad, asylum seekers within the US or or at Its borders. Carlson is heir to the "their goes the neighborhood" tradition of resentment of Catholics and others by the "Know Nothings." Unmentioned in the recent conversations are how our addiction to cheap labor creates the pull factorof illegals. And there is a whiff of racism at our resentment of Pedro the gardner who sneaked across the border but not of Hans the barista who overstayed his visa. And there is the double standard of DeSantis going to the Rio Grande and complaining , but ignoring Cuban migrants in the Caribbean. (Though that double standard predated him, with Reagan preventing Haitians from leaving their country altogether for anywhere.)

This will pass, and surface again in a generation or two.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
34,479
Reaction score
8,897
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Immigration and our attitudes towards it in the US are a subject that has interested and fascinated me both personally and professionally. The cycle repeats itself: a period of large immigration, followed by resentment and restrictions. Each time demagogues or groups spring up saying we are losing something, the country is changing in ways that will make it unrecognizable. These immigrants are not like my grandparents for this or that reason. Even people from the same country disliked newcomers. Latest are the Trump/Carlson complaints. Trump focused on demonizing illegals, though not the folks who hire them, but his policies were a full court press on all immigrants: legal, illegal, refugees from abroad, asylum seekers within the US or or at Its borders. Carlson is heir to the "their goes the neighborhood" tradition of resentment of Catholics and others by the "Know Nothings." Unmentioned in the recent conversations are how our addiction to cheap labor creates the pull factorof illegals. And there is a whiff of racism at our resentment of Pedro the gardner who sneaked across the border but not of Hans the barista who overstayed his visa. And there is the double standard of DeSantis going to the Rio Grande and complaining , but ignoring Cuban migrants in the Caribbean. (Though that double standard predated him, with Reagan preventing Haitians from leaving their country altogether for anywhere.)

This will pass, and surface again in a generation or two.
If you care whether you are ever taken seriously by more then the hard left on the immigration issue, you will at some point have to stop equating the morals of illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. And stop referring to illegals as refugees. They do not fit the legal definition unless they are actually facing persecution where they came from. As for the Visa overstayers, those laws should be enforced as well. And making it about Trump and Carlson is not going to win the argument. Trump is out of office and Carlson holds no office. As for Cuban migrants, they fit the description of refugees as they were facing persecution. Same with the Vietnamese who fled here as South Vietnam was being overrun. Ukrainians fleeing the present Russian invasion also qualify. Those sneaking across our southern borders are simply coming for welfare entitlements, free healthcare, and free smart phones. Their asylum claims are largely bogus. They are simply being instructed to declare that so they can get released inside the US and assigned a court date they never plan on showing up for.
 
Top Bottom