• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Immigration, upon what can we agree?

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, I have to say I'd hope we can all agree, this is not an "emergency" issue. ie: We don't have to rush the solution.

I will also say I believe we can all agree the present system is broke.

Starting there, I'd like to present some facts before proceeding. The last "immigration" legislation was passed in 1986. Like this proposed legislation in the Senate, we granted amnesty to over 3 million while "promising" to secure the border. Some 27 years later, parts of that bill including building so many miles of fence, haven't been completed albeit Congress has appropriated money for same.

Am I wrong when I say if we do the same now and expect different results, we'd be guilty of the classic definition of "insanity"?

I believe we can all agree deporting over 12 million people who are here, is not a "solution", let alone logistically possible.

Can we all agree it would be insane to grant amnesty now, some 27 years later to potentially 25 million without ensuring our border is secure and we're not encouraging more illegals? Btw, please don't use the term "hispanic", this isn't about "hispanics", there are plenty of "non hispanics" entering our country illegally who present much more danger than our fellow humans from Mexico or further south, even with the small percentage of those with criminal intent.

I do not wish to see HHS in charge of determining if the border is secure. I do support OBJECTIVE metrics in order to make that determination.

I do support making the "pathway to citizenship" contingent upon border security.

I'm also completely against putting "community organizers" in charge of assisting in the pathway to citizenship.

I'm in support of "end of the line" for all who are here illegally. I don't believe it's fair for those who have abided by our laws to take longer than those who've broken our laws.

What say ye??
 

Ray410

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
2,565
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Regardless of position on the issue, I think we could also agree that, in Congress, neither political party wants to secure the Southern border. Both parties in Congress want us to think that they want to secure the border, but the truth is that they do not.

If our elected representatives had any interest in securing the border, it would already be secure.

For whatever reason, this is an example of direct governmental adversity to the interests of the country and the people that are being governed.
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,319
Reaction score
41,825
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The issue of immigration is very complex but my personal desire is for immediate and very strict enforcement of laws against employing any illegal labor. Absent the ability to easily find work most illegal immigration would cease on its own or, as Romney put it, self-deportation would occur.

Universal (and retroactive) use of the E-verify system is a start but "fake" IDs make it doubtful that it will be very effective in many cases. As of now, only about 7% of "new" hires are even subjected to it.

A problem is that many "employees" are not paid using the W-2 system at all, they are paid as independent contractors (using 1099's to avoid any tax withholding/reporting) either directly or through use of subcontractors. Some "employers" (including many homeowners, ranchers and farmers) that use illegal labor simply pay them cash on the spot - examples include lawn maintanence, farm chores, minor home improvement, childcare and cleaning services. Other employers are still "exempt" from using E-verify because they are "small" yet anyone can fairly easily divide their workforce among several "independent" subcontractors that each supply a "small" number of workers to the primary (end?) employer - this is how many construction companies (even doing work directly for the gov't) operate now.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The issue of immigration is very complex.

Not to me. We should encourage legal immigration and do whatever is necessary to stop illegal immigration. Couldn't be any simpler.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,319
Reaction score
41,825
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not to me. We should encourage legal immigration and do whatever is necessary to stop illegal immigration. Couldn't be any simpler.

Nothing is "simple" when our congress critters are involved. They are now in agreement that "nothing" can be done to remove illegals once they are a few hundred yards from the border, have been here for "a while" and have seemingly accepted Obama's "dreamy" version of enforcing our current immigration laws due to "lack of resources".
 

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can we all agree the back if the line for citizenship is the country you came from not staying here
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have stated before that the mistake opponents of this bill have made is talking about amnesty and the border. On the amnesty question,personally I am not that much against legalization for certain people(people who came here as kids,parents of kids under 18 who are legal citizens,and their young siblings. These people in my plan would not be able to sponsor anyone else ever into the US.
As for the border,yes it needs to e secured,but that is not the main issue. People overstaying visa's is the main problem and needs to be addressed. Fence(double fences)need to be completed before any legalization could happen. We also need to address the needs of employment,a major reason for people coming here. This bill fails miserably. The Corker/Hoeven amendment is a joke. We don't need 20,000 more unionzed government employees to secure the border. It's a head fake.
 

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree on the "double" fence but I do think we need "more boots on the ground".

I think what I hear most and it does make sense is simply enforce the laws we already have on the books.

We "fixed" the challenge in 1986, didn't we?
 
Top Bottom