• 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 immigrants have a path to citizenship?

Should law abiding immigrants be given citizenship?


  • Total voters
    109
If they've lived here for years and the only crime they ever committed was crossing the border illegally, are they not law-abiding citizens? To me that's like saying I'm not a law abiding citizen because I stole candy from a convenient store when I was 5, or because I occasionally jaywalk. Maybe the degree of the crime is slightly greater, but if they've followed the rules, acted like a decent person and contributed to society, then it's essentially a victimless crime. There's no sense in saying that person isn't law abiding or denying them a path to citizenship.
Sorry, but if they lived here for years, then they have had plenty of time to legalize their citizenship. Cutting the line doesn't deserve a reward.
 
Sorry, but if they lived here for years, then they have had plenty of time to legalize their citizenship. Cutting the line doesn't deserve a reward.
It's not really a "line". It's more like a "lottery", some of which is by explicit drawing and the rest by who has connections on record with who. I'm not saying that legitimizing illegal immigration is the reform we need, but I am saying that legal immigration reform is needed before you can rely on it as a working alternative.
 
It's not really a "line". It's more like a "lottery", some of which is by explicit drawing and the rest by who has connections on record with who. I'm not saying that legitimizing illegal immigration is the reform we need, but I am saying that legal immigration reform is needed before you can rely on it as a working alternative.
Agreed. In the meantime, until that reform happens, we are stuck with what we have. Congress is a failure.
 
Should immigrants have a path to citizenship?

Not American, and I'm guessing you are using citizenship and nationality interchangeably, so thats the basis on which I my answer should be considered.

As a matter of general principle, no.
Legal residence, work permits, social services, even the right to vote in national elections, or to not be deported for crimes can be up for discussion.
However, a nation state is just that, a state that does not exist for the benefit of any despot, nobility, or priesthood, but rather consists of a nation (people/tribe) by it's own sovereign mandate. If you are a member of the nation, you are then by definition a national with a nationality. It doesn't matter what any politician, judge, or code has to say on the matter. In this the highest authority is reality itself, closely followed by the tribe.

As far as Im concerned, the only way to become a member of such a tribe is to be born into it, adopted by one of it's members, or by the members voluntairly merging multiple nations into one. Once achieved, membership is permanent and non-negotiable until such time as the tribe is dissolved. While you yourself may renounce your nationality, other members of the tribe cannot take away your membership regardless of law or custom. It is defined not by these, but by who you are.

There is however a big however.
All the rights and obligations of a member of the nation (i.e. a national) may be granted by citizenship which can be issued to a non-national, and this is not quite the same as nationality. The reason these are not the same is that citizenships are a legal construct that may conceivably be edited or revoked. But this is unusual enough that most people don't really distinguish between them. I consider it an important distinction though.


Once the previous long-winded distinction is made, I'm persoanlly fine with there being a path to citizenship as long as there is a reasonable threshold for revoking it.
Not stuff like getting drunk and getting into a fight, getting a speeding ticket, or getting your taxes wrong once or twice, but actual serious criminality, hatred or gross disloyalty towards the tribe harboring you, being a drain on them, etc. If you are a contributing you are welcome to stay, and if you have kids with a national, they automatically become nationals with non-revokable rights as well, so congrats on that.
 
In what way? Unless you assume that Democrats are racists, and I already provided evidence that racism resides more these days with the GOP, it's nonsensical. That's why Trix's comment was trolling.
LOL.
The left is more racist than the right, by far, starting with the racism of low expectations, and ending with their demands of 'equity' and DEI (both of which advantage some and disadvantage others based on the color of their skin).

True to form, most recently:

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order that officially launched his city’s “Black Reparations Task Force,” which was created to examine policies that the mayor claims have “harmed Black Chicagoans” and provide race-based grants to the city’s black residents. On June 16, a video of Mayor Johnson announcing the executive order went viral on X, with countless conservatives calling out the mayor for “blatant racism.”​
In the viral video of Mayor Johnson, he said that the goal of the reparations program was to reclaim “ownership of our own communities,” adding, “That is the spirit of Juneteenth, you all. It is about reflecting on our past. Other cultures are taught to never forget.” He continued, “We need to be reminded as blacks here in Chicago and America: remembering our past and working towards a more just future; investing in black is not a criminal act.”​

What can be more racist than race based grants of money from the government?

The entire black reparations is nothing more than a huge race hustle, given that there are no living slave owners and no living slaves, for some 100 years or more already.

But hey, I'm willing to consider the topic of reparations provided that it is clearly documented that there are living slave owners and living slaves to which the obligation of reparations applies first, then I'll consider the topic of reparations.

I have never made that argument. An argument I have made is that we are at 4.2% unemployment, meaning the labor market is already tight. If you don't like inflation, kicking out workers in this circumstance is going to make you unhappy.
What happens when the labor market is tight? Wages, quite naturally, increase.
You don't want the people in that tight labor market to make more money? Why is that?

If the shoe fits...
The same would be applicable below, 'If the shoe fits...'
Except Biden is more racist and has made more racist comments than anyone can shake a stick at.







I have. She knows it's true and so won't engage. But that seems to be par for the course.
 
I was reading Mr Majestyk by Elmore Leonard. The title is about a melon farm where the owner tries to get his melons to market.
He uses seasonal workers that came around each planting to pick the melons - then they moved on.
It is a good system, some workers came back year after year
What you are describing is the Bracero temporary visa program for migrant farm workers. It was discontinued at the urging of Democrats and their allies notably Caesar Chavez of the UFW. Chavez conducted a very public campaign to ban foreign workers who he felt undercut union members wages. He also campaigned for tighter border security to prevent what he called "wetbacks" from taking American jobs.
 
Sorry, but if they lived here for years, then they have had plenty of time to legalize their citizenship. Cutting the line doesn't deserve a reward.

Immigration attorneys cost a lot of of money and the visa caps are too low. It's not a practical, realistic option for the vast majority of people who migrate here. Not saying they should cut the line, but from the perspective of the illegal immigrant it makes absolutely no sense, especially if they are poor and have no skills, to do things properly. For the vast majority it's better to sneak over the border and risk being deported. You would do exactly the same thing if you were in their shoes.
 
Trump has recognized that undocumented immigrants are important for several industries and has backed off arresting and deporting them. I would argue that there are a lot more industries that need these workers to operate effectively.

Those immigrants who haven't committed crimes and are productively employed - should they be allowed to remain and given a path to citizenship?

Yes, but only if they have a clean record, and it should be presented as a limited window of opportunity that will close, because we cannot keep such a loophole perpetually-open.

And it should be highly conditional on people assimilating appropriately (no, not requiring them to speak English or anything like that), but with clear goals to become a productive, tax paying member of our society. Of course many illegal immigrants are already working, but they're being hosed with low wages, so that should not be allowed to continue either. Business owners skirting tax laws so they can pocket more profit is no more acceptable than any of the rest of us committing tax evasion, and enforcement of such crimes should be equalized across the board.

On another level, and if it's not happening already, we should not allow recent documented immigrants to be eligible for taxpayer assisted programs until certain criteria are met. There needs to be a minimum standard of expectations set for recent immigrants as to what is an acceptable level of contribution to our country. That should be the #1 requirement of allowing anyone to immigrate to the US--they need to bring something to the table. We cannot and should not be operating as the world's charity system when we don't even adequately take care of our own disabled, elderly, homeless, etc. populations. It's neither feasible nor functional for us to be handing out free money to anyone, condition-free.
 
No

No, it’s nothing like that. It would be like someone breaking into your house, but not stealing anything, simply residing in your home.

It isn’t. They cut the line and didn’t follow the proper procedure that millions of other legal immigrants have to follow.

Other than the fact they aren’t law abiding and shouldn’t be given citizenship.
There's a direct negative impact on my life if someone breaks into my home and resides there. An illegal immigrant who follows the law and contributes to society isn't doing any harm to me. Also, I completely disagree with your black and white idea of what "law abiding" means.
 
There's a direct negative impact on my life if someone breaks into my home and resides there.
Same with an illegal residing in the country.
An illegal immigrant who follows the law and contributes to society isn't doing any harm to me.
Yes they are. They are taking up resources and tax payer money.
Also, I completely disagree with your black and white idea of what "law abiding" means.
Your agreement is not needed or relevant. Their mere presence in the US is a crime. This is objectively true.
 
Trump has recognized that undocumented immigrants are important for several industries and has backed off arresting and deporting them. I would argue that there are a lot more industries that need these workers to operate effectively.

Those immigrants who haven't committed crimes and are productively employed - should they be allowed to remain and given a path to citizenship?
Not for long. He is going after the criminals first and giving those here illegally to chose that path.

We have an immigration system already in place that has been doing exactly that for well over 100 years. Law abiding are welcome. Lawless people trying to circumvent our laws are not welcome. It is time to reward law abiding with immigration status and eventually citizenship and toss out the lawless who think the law does not apply to them.
 
Same with an illegal residing in the country.

Yes they are. They are taking up resources and tax payer money.
So is anyone who lives in this country, including citizens. If they contribute as much as an average citizen they are doing no more harm than the rest of us are.
Your agreement is not needed or relevant. Their mere presence in the US is a crime. This is objectively true.
Yes it is, but if that's the only law they have broken then I wouldn't considering them any less law abiding then someone who frequently jaywalks. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
 
So is anyone who lives in this country, including citizens. If they contribute as much as an average citizen they are doing no more harm than the rest of us are.
They aren’t citizens, nor do they CJ tribute as much.
Yes it is, but if that's the only law they have broken then I wouldn't considering them any less law abiding then someone who frequently jaywalks.
They are not law abiding.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
Agreement is irrelevant. It’s objective reality that they are not law abiding.
 
Same with an illegal residing in the country.

Yes they are. They are taking up resources and tax payer money.

Your agreement is not needed or relevant. Their mere presence in the US is a crime. This is objectively true.
There are crimes and then there are crimes. Illegal entry is at worst a misdeamenor for a first offense.

Do you religiously obey speed limits? Speeding is
generally not a crime but exceed the speed limit by enough or just get the cop on a bad day and you'll be hit with reckless driving and that IS a crime. Get off your high horse about the crime part. Most
people knowingly or otherwise violate some law.

And why do you assume illegals don't pay taxes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJG
There are crimes and then there are crimes. Illegal entry is at worst a misdeamenor for a first offense.

Do you religiously obey speed limits? Speeding is
generally not a crime but exceed the speed limit by enough or just get the cop on a bad day and you'll be hit with reckless driving and that IS a crime. Get off your high horse about the crime part. Most
people knowingly or otherwise violate some law.

And why do you assume illegals don't pay taxes?
Illegal immigrants are by definition, not law abiding. This is objective reality. Rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship is completely retarded.
 
They aren’t citizens, nor do they CJ tribute as much.
That's not true in many cases. They often have a higher effective tax rate than most people, including some large corporations and high-income households:


Including paying sales and income taxes they also contribute to social security and other systems they're ineligible for and benefit nothing from:

https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/

They are not law abiding.

Agreement is irrelevant. It’s objective reality that they are not law abiding.
 
  • New York City: Has reportedly spent billions of dollars on migrant care, with some estimates reaching over $7 billion. Projections for future costs are as high as $10.5 billion by summer 2025. There have been significant expenses for housing, food, and healthcare, leading to projected budget cuts in various departments.
  • Chicago: Leaders estimate the city spent nearly $434 million on food, shelter, and other services between July 2022 and July 2024. The city is facing a significant budget gap, partly due to migrant services.
  • Denver: Incurred costs between $216 million and $340 million for various services from December 2022 to May 2024. The city council is implementing budget cuts, including from the police and fire departments, to address migrant-related costs.
  • Washington, D.C.: Expected to have spent $36.4 million on various services for illegal immigrants by the end of FY 2023.
  • El Paso, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia: Also struggling to provide services to newly-arrived illegal immigrants.

View attachment 67575211

You just itemized my point.
I grew up generational poverty - I never wanted to leave the USA. But again, you are just justifying illegal. You would justify robberies too - anything can be justified right ? They want it, they need it, so they break laws to get it
Seems you lacked the opportunity to seek illegal refuge.

Ironic that your sudden enthusiasm for law and order arise from the policies of a felonious Commander-n-Chief. 🤔
they do eat cats and dogs in Haiti .... I think we SHOULD eat cats and dogs in the USA right? just another protein right ?
Sure. 🙄

BTW I'm still waiting for that 'convincing' argument.....
 
That's not true in many cases. They often have a higher effective tax rate than most people, including some large corporations and high-income households:


Including paying sales and income taxes they also contribute to social security and other systems they're ineligible for and benefit nothing from:

https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
It’s true in all cases. They do not contribute as much as a citizen does.
 
It’s true in all cases. They do not contribute as much as a citizen does.
Then make an argument for why that's the case. I already told you why I disagree and added sources to back up my opinion as well.
 
You just itemized my point.
that it costs $$$$$$$$$$$$ of US Taxpayer dollars for illegally here people ? that was your point ?

Seems you lacked the opportunity to seek illegal refuge.
I love my country. If it has problems I'm going to stay and be active and vote and work to fix them.

Ironic that your sudden enthusiasm for law and order arise from the policies of a felonious Commander-n-Chief. 🤔
its not sudden and if Trump came here illegally he needs to be deported
 
Illegal immigrants are by definition, not law abiding. This is objective reality. Rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship is completely retarded.
So are speeders. Do you have a point?
 
Illegal immigrants are by definition, not law abiding. This is objective reality.

I think you guys view them as being criminals on a day-to-day basis, but the crime they committed occurred once, when they entered. And it's a minor crime, a misdemeanor similar to trespassing.

On a day-to-day basis, most of them are just living regular lives, going to work, going to school, spending time with their families.

The way Trump supporters talk about illegal immigrants gives the impression Trump supporters view them as poorly as one would view a murderer. At the end of the day, the vast majority of them are ordinary people who are desperate for a job. They should not be treated as if they were "invaders" as Captain Adverse describes them.
 
Then make an argument for why that's the case.
They are illegal. They don’t Pay most taxes, but still consume services and resources.
I already told you why I disagree and added sources to back up my opinion as well.
And I pointed out your agreement has no bearing on objective reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom