Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good. And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.I think I follow your reasoning with the exception of the bachelor's degree. Where does that come from, and what do you think it signifies?
Unless the people you're interested in keeping are field worker, landscapers, kitchen help and chamber maids.Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good.
Which also makes them more likely to compete with the native population.And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.
Amnesty is a trick proposal. President Regan had an agreement with the democrats to shut off illegal immigration and to pass amnesty, and they failed to do that. Why should any amnesty be offered until the border is secure? Secure the border first,m and i will be an active proponent of amnesty.If we're talking about immigrants writ large: It depends.
If we're talking specifically about *illegal* immigrants: It still depends.
Plenty of visas are only for a few years, and that's fine. I think having some temporary worker programs are good...they don't necessarily all need a path to citizenship. The big problem is when meritocratic entries (e.g. student visas and H1B visas) don't have any path to citizenship. We should fix that by letting them get green cards when their temporary visa expires.
As for illegal immigrants...generally I'd say that amnesty for some of them is a better goal than a path to citizenship. Amnesty which lets them continue to live and work here, and which can be revoked if they break the law. But for the ones who get amnesty, it should come with the ability to apply for green cards for which they are qualified, such as being married to a US citizen. So it wouldn't reward them with a path to citizenship just for being an illegal immigrant, but it would grant them the same paths to citizenship open to applicants who aren't illegal immigrants.
I would support amnesty for illegal immigrants who can pass a background check and who have been here since, say, 2022, if they meet any one of the following criteria:
- They are married to a US citizen.
- They are the parent of an over-21 US citizen.
- They have a bachelor's degree.
- They served honorably in the US military.
- They can prove they entered the US before they were 18.
- They can prove they have lived in the US for 10+ years.
We have a legal system that does just that.Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good. And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.
I offered five other options in addition to the bachelor's degree.Unless the people you're interested in keeping are field worker, landscapers, kitchen help and chamber maids.
Which also makes them more likely to compete with the native population.
?? What am I missing here?
And I'm down with all of them. They make sense to me.I offered five other options in addition to the bachelor's degree.
Meh ....
Immigrants - especially educated immigrants - do not "compete" with the native population in the sense of driving wages down. They are also consumers, which push wages back up. For educated immigrants especially, they are net job creators and raise the wages of the native-born population. (The picture is a little less clear for less-educated immigrants, but it's also not obvious that they drive wages down.)
I agree, I'm not opposed to offering amnesty for some (or even most) of the illegal immigrants already here. But we need to secure the border so that we don't need to do it again in 30 years. And even more importantly, we need to fix the asylum loopholes in our immigration law that allow people to just show up at the border and get quasi-legal status almost immediately.Amnesty is a trick proposal. President Regan had an agreement with the democrats to shut off illegal immigration and to pass amnesty, and they failed to do that. Why should any amnesty be offered until the border is secure? Secure the border first,m and i will be an active proponent of amnesty.
That's why I support setting a deadline in the past. And it should be worded not as "You must have lived here for three years," but rather "You must have lived here since December 31, 2022" so there is a hard-and-fast cutoff no matter how much time passes before they apply for amnesty.I say it is tricky, because just speaking about it and publicly supporting it would bring in a flood of illegal immigrants to beat any given deadline.
That is a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883. The intent was to help raise funds for construction of the pedestal, not a how to or a rule to follow, simply a poem."Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
I guess we aren't that country anymore. That's a real shame.
But what if they deserve asylum? How is that a "loophole" ?I agree, I'm not opposed to offering amnesty for some (or even most) of the illegal immigrants already here. But we need to secure the border so that we don't need to do it again in 30 years. And even more importantly, we need to fix the asylum loopholes in our immigration law that allow people to just show up at the border and get quasi-legal status almost immediately.
That's why I support setting a deadline in the past. And it should be worded not as "You must have lived here for three years," but rather "You must have lived here since December 31, 2022" so there is a hard-and-fast cutoff no matter how much time passes before they apply for amnesty.
That applies to 4 US citizens in the entire US (slight exaggeration only) how could it be applied and why to immigrants from Banana Republics where oligarchs keep most of the peasantry in abject poverty?If we're talking about immigrants writ large: It depends.
If we're talking specifically about *illegal* immigrants: It still depends.
Plenty of visas are only for a few years, and that's fine. I think having some temporary worker programs are good...they don't necessarily all need a path to citizenship. The big problem is when meritocratic entries (e.g. student visas and H1B visas) don't have any path to citizenship. We should fix that by letting them get green cards when their temporary visa expires.
As for illegal immigrants...generally I'd say that amnesty for some of them is a better goal than a path to citizenship. Amnesty which lets them continue to live and work here, and which can be revoked if they break the law. But for the ones who get amnesty, it should come with the ability to apply for green cards for which they are qualified, such as being married to a US citizen. So it wouldn't reward them with a path to citizenship just for being an illegal immigrant, but it would grant them the same paths to citizenship open to applicants who aren't illegal immigrants.
I would support amnesty for illegal immigrants who can pass a background check and who have been here since, say, 2022, if they meet any one of the following criteria:
- They are married to a US citizen.
- They are the parent of an over-21 US citizen.
- They have a bachelor's degree.
- They served honorably in the US military.
- They can prove they entered the US before they were 18.
- They can prove they have lived in the US for 10+ years.
Then let's trash it. Along with the statue. I mean, if we aren't going to live it, why lie about it?That is a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883. The intent was to help raise funds for construction of the pedestal, not a how to or a rule to follow, simply a poem.
We don't need to abolish the asylum system entirely, we just need to tighten up the rules for who qualifies so that we don't have constant streams of asylum-seekers heading to our borders. In the last decade, it has become a form of gray-market immigration...not illegal by the letter of the law, but definitely an abuse of what the system was intended to do.But what if they deserve asylum? How is that a "loophole" ?
??That applies to 4 US citizens in the entire US (slight exaggeration only) how could it be applied and why to immigrants from Banana Republics where oligarchs keep most of the peasantry in abject poverty?
If people who come here have jobs and families and are trying to make a it a success in the US why would we not have a path way to citizenship for them?
It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.Then let's trash it. Along with the statue. I mean, if we aren't going to live it, why lie about it?
Allan, I addressed the thread title.Thanks for your post which is completely detached from the thread topic.
A fare and cogent response. I commend you.We don't need to abolish the asylum system entirely, we just need to tighten up the rules for who qualifies so that we don't have constant streams of asylum-seekers heading to our borders. In the last decade, it has become a form of gray-market immigration...not illegal by the letter of the law, but definitely an abuse of what the system was intended to do.
In particular, we shouldn't allow people to claim asylum if America wasn't the first country they entered and/or they took a circuitous route to avoid entering another country. (Maybe there are occasional exceptions but they are rare). In practice, this would mainly limit grants of asylum to Cuba and Haiti, plus the occasional random person who was already legally in the US when their need for asylum arose.
I think of it like this:
View attachment 67574677
If that's how you feel, then it should be trashed, right?It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.
In 1883 the population of the world was about 1B. Today the world population is about 8B. Land, food, shelter and monetary resources are beginning to show evidence of weakness. Unfortunately the US has foreign and domestic policies that have exacerbated the situation and made life, especially for the poor, chaotic and sometimes dangerous. In times of war, stress, chaos and deprivation people migrate. The people coming to us are largely the result of our previous actions in their countries. We now have some responsibility to accept these immigrants. The US accepts far fewer based on a % of our population and land mass than any other developed country, even if you count the immigrants we call illegal.It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.
Show your work.Honduran drug dealers are selling fentanyl on the streets, and they still aren't deported when they are arrested for it, even though they are here illegally.
The back of the line is in their country of origin, isn't it?So get in line means no arrest and deportation?
nopeThe back of the line is in their country of origin, isn't it?
This liberal is all in favor of arresting criminals of all kinds, and if they are here illegally and caught in the commission of a crime it is the responsible thing to do to incarcerate them and then deport them. I've never wavered "that far left" that I would find excuses for leaving such people free to do as they please and would love to hear the so called "lefty" argument in their defense.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what lefties are saying in defense of Honduran fent-slingers on the streets of Portland.
Sure:Show your work.
An unqualified driver could be a fantastic driver?The analogy is a bit weird. Unqualified drivers aren't capable of safely driving a motor vehicle.
Undocumented immigrants who aren't criminals and are working are capable of being a good citizen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?