Should immigrants have a path to citizenship?

[ttwtt78640]

Cause it was trash. If Republicans were serious about the border, they’d stop electing people like Trump.

If Biden or Harris were serious about securing the border Trump would likely not have had a second term.

 

[The Brad Dad]

If Biden or Harris were serious about securing the border Trump would likely not have had a second term.

Biden would have, maybe. Harris was too black and vaginal.

 

[AZRWinger]

Sen Lankford is a DEMOCRAT? Uh huh

Trouble counting to 3?

 

[AZRWinger]

Cause it was trash. If Republicans were serious about the border, they’d stop electing people like Trump.

HR2 was such "trash" the House passed the bill on a bipartisan vote. Democrats used a blatantly partisan unilateral move to block the Constitutional process.

 

[The Brad Dad]

HR2 was such "trash" the House passed the bill on a bipartisan vote. Democrats used a blatantly partisan unilateral move to block the Constitutional process.

You mean they used the constitution.

 

[Moderate Right]

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 illegals.

 

[pragmatic]

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.

Nice summary.

Well thought out.

...

 

[AZRWinger]

You mean they used the constitution.

Nope, Democrat Senator Schumer used his position as majority leader to unilaterally derail the reform legislation out of partisan spite.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Nope, Democrat Senator Schumer used his position as majority leader to unilaterally derail the reform legislation out of partisan spite.

So he used constitutionally approved powers. And?

 

[AZRWinger]

So he used constitutionally approved powers. And?

Schumer abused his power as Senate majority leader to block immigration reform. He did so out of pure political spite. But you won't condemn it because he's a Democrat.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Schumer abused his power as Senate majority leader to block immigration reform. He did so out of pure political spite. But you won't condemn it because he's a Democrat.

So you condemned Mitch McConnell for the Kavanugh nomination then? Holding the seat up for a year, do I have that correct?

 

[AZRWinger]

So you condemned Mitch McConnell for the Kavanugh nomination then? Holding the seat up for a year, do I have that correct?

There it is, the white flag of whataboutism. You're going to seriously argue saving us from Justice Merrick Garland wasn't a good thing?

I'll see your Merrick Garland and raise you a Miguel Estrada. Somehow it was OK for Democrats to put his nomination into permanent limbo but an offense for Republicans.

HR2 was passed with bipartisan support. Even if you think it was a horrible bill it's still a terrible idea for the Senate majority leader to in effect veto it without consideration by the Senate.

 

[The Brad Dad]

There it is, the white flag of whataboutism. You're going to seriously argue saving us from Justice Merrick Garland wasn't a good thing?

So you're fine with abusing senate power so long as you like the outcome. Me too! Thank god Schumer killed that garbage bill.

 

[AZRWinger]

So you're fine with abusing senate power so long as you like the outcome. Me too! Thank god Schumer killed that garbage bill.

Another strawman from you followed by an endorsement of Schumer authoritarianism. Naturally you followed the Senator's display of arrogamce by editing my comment to ignore the facts you can't deal with.

There is no equivalence between the binary advise and consent on a nomination and consideration of a bill which csm be amended or completely rewritten.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Another strawman from you followed by an endorsement of Schumer authoritarianism. Naturally you followed the Senator's display of arrogamce by editing my comment to ignore the facts you can't deal with.

I did deal with it. I slapped your face with your own hypocrisy and you threw a temper tantrum over it because your entire premise here is Republicans should abuse their power but Dems need to make life easier for Republicans by not doing that. Yes, I want Schumer to do more of it. I want the next Dem potus and congress to pack the court, just pass things via EO, and shut the GOP out of any negotiations and just take action. Yup yup yup.

 

[AZRWinger]

I did deal with it. I slapped your face with your own hypocrisy and you threw a temper tantrum over it because your entire premise here is Republicans should abuse their power but Dems need to make life easier for Republicans by not doing that. Yes, I want Schumer to do more of it. I want the next Dem potus and congress to pack the court, just pass things via EO, and shut the GOP out of any negotiations and just take action. Yup yup yup.

You certainly did deal with the facts inconvemient to your rant. You deleted them. That's classic Leftist authoritarianism.

My goodness, now you've convinced yourself you have slapped me in the face. Typical Leftist ends justify the means rationalization.

 

[Phys251]

You certainly did deal with the facts inconvemient to your rant. You deleted them. That's classic Leftist authoritarianism.

My goodness, now you've convinced yourself you have slapped me in the face. Typical Leftist ends justify the means rationalization.

Don't hurt yourself with all that projection.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You certainly did deal with the facts inconvemient to your rant. You deleted them. That's classic Leftist authoritarianism.

My goodness, now you've convinced yourself you have slapped me in the face. Typical Leftist ends justify the means rationalization.

You are engaged in an exchange in which uou stated Mitch McConnell was right to abuse his power and Schumer was wrong. You want your hypocrisy to be a feature and not a bug.

 

[AZRWinger]

You are engaged in an exchange in which uou stated Mitch McConnell was right to abuse his power and Schumer was wrong. You want your hypocrisy to be a feature and not a bug.

You're contradicting yourself. First you accuse me of only objecting to the Senate majority leader scuttling immigration reform because I agreed with the bill. Then you write an emotional screed celebrating Democrat Senate majority leaders short circuiting the legislative process out of partisan malice, demanding more of it. Examine the blatant hypocrisy of your own comments before slinging baseless name calling.

 

[uptower]

 

[AZRWinger]

View attachment 67576939

How do you know since Democrats blocked citizenship questions on the census? To know the rate or ratio requires knowing the population of the group.

 

[uptower]

How do you know since Democrats blocked citizenship questions on the census? To know the rate or ratio requires knowing the population of the group.

Dafuk a census have to do with it bro?

 

[AZRWinger]

Dafuk a census have to do with it bro?

Here is the formula for calculating the crime rate

Crime Rate = (Number of Crimes / Population of the Group) * 100,000

In this case the population of illegal aliens in the US is unknown so the claim that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate cannot be verified.

Democrats sued to prevent the 2020 census from including a question about the citizenship status of the household members as had been included in previous census. Had it been allowed to remain it would have made an accurate calculation of the illegal crime rate and other to embarrassing to Democrats statistics feasible.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Here is the formula for calculating the crime rate

Crime Rate = (Number of Crimes / Population of the Group) * 100,000

In this case the population of illegal aliens in the US is unknown so the claim that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate cannot be verified.

Democrats sued to prevent the 2020 census from including a question about the citizenship status of the household members as had been included in previous census. Had it been allowed to remain it would have made an accurate calculation of the illegal crime rate and other to embarrassing to Democrats statistics feasible.

It’s even more complicated than that. Obviously, a crime can be committed (thus counted) without the identity (citizenship/immigration status) of the (alleged) perp being known.

 

[uptower]

Here is the formula for calculating the crime rate

Crime Rate = (Number of Crimes / Population of the Group) * 100,000

In this case the population of illegal aliens in the US is unknown so the claim that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate cannot be verified.

Democrats sued to prevent the 2020 census from including a question about the citizenship status of the household members as had been included in previous census. Had it been allowed to remain it would have made an accurate calculation of the illegal crime rate and other to embarrassing to Democrats statistics feasible.

Bullshit. You are just creating the reality you want by filling in gaps in census information with your own imagination.

The DOJ stats themselves showed migrants committed fewer crimes, before they took the page down this year for political reasons.

Study after study has shown migrants, even illegal ones, commit fewer crimes than native born citizens while in the US.

But you're here to tell us, without any evidence, that because census figures aren't complete, the opposite must be true. Not that we don't know for sure or we don't have a complete picture, but that you know the answer even though you don't have the figures to show for it, just because the census is silent on the matter? Is that even what the census is for? Should we care when all these other reliable studies have already answered the question?

Yeah sure bud. You bring nothing to the table but you somehow know better than the DOJ or the Brennan Center, or even Congress.

All these sources demonstrate immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita.

But you know better because um..because, people might on answer the census correctly? Sheeh, what a relief to stand in the glow of such genius.