Let me first start this by saying come on... why do you have to insist on calling me a partisan hack even though I carefully addressed every single one of your points? The reason I didn't do so previously was that your debates were with redress, not me. I am not at all a democratic partisan hack... that's why I list myself as "slightly liberal". I take a conservative view on pretty much any foreign policy/war/national security issue, and a moderate view economically. I am by no means a hyperpartisan.
The parents coming into this country into this country illegally and/or staying in this country illegally is illegal. Now, if you're going to go the ridiculous route or attempt to quibble concerning "criminal" illegality and civil illegality because a first offense or overstaying a visa or such a thing is not considered a felony I'll happily engage you on a worthless little back and forth of semantics that obviously ignores the larger issue and what each of us is honestly attempting to say. However, civil or criminal doesn't change the notion that entering the country in an unlawful manner and/or remaining in it in an unlawful manner is acting in a way that is against the law, IE illegal.
It's not even considered a misdemeanor to simply be here illegally, just getting that out of the way. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor but that is not possible to prove in pretty much any case.
Coming in and staying for 5 years isn't exactly that difficult of a thing considering the MILLIONS of people who are doing it currently. Our border security is a joke. Our enforcement is a joke. Is it going to suddenly, by itself, double the number of illegals that try to enter the country? No. But to suggest that it would not provide an incentive is ridiculous, illogical, and just plainly ignorant. Its a benefit that could be bestowed to their children if they bring them into this country illegally as opposed to staying in their own country. That is an incentive to act. There's no two ways around that.
Right, staying for 5 years is not hard. BUT - planning it out perfectly so that the kid will have been here for 5 years by his/her sixteenth birthday is going to be tough and not done in great numbers. And again, I disagree with the notion that the border security is a joke and that the immigration enforcement is a joke. There are simply different priorities. ICE does not have the resources to chase down cleaning ladies. Going after criminal aliens who pose a threat to national security is the #1 priority, criminal aliens involved in trafficking of children, drugs, etc, is a big one and is a lot more important than Stavros the friendly neighborhood dry cleaner who has been living here for 25 years illegally.
Based off....what? Your assumption? The act doesn't require that. The act says nothing of the sort. The act does not have any provisions in it that the Parent must voluntarily deport, that the child must inform the government where the parents are, that the government will research into where the illegals that brought the child into the country is. For your issues with others not answering things based on what the act actually says, here YOU'RE building a strawman and assuming things that the act doesn't says. My stance is in line with the act, because at this moment is says nothing in regards to anything regarding deportation of the parents.
You're right. It doesn't. I'm not building a strawman, I'm saying that I believe that would be better off if the parents were put through voluntary deportation. I still do believe that the benefits of the act outweigh that, namely again from an enforcement standpoint, you have what? 2 million kids who were previously mysterious and unknown to us now in the system, registered for selective service, etc. That is a lot better than a bunch of unknown undocumented aliens. But if I had my choice on how to do this bill, I'd add such a provision. Perhaps that could be added to garner republican support for the bill.
I don't have anything wrong with the kid sponsoring the child after they're a citizen; I would have a problem wih the individual gaining citizenship since they showed from the VERY FIRST ACT in our country to have disregard for our laws, but I don't have an issue with them attepting to sponsor them. When I speak of "staying" I speak more of the efforts by immigration activists and Democrats the country over to attempt and sway public opinion by going "But, its just not FAIR to send someone back across the border when their child is a Citizen. You're breaking up families. You should give those people a pass".
That's not necessarily true. They could have just had a visa and overstayed it. That doesn't mean they violated the laws from the very first act. If it is a parent who committed a felony by being deported then reentering, then yes, allowing citizenship for that parent would be ludicrous. I'm sure that would be sorted out during the citizenship process though. People make mistakes. Have you ever broken a law in your life? I'm sure you have. I have broken laws before, obviously no felony convictions, lol, but I have learned from those mistakes and I have become a better person because of it. Allowing these parents to be sponsored and come back to our great country YEARS after the kid gets citizenship would be fine IMO, and again, the parent would be vetted.
Then as a fellow DHS employee, let me say this. If you want to throw out your credentials, expect to have to give at least vague facts and don’t expect anyone to give it any credence based on your statements. I feel your pain in every TSA/FAMS thread, but the fact is because we (understandably) can’t talk about specifics there’s little reason for anyone to value our opinions more than anyone else’s unless our history on the forum has given them reasons to do such.
It's not like I'm typing out top secret information, but I suggest people read about the border on their own. Go visit it. Read about it on anywhere else other than WND and you will see that the idea that our border is not defended and completely open to visitors has been extremely exaggerated.
Has our border security improved in the past 3 to 5 years? Yes. That's like saying the Washington Nationals have improved as a Baseball team. They're still not good. And our border security isn't at the point that we need it. Now, I am generally apt to trust people who have firsthand experience, so I’ll trust you that its better than I thought it to be. At the same time you appear to have a significant, very partisan, agenda driven view point that makes it difficult to truly see how much of what you say is honestly from insight in your position and how much is just using your position to find justifications for your agenda.
I don't think I have a very partisan agenda again, as referenced by my statement in the top. And I didn't say 3-5 years, I said 3.
You know what. A lot of kids in this country are put in bad positions that they had no choice to be in. It sucks. Its crappy. Its life and reality. Every kid who has a bad situation because of the actions or choices of a parent is not given bonuses by the government. We're not ****ing little league where everyone needs to get a ribbon and orange slices. Society cannot, and frankly should not, function like that. Sometimes through no fault of your own you get put in a bad situation. That's life.
They aren't getting a bonus. They are getting a chance at life in a great country. We have a way to take care of these kids that is little to no skin off our backs, so why not do it? The benefits are great and it comes with only a few drawbacks. And again a lot of kids who have bad situations due to their parents are infact given help by the government, for nothing and at the total cost of the tax payer. With the DREAM Act, students have to work hard to reap the results and give back to their country.
I’m sorry, they “earned” their Residency only if we pass a law that says it. The only reason its would be “earned” through going to college is because we deemed it so. There’s nothing special about going through college. It’s not some huge monumental task. “Oh look, you got a discount to better yourself and enjoy yourself with peers for 4 years…You really earned that residency!” As I said to Redress, I buy that a bit more with the military, but absolutely not for college.
Why do you think college is some kind of joke? I don't remember college being easy for me 30 years ago, and it's certainly not easy for my 19 year old who is going there. These kids kill themselves man.
Redress has shown no such thing. From the point of green card compared to the point of college graduation…yes, you’re right; it’s not a fast track. However, that’s starting part way through the system already. The individual still has to GET said green card, and it is far easier and more definitive for someone…if the act to pass…to get into a rinky dink community college and then into a university for their final two years with little to no chance of failure then it is for someone to actually get their green card. People can wait years with uncertainty, stuck in potentially a poorer country with worse conditions, being unable to confidently enter into any kind of long term Endeavour as their green card could come at any moment. Meanwhile, the kid applies and gets into community college, gets to learn at a reduced pay rate then they’d normally have to pay for 2 years, get into a state college, and graduate. All of which is contingent pretty much upon their own actions, not the choices of a bureaucrat. All of which is a pretty standard, clearly defined process and timeline.
You really hate college don't you? I could find you hundreds of kids who have testified before congress who break their backs studying. Someone in this thread just posted about a friend who is breaking her back studying and attending classes. So what if some kids don't work hard? What's better? An alien child who goes to college here and becomes a doctor and cures aids, or an alien child who becomes an economists and finds a solution to our economic woes, or a kid who is going to sit here undocumented for the rest of their life doing absolutely nothing productive. You tell me. It's like Mike Huckabee says:
Mike Huckabee said:
"When a kid comes to his country, and he's four years old and he had no choice in it – his parents came illegally. He still, because he is in this state, it's the state's responsibility - in fact, it is the state's legal mandate - to make sure that child is in school. So let's say that kid goes to school. That kid is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he's a smart kid and he works his rear end off and he becomes the valedictorian of the school. The question is: Is he better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it's better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen."
I’m sure it would be. You’re not going to score points with me acting like I’m Joe Stereotypical Republican though thinking going “MILITARY SAYS ITS GOOD” means I’m going to go brainwashed and say okay. Yes, the military likes it. No crap, it gets them more people. However, I think the problems it causes for the country as a whole is not worth the benefit it gives to the military. As I said, at a point where it’s clear we’re making a SIGNIFICANT, focused effort and not just a token one at actually stopping illegal immigrants from entering this country and staying in this country then I’d be all for discussing this and think it’s a wonderful potential way (in regards to the military) of dealing with those in this country.
Considering the fact that 70 percent of Americans are overweight, allowing some hard working kids to join would be pretty damn helpful.
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/PressRelease04202010.pdf
U.S. Troops Too Fat to Fight? - Military Fitness - Military.com
Did you also know that the NFL season is starting on the tenth anniversary of a man made disaster that caused overseas contingencies?
I said a prayer at mass this morning for the men and women serving in Southwest Asia (can't say Middle East, too eurocentric) in our overseas contingency operations.
