It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That helps no one and hurts everyone. By having a strong border, yeah people have to wait, but at least those that do get to move somewhere better, and not somewhere their problems are following them.
The waiting times in the family categories range from 19 months to 33 years. The waits in the employment categories range from none to just over 11 years.
More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 percent) are citizens of Mexico, and the wait for them is just over 18 years.
Here's the problem with that, if we open the doors wide open and let everyone trying to escape in, along with the very people predating on them, since no way to sort them from your escapees, we suddenly become exactly the same as the very place they ran from.
originally posted by: Grambler
First, Obama has vowed to veto any crackdown on sanctuary cities.
And second my point is he did the action with Dreamers, why couldn't he come up with an action to end sanctuary cities.
But we both agree, congress is too blame also.
Ridiculous, these agents know what the administration is telling them. So now i am just to believe that the very people that are emplyed to control the border do not know how the policies work. They know Obama's administration has asked them to let people go and not arrst them in the first place, and this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS ruling just said that overcrowded prisons weren't allowed, it was the Obama administration that said to stop arresting illegals. They chose the target of who not to arrest.
Also, why has Obama wasted money then on the border patrol increaes if he knows the SCOTUS won't let him enforce the law?
Imprisoning people costs much more money. Should we not arrest anyone then, because it costs money? This also runs counter to the argument you made about the child immigrants. So apparently according to this logic, they do know they can stay if they come, because we don't want to waste money deporting them.
That fine you dont care. But then don't come on here yelling that the very people that are being called racist for their stance won't compromise. You lose all credibility on that front.
I don't care who calls me any name. My point is that I want to have a real discussion about these serious problems. When one of the two people running for president, and a huge portion of her party and the MSM calls anyone who wants to have any deportations a racist, how can the problem ever be solved. It is a way of silencing debate, which supposedly you are all for. Yet you come on here criticizing the right for not compromising, all the while ignoring that the are silenced before they even begin by accusations of racism.
I am not talking about internet chat people or trolls, I am talking about people with political power silencing anyone who disagrees with them by shouting racism.
As far as my side I guess you mean conservatives. I do condemn personal attacks, especially if they are used to avoid discussing issues. Give me an example of a Republican politician shouting racism to refuse to debate an issue. When you find one, I will condemn it.
You however will not condemn it from your side, and instead demand that the right compromise with people that call them racist.
I don't disagree we can nuanced discussions. However, there will always be struggling countries, no matter how hard we try. Neocons try to fix these countries all of the time, like Afghanistan, and it doesn't work out. That is why we need a solution to getting rid of the violent illegals here now, and in securing our border.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: kaylaluv
Your point is valid and compassionate, but I have to respectfully disagree.
We are either a Nation of laws or we are not. I can't disregard certain laws to better myself, why should they get that opportunity?
Some laws need amending. We amend laws all the time. Maybe we need to amend immigration laws so that people who are suffering in 3rd world countries get an easier and quicker path here.
Another 806,000 applicants are adult married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. The wait for most applicants in this category is just over 11 years. However, about 40 percent of those waiting in this category are from Mexico and the Philippines, and their wait is more than 20 years.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Dude. I've spent the entirety of Trump's campaign frustrated because I haven't had a serious conversation the level we are having currently with any of them previously. Most Trump supporters shout any resistance down with hyperbole and slurs. If you can't see this going on, then I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason I've curtailed my participation on these forums within the last year. It's because the quality of discussions has seriously gone downhill in direct correlation with the start of Trump's campaign.
PS: Anyone with any political power who thinks they are silenced by someone calling them a name like racist is a weeny and needs to grow some thicker skin. Political discourse does get nasty and insults shouldn't silence you.
I really don't think blowing up and bombing Afghanistan was "fixing" it. It's more akin to America just lashing out at a country we think supported a terrorist we were mad at.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Puppylove
That's a complete non sequitur. Starting in the mid-19th Century, we had a massive influx of immigrants from Germany and other European countries. The last of my ancestors arrived in this country in 1853 (third great-grandparents) from a small village near Baden-Baden.
originally posted by: Grambler
I definitely feel your frustration. It is hard to have a constructive conversations with emotions so high. I know I myself have fell into the trap of not being the most accessible conversationalist, and it is something I am trying to limit.
And I have criticized this behavior when it gets ridiculous. I often find myself myself disagreeing with someone on one thread that I was with on another. My only suggestion is to ignore the posters that don't want to have an honest conversation, or approach it with humor, or to try to see if you can get beneath the insults to some kind of common ground. But it can be tough.
I think there is a difference between this behavior coming from posters like us, as opposed to politicians and media people. I agree that no politician worth their salt should leave an accusation of racism stop them from spreading their opinion, but the truth is it does affect them. Racism is a powerful charge, and when audiences here a politician or celebrity they like call someone a racist, is has power. Careers have been destroyed over such charges. So now we see people in the public eye falling all over themselves to not be thought of as racist.
Also, many normal people get their news from msm sources, and when the call anyone who has a problem with illegals racist, it affects a large amount of the populace. This stifles nuanced conversations like we are having. That is why I am so focused on pointing out that people like Obama and Bernie have also suggested things like deporting illegals, because people on the left know these people aren't racist towards Hispanics. This may open their eyes to the fat that it is a complex problem that reasonable people can have different opinions on how to handle.
Exactly. But war mongers on all sides of the political aisle will use the excuse of "Well we need to go into country x and fix it so immigrants don't come here" to invade countries. I feel the US government is responsible for the US, and that is it. Therefore, it should protect our borders and come up with immigration policies that work within the borders, as opposed to having to go into other countries.
Now this doesn't mean that we should cause damage in other countries without consequence, nor does it mean that we shouldn't totally revamp our legal immigration system. I just think our government has a responsibility to look after its own people first.
A PROMINENT American once said, about immigrants, “Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.”
This sentiment did not emerge from the rancorous debate over the immigration bill defeated last week in the Senate. It was not the lament of some guest of Lou Dobbs or a Republican candidate intent on wooing bedrock conservative votes. Guess again.
Voicing this grievance was Benjamin Franklin. And the language so vexing to him was the German spoken by new arrivals to Pennsylvania in the 1750s, a wave of immigrants whom Franklin viewed as the “most stupid of their nation.”
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is what I've been doing. I go on breaks for up to a week at a time and many times I'll respond to hyperbole and assholery with jokes and humor.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian
So true. I brought up the movie Gangs of New York earlier in the thread. If you watch it you'll see the actors making a lot of the same nativist arguments that are made today about Mexicans and that movie is historical bi-op on the immigration waves at the turn of the 20th century.
A review of the history of immigration in this country will prove just about all of the right wing's fears about illegals to be false.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: thinline
If walls worked, the states would have already built them. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.