What is it that you really want? (immigration)

a reply to: Alien Abduct

you insulted yourself this time with the mess you just made.

Perhaps gather your thoughts and present them in a coherent manner?

Not much difference in your post and a wall of text.

I am very interested in what you are trying to put forth so possible try again?

I suppose next you will retort to every single word individually.

context is your friend as am i

a reply to: JBurns

Here is a good quote that sums up the current political system and congress:
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
Political discourse is healthy; it is what gets things together. It allows for the bouncing of ideas off of each other. However, the main problem is that neither side wants to listen or even admit the other side may have a valid. And ultimately, as much as it stinks, or may seem wrong, Congress is 1/3 of the government, there to provide a check and balance on the other 2 branches of government, and right now, after carefully looking at what all is going on, that check and balance is not present when it comes to the current administration.

While the current minority party is able to hold any legislation hostage, however, when the other side was the minority, they did the exact same thing. Hence the other part of the problem and that is that both parties often will open a door, politically to get what they want and then cry foul when the other guys do it. And as much as this is going to irritate people, the truth is the first time this really made a blip on the public scene was in 1980, with a republicans in the minority and it caused a short shut down, then it was negotiations and start up after that. The only thing here that is kind of disturbing is that it is now a common thing to see just about every year. So if it is wrong for the Democrats to do such, would it not be equally wrong for the Republicans to do the exact same thing?

And as far as hurling-lies, insults, harassment, that is as American as anything else, and goes back to the founding fathers. It only seems shocking, because mostly we have not seen such before in a very long time. Look at the Jefferson/Adams race, the things the founding fathers stated to win the presidency, was slanderous, but part of politics. And if we look at the current attack adds, most of the time it only shows the end result and never the whole picture, things taken out of context.

The bottom line is that there are very few in congress who are looking at what is good for the whole of the country, and most are there for their own personal agendas and to get rich. Many of those in congress are only interested in getting a cushy job and is one looks at the donations and the votes, it becomes very clear, that it was never about the country, but the money.
And both parties are guilty of this.

I am getting a feeling that they are gonna pass the current immigration bill today or next.

Since POTUS told them not to...

a reply to: howtonhawky


Well the context was given there in the post, it was posted with quotes and in the format used by every ATS member so I don’t see why you are having trouble understanding it. If you want to make yourself look like a fool by pretending you can’t understand it then that’s on you. Have a good day.

originally posted by: network dude
I keep getting more confused by the day, and I'm not sure it's age creeping up with me. I see a huge uproar about kids being removed from their parents at the border. It's a big, loud uproar and it was really important. Really. So Trump asks congress to write a law and pass it that would fix this permanently. Congress fails. So Trump writes and EO to do the job. (Here is where the confusion starts)

Is this not what everyone was asking for? They all were disgusted by the thought of separating families. So Trump stopped that dead in it's tracks. (And I give zero #s about who started it, for all intents and purposes, it was handled with the EO.) But there is still anger, resentment, frustration. And no clear understanding of why.

What is it you want? I ask this in all sincerity. You don't like Trump, I get it. You are so afraid of Trump, you can't let a second go by without thinking of saying something about him, I get it. But at this point, I think it's time to step back and view this from an outside perceptive. You look like a lunatic. You have no clear message, and you don't seem to understand any of this, but all you know is you are angry.

Please, tell everyone what you want done, so the rest of us can understand what you are after here.

That's a reasonable post. I would think everyone just wants to make sure our policies in place there make sense and are humane. If we're going to put some money somewhere...this is one of the good places to start, not really on the wall, but on more border patrol agents and processing agents and updated systems and processes to make it more streamlined.

Our congressmen and women should be able to tour any facilities....there shouldn't really be any secrets.

I'm really tired of playing politics. Either something makes sense or it doesn't. I don't like Trump but he heard the uproar and did something about it. That's what we want in a leader and in this case he did the right thing. It's kind of up to congress and our border patrol agencies to take it from there.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: howtonhawky


Well the context was given there in the post, it was posted with quotes and in the format used by every ATS member so I don’t see why you are having trouble understanding it. If you want to make yourself look like a fool by pretending you can’t understand it then that’s on you. Have a good day.

So that's a no go on the clarification.

Understood.

Good valid points can be made coherently or incoherently.

Funny thing is that the post you just made is understandable yet the other the meaning was lost in the hate.

I really do not feel like sifting through that previous pile so the offer stands that i will definitely listen if you decide to present it in a different manner i can comprehend.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.

If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?

To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?

If they were the one's you didn't want in, then yea, I'd think so. Otherwise, you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules, like in a utopian society. I'm glad I have a better understanding of what you want, I still completely disagree, but it's not abstract anymore. So thanks.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: howtonhawky


Well the context was given there in the post, it was posted with quotes and in the format used by every ATS member so I don’t see why you are having trouble understanding it. If you want to make yourself look like a fool by pretending you can’t understand it then that’s on you. Have a good day.

So that's a no go on the clarification.

Understood.

Good valid points can be made coherently or incoherently.

Funny thing is that the post you just made is understandable yet the other the meaning was lost in the hate.

I really do not feel like sifting through that previous pile so the offer stands that i will definitely listen if you decide to present it in a different manner i can comprehend.

Okay I’ll try to dumb it down and make it as simple as possible for you.....

This is what you said...

yes we have jobs

This is my response...

We wouldn’t be able to sustain the amount of jobs needed with your proposal to essentially open the borders. Show me with citations where our economy could provide at least a million new jobs a month for our new immigrant population flowing over the border. This would be ON TOP of the new jobs needed to sustain our native population.

This is what you said...

we have a minimum wage

This is my response.

Working 40/week @ minimum wage = POOR

This is what tou said...

the states can regulate how many we let in

This is my response...

That’s not a State function. Even if it were it would be very stupid, just because California (for example) wants to let in millions of immigrants it’s not fare to the other States where lots of those immigrants will likely end up (illegally).

This is what tou said...

remove the federal protections and the handouts while keeping track of them

This is my response...

So, give away all available jobs and flood the job market with a massive unsustainable influx of workers that there aren’t enough jobs for and then on top of that waste an incredible amount of resources and a massive amount of money so we can... “keep track of them”?

This is what you said...

the numbers would not change much

This is my response...

The pay rates would reach minimum wage for jobs that should be paying middle to upper middle class jobs, it’s already happening.

This is what you said...

this would not mean they could become citizens unless they go through the proper channels

This is my response...

There is already proper channels in place.

This is what tou said...

why would someone seeking handouts come here if there were no handouts?

This is my response...

Probably to seek a job. Even at minimum wage, I job in the United States would pay much more than they could dream of making in their home country. But for Americans? See my first comment in this post. Hint: work 40/week @ minimum wage = POOR

This is what you said...

why would the dems want them here if they could not garner more votes?

This is my response...

Cheap labor, illegal votes/future votes, they feel sorry for them even at the expense of the well being of their fellow Americans that will have to compete for the (now even lower minimum wage) jobs with them.

This is what you said...

think logically as to the current problems with the current system and find solutions

This is my response...

If this country used your definition of logic it would collapse in under five years.

This is what you said...

is there some incentives i am missing?

This is my response...

Yeah as a matter of fact you did miss some. Where is the incentives for the United States to let in millions and millions of immigrants collapsing the job market, making millions of Americans and immigrants unemployed, burdening the safety net to the brink of failure, raising the deficit by a trillion and subsequently eventually causing total failure of our society?

Can you comprehend it now? Would you like to respond to it this time or do you just like to pretend you want to have a real discussion?

I'm from Michigan which has been a blue state for decades. This last election we went red and part of the reason was the county I live in. Most people I know are democrats but they voted for Trump. Mostly because of his policy on protecting the border. I hate his guts but I agree something needs to be done about protect the sovereignty of this country.

originally posted by: DAVID64
They want to be Anti Trump.
Period.

I'll just copy my reply from another thread. It works here just as well.

So basically, the Dems don't want the children seperated, so they whine and get what they want.
Now, the families will be kept together and housed at a military base....and the Dems whine.
So the takeaway is, the Dems don't get what they want, they whine.
Dems actually get what they want, They Whine.
Anyone else see a pattern here?

That is logically sound regarding this situation. But if we don't give them what they want, and they whine, then logic would dictate we should not give them what they want. This is scary because the whole time I was having flashbacks of the "Terrible Two's" with my kids...scary. Actually...you stand a better chance reasoning with the toddler.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.

If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?

To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?

If they were the one's you didn't want in, then yea, I'd think so. Otherwise, you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules, like in a utopian society. I'm glad I have a better understanding of what you want, I still completely disagree, but it's not abstract anymore. So thanks.

I know it may be tough to understand, but unless you want to limit freedoms based on fear, I see no other option.

The argument you are using is the same thing we hear from anti-firearm nuts. "We must limit or ban access to firearms, otherwise you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules".

Ironic isn't it? The same sort of argument applies to the border issue, as does the firearm issue.

You cannot stop the bad guys from crossing the border/getting a gun, if that is really want they want to do, right?. So why are you going to inconvenience law-abiding people and burden them further, just to make you feel a little safer in your narrow little box?

It's sad that you would actually make that sort of argument.

Facebook and why not get a Twitter cause "I'm not famous but I could be" likes? Don't forget Yelp.

Jesus Christ and 12 others like this

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.

If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?

To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?

If they were the one's you didn't want in, then yea, I'd think so. Otherwise, you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules, like in a utopian society. I'm glad I have a better understanding of what you want, I still completely disagree, but it's not abstract anymore. So thanks.

I know it may be tough to understand, but unless you want to limit freedoms based on fear, I see no other option.

The argument you are using is the same thing we hear from anti-firearm nuts. "We must limit or ban access to firearms, otherwise you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules".

Ironic isn't it? The same sort of argument applies to the border issue, as does the firearm issue.

You cannot stop the bad guys from crossing the border/getting a gun, if that is really want they want to do, right?. So why are you going to inconvenience law-abiding people and burden them further, just to make you feel a little safer in your narrow little box?

It's sad that you would actually make that sort of argument.

you have a logic fail here.

Law abiding citizens don't cross the border illegally, they go to the check points and enter with the proper paperwork.

It's why we have "border patrol" and other deterrents, to keep the criminals from coming in the wrong way.

may want to put a bit more thought into the next argument.

a reply to: network dude

The principle is the same, regardless. You are forcing people to jump through hoops in order to protect you from the mean little baddies of the world.

Better push more regulations and "walls" up to save you, right? Freedoms be damned, right?

Sure you are not a liberal? You seem to think like one.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

The principle is the same, regardless. You are forcing people to jump through hoops in order to protect you from the mean little baddies of the world.

Better push more regulations and "walls" up to save you, right? Freedoms be damned, right?

Sure you are not a liberal? You seem to think like one.

What does this post even mean?

We have secure borders, because that is what we, as a nation decided we wanted. How on God's green Earth is protecting our borders infringing on my freedoms?

You used to be a challenge to go against, this is weak sauce. Too much emotion or something.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

The principle is the same, regardless. You are forcing people to jump through hoops in order to protect you from the mean little baddies of the world.

Better push more regulations and "walls" up to save you, right? Freedoms be damned, right?

Sure you are not a liberal? You seem to think like one.

The laws are in place, no need to “jump through hoops” to do their job. We really wouldn’t need a wall if the current laws were being enforced like they should be.

I say if you or anyone else wants open borders or somewhat open borders or even a change in how we should be handling the border problem then I say great have at it.... but first change the laws! Otherwise laws are pointless.

It’s akin to someone wanting to be able to freely go around killing eagles. Most people are opposed to it which is a big reason why it’s illegal but guess what, if you made a good enough case with the people and the courts to kill eagles you might be able to get the laws changed and then you can go around freely killing eagles. Until then you can’t freely kill eagles because it’s illegal and there are consequences!

a reply to: network dude

We have secure borders, because that is what we, as a nation decided we wanted. How on God's green Earth is protecting our borders infringing on my freedoms?

Even as a citizen, you cannot come and go as you please. You have to jump through several hoops, do you not?

Those hoops are in place in an attempt, or an illusion, to keep bad people out and the citizens safe, correct?

You give up your freedoms for the illusion of security, which is a similar argument used by the anti-firearm crowd.

You used to be a challenge to go against, this is weak sauce. Too much emotion or something.

I don't care. Are you for freedom or not? Do you subscribe to the mentality that your freedom is expendable to the benefit of security?

I do not. I like the idea of more freedoms and I will deal with the bad when and if they show their face. That is why I agree with an open border policy. A few regulations and checks are needed, but for the most part we do not need the system we have in place now. We certainly do not need a wall.

So it seems to me that you are using an argument similar to the anti-firearm crowd. You want a system in place to keep the bad men out, at the expense of the majority of decent people, so that you feel safe inside your little bubble.

Question for those who want open unrestricted Immigration, no punishments for people who enter or stay illegally.

What does the USA gain from that?


Answer that first then we can work down the list.

a reply to: introvert

Do you live in a house or on a park bench? If you live in a house with walls, and doors, do you lock them? If you lock your doors, why?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

The laws are in place, no need to “jump through hoops” to do their job. We really wouldn’t need a wall if the current laws were being enforced like they should be.

So you admit there is no need for a wall. That's a positive step forward.

I say if you or anyone else wants open borders or somewhat open borders or even a change in how we should be handling the border problem then I say great have at it.... but first change the laws! Otherwise laws are pointless.

Of course. Laws and policies have to be changed. We can't just do what we want, when we want.

It’s akin to someone wanting to be able to freely go around killing eagles. Most people are opposed to it which is a big reason why it’s illegal but guess what, if you made a good enough case with the people and the courts to kill eagles you might be able to get the laws changed and then you can go around freely killing eagles. Until then you can’t freely kill eagles because it’s illegal and there are consequences!

Ok.