What is it that you really want? (immigration)

a reply to: network dude

I gave an answer on page 1.

It's simple, but it has worked for Australia. For the time being.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I'd say the majority of people on both sides of the debate want the same thing: A political issue to bash the other side with over the head.

The Left doesn't care about immigration. The Right doesn't care about immigration.

The leadership wants a divisive political issue they can use as leverage in the media and in debate, but very little gets done and it doesn't seem people really care much about the issue outside of that partisan debate. Yet the masses follow right along and play in to the entire mess.

Like exactly what you are doing with this thread. You don't want solutions either. You want something to bash Leftists and anti-Trump people with.
Good sheep doing as they have been taught to do.

Jesus Christ, is there some memo your all got that says you need to be decisive and arrogant, but under no circumstances, are you to engage in dialog? Pull you head out of your ass for a second and read the post from the left here. NOT ONE post even hints at an answer to this seemingly easy question.

And you #heads have the arrogance to claim to know what I want or think? Damn, that's even stupider than I thought.

For clarification, I asked the question, because I don't know the answer. If you are on the left, and you are angry, what is it that makes you angry about this? What should be done differently?

I gave a suggestion and a reply...!

Does that take me out of the Poo head category?

Kindest respects

Lags

I am sorry, could you point out your answer to the question.

Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say about it,

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.

Making eight principles for consideration:

The Attorney General is undertaking administrative actions and submitting to Congress, on behalf of the administration, a legislative package, based on eight principles. These principles are designed to preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion:

• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.

• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.

have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.

• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.

• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.

• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.

• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.

• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.

Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.

Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy ," July 30, 1981. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

He also said about Mexicans crossing the border "They look like people wanting to work, to me!"

a reply to: Chadwickus

We can't build a wall, they have ladders now.

I'm trying to understand what Trump can do differently with this situation.
There is still a lot of anger flowing about immigration.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I'd say the majority of people on both sides of the debate want the same thing: A political issue to bash the other side with over the head.

The Left doesn't care about immigration. The Right doesn't care about immigration.

The leadership wants a divisive political issue they can use as leverage in the media and in debate, but very little gets done and it doesn't seem people really care much about the issue outside of that partisan debate. Yet the masses follow right along and play in to the entire mess.

Like exactly what you are doing with this thread. You don't want solutions either. You want something to bash Leftists and anti-Trump people with.
Good sheep doing as they have been taught to do.

Jesus Christ, is there some memo your all got that says you need to be decisive and arrogant, but under no circumstances, are you to engage in dialog? Pull you head out of your ass for a second and read the post from the left here. NOT ONE post even hints at an answer to this seemingly easy question.

And you #heads have the arrogance to claim to know what I want or think? Damn, that's even stupider than I thought.

For clarification, I asked the question, because I don't know the answer. If you are on the left, and you are angry, what is it that makes you angry about this? What should be done differently?

I gave a suggestion and a reply...!

Does that take me out of the Poo head category?

Kindest respects

Lags

I am sorry, could you point out your answer to the question.

My apologies.

I edited my first post whilst you were posting.

Please read my suggestion again.

Am I out of the POO head category now?

Kindest respects

Lags

a reply to: angeldoll

Ronald Reagan passed away a while ago.

I'm glad that you like his thinking I thought he was a pretty good guy as well.

But I asked what YOU wanted? Do they not let you folks think on your own?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Why do you think network dude is glorifying Trump and bashing Dems?

He clearly stats that some people saw an issue - that is a neutral-factual statement
Congress did NOTHING - again, that's a that is a neutral-factual statement
The President acted - that is a neutral-factual statement

A huge overlap in the people that saw the original issue, still have an issue. I would also say that is a that is a neutral-factual statement

The OP says that President Trump saw an issue and fixed it. In the OP it did not say that he agreed or disagreed with the action, again which makes it a neutral-factual statement

The OP does say that there were people that had an issue, Trump tooks steps to rectify the issue they had, yet some Americans they still have an issue. If that describes the Dems in America, so be it, but that's not bashing. You honestly don't see what the OP is talking about. Look at the tweets before and after the EO, they are about the same tone: Hitler, nazis, etc, etc....

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Chadwickus

We can't build a wall, they have ladders now.

I'm trying to understand what Trump can do differently with this situation.
There is still a lot of anger flowing about immigration.

You need to get Mexico onside number 1.

Work together to shut down the smugglers would be a good start.

Hmm maybe I care a little bit...not enough to get angry over though.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

What's he going to do about reuniting the fami!yes already separated by his actions. ?and now
Now he says throw the court out of the picture. Just round them up and send them back over the border.
Excuse me while I try to figure out how this is different from catch and release he was so loud about criticizing.

He isn't releasing them inside the US, he' s sending them back. I think that is the primary difference here.
Just ask if you need more clarification.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

The right wing MSM may have told him that all the left are angry.

The "right wing MSM"??????????

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (choke) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (snort) LOLOLOLOLOL (slappin' leg) (snort) LOLOLOLOL!!!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

You should seriously consider Comedy as a career choice!!! You're AWESOME!!

a reply to: network dude

If I were on the left, which I have been accused of by some on the right (the curse of being libertarian-minded on most topics), I would be angry at the parents/guardians of these accompanied minors who are brought across the border illegally, regardless of their claim of seeking asylum.

See, here are my two major points in that approach:

1. These parents cannot be stupid enough not to know the immigration laws of the United States--they are available for everyone to see in some form or another. It's not as if we hide these laws just to pull a bait-and-switch at the border. So, knowing, or even just suspecting, the immigration laws, they still willingly and purposefully make these children accessories to illegal crossings, knowing full well what will be the most likely outcome if/when they are caught by border patrol or any other federal enforcement agency.

Yet, here they are, still knowingly putting these children at risk of being separated from their parents for an indefinite period while due process is applied to each person caught illegally entering our country. It is the fault of the parents for putting their children in this situation, not the United States government. We are a nation of laws, as are all other nations, and this should be treated as a unique concept by those who are intellectually dishonest with this issue.

2. The reasons for approved refugee/asylum status are as easy to find as our nation's immigration laws, yet here we are, with people still coming across our border illegally to 'seek a better life.' I'm sorry that your home country sucks ass, but poor economic status or 'our government sucks and I want a piece of the "American Dream" instead' are not valid reasons to seek out asylum in the United States.

But again, here we are, with these adults knowingly entering our country illegally (and sometimes legally at ports of entry) with unrealistic reasons for which to seek asylum, but the media and those lacking critical-thinking skills suck up the phrase "seeking asylum" as if it's a magical get-out-of-jail-free card and use it to incite emotional responses to what should be a problem approached with rationale and logic (considering the points that I've made, plus the fact that our laws have existed on this issue for decades).

But like I said, I'm not on the left, so I can't speak to the appeal-to-emotion fallacy with which they're approaching this issue. Don't take that the wrong way--I feel for these kids and the parents and the emotional stress through which they are going in these instances, but the fault for their situation does not lie at the feet of Trump, the U.S. government, "the right," ICE, Sessions, or anyone else other than the people who chose to enter our country illegally.

Personally, I feel that we're doing a pretty good job overall handling the situation appropriately. Others disagree, but hey, that's how life always is.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: angeldoll

Ronald Reagan passed away a while ago.

I'm glad that you like his thinking I thought he was a pretty good guy as well.

But I asked what YOU wanted? Do they not let you folks think on your own?

You have too many rules in your thread.

I agree with Mr. Reagan, or I wouldn't have posted it.
Is that alright with you, threadking?

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Chadwickus

We can't build a wall, they have ladders now.

I'm trying to understand what Trump can do differently with this situation.
There is still a lot of anger flowing about immigration.

You need to get Mexico onside number 1.

Work together to shut down the smugglers would be a good start.

Hmm maybe I care a little bit...not enough to get angry over though.

I agree that we need to get Mexico to work on fixing their mess, rather than just let it fester like a giant boil, but my initial inquiry has to do with the continued anger over this.

If it's just "I hate Trump", say it, and I'll understand that. But if it's more, like something a sane person might think, then I"m interested in hearing it. From here, it looks exactly like "I just hate Trump, so waaaaa!!!". I can't believe that it's come down to that.

I have said this quite a few times here. I want a more presidential president. I think Trump was the better option, between the two, but overall, this ins't what he's really made for. I do like the exposure of some scummy politicians, and I would be just as happy to see republicans outed in all this, as I find it incredibly hard to believe that the corruption is only on one side. But at this moment in time Trump is what we have. And even if the big tears come out, he will still be the President of the US until 2020, or beyond if someone doesn't realize how ignorant this all is.

Not a democrat but here is mine.

Totally shut down borders for now, butild the wall, and working border security.
Homeless Americans first, a pathway to get off the streets.
Then a merit based immigration, and a path to citizenship.

See how easy that was to answer?

Jeez Louise, I put up a quote from Ronald Reagan, and I'm already "you people", and it comes with a personal insult to boot. Way to go.

Do they not let you folks think on your own?

I expected some "yeah, but's," but a "you people"? Already?

cya

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Chadwickus

Do you hate the all equally, or is there a scale you use?

Again, my question is, what about the current immigration situation should be changed? What is it that the populace wants?

Here, I'll go first,
I want secure borders and an easier path to citizenship. See, I was able to compile a thought, and type it out. And I am not even a highly educated democrat.

There's definitely not a one size approach that will fit every scenario, but here's my short list of suggestions:
1. Make the border more secure. Yes, that's rather vague, but something needs to happen to stem the existing tide of illegals crossing the border. Maybe a combination of walls in certain areas and more ICE agents in others.
2. For illegals already here without children, provided they have not committed any felonies or serious crime, provide them with a path to citizenship...not immediately granted, but perhaps a vesting period where the longer they remain productive and out of trouble, they're allowed more freedoms and rights and then after a certain amount of time, they can apply for citizenship.
3. For illegals here and separated from their kids, if they have committed serious crimes, the parents and kids get sent back to their original country. If they have not, then perhaps provide an expedited path to citizenship, job training, etc.

I think most people are looking for a grand plan to address everything, but I think the scope is too large and needs to be addressed in an iterative and agile manner. Just my .02

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: angeldoll

Ronald Reagan passed away a while ago.

I'm glad that you like his thinking I thought he was a pretty good guy as well.

But I asked what YOU wanted? Do they not let you folks think on your own?

You have too many rules in your thread.

I agree with Mr. Reagan, or I wouldn't have posted it.
Is that alright with you, threadking?

I am sorry about all the rules. It's actually just a request. It was in the title of the thread and in the body of the OP.

If you are interested in a dialog, I was wanting to know what you wanted with regard to the current immigration situation. Here, I'll offer you a few choices, and if one grabs you, just type the letter.
A. I am happy with the current border situation
B. I don't like what Trump is doing at the border, let me explain why
C. I just hate Trump, so anything he does is wrong

I am really sorry for making you feel so bad.

originally posted by: Tekaran
Not a democrat but here is mine.

Totally shut down borders for now, butild the wall, and working border security.
Homeless Americans first, a pathway to get off the streets.
Then a merit based immigration, and a path to citizenship.

See how easy that was to answer?

Thanks for answering, It's funny, the only ones to answer here have all said the same thing. Build the wall.

It was my understanding that the "wall" was more than just a big fence, but a combination of security measures that would prevent unknown entry. Surveillance, drones, physical deterrents, and more manpower to patrol.

If that was the case, I'd be all for it and think it would be a very good step towards one aspect of this issue.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I like the way you think, but you already knew that.
WLYB?

a reply to: network dude

awww. That's the nicest apology. Thank you.

I want more checkpoints and guards at the border. Maybe lots of guards running around in four-wheelers and jet skis. (a fun job, yes?) Maybe build towers every few miles or so, with telescopes and such. Walkie talkies,( they can figure it out.)

Direct those with families to proper checkpoints for admission and refuge.

Turn around the crooks, and send them back.

I want more judges, and due process for anyone who illegally enters the U.S. except those who kill people in terror attacks who may be shot on sight as far as I'm concerned.

Now for the "yeah,..... but's"

I've got to get dressed now and leave the comfort of my home. I will see South Americans as I drive into town. Mostly Guatemalans. They are so tiny! I will not be afraid. They do not take my job, but they do clean up my office.