It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pros and Cons on open borders.....

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

I think you're well aware this world is full of idiots.

I should have posted this in my first reply, but I fail to see the point of this thread. Its not relevant to anything going on in the world. Its not something anybody is realistically considering. It would be backwards movement to attempt.




posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Why can't american companies offer a pay scale high enough to attract legit citizens to their open jobs? If they can't attract valid legal workers with their current pay scales, they should just be allowed to import slaves with no workers rights?

Maybe if american companies / farmers can't gain enough fiat for the sale of their goods, thus offering attractive wages to produce/pick their products, their products aren't really that important.

es


WOWERZS You have a way with flipping the script.


There is a minimum wage in effect.

You just jumped into a whole other valid discussion and that is corporate farming.

The 10 to 1 exchange rate means that if a mexican makes 100$ a day then an american would have to make 1000$ a day to be equal in profit.

That is why they do not mind taking jobs that americans really do not want.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I also believe we need a stronger naturalization laws and more assimilation for people planning to stay here. We also need more ability for local and state police to deport folks.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoctorX11
Is there any country even considering to have 'open borders'? There aren't really places in the world like that unless its a conglomerate of States or provinces already part of a country of regional union.


Those last two words, 'regional union.' The EU has a fairly 'open border' policy. It allows much freer movement of workers and citizens between the members of the Schengen area. There are no checkpoints to enter other countries, no passports to show. You can apply for a job anywhere in the Schengen area and not think twice about a work visa.

We could do the same, have a free movement of peoples throughout North America and work with Canada and Mexico to fight back against cheap Chinese labor, together. Instead we build walls and fences and denigrate our neighbors. I think strengthening our borders makes our nation weaker.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Here is a long list of "cons"

Maybe you should take a look
lifezette article

But the Democrats’ new talking point — as well as many members of the mainstream media’s — is calling the illegal immigration and border crisis a “manufactured crisis” that the GOP designed to force the funding of Trump’s border wall.


List of victims of illegal immigration
No pros I can think of. Sorry
edit on 312019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It is not hard to understand that if the problem everyone wants to deal with is people crossing the border and claiming asylum then the proper way to stop that is not by walling in the citizens but by making it illegal to cross and claim asylum.

People would not climb or walk across any border if it was illegal to do so.

It is illegal to do so, as per USC 8 § 1325:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Pros: Cheap labor and no legal action.

Cons: Cheap labor and no legal action.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I know, but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks a wall can serve both purposes. Who knows what the future brings, I could see things getting ugly...police state..etc. Not now, but..down the road.
JM2C.



A few people replied the same as you did, I'll let this be the reply to Lumenari, and Nickn3 as well. I don't know how to do multiple quotes.

Peace
edit on 1-3-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It is not hard to understand that if the problem everyone wants to deal with is people crossing the border and claiming asylum then the proper way to stop that is not by walling in the citizens but by making it illegal to cross and claim asylum.

People would not climb or walk across any border if it was illegal to do so.

It is illegal to do so, as per USC 8 § 1325:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.


TheRedneck



You should be ashamed of yourself.


You and i went through this in the other thread just a few days ago. Maybe a couple weeks but you were participating in the thread.


Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,


For the last time this law coincides with the asylum laws that state any alien inside the usa can claim asylum.

I urge you to go visit the last thread you posted this trying to prove a point falsely.

Most of all explain to everyone why border agents are not enforcing this law you think could be used against people trying to claim asylum. Explain why judges have ruled against people claiming asylum being charged with any crime at all.

Explain why even the news media now reports people on the border being apprehended and but not arrested.

The reason is because it is legal to cross the border anywhere and surrender to border officials.

Your continuance to post this nonsense is something that leads people to believe you are correct since you are a mod and for the sake of everyone's sanity you should attempt to review the recent court cases surrounding this issue and the potus admin along with the asylum laws that correspond to this issue.

This is no longer about how you feel about the issue cause you have been shown different and the courts have ruled against you.

I am not calling you ignorant but i am telling you that you are posting and spreading flat out lies and half truths that is ignorant of the truth.

Since you are a mod you have a duty to get this right.

It is not about my opinion of the truth or your opinion of the truth this is about the integrity of the site.

Again go find the asylum law that corresponds to people claiming asylum inside the usa. I will give you a hint that i posted the law in a response to another member in the last thread where you brought this half truth into the debate.

You owe it to yourself and the site to get this right and deny ignorance.

Try section 1158 of us code 8.

Enough is enough with the ignoring the truth already.



edit on 2-3-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes, we hashed it out, but you apparently weren't listening. Sticking one's fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALA!" does not change the law.

US law is not whatever someone on CNN says. It is exactly specified in a series of titles within the US Code. If something is not specified in those titles, it is not illegal. If something is specified in those titles as illegal, it is illegal.

8 USC § 1325 states that it is illegal to cross the US border except during certain specified conditions. Period.

Asylum is also specified inside the US Code, as in 8 USC § 1181(a) and (c):

(a)Documents required; admission under quotas before June 30, 1968

Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.

Subsection (c) is where refugee status comes into play:

(c)Nonapplicability to aliens admitted as refugees

The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien whom the Attorney General admits to the United States under section 1157 of this title.

That references 8 USC § 1157, which says

(c)Admission by Attorney General of refugees; criteria; admission status of spouse or child; applicability of other statutory requirements; termination of refugee status of alien, spouse or child
    (1) Subject to the numerical limitations established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, admit any refugee who is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, is determined to be of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and is admissible (except as otherwise provided under paragraph (3)) as an immigrant under this chapter.

This absolutely establishes refugee status as being the in the sole discretion of the US Attorney General. Further, from the same section:

    (3) The provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title shall not be applicable to any alien seeking admission to the United States under this subsection, and the Attorney General may waive any other provision of such section (other than paragraph (2)(C) or subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E) of paragraph (3)) with respect to such an alien for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest. Any such waiver by the Attorney General shall be in writing and shall be granted only on an individual basis following an investigation. The Attorney General shall provide for the annual reporting to Congress of the number of waivers granted under this paragraph in the previous fiscal year and a summary of the reasons for granting such waivers.

    (4) The refugee status of any alien (and of the spouse or child of the alien) may be terminated by the Attorney General pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe if the Attorney General determines that the alien was not in fact a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42) of this title at the time of the alien’s admission.

That states that asylum status is not a right an alien has by virtue of having one toe on US soil; it is the decision of the US Attorney General. The US Attorney General can offer asylum (I would say should grant asylum where asylum is reasonably indicated) to aliens in his sole discretion.

So what is asylum? Hey, that's covered, too, in 8 USC § 1101(a)(42):

(a)As used in this chapter—


    ...

    (42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

Notice that "wanting a better life" is not included in the definition, nor is "being poor."

That's the law. If you want to argue it, your argument is not with me; it is with the US Congress that passed Title 8 of the US Code.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Tell it to the judge. Your interpretations have never been backed up by high courts and you are just foolin yourself.

Nice deflection and spin though.


b?



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

My interpretations?

You didn't even read the links... unless you're the greatest speed-reader of all time.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes i am a speed reader and i did not read your off topic links that are not relevant to the core issue.

You are welcome to join reality and admit that people are crossing the border anywhere and claiming asylum and not being charged with any crimes because they did not commit any.

Your opinions and assumptions of what the law says are wrong according to recent court rulings involving the current Potus and admin.

It is ok to be wrong and you will be able to begin to come up with solutions that could work once you accept reality.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

At the top of the pros list should be freedom!


When you look at the world as a whole we have 4 levels of living.

Level 1: Extreme poverty, this is where a family makes less than 1 dollar per day. We will see an end to this in our life time, but at this level people have no electricity, running water, mud floors, no real medical, 1 meal a day, have 8 kids to see a couple grow up, no shoes etc...

Level 2: Poverty, 1 to 4 dollars per day..still bad but their quality of life is up to 4 times better than level 1

Level 3: Middle class, 4 to 16 dollars per day... They have electricity, running water, a scooter for travel, all kids go to school, some level of medical support, 3 basic meals a day.

Level 4: Upper class, 16 to 64 dollars per day... The live good, up to 4 times better than middle class....

This is the world not America...

Now when we look at America even the homeless person on the street is right up there in Upper class, and our poor also blows out the world's Upper class by a lot, not to mention the possibilities to make 10 times what the world sees at high end living...

This is why they come...


edit on 2-3-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I think the first step to understanding this issue may be to list the reasons why people want to come here.

At the top of the pros list should be freedom!




Apparently freedom is not a universal concept, it's only given to those who are deserving...



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yes i am a speed reader and i did not read your off topic links that are not relevant to the core issue.

So the law itself is off topic? What, pray tell, is on topic in your opinion? Don Lemon's rants? Anderson Cooper's musings?

Those links and excerpts are from law.cornell.edu... one of the most respected law Universities in the nation.

So, you just verified who is living outside of reality. It ain't me.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yes i am a speed reader and i did not read your off topic links that are not relevant to the core issue.

So the law itself is off topic? What, pray tell, is on topic in your opinion? Don Lemon's rants? Anderson Cooper's musings?

Those links and excerpts are from law.cornell.edu... one of the most respected law Universities in the nation.

So, you just verified who is living outside of reality. It ain't me.

TheRedneck

You just keep spinning and spinning.

The topic was the post you put up claiming that it is illegal to cross the border and claim asylum. All the links you then put up were not valid to that issue.


The fact remains that you were and are wrong and it is legal to cross anywhere and claim asylum.

I have directed you to the truth yet you refuse to admit it.

Like i said you are bringing down the reputation of the site every time you choose to ignore reality of what is actually happening on the border.

The law clearly states they can cross anywhere and i gave you the law reference.

Pretending that your links to other laws somehow are valid to the situation is ignorance at best.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

Who's advocating for open borders?

Practically no one.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I think if the usa would lease some land on the border from mexico we could then set up a place for people to stay while their claims of asylum are being judged. It would have to be run by the usa but in mexico.

Attempts to just direct asylum claimants to mexico like potus is suggesting will likely be ruled unconstitutional because they are not allowed into the usa.

This would save money in the long run.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Bloodworth

Who's advocating for open borders?

Practically no one.


I am.
However i likely am considered to be no one even though i am not sure.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join