@wildgrass saidSuch a strategy might make sense IF we had a high unemployment rate among citizens and a shortage of jobs, but our present situation is exactly the opposite. It would be more sensible economically to pass reforms which make these workers legal.
No I don't favor an open border. I favor legislation to make it less comfortable to live in the US illegally.
Present law is too lenient regarding illegal employment, for example. Trump promised e-Verify on the campaign trail in 2015 and then, what, forgot about it? We know that 50% of farm workers are illegal. We know hotel chains that routinely have illegals on their p ...[text shortened]... is necessary to lower the cost of strawberry farming, then its Republicans who favor an open border.
You're too wrapped up in the partisanship IMO. But if I was too I'd say that accepting the right wing propaganda that this is a "catastrophe" which requires draconian measures to stop immediately is playing into their hands by accepting a false narrative.
@no1marauder saidDiversity is great. It is desirable. The ole 'pick lettuce' thing has worked for decades and more decades. Then, they own the truck, then they own the farm. THAT must be what brings you to your stupid observation, in the face of a border holocaust. You say your stupid comment as if we have the same conditions now as we have had for the said decades.
I have no idea what this raving is all about.
The United States is a diverse country and that diversity makes it more interesting, dynamic and prosperous. You've yet to explain why you think this diversity (accomplished largely by various waves of immigration) is undesirable, so undesirable in your mind, that the nation should forego the undoubted economic benefits of ...[text shortened]... x" comments; I personally admire Groucho more than Karl, but neither is relevant to this discussion.
All the same, is it?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidI find you a bit scary to say to just 'make them all legal'. Try to explain how that would be OK, to let them all join our citizenship, but not a good idea for a unified fraternity at Michigan State or Appalachian State to admit everyone that comes to the door.
Such a strategy might make sense IF we had a high unemployment rate among citizens and a shortage of jobs, but our present situation is exactly the opposite. It would be more sensible economically to pass reforms which make these workers legal.
You're too wrapped up in the partisanship IMO. But if I was too I'd say that accepting the right wing propaganda that this is ...[text shortened]... s draconian measures to stop immediately is playing into their hands by accepting a false narrative.
We will watch you strangle on this question. I have more. I feel like I take advantage of you with my common sense..
But, you will not answer this question, that fraternities admit all who come to the door? Will you answer this question ,we are all watching.
@averagejoe1 saidIF fraternities had a shortage of members and needed extra ones to do whatever "work" fraternities do, I imagine they wouldn't spite themselves by refusing those who could do it (as you want our country to do).
I find you a bit scary to say to just 'make them all legal'. Try to explain how that would be OK, to let them all join but not a good idea for a unified fraternity at Michigan State or Appalachian State to admit everyone that comes to the door.
We will watch uou strangle on this question. I have more. I feel like I take advantage of you with my common sense..
...[text shortened]... t fraternities admit all who come to the door? Will you answer this question ,we are all watching.
@averagejoe1 saidGood.
Diversity is great. It is desirable. The ole 'pick lettuce' thing has worked for decades and more decades. Then, they own the truck, then they own the farm. THAT must be what brings you to your stupid observation, in the face of a border holocaust. You say your stupid comment as if we have the same conditions now as we have had for the said decades.
All the same, is it?
So they work hard and better themselves.
Why is that a problem? It used to be called "The American Dream".
@no1marauder saidAs an analogy, this fraternity is filling the empty seat with a foot race across central America, accepting anyone who makes it past security, like an illegal border crosser?
IF fraternities had a shortage of members and needed extra ones to do whatever "work" fraternities do, I imagine they wouldn't spite themselves by refusing those who could do it (as you want our country to do).
1 edit
@no1marauder saidReally? Didn't think much of the foundation, beliefs and goals of a fraternity? Their purpose? Rules to live by? Then you were not in one. Someone knew of your, shall we say, propensities.
IF fraternities had a shortage of members and needed extra ones to do whatever "work" fraternities do, I imagine they wouldn't spite themselves by refusing those who could do it (as you want our country to do).
So here is Maruader, casting fraternal honor and commitment aside, saying''Let us just let someone in who can do 'the work' we do." "Their culture or , well, their culture, is not like ours, like our members, our brotherhood..., let us cast all that gobbledegook out the window and not be what a fraernity is meant to be! Screw it. Let's just be roomates and cast our oaths to the wind! The first guy we let in is a communist, and then maybe a guy who sponsors cross dressers in a kindergarten.!! And some Yemenites!!"
You realize your rationale (one of my favorite tenets of Debating) has slipped drastically. And everyone wonders why I say I win all my arguments!
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWTF are you talking about?
Really? Didn't think much of the foundation, beliefs and goals of a fraternity? Their purpose? Rules to live by? Then you were not in one. Someone knew of your, shall we say, propensities.
So here is Maruader, casting fraternal honor and commitment aside, saying''Let us just let someone in who can do 'the work' we do." "Their culture or , well, their culture, is ...[text shortened]... tenets of Debating) has slipped drastically. And everyone wonders why I say I win all my arguments!
We know what you mean by "culture" i.e. you don't want people of a a different skin tone in the United States. Why not just come out and say it?
As far as I'm concerned, those who want a better life for themselves and their families and are willing to take great risks and do hard work to achieve it, are perfectly compatible with the finest ideals of the United States.
You not so much.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidMake up your mind, please. If you oppose immigration like Joe does, just say so.
As an analogy, this fraternity is filling the empty seat with a foot race across central America, accepting anyone who makes it past security, like an illegal border crosser?
Deporting everyone who is in the United States illegally is a logistical impossibility as well as economic suicide.
@no1marauder saidI oppose illegal immigration.
Make up your mind, please. If you oppose immigration like Joe does, just say so.
Deporting everyone who is in the United States illegally is a logistical impossibility as well as economic suicide.
@wildgrass saidAnd?
I oppose illegal immigration.
What specific policies does that mean you support at the present time?
@no1marauder saidYou wrote that we deport 200,000 people per month (the human toll is staggering), but it is not considered catastrophic. What would be?
Such a strategy might make sense IF we had a high unemployment rate among citizens and a shortage of jobs, but our present situation is exactly the opposite. It would be more sensible economically to pass reforms which make these workers legal.
You're too wrapped up in the partisanship IMO. But if I was too I'd say that accepting the right wing propaganda that this is ...[text shortened]... s draconian measures to stop immediately is playing into their hands by accepting a false narrative.
We should be deporting much much fewer, by making the economic incentives for entering the US illegally very low. Naturalizing current illegals sends the wrong message. They should be denied employment options.
I stay pretty far away from the fear mongering media.
@no1marauder saidI support a policy that requires employers to verify that their workers are in the country legally. Permanent legal immigration caps need to go up. Caps should be adjusted to match workforce needs among all major industries on a yearly basis. I think this would solve most of the current problem with illegals who cross the border or overstay visas, have no where to go and lack professional skills.
And?
What specific policies does that mean you support at the present time?
@wildgrass said"8 Million People Are Working Illegally in the U.S."
You wrote that we deport 200,000 people per month (the human toll is staggering), but it is not considered catastrophic. What would be?
We should be deporting much much fewer, by making the economic incentives for entering the US illegally very low. Naturalizing current illegals sends the wrong message. They should be denied employment options.
I stay pretty far away from the fear mongering media.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us/undocumented-immigrant-workers.html
So you don't want to deport them, but you do want to make them unemployed?