They should have taken the Dreamers and CHIP bat out of the D’s hands weeks or months ago.
Both pieces have overwhelming national support.
The D’s can now hold the moral high ground and demand passage as the price for turning the lights back on.
is no portion of the spending bill that dispute that Dems disagree with. The issue is: the Dems want to attach amnesty for illegal aliens to the spending bill. Thus, we have another Dem shutdown of the GOV.
would drop, billions in free services paid for by our tax dollars would be saved, jobs would open up for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants. Legal migrants would do the same work for the same wages. There is no need to give priority to illegal workers over legal workers.
I think the best part of your article is the $11.64B in state and local taxes, if you do the math that's roughly $1000 apiece.
Link: https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers
Trump ended the unconstitutional DACA program and told Congress to come up with a legal fix by March 15. “Dreamers” are not the same thing.
Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/01/18/there-3-5-m-dreamers-and-most-may-face-nightmare/1042134001/
(no message)
(no message)
I don't think so you Nazi!
I think his question stands.
(no message)
Link: Corrupt jerks
I guess you do enjoy being stupid.
Get this into your trumpanzees skull. Dreamers are people brought here when young and had no choice. They grew up as Americans and are mostly valuable to our society and economy. Nazis are evil controlling jerks chanting America first, like they weren't immigrants also! You are a Fox watching idiot who thinks you know all angles of this dilemma. The links I post generally high light the hypocrisy and falsehoods of your lies. Here is another.
(no message)
And more republican hypocrisy.........
Link: Why hurt the military on purpose?
I suppose this will not play well with the coastal elites.
(no message)
The military will not stand down, and they will lose no pay.
Trump keeps bringing up the military because he figures that his followers are too stupid to know that the military is considered essential.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigration.html
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It is not justice when we give them something...like entry into our country. It is charity. You call charity "justice" in order to create a false sense of legal obligation. As I say, that is misleading at best, and it sets up the fall of this country, the greatest good (in nation state form) this world has seen. We are not capable of supporting the world right now, and if you make us, we will pass, and the world will be left to the Russias and the Chinas of the world. That is what you are doing.
On the one hand we owe these animals nothing.
On the other, the military.
Let me know what the Bible says.
Serving in the US military is a path to US citizenship, and I support that.
And, just because someone is not a US citizen does not make them an animal; it just means that they don't have all of the rights that US citizenship entails. I don't know why you would say that, other than to pretend that my views are evil when my views are not evil. How morally superior can you feel when you base your moral superiority on an untruth?
Also, I don't impose all biblical beliefs on government, only the ones that the atheists agree with me on...like the prohibitions against murder (consequential morality...see my discussion with Frank below). I assume we agree at this level. So, I don't know why you bring the bible into this.
The reason why we have this awkward situation of dreamers is because we didn't protect the border, didn't enforce the law, so the law was broken repeatedly. No matter how we disagree on immigration policy, it is about policy to non-American citizitizen. American citizen shouldn't suffer from this politics. That's Ned's point.
We hired their parents to do the jobs that diabetic hillbilly couch potato Trumpbots wouldn’t do.
We knew Mom & Dad were illegal, but we turned a blind eye, because we liked the fresh fruit on our kitchen table, we liked dining out and traveling - made possible because of “the help”, and all the other grunt jobs that immigrants hump.
Meanwhile, the Dreamer kids had no choice in how their parents entered this country. Yet, these kids know one nation - America. It is their country, as much as it to your kids.
But no. Country Club Assholes like you, view these kids as “charity” — that because they came here at age 4 with their parents, that they lack the “standing” or “gold card” to walk through the front door of your exclusive club.
Do yourself a favor. Get out of your golf cart and go caddy for a Dreamer. Listen to their life story. And then come back and talk “charity” smack.
in exchange for wall and immigration reform. If you really hold your claimed high morality and really care about dreamers, accept the exchange. Dreamers would be legalized, wall would be funded and messy immigration situation will be clean up through reform, a win-win for all parties. But you don't. You are truly hypocrite.
(no message)
It just seems like you are conceding his point, and now you are just trying to gain a political point.
He said Mexico would pay for it, and we wouldn't. Now he wants tax payer dollars for it.
He said he would come up with a plan for the Dreamers that would show great love. He didn't.
He said if Congress came up with a bi-partisan agreement, he would sign it. I'll take the heat he says. The Senate brought him a bill co-signed by 7 republicans and the democrats. He said no.
He should do what he said he'd do.
But, he's a liar who just says things. So here we are.
Presidents often don't make good on all promises. Many presidents promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, but only Trump is making good on that promise. You and I can have a reasonable discussion as to whether it is a good idea at this point to make good on that promise. Same with the wall. (And same with Obamacare, I suppose.)
As far as the wall is concerned, I would hope that Trump would not let his "Mexico will pay for it" promise to stop him from increasing border security. The goal should be border security, not whether that security is obtained through a 2000 mile physical wall paid for by Mexico.
I think the hold up is the Freedom Caucus and Stephen Miller/John Kelly wanted a huge cut in legal immigration. My understanding is Trump is willing to make a deal with increased border security, some wall funding, CHIP reauthorization, and a DACA fix. That's a win for him, IMHO.
But, Miller and John Kelly aren't having it. You should follow what Lindsay Graham has been saying about this.
I trust you more than I trust him.
Graham gains nothing by taking this stance.
Link: https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/955153178567364610
When you make charity a legal obligation rather than something freely given, it is no longer charity.
You are attempting to create a legal right from nothing. There is no legitimate moral theory which allows you the RIGHT to use the power of government to take from me to give to others...which means that when that power is taken away from you, no one's rights are violated. Taxation and redistribution is not a moral requirement. At best, it is the execution of elected political power...which can be used by Trump just as legitimately as it can be by you (or illegitimately, I suppose). You claim it is a moral obligation, but you only claim that to strengthen your political power play. You mislead others so that your side can gain votes. There is no moral authority supporting you. You lie to gain political power, and that is the opposite of moral authority.
Unless the rich are paying more because of the loss of the deductibility of their high state and local taxes!!!
(no message)
(no message)
And, on the bright side, thousands of women lost weight today marching.
(no message)
Schumer, Et al.
To hell with legalizing dreamers, just as Dems said to hell with legalizing them in 2009 and 2010.
Back of the bus for you!
(no message)
Steven Miller, John Kelly, and now Trump, want to cut legal immigration by 40%. They only want English speaking immigrants.
who might normally argue that there are more important things than economics, reflexively justify our open gates with the rejoinder that it "grows our economy." I love it.
I know I can't even get libs anymore to care much about conservation, but we're on pace to have 1 billion, that's "billion," people here by the end of the century. That's environmentally unsustainable if we factor in quality of life. A bulk of these immigrants will be in California and the Southwest, where water is already becoming scarce. Would you be willing to set aside the economic nonsense and instead be patriotic in asserting that we can't take in human beings as we have because future generations will be saddled with a wholly unsustainable situation?
Bringing hundreds of millions more people here isn't a good idea, conor, and you know that at some level.
I don't know if that is what they want to do, but even if true, that is their elected, lawful right.
Unless you are saying that non-citizen-non-residents have a right to come here. Is that what you are saying? That we, as a nation, are immoral when we set our own border?
Hitler was elected same as Trump, and killing millions of Jews under whatever pretense he gave was his lawful right.
Which isn't to say Trump is Hitler, of course. He is not.
But, having the legal right to do something does not make it moral and just.
As it is, I'd say what happened to the 39 year old man from Michigan with his wife and two kids, with no criminal record, and was brought here when he was 10, and was deported, was immoral. I think the United States can and should do better than that. Maybe you don't.
If this were such a huge moral issue for the Dems, I would have thought you might have done something about it when you controlled both Congress and the presidency.
Unless the Dems sit down with the GOP and lay out a long term plan for illegal aliens to go through the normal process (allowing them temporary visas in the meantime), they should all be deported. Take your pick. I would rather they not be deported, so I would rather you guys not use this as a political football.
Abortion is legal as well. It violates no ones legal rights. It’s morally wrong though as is sending back people who were brought here as children.
Trump has also engineered this situation by first setting an artificial deadline and then reneging on a deal to solve the issue.
Humans have rights. Governments do not have rights. Governments exercise power. Governments do not exercise rights.
One of the ways we tell if a government exercises power in a moral way is whether human rights are violated.
Clearly, Hitler violated the Jews rights to life. He did not have a right to kill them because he was elected. He used his political power in a way that violated human rights. Exporting illegal aliens violates no one's rights. So, his analogy fails.
Jews have the right to life (as do the unborn). Illegal aliens do not have the right to remain in the country. If they are allowed to stay, it is our choice in how we exercise our power to enforce our laws, but it is not out of any rights they have.
Hopefully, there is the correct intersection of political power and moral rights when a legal right is created,
There is a legal right to abortion. There is also a legal right to deport these people. Both are morally wrong.
The moral wrong is what empowers us to fight abortion and the deportation of these people.
If legal rights are created by political power, then they can be taken away by political power. So, they are within the category of political power. And, is something really a right if the government can legitimately create it or take it away? I would say no. You destroy (or at least greatly diminish) the meaning of the word "right" by applying it to the use of political power.
No human rights or natural rights or moral rights are violated by deporting illegal aliens. Human rights were violated by Hitler. So, his analogy fails. Your introduction of the concept of "legal rights" does not change this analysis. It is already clear that illegal aliens have no legal right to stay here. Even Conor wasn't making that argument. Conor was arguing a moral right, which is misleading at best.
Just like there is a legal right to abortion.
Both are morally wrong.
The right to life is a natural right, not a mere "legal right." It can't legitimately be taken away by the government like Hitler did to the Jews, and like we do to the unborn. It is wrong to murder the innocent no matter what, because the innocent have a natural right to life, not a mere, politically created, legal right which is no right at all if it is subject to the whims of government.
The right to live in a different country is not a natural right. It can be legitimately removed by any government, and most governments use their discretion on that. This is almost universally accepted.
I think that explains why I believe you are wrong. I will add the following, in anticipation of a next step in the discussion:
We may need to peel this onion back one more layer. There are two types of morality: consequential morality (thou shalt not murder) and non-consequential morality (keep holy the sabbath day). Consequential morality is the only type of morality that applies to government actions (at least as far as the US is concerned...obviously not the case in Iran or Saudi Arabia). Thus, it is immoral for a government to murder, and even atheists are fine with imposing this type of morality on governments. But, other types of morality, such as tithing, or moral imperatives to be charitable do not apply to governments. Those moral imperatives only apply to individuals. Among other reasons, this is because governments don't create anything; when governments give to the poor, they are not giving their own wealth from their own heart, they are giving from wealth they took from other people. I'm not saying it is wrong to redistribute wealth; I'm saying it is merely permitted but not morally required (which means it is subject to normal, legitimate, political debate). "Give unto Ceasar..." was a permissive statement, not a mandatory statement. Jesus wasn't saying, "Go out and create government imposed wealth redistribution systems." He was saying you can pay your taxes even when those taxes are used for things like killing the unborn. That is permissive, not mandatory. The US government is not morally required to have no borders. It is permissive for our government to do that...and it is also permissive to have borders which are created for societal stability. (Everyone was happy to point out that the Vatican has walls.)
moral perperspective.
The argument is that it is immoral to deport this particular class of people who came in not by their choice when border enforcement wasn’t
a priority.
They can register for temporary visas. If they are not otherwise criminals, then they should get in line with others. In time, when their application comes to the front of the line, they can take steps to become citizens. If Congress wants to improve our immigration process, I'm open to that as well.
Now, having given my position, I remain strongly opposed to the arguments Conor was employing. And, Rocket's suggestion that deportation of known illegals is akin to the Holocaust is also totally inappropriate (for several technical reasons besides the tremendous difference in human impact).
(no message)
(no message)
Let's be honest: you know that if attempt to advance an argument, I'll probably be able to deconstruct or offer counterarguments you won't be able to rebut, and then it will be on to your usual nonsense involving Nazis, strawmen and so forth.
I don't think it's in ya.
to deport these people? Yes or no.
I will then answer your question.
You made an assertion and I first asked you to defend it. That you're dancing like this explains much. Answer my initial question and then I'll respond to yours.
I assume you're not arguing that no one here illegally should be deported, so let's hear the moral argument for those who you believe should stay.
(no message)
(no message)
All have a right to come to this inherently racist, xenophobic country.
(no message)
Ask them how many migrants and refugees they've brought into their homes.
(no message)
This is 100% on Trump because he is spineless.
The leaders brought him a bipartisan deal, which he said on camera that he would sign.
Then, he laid down like a bitch, when right wing Nazis told him they did not want to help the Dreamers.
As it is, he is taking a lot of heat for this. But, he is standing up to your naked play for power.
I am curious though: Can you name these Nazis of which you speak?
Not there is anything wrong with that. But the base of the Republican party remembers all to well that the last couple immigration deals did nothing to stem the tide. They have spine!
(no message)
(no message)