UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

A lady sent the following letter to the Editor of her local newspaper. She should be asked to moderate a discussion on the question of Immigration. How would the networks react? She is more rational than all the "talking heads" on network TV and probably more than half of our Congress.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It's better than my house. I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).’

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house.

You are Required to feed me.

You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.

You are Required to Educate my kids.

You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family.

My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for, well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE so that you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?

America is populated and governed by idiots.

the media is public enemy #1.

I'm guessing that a) you're old, and b) you consume way more media than most people.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Chris94? Jimbasil? Conor?

Who talks about wanting open borders? NYT editorials, WaPo editorials, CNN?

No, it is the conservative media trying to frame the debate in a dishonest way. It's very "war on women"-ish.


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

They just claim every single action of immigration enforcement is "inhumane" and "splitting up families."

They just want to abolish ICE.

They just want a "dreamer bill" which often is a code-word for hidden amnesty.

They just want an end to all deportations.

They just want anyone caught at the border to be able to claim refugee status, and effectively disappear after that date.

They just are fiercely opposed to any immigration enforcement by non-federal authorities. They will claim it is due to the rule of law, but in reality it is because local authorities would be more efficient.

No, they do not want open borders. They just want to provide a framework that makes immigration policing impossible, both in border protection and interior measures.

left that want these things. Of course these nut balls do exist in the progressive movt.

Just like the nut balls on the right who think a 2,000 mile wall or fence is feasible, and that we can deport millions of law abiding people who have been here for many years.

Walls are useless. Throughout history border fortification has been proven completely ineffective, and even counter-productive as it provides a false sense of security.

(no message)

I don’t have the energy to dig up the quotes from posters advocating almost every point he mentioned, but they have been openly advocated. I suppose if the Left chooses their definition, they could claim to not be for “open borders”, but they are certainly for “looser borders” with universal asylum that can bypass the normal naturalization process in order to expand their voter base.

The "looseness" of the border is always just a matter of degree. Framing the Democrats position as "open borders" merely because they support a different level of "looseness" than the Republicans is dishonest. That is why I consistently challenge that usage.

The worst is our president, who essentially claims that anyone that opposes his wall is for open borders. We need to put that phrase to rest. I've said it before - it is like the "war on women" propaganda that left throws around from time to time.

(no message)

And neither do Nancy or Chuck. But both parties are being pushed in radical directions by the fanatics in their bases... and moderates do not dare to speak the truth... for either party,

(no message)

There ain't much good about the Dems in general.

But they aren't really the problem right now. For example - the shutdown. The shutdown is not about the extremes of both parties failing to reach a compromise.

The moderate position is "no wall", plain and simple. The extreme position is "wall". And it is classic Trump. Trump loves to throw out a ridiculous demand so that the compromise is between "moderate" and "ridiculous".

Frank L is hung up on the fact that the parties' extremes cannot come up with what he considers a sensible immigration solution. That's fine. However, that really isn't an issue right now. The debate is between crazy and not crazy. If we can get to not crazy, then we can start holding people to account for failing to advance it from "not crazy" to "sensible".

If not, this issue is pretty much solved long ago.

Ironically, Orange actually criticized him as being too strident. I kid you not.

The gang of eight bill brought up during both W and Barry seemed to be a reasonable solution. Increased security and the pathway. But again the courage was lacking in the middle.

The wall and deporting millions of people who have been here for a long time and productive is nuts. In that regard, you are right, it is crazy versus non crazy. However, the left is not without its own craziness; abolish ICE, sanctuary cities who don’t cooperate with the feds, that type of thing. I can give you one example. It use to be that PD’s and local detainment facilities could hold people for ICE on detainers. However, the immigrant rights groups then convinced at least our circuit that these detainers aren’t mandatory hold orders. Sooo, if the only thing you had on one of these guys is an ICE detainer there was no basis for the locals to hold. As soon as that came out, as solicitor for our county prison, I had to tell them to release three detainees, one of whom we recently found out went on to commit some more violent crimes. Under the old rules, he would have been deported. This is the kind of crazy shit that Orange capitalizes on. Why the left doesn’t see this as a problem, I don’t know.

You really cannot hold someone in jail for committing a violent crime if they are an illegal alien?

Why would that matter? Are they exempt from laws?

He had a record of violence, but nothing outstanding at the time.

It seems odd to use ICE to preemptively take people we believe will commit acts of violence off of the street, since obviously that method cannot work for the overwhelming majority of violent criminals. In other words, in your example, if that guy was not an illegal immigrant, then that violent offender would have been on the street anyway.

I guess I never understood that line of reasoning.

They should be deported, yes?

(no message)

Because illegal immigration has been a bigger "problem" for many years (and appears to be on the decline a bit), I always assumed that there really wasn't a desire on either side to address it.

I figured that perhaps the Dems didn't care much because that's the kind of shit they do. But the Republicans' failure to seem to give two shits about it always flummoxed me. All I could guess was that various business interests rely on illegal immigrant labor, and therefore the Republicans would not oppose. Or, closely related, the economy is fragile and dependent on that source of cheap labor. Thus, no Republican president wanted to start a recession on their watch just to address the illegal immigrant issue.

Either way, I've had the sense that for at least 30 years, neither party had much interest in ending illegal immigration.

In fact, this a large reason why Trump rose to prominence, IMO. The Republican base was probably as flummoxed as me as to why their leadership didn't seem to make illegal immigration a priority. Along comes Trump, and it is his no. 1 issue.

Now, I distinctly remember debates around the edges about what to do with the ones that are already here, but no one seemed fired up about stopping it from happening in the future.

(no message)

(no message)