Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or if this is distasteful another way to do it could be to pay them normally and to help finance their pay through things like tolls, contributions from municipal and state levels, and maybe some other ways. It's not easy to figure out how to finance such a venture, except to say that one solution to having too much manpower - is to find a way to use it.
It's easy to finance it at the Federal Level. We're a fiat system, Congress would finance it by passing an appropriation saying that it's financed. Done right, money should flow out enough to always keep unemployment at 0- increase when the economy slows to absorb and fund workers who would have been laid off, and decrease as the economy picks up and workers are hired out of public employment into the private workforce, with infrastructure spending done entirely on an as-needed basis above and beyond that.

Taxes and tolls should be passed purely based on the need to regulate usage or spending in the areas that they put a price on. They don't finance anything, just compensate for failures of the market to properly set prices in certain situations.

There's no reason that we can't provide a job paying a basic living wage to everyone- citizen or resident, which will, in turn, ensure that we're producing more than enough for everyone, since we have or can easily acquire resources far in excess of what we need to do so.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin

"For background checks, it's pretty simple, really- if you're not on a FBI or CIA watchlist, and you have no open warrants against you, then you pass. If you've committed past crimes, but served the sentence for them, then they should be irrelevant, because the relevant debt is paid, and ongoing extra-legal restrictions should effectively be considered cruel and unusual."

I commend you for your candor here. I wish every Democrat and many of the Republicans would be so forthright and honest about their positions which also boil down to this in practice if not in words.

Many countries have relatively lenient sentences for rapists, child molesters, murderers, and even mass killers and terrorist bombers such as in the Netherlands and Spain where the maximum sentence for any crime is only 20 years.

Democrats and many Republicans as well as the libertarians don't seem to care. Let them all in. Even if there was a background check by the criteria established we would let in the Madrid train bombers who killed 191 and injured over 1800 and Anders Breivik who is now demanding "better video games, a sofa and a larger gym". BETTER video games?! Why does he have ANY video games? But if they serve their time then "welcome to America?!"
Of course, that system of background checking them and then letting them in if they have served their time would actually be an improvement over our system now of not checking them at all so we certainly have people who have committed murder, rape, are pedophiles, etc and are wanted by their governments but are being protected by sanctuary cities and Obama in America. In fact, even if they are caught Obama just releases them if he needs a bargaining chip against a sequester.

Needless to say, I disagree with all of this. We should keep out all convicts instead of giving them second chances at destroying American lives.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Many countries also have lenient standards for determining convicts... But I suppose you prefer to err on the side of caution.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What NH said!

Cherry, what if a european pastor has a German warrant out for him for saying that abortion involves "the killing of fetuses" (a German pastordid one year in prison for that and no he didnt say "murder", he said "killing."

What if the applicant has a crimi9nal conviction for "agraqvated hate speech" in the UK for calling someone a "honkey"" that happened this week, God Save the Queen .

And that's not even getting into the stupid Muslim country laws. Not that our own country is immune. You want stories? I can give you stories...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course any details of how to do security checks on immigrants is splitting hairs, since the main issue is not whether there should be security but rather whether there should be any additional measures taken to buffer immigration other than security. So far we have Tom and Pyr with a nay vote, and I expect cherry with a yea vote. I myself think I would go yea as well, but for somewhat different reasons than cherry (I'm not as concerned as cherry about the security aspect).
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to say that not all convicts and felonies are equal to others certainly I would agree. If a Yazidi is accused and convicted of a felony and capital crime by ISIS, for instance of not being a Muslim then I could be persuaded not to let that keep them from coming to America as a legal immigrant. But murderers, rapists, child molesters, robbers, thieves, identity thieves, etc? I think those are jobs we have plenty of Americans still willing to fill. Too many as it is already, in fact. We don't need any more.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also oppose giving illegals more rights or privileges than American citizens, for instance not having them register as sex offenders like those convicted in America must. It seems like some here would just let them in if they've served their sentences in their home countries. Of course I disagree with doing that in the first place, but I didn't see any suggestion that they should have to register as felons like Americans for those crimes or others for which an American would have a public record. A point which becomes moot, obviously, with the system we have now which doesn't even require a background check in their home country at all for them to get sanctuary in many of our cities and states, even if they are still wanted for crimes in their home countries and not just convicts who have served their time. In other words this is just ridiculous and I haven't seen any suggestions from those for illegal immigration or unrestricted immigration that would do anything to fix these problems. In fact, the idea I'm getting is that these aren't even problems at all.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"for instance not having them register as sex offenders like those convicted in America "

??? If they commit sex offenses, illegals get registered like anyone else. Trouble is, Cherry, that some places, even some US states and cities, make you a sex offender over some pretty innocuous stuff. I've told you the story of my , a mother of three, in Vegas who was burdened with being a "sex offender" for a Louisiana blow job in 1999. In Louisiana, oral sex was a "crime against nature," and causes you to register as a sex offender. In many other US jurisdictions, pissing in the forest or by the side of the road will get you charged with "exhibitionism" and labeled a sex offender for life. So it already sucks ass that states have to respect each others' idiotic applications of "sex offender" law. No bloody way do we want to enforce the verdicts of other countries, without giving both the process and substance of the law some serious thought.

For non-lawyers and for lawyers who have forgotten law school, my Louisiana blow job and nevada piss in the parking lot examples were issues of SUBSTANTIVE law. A PROCEDURAL law issue would be, say a Filipino who did 20 years for rape in Saudi Arabia, where the substantive definition of rape is the same as here, but the legal process only requires a non-Muslim to have been seen in the presence of an unescorted Muslim woman, in order for rape to be presumed. Plus the Filipino was convicted because he signed something that he didn't understand and could not read.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry I meant that they aren't registered for the sex offenses they were convicted of in their home countries. Of course that's because our government doesn't know about them which is because we haven't done a background check which is because they are here illegally.

Surely we can find out what the actual offense was and decide whether it should be registered or not. If you just give them a complete pass because their country may prosecute something that wouldn't be a crime here and use that rationale to not know about convicted child rapists, like young children under ten and such, that is just unacceptable. At least to me.

Of course I wouldn't really register them so they could live here but would register them as being eligible for immediate deportation and never being allowed back into our country legally. But registration is the least we need to do.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what's the alternative?

Just let dangerous people into America with no idea what their crimes were and what danger they pose to our citizens?

We'll just start looking into it after Americans become victims?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just let dangerous people into America with no idea what their crimes were and what danger they pose to our citizens?
God, you are so scared of stuff.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For a great many citizens, Mexico is becoming a lawless nightmare. No amount of border control is going to change that. We cannot keep them out or deport them by the millions. We need to look to ourselves and be honest about how our exploitation of them is largely what has led them being here in ever greater numbers. So sad that we continue to scapegoat the victims.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry, I made my original objection thinking that a lot of other countries are decidedly lax in making sure someone is guilty before convicting them. Just because someone was convicted, it doesn't mean they actually committed a crime. That's true even in countries where the system tries to avoid convicting innocent people.

There's a lot of countries where I wouldn't want to lend credence to their judicial systems by accepting their results.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So it already sucks ass that states have to respect each others' idiotic applications of "sex offender" law.
You realize that that line alone got you labeled a sex offended in three states. [Wink] [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom to Cherry:

quote:
God, you are so scared of stuff.
I was just thinking about this the other night. I watched an episode of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations set in Laos. At one point, he is invited into the very rickety home of a very poor man who has his arm and leg blown off by buried American munitions left over from our covert bombing runs during the Vietnam war. He has dinner with this man's family.

AB is obviously speechless at this man's inexplicable kindness. He remarks, in the narration, that he has no idea what to say to man whose life has been ruined by his own countries' actions.

I tried to imagine (as I often do) what I would say as an American if I were there to meet this man who had been crippled by our bombs decades after the wars' end. I would want to say something about why they were dropped in the first place, and in such vast numbers.

I think I would say this:

I come from a very strange country. We are the most powerful country in the world, and we are the most frightened country in the world. People in America are always afraid that the world outside will destroy them. The people who did this to you were afraid of you. They were afraid of your country. It makes no sense whatsoever, I realize, since there was no way your country could hurt them, but they were afraid just the same. If you can invite a stranger from America into your home, it shows that even though my country is more powerful, you are stronger than we are, and strength, not power, is what ultimately makes a person or a society great.

Trump is cooking up to be America's Vladimir Putin . The supposedly anti-government right is being won over by the biggest, big-government policy proposals every offered by any candidate for the presidency.

The cult of power is the ultimate weakness. I hope we can survive it.

[ August 28, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair I think when politicians appear to be afraid of foreign powers this is just a feint to explain away their actions which are in reality promoted by self-interest and the desire to conquer.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be fair I think when politicians appear to be afraid of foreign powers this is just a feint to explain away their actions which are in reality promoted by self-interest and the desire to conquer
This is no doubt true, but certainly the people who vote for them are genuinely afraid.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Sorry I meant that they aren't registered for the sex offenses they were convicted of in their home countries. Of course that's because our government doesn't know about them which is because we haven't done a background check which is because they are here illegally.

Surely we can find out what the actual offense was and decide whether it should be registered or not. If you just give them a complete pass because their country may prosecute something that wouldn't be a crime here and use that rationale to not know about convicted child rapists, like young children under ten and such, that is just unacceptable. At least to me.

Of course I wouldn't really register them so they could live here but would register them as being eligible for immediate deportation and never being allowed back into our country legally. But registration is the least we need to do.

Agreed that the charge itself and the underlying legal elements should be examined before someone is registered. That deals with substantive law. But we should also look at procedure. Given the horrors of being registered a sex offender in some jurisdictions, I think that someone coming from countries such as Saudi Arabia should get a hearing to give the accused a chance to prove, within preponderance of the evidence, that they are not what a sane society should consider a sex offender. And the applicant should be required to testify, since she's already been adjudicated guilty.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
To be fair I think when politicians appear to be afraid of foreign powers this is just a feint to explain away their actions which are in reality promoted by self-interest and the desire to conquer.

That certainly fits Wilson, but evidence is clear that the Bushes were genuinely afraid of Saddam. And to me, that's evidence that a war started out of fear isn't necessarily less catastrophic than one started out of self-interest.

I'd say that FDR got us into WWII (provoking Pearl Harbor) out of self-interest and the same desire for expansion that is present in many of our middle east endeavors, but that worked out for us.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
To be fair I think when politicians appear to be afraid of foreign powers this is just a feint to explain away their actions which are in reality promoted by self-interest and the desire to conquer.

That certainly fits Wilson, but evidence is clear that the Bushes were genuinely afraid of Saddam.

What evidence? From what I can tell the idea that the Bush family was scared of anyone is simply laughable. W might have been scared on a general basis just as a personality trait, but in terms of scared as in considering Saddam to be any kind of threat, then no. But I'll give you the outside chance that W (not HW) was actually tricked and was made to be afraid by others in his administration who definitely were not and knew better.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you don't think that Bush Junior's desire to attack iraq had anything to do with Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush Senior?

You don't think that Bush Senior's inserting troops into Desert Shield had anything to do with fear that Saddam was going to move into Saudi Arabia?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush feared the Saudis, not Saddam. Hence, no wars against the Saudis.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Delighted that you're talking to me again already, KT. Don't know how I'd survive a shun that lasted more than 45 minutes. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Bush feared the Saudis, not Saddam. Hence, no wars against the Saudis.

Feared the Saudis? The Saudis would have ceased to exist if not for Bush's Desert Shield.

Defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam is at this point probably the most catastrophic executive mistake in US History, although a century from now they will probably say it was something else...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many Americans have been killed by illegals?

I will say those supporting illegals including the ones who are killing Americans are very brave. Very brave with the lives of others and willing to squander them needlessly.

I don't see how it's being scared to want to keep our women and children and elderly and yes even American men safe from murderers and rapists and drunk drivers. Or how it's brave not to care about it. I guess that's just me though.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So you don't think that Bush Junior's desire to attack iraq had anything to do with Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush Senior?

Oh it might have had something to do with that, sure. But what does revenge have anything to do with being afraid? If a weakling hits you in the face you may well choose to destroy him for it, but that doesn't mean you're scared of him. As a world leader it may be true that fear of assassination is a clear and present part of everyday life, but as a matter of national strategic evaluation there was simply nothing for Bush to fear from Saddam at all. The idea that they considered him a threat to America is ridiculous, even though he may have been (as literally any lunatic can be) a threat to a given individual through assassination.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

quote:
I will say those supporting illegals including the ones who are killing Americans are very brave. Very brave with the lives of others and willing to squander them needlessly.
I live in NYC where there are estimated about 500,000 illegal immigrants. Some back of the hand calcs tell me that at 6% of the city population they are under 2% of felony arrests each year. Look up the numbers if you doubt me.

I don't mind your disagreeing with me but don't tell me I'm being brave with the "lives of others". I am with these people every time I ride the subway, but have never had cause to fear them.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

That post was not in response to you. We cross posted. Check the times, they are both at 2:56. I am breaking my silence only to clarify in case someone else misunderstands.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well we crossed posts too because mine was actually directed toward Tom who said that I was so scared.

But it can still apply to you too if you want based on what you said. Riding public transit puts you at a much reduced risk of having you and your family wiped out by a drunk driving illegal. Also you are very unlikely to get raped by an illegal as well, and that's not meant to imply anything negative about your looks but man on man rape is certainly quite rare until someone gets to prison. Also you and I as well for that matter are very unlikely to get molested by an illegal, but I do keep my molester whistle close just in case.

So you are still being brave with the lives of innocent and often unwilling Americans, putting them at risk for your ideals. I will certainly grant you that an untold number of lives of illegals have been saved and made better by your generosity in supporting their right to come to America in violation of our laws, but there can be no doubt that another untold number of American lives have been devastated by illegals as well, including rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, just for starters. A small minority of the illegal population, but all of whom broke the law coming and / or staying here.

Sure, Americans are criminals too, perhaps even at higher rates than illegals. Even if that were granted, it still doesn't change the fact that the crime some illegals committed against some Americans needn't have happened at all, shouldn't have happened at all because they never should have been in America in the first place.

So how does how brave any open borders supporting Americans are help any of those American victims in the least?

It doesn't. Your bravery didn't protect them. It didn't save them. It doesn't console them. It's actually worse than useless to them because it contributed to their completely unnecessary victimization. That's what I mean by being brave with the lives of others, all of whom count on our government and by extension their fellow citizens to help protect them. And all of whom, every single American victim of an illegal who never even should have been here in the first place, were failed.

Maybe to some people those victims are simply acceptable losses and collateral damage, but to me they are Americans who deserve better.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps it comes down to the difference between those who see all humanity as deserving equality and those who believe that Americans are special and deserve priority consideration. I'll be the first to admit that the former are the better Christians and much more generous people. It is selfish to want to protect your own people, in this case Americans, and it is xenophobic to consider there should be a difference in treatment between Americans and non-Americans, you might even say racist except that Americans are already composed of every race.

Another difference is how much people are willing to give. How far will you go with your generosity? Maybe when America has over a billion people some of those for open borders say, "Okay, that'll do." So the difference there is that people like myself already say, "That'll do. In fact, that's more than enough already."

Some of you seem like you'd just be willing to let the borders stay wide open for good. That's fine too. Like I said, just a difference of opinion.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

- posted August 28, 2015 02:56 PM Profile for Pete at Home Email Pete at Home Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote So you don't think that Bush Junior's desire to attack iraq had anything to do with Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush Senior?

You don't think that Bush Senior's inserting troops into Desert Shield had anything to do with fear that Saddam was going to move into Saudi Arabia? Posts: 43448 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

- posted August 28, 2015 02:56 PM Profile for KidTokyo Email KidTokyo Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Bush feared the Saudis, not Saddam. Hence, no wars against the Saudis. Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

- posted August 28, 2015 03:59 PM Profile for Pete at Home Email Pete at Home Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Delighted that you're talking to me again already, KT. Don't know how I'd survive a shun that lasted more than 45 minutes. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Pete,

That post was not in response to you. We cross posted. Check the times, they are both at 2:56. I am breaking my silence only to clarify in case someone else misunderstands.

Thank you for that Clarification, Kid. Lest anyone misunderstand, time stamps say that was the third time in 2 hours that Kid informed me that he was no longer responding to me, not counting times that he responded to me via proxy. Methinks the Kid doth protest too much.

You've really lost your sense of humor since Law School, old chum. Sometimes happens to liberals who go to work for causes they despise. Still, that may ultimately be less dangerous than alternative such as windmill-tilting alcoholic...

[ August 29, 2015, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To increase the amount of background checks, a simple solution might be to massively increase the number of legal immigrants allowed. There's a whole human smuggling industry that was created because of our foolish policy of only allowing 47,250 people in to the country from Mexico annually. Compared to four million native born.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No matter how many we allow in legally, unless we just let everyone in, there will still be millions more who want to come in.

Going back to my point earlier about volunteering others to assume risks, even if somebody had been robbed and raped and then brutally murdered by illegals and they still thought that that's a risk they are willing to live with and take again, that still wouldn't give them the right to volunteer others to take the same risk. Just because one person wants to jump out of an airplane doesn't give them the right to push somebody else out of one.

Through the democratic process we as a society can decide on our comfort level for those types of risks but so far with what we're talking about here we have decided that it's still illegal. There are some such as Obama and pretty much all of the Democrats who are flouting the law and breaking it but they really don't have the right to do so, not without the consent of the governed through their duly elected representatives.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By that logic concerning risks, wouldn't we also conclude that no prisoner should ever get parole? Or perhaps ever be let out of jail? That's volunteering others to take a risk, is it not?

We take risks all the time as a society, we couldn't survive on the least common denominator of paranoia or no one would be allowed to drive cars or own guns.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's why we have laws. When someone is paroled there is a risk assessment made. Also, no laws are broken when a prisoner is paroled. When an illegal comes across the border and we have no idea who they are, what they've done, or what their intentions are there's no risk assessment at all. And it's still illegal.

Plus if the parolees are Americans then there isn't much choice in the matter. It would be pretty ridiculous to parole an illegal who committed a serious crime and let them back into our society when they could simply be deported instead. Or of course better yet never let in in the first place. What's the upside of letting in a violent illegal who was convicted of heinous crimes in their home countries? Some cheap labor? And that's worth risking people getting raped and killed?

There's just going to have to be a difference of opinion here but I must say I'm somewhat surprised at how many people have no respect for our laws, our borders, our sovereignty, or our country. And not just illegals either. If that represents the view of a majority of Americans then we are as doomed as Europe.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" What's the upside of letting in a violent illegal who was convicted of heinous crimes in their home countries? Some cheap labor? "

Well if you insert the word "Violent", then I agree with you. It's the generic positive law bromide "criminal" which I'm not comfortable hanging someone's rights on.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, so dangerous Americans are a better risk than dangerous foreigners? That's nonsense. People are people and risk is risk. Let's stop forgiving dangerous locals more than dangerous foreigners? I don't believe an accident of birth should limit opportunity or risk assessment. That's what our country used to be about, and that's where we should return.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will say those supporting illegals including the ones who are killing Americans are very brave. Very brave with the lives of others and willing to squander them needlessly.
And I suppose that supporting the unrestricted right for Americans to bear arms, including for those who are killing fellow Americans, is very brave, too. Very brave with the lives of others and willing to squander them needlessly.

This seems to be a much, much greater problem than the relatively few illegals who commit crimes each year, don't you agree? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's why we have laws. When someone is paroled there is a risk assessment made. Also, no laws are broken when a prisoner is paroled. When an illegal comes across the border and we have no idea who they are, what they've done, or what their intentions are there's no risk assessment at all. And it's still illegal.
And that's exactly why the legal process needs to be faster, easier, and cheaper, including discarding quotas that only serve to create a demand for black market immigration services.

If we want to actually be able to clearly make that call on people coming in, then the legal process has to be the viable alternative and has to scale to demand from those that don't represent a criminal or health risk.

With that accomplished, there would be so few that we actually want to turn away that the black market cost of entering would be prohibitively high, the rate would be low enough that we could easily control it with a fraction of the current resources invested, and, even more importantly, those criminal elements wouldn't have communities of undocumented workers to hide in and act as unfettered parasites on because there would be no fear of deportation for cooperating with law enforcement to remove them.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No matter how many we allow in legally, unless we just let everyone in, there will still be millions more who want to come in.
Better to say, that until we actualyl let the market set the immigration rate naturally, any restrictions will create an unstoppable black market for immigration, meanwhile losing any ability to regulate the process against those that actually represent a threat to us.

You also seem to be under the bizarre impression that no one has pride in or attachment to any country other than the US based on your absurd assertion that we'd have to let "everyone" in. It might adjust the allocation of people currently trying to find somewhere else to be a little, but it won't be all that significant, given that most people who want to be here are already here. Even without a convenient immigration process, we already saw net outflow among immigrants during the recession years as the local job market dried up. There wouldn't be some magic influx, we'd just see migration set it self more naturally to job availability in the context of jobs that pay in accordance to legal protections against exploitation. If our employment market begins o saturate, people will migrate to where the jobs are instead.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It isn't an unstoppable black market, the only reason there is a black market is because we don't have any real penalties for employers of illegal labor. The black market would immediately disappear almost completely if employers faced any sort of real penalties.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1