Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 7:36am
Lazy8 wrote:
This is a familiar pattern: any call for immigration reform is denounced as "open borders" and that shuts down the debate, like crying "racism!" It's what you do when you don't have an answer.
Obama isn't arguing with Joe Biden in that clip, he's arguing with people like meâwho actually advocate for open borders. Both he and Biden acquiesced to the demands of the border security complex, a set of rogue agencies within the government that have grown so powerful they transcend the executive and legislative branches. Obama wasn't known as the Deporter In Chief for nothin', and Biden is hot on his heels.
So the headline is dishonest, as this debate usually is. And as long as the debate stays dishonest we will continue arguing about fake issues while the real one festers.
"Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they're in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe," Obama said. "At the same time, we're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable."
This is a familiar pattern: any call for immigration reform is denounced as "open borders" and that shuts down the debate, like crying "racism!" It's what you do when you don't have an answer.
Obama isn't arguing with Joe Biden in that clip, he's arguing with people like me—who actually advocate for open borders. Both he and Biden acquiesced to the demands of the border security complex, a set of rogue agencies within the government that have grown so powerful they transcend the executive and legislative branches. Obama wasn't known as the Deporter In Chief for nothin', and Biden is hot on his heels.
So the headline is dishonest, as this debate usually is. And as long as the debate stays dishonest we will continue arguing about fake issues while the real one festers.
NOTE: Moved to appropriate thread - kurtster wrote:
islander wrote: kurtster wrote:
You've really got to work on your dossier updates. I do believe that immigration should be controlled by a legal process. You would probably be appalled at what I think qualifies people for visas and citizenship though.
You have consistently been against any merit based requirements and I have never heard you say what determining factors you are for, in this regard.
As with the last sentence you hide behind your enigmatic facade and refuse to go on record and state your position(s). As usual.
You have consistently been against any merit based requirements and I have never heard you say what determining factors you are for, in this regard.
As with the last sentence you hide behind your enigmatic facade and refuse to go on record and state your position(s). As usual.
Well a comprehensive immigration policy is way too much for a forum post. But here's a few thoughts: 1. We need a couple classes of immigration based on circumstances. 1a- People fleeing violence/oppression pretty much get in. They would need relatives to support them, and/or would have to enter a peace corps styled program to get training or alignment with existing skills for job opportunities. They would be eligible for benefits and full citizenship after a short period of time and some formal process. 1b - People looking to voluntarily relocate would have to apply, but would pretty much get in with a program similar to the 1a system. If you could prove you had sufficient resources you could skip the peace corps bit, but your benefits would be restricted (this is how a lot of the world approaches the problem). There would be some pretty limited restrictions if they wanted to go into a field that was already saturated with workers, but this would be pretty rare.
2. Policies should be aligned with letting productive people in. People seeking opportunities who have resources (family support systems, fat bank accounts, big brains and corporate backers) get in because they are going to help us grow.
3. We should also have a big opening for humanitarian support. We are good people and we can do this. We already throw away a lot of money to corrupt governments under this auspice, but it mostly gets wasted. We can waste that money just fine here with our own corrupt government and probably have a better result.
So yes, merit. But also humanitarian. I just think we disagree on what constitutes merit. I don't think heritage/lineage has anything to do with it.
"Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they're in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe," Obama said. "At the same time, we're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable."
That quote borders on apolitical honesty. No pun intended...
"Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they're in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe," Obama said. "At the same time, we're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable."
usually intellectual honesty and politicians are polar opposites? maybe people tend to get hung up on zero sum economics? i'll always help you bake more pie, especially if i get a slice
Is that a Blackbird pie or an empty sky pie? Because if it is...
Preach. Borders are just imaginary lines around place we agree on some basic principals. Why is the border between Texas and Mexico so much more threatening than the border between California and Nevada?
Not that I don't mostly agree with both of you, but there are the two obvious "threats:" (1) they'll take my job, and (2) they'll use up our benefits (take my tax $). In the aggregate, neither of these hold water, but the latter might at least be ceremonially addressed.
usually intellectual honesty and politicians are polar opposites? maybe people tend to get hung up on zero sum economics? i'll always help you bake more pie, especially if i get a slice
Preach. Borders are just imaginary lines around place we agree on some basic principals. Why is the border between Texas and Mexico so much more threatening than the border between California and Nevada?
Not that I don't mostly agree with both of you, but there are the two obvious "threats:" (1) they'll take my job, and (2) they'll use up our benefits (take my tax $). In the aggregate, neither of these hold water, but the latter might at least be ceremonially addressed.
Preach. Borders are just imaginary lines around place we agree on some basic principals. Why is the border between Texas and Mexico so much more threatening than the border between California and Nevada?
Preach. Borders are just imaginary lines around place we agree on some basic principals. Why is the border between Texas and Mexico so much more threatening than the border between California and Nevada?
i'll throw some spaghetti/random thoughts against the wall and see what sticks: i can agree, we have way too many rules what? tens of thousands of pages, most of it nebulous ineffective silliness if we tried to enforce all of the laws/regs we'd have way more folks caged up that takes a lot of resources and produces ill will/animosity/non-participation in the long run, authoritarian control freaks always resort to violence and eventually go down in flames
for me this is a human rights issue people always vote and act out of perceived self interest - usually with their money and/or their feet we can have a border, but we don't need a wall (a metaphor for protection?) what we need is an incentive system for people to come in and register, get screened for communicable diseases, criminal history, etc. maybe set some basic rules for participation in our system (social security, medicare, driver's licenses, whatever) if we want to manage a system/data we need to be able to measure it legalize and decriminalize? yes - moralize and demonize? no remember, the desired outcome is peaceful and productive human flourishing
Preach. Borders are just imaginary lines around place we agree on some basic principals. Why is the border between Texas and Mexico so much more threatening than the border between California and Nevada?
There was a time, when I badly wanted to immigrate to the US, back in 1991-93. .....
Well, at least for most white people, the USA had a terrific run in the post-war period.
The mid to late 1990s under the Clinton leadership figured amongst the best years. The early 1990s would have been a great period to immigrate to the USA. Academics and scientists — mostly liberal ya know — were really keen to move to the USA and work.
The Soviet Union had imploded, the USA emerged victorious without firing a direct shot at the Soviet Union. Prior to Clinton being elected president, the previous President Bush, Sr. had pulled off the USA's only truly effective overseas military intervention in the entire post-war period. Under Bush Sr., the USA invaded Kuwait, kicked out Iraq and then quickly withdrew.
And then US foreign policy choices caught up and produced the Sept. 11th attacks and then America revealed its true colours: racist trash terrorist killers.
Similar to the way the former European colonial empires imploded, the USA has been going down hill since: violent colonial conflict.
I am all for immigration reform. Let's change the laws and live with them, whatever the final decision is. This is not the first time I have said this. I have said this all along since I've been here.
But, it doesn't matter because the laws are ignored by those who are in charge of enforcing them.
New laws will still be ignored and chaos wins, again ...
That was the problem with Trump. He actually tried to enforce the immigration laws already on the books.
i'll throw some spaghetti/random thoughts against the wall and see what sticks: i can agree, we have way too many rules what? tens of thousands of pages, most of it nebulous ineffective silliness if we tried to enforce all of the laws/regs we'd have way more folks caged up that takes a lot of resources and produces ill will/animosity/non-participation in the long run, authoritarian control freaks always resort to violence and eventually go down in flames
for me this is a human rights issue people always vote and act out of perceived self interest - usually with their money and/or their feet we can have a border, but we don't need a wall (a metaphor for protection?) what we need is an incentive system for people to come in and register, get screened for communicable diseases, criminal history, etc. maybe set some basic rules for participation in our system (social security, medicare, driver's licenses, whatever) if we want to manage a system/data we need to be able to measure it legalize and decriminalize? yes - moralize and demonize? no remember, the desired outcome is peaceful and productive human flourishing
I'm with you on this. The only thing I disagree with is about the wall. To me it is a physical barrier that does not discriminate (and does work as intended) that says we have rules that are more than just words.
I am all for immigration reform. Let's change the laws and live with them, whatever the final decision is. This is not the first time I have said this. I have said this all along since I've been here.
But, it doesn't matter because the laws are ignored by those who are in charge of enforcing them.
New laws will still be ignored and chaos wins, again ...
That was the problem with Trump. He actually tried to enforce the immigration laws already on the books.
i'll throw some spaghetti/random thoughts against the wall and see what sticks: i can agree, we have way too many rules what? tens of thousands of pages, most of it nebulous ineffective silliness if we tried to enforce all of the laws/regs we'd have way more folks caged up that takes a lot of resources and produces ill will/animosity/non-participation in the long run, authoritarian control freaks always resort to violence and eventually go down in flames
for me this is a human rights issue people always vote and act out of perceived self interest - usually with their money and/or their feet we can have a border, but we don't need a wall (a metaphor for protection?) what we need is an incentive system for people to come in and register, get screened for communicable diseases, criminal history, etc. maybe set some basic rules for participation in our system (social security, medicare, driver's licenses, whatever) if we want to manage a system/data we need to be able to measure it legalize and decriminalize? yes - moralize and demonize? no remember, the desired outcome is peaceful and productive human flourishing
Curiously this part was not present in your's but is in mine, although it certainly has not been updated recently because I am sure that the numbers would be much different now.
Curiously this part was not present in your's but is in mine, although it certainly has not been updated recently because I am sure that the numbers would be much different now.
