Let's put this myth to rest once and for all: The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-life" party.

Do you believe a country has a right to control it's borders and entry across it?
Do you believe a country has a right to determine how many people will be allowed to enter the country each year seeking residence within the country?
Why should it only take two years to obtain citizenship in a country when you have been a citizen of another country? Does a country have a right to ensure that someone from another country seeking citizen in their country has FULLY assimilated and has been a law abiding productive citizen including speaking the language and having a knowledge of the government and history?

It is estimated at this point TWO million people will pass illegally at will into this country THIS year.

 

You don't, but the object is to discourage them from coming in the first place.

They're not all asylum seekers but they've been coached on how to appear so. We can't deal with millions of "asylum seekers" within our borders. Living in a "**** hole" country is not grounds for asylum. Oh, and individuals can apply for asylum at embassies and consulates in their home country.

 

That is what your laws for approving asylum ans your border force and specialist lawyers are for.
And no. Asylum seekers have to be in the country they want to join. It is what has confounded European countries who have exactly the same problems you do.
Read the UN 1954 convention on Refugees.

 

Yes, and we could do that much better using camera drones, so that our border patrol officers know where to find fence-jumpers and river crossers. But the legal process is a big part of why so many cross illegally.

You didn't provide a link to your source for the claim about 'Millions entering the country at will." Should I expect one? Or was that just hyperbole?

 

Then what is the left position on abortion versus the center position on abortion? What's the difference?

 

There is no left, right or center position on abortion. There is the position based on science, and there is the position based on religion. The extreme right is where it's most typical to find those who adopt the one based on religion. They are more than happy to use any power in government they can grab to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.

 

The abortion debate can be distilled into one question: Does abortion involve one human life or two? Everything else flows from the answer to that.

 

I am anti-abortion/pro-life based on science. I asked about policy and should be the law.

You said

Ok on abortion law what is the left position on abortion versus the center position on abortion? What's the difference?

 

Why are you asking the same question you just quoted my answer to? Did you just quote my post without reading it?

 

Pro-lifers believe in God and/or the sanctity of human life. They believe that no man has the right to disrupt or kill life in advance.
This has nothing to do with a political party, IMHO.

 

This thread has everything to do with a political party. The point being that the Republican Party is NOT the pro-life party. And the OP explains why. And it looks like everybody (including Republicans) agree with this since, all of them provide their personal beliefs, but none dispute my point.

The question for self-proclaimed pro-lifers is a different one, which is not addressed in the OP. It would be something like, are you in favor of a party that has fought hard to allow children to die by refusing them coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or by denying the safety net to poor children whose parents (through no fault of the child) are in poverty... Or illegal aliens who are escaping from drug cartels or a mafia that would kill their children if they are returned? Are they not so much pro the sanctity of those lives?

I, for one, believe ALL those lives should be protected. Which would make me more pro-life than many who proclaim that position but have yet to demonstrate it. Including the life of a fetus that has become viable and has developed to where they are capable of human cognitivity (22 weeks or so) Do you agree?

 

Of course, the GOP is not the pro-life party, and the Democratik Party is not the pro-choice party, either.

But both are very fond of their euphemisms....

 

You're absolutely right, and here's the proof:



https://democratsforlife.org

There's a flip side to your point, too.

Some people are pro-abortion (or to use the euphemism, "pro-choice") because they believe, as I do, that the right to self-proprietorship is sacrosanct. This position has nothing to do with either party - it's a position based on personal principles, and it's a position that existed long before the Republican and Democratic parties existed. Note the date:

“To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one as he is himself, so he hath a self propriety, else could he not be himself, and on this no second may presume to deprive any of, without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature, and of the Rules of equity and justice between man and man."
-- Richard Overton, from "An Arrow Against All Tyrants and Tyranny", October 1646

 

That's what they USED to want. That's not what Trump and his supporters want.

How can anyone allow a child who can't afford dental care to go in pain from dental problems? How can anyone drop a bomb on a city during war that will likely kill born and unborn alike? How can anyone justify taking a life to stop someone from stealing a couple hundred bucks? How can anyone eat meat knowing the pain the animal suffered during the slaughtering process?

You can ask rhetorical questions all day, but they are fruitless.

Not all unborn humans are beings, aka persons. The ability to feel pain doesn't not negate our legal ability to take life. The unborn don't offer anymore promise to this life than the born. I think the real question needs to be asked is, why does after a woman have sex is she considered to have forfeited her right to life and liberty? What due process are you following to take that from her?

As for the label pro-life, it's an inaccurate political tag line, not a policy statement. It's as meaningless as pro-choice.

 

No, that's not the right question at all. At least, not from the perspective of the so-called pro-life side. If you ask that question, self-defense and the death penalty not to mention war are all off the table.

 

You didn't ask me, but too bad.

Of course we do. That's not the debate. The debate is HOW we do that.

Yes, and again, the question is not whether or not we have the right, of course we do. The question is how do we make that detemination? What is the basis for the count we let in? Does it make sense? Does it align with our ideals as a nation?

Who says length of time should be a factor? What does that even matter?

Perhaps, but I question both the value and purpose of this. It implied cultural superiority from a nation made up of many cultures. Good ideas come from brown people too, you know.

Which begs the question, shouldn't we let more people in legally so we can benefit the most from those 2 million? Or do some people, people in power, already benefit from those 2 million illegals perhaps? Lots of questions can be asked. But where are your answers? It's obvious that 2 million illegals are 2 million people that can be exploited. Why allow that? We have jobs that go unfilled, so we need the people, so why deny them entry? Why do we discount someone who left, at great peril and with little resources and no promise of success, their country and traveled thousands of miles yet get premenance to someone who was simply born here and has proven no such determination or grit?

 

Your "nothing to do with a political party" statement is a nice, egalitarian opinion, but the issue of a woman's right to choose her fate is very partisan.

Why is it that only the sanctity of an unborn fetus is worth fighting for? The same Republican lawmakers in congress, and in state after red state, keep voting down the bills that would save lives in many ways, such as expanding Medicaid or making health care coverage available to more Americans.

For example, an old friend of mine who could not afford insurance and did not have money to pay doctors died from a mole on his back that was left untreated. It turned out to have been a melanoma. These hypocritical "pro lifers" didn't give a crap about the sanctity of his life.

A fetus is not a human being. A pregnant woman is. Access to abortion services is one of the most partisan issues in the country. The right consists of many American Christians, including virtually all evangelicals. What they care about is controlling when, and with whom, women have sex. Denying access to abortion is their best way of punishing those women who want the freedom to enjoy sex, with no more condemnation from the prudes in our society as men get for doing the same things.

 

On the contrary, one answer to that question brings all that in.

 

Yeah, it says if human life is sacred, there is no legal, moral, ethical or humane justification for ever taking it. But that's not a position of anyone in this country.

 

Yes, but that completely ignores the right to live of the unborn.

Tragic story but unrelated to the abortion issue.

Not "only", but this argument is generally dismissed by abortionists.

A fetus is a human being in the future while his mother is a dead body in the past.
Which of the two is more valuable?
Think for yourself.

 

I did not realize that democrats were the experts on what republicans want. In short, more BS.

Worlds worse argument. Just because there are other evils in this world, we should ignore this one.

 

Do you think what the Biden administration is doing is how we do it? If not then how?

We make it in the best interest of the country as we have always done. On the basis that no one who is not a citizen has an intrinsic inherent right to come and live here.

Assemilation.

First I said nothing about race so just STOP IT. I don't care if they are coming from the UK. Is that CLEAR NOW.

Why shouldn't that foriegn citizen coming here seeking citizenship demonstrate their willing to learn what it is to be an American, our history, assemilate into the country, prove they will be a law abiding citizen and learn our common language?

Over 200,000 of those are unaccompanied CHILDREN. How does that benefit the country? Who is paying to support and educated them now? How does allowing people who have not been screened for their employabilty, education and ability to provide for themselves and CRIMINAL BACKGROUND into the country benefit the country? We have an historic low labor force participation rate that means Americans who can and should fill those jobs. We also have LEGAL WORKER programs we don't need illegal immigration for that.

 

Yes we are.

 

I don't think the Biden administration has a perfect or even great answer. I don't think any administration has in modern times because the issue of race and culture get in the way of a good solution. We clearly need labor aka people. We should allow as many as the economy dictates are needed and we should do so in a means that is streamlined and affordable by immigrant standards.

Who says that only allowing citizens to live here is in the best interest of the country? We don't actually say that given we allow non-citizens to live here.

We are a plural society. Such a society values differing points of view. It's how we innovated our way to the top. Why would we know say there's only one way to think? We don't think the way we did in the late 1700's and we shouldn't. Without other viewpoints from other people, we stagnate.

I didn't say YOU did, but if you claim race is not part of the immigration debate then you're being naive.

Given there are Americans without a basic understanding of US history, I'm not sure I see the value in putting on others when we don't ask the same of ourselves. That said, I have no problem with them showing interest. I have a problem mandating it from the basis that ours is superior. Is that your point or no? If not, that's fine, but that argument has been made before. Just because someone wants to come here doesn't mean we need to make them prove it by jumping through hoops. They already came here, I think they want it. And let's not pretend that this is about money, making a life in this country is about being able to make money. Most Americans would trade away historical knowledge for higher pay check I bet if asked. As for learning the language, it'll be a lot easier for them if they do. But there's nothing that says they should stop using their language. Nor is there anything that says those who seek out immigrant labor shouldn't also learn the language of the people they are so willing to employ, correct?

I thought children were precious and our greatest asset for the future? Who educates our children born here without parents? Most go to public schools, so we all pay to educate them. Why is that any different for these children? If anything, a child who came here on their own probably has a lot to give this country in return for the pittance that is the cost of providing them with a K-12 education. That's an investment we should always make because the payoff is so great. Same with their other care, it's a small small price to pay for the potential of 200k workers in the market that will go on to generate well more than what we paid to get them there in a life time of taxes.

I don't have a problem screening people for criminal records. I don't have a problem denying criminals entry. As for employability, what experience is needed to dig a ditch? Very little. Education? We don't need to solely import the educated, indeed, I thought those on the right saw education as for elitists anyway. We need people with varying backgrounds in this country, so I don't have set criteria on employability or education nor do i see a need for one. We have Americans who also become criminals and don't work. Why do we keep them in lieu of people who traveled so many miles over so long TO work? We need more legal workers, that's what every indication says.

I think if I were changing the system, I would make it easier and quicker to make worker legal. I don't see any need to change the requirements to become citizens. My goal is safe, legal, tax paying workers that get the production we need done. If we have to bring along 200k children, I'm willing to take on that investment as well for the future 200k tax paying workers that also brings. I'm agnostic to what type of jobs they can fill as our needs are diverse and I'm agnostic to whether or not a legal workers care much about our history. A potential citizen, I care more so perhaps, but I see a distinction between the two, a citizen versus someone who just wants a job here. Hence why one should get easier, the other, probably not.

 

You never have been and never will be.