1. Any narrative that attempts to conflate the processes of lawful immigration into the United States with unlawful alienage is a lie narrative intended to deceive. As a matter of legal fact, people who enter the U.S. unlawfully are illegal aliens, not "immigrants" and not "refugees." This distinction is not controversial, yet most discussions of the topic fail here right out of the gate. 2. Any narrative that attempts, irrationally, to shift the burden of care for alien children from their lawbreaking parents/family to -any- jurisdiction enforcing its rational immigration laws in a reasonable way is a lie narrative intended to deceive. Any narrative of concern for the well-being of children that does not include and emphasize the parent's/family responsibility for their care as the primary factor in such care is a lie narrative intended to deceive. Any narrative that ignores unlawful behavior by parents that would result in separation of families of CITIZENS in reasonable child care and safety legal regimes is a lie narrative intended to deceive. Any narrative that focuses only on the well-being of illegal alien children once arrived in a host country, and ignores or downplays the well-being of illegal alien children in transit is a lie narrative intended to deceive. 3. Any narrative on the costs/benefits of immigration generally that is not comprehensive in assessing such costs/benefits is a lie narrative intended to deceive. Any narrative on the costs/benefits of immigration that does not clearly define what factors are included in a cost/benefit analysis is a lie narrative intended to deceive. 4. Any narrative on illegal alienage that attempts to allocate responsibility or shift blame for lax law enforcement in a lopsided way, absent reasonable numerical data, to either the private or public sectors is a lie narrative intended to deceive. For example, narratives that characterize the illegal alien problem as "all about" greedy companies or others seeking cheap labor, or OTOH "all about" governmental interests seeking institutional clients and more power/votes is a lie narrative intended to deceive. The above are just a few basic requirements/limitations on any rational, adult discussion of a country's immigration laws and policy. Narratives that do not meet even these few basic requirements are to be discarded out-of-hand as special interest lobbying at best and dishonest propaganda at worst. Are -any- of the ways MSM and others characterize the immigration law and policy of the U.S. honest? If not, why not? Why do we continue to tolerate flagrantly dishonest narratives on the very real issue of illegal alienage in the U.S. when the topic is in desperate need of clear, meaningful policy discussion?
The constitution gave the responsibility for protecting the 'states of the union from an invasion of illegal aliens' to Congress and the POTUS. Only one of them is trying to fulfill that responsibility!
Trump should probably stop hiring illegal labor then. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...9-8e94-71a35969e4d8_story.html?outputType=amp
Imo, both the media and the government are largely a reflection of how we the people feel. And its my sense that people, at least when it comes to the issue of immigration, hold a variety of positions on the topic, and there are a lot of folks who have, for decades, been completely unwilling to compromise on those positions, even to the detriment of otherwise workable/beneficial solutions. So this is a stubborn issue, but how do we finally come to a resolution. The way I see things, calling each-other liars doesn't really help anything, but a discussion on clear and meaningful policy choices?... That might actually do some good... On that note, a while back a bunch of us got together here at Political Forum and came up with a comprehensive immigration compromise proposal based on the results of a Ranked vote. I'd like to know what your opinion of this proposal is... is it a good solution to the immigration issues? If you think we could implement something better, would it at least meet your needs as an acceptable compromise? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1070207971#post-1070207971 -Meta
The prevailing MSM in the U.S., with respect to immigration or 100 other policy issues, is overwhelmingly a politicized,weaponized organ of the Democratic Party, and has little to do with how the people feel generally, other than to attempt to manipulate attitudes with false narratives based on erroneous conflation of terms such as "immigrants" and "illegal aliens." Until that basic, obvious lie (and several others like it numbered in the OP) ceases, there will be no productive policy discussion. Any attempted equivalence is false, there is no "other side" telling those lies or similar to the same extent or remotely close. As far as the government overall, that's not within this thread purview, but will be addressing it tangentially in an upcoming thread debunking the erroneous overuse of the term "Democracy" in self-enriching gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex propaganda narratives. It's much more simple. One side wants the law, legislated by its elected representatives in Washington, rationally structured and rationally enforced towards what is best for preexisting United States citizens and not the Complex of allegedly "public servants" and their large crony contributors. The other side, comprised of various tributaries of the Complex, especially crony corporations, gov-edu and Democrat politicians, resists any rational policy and enforcement whatsoever. In light of numerous amnesties, soft amnesties, loopholes, unlawful sanctuary cities, refusal to cooperate with legal enforcement authorities, resistance of lawful Executive authority, etc., it's VERY plain exactly who has been bent over with compromise for decades and who refuses to compromise in any way. There is no equivalence. It is stubborn only because of gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer MSM Complex refusal to be bound by the rational, lawful, Constitutional Republican legislative and enforcement structures of the United States, and instead attempting to force self-serving, self-enriching, power-grabbing lie narratives of the types numbered in the OP down the public's throat. No meaningful policy discussion can result unless and until such bogus narratives are discarded and unlawful "resistance" to preexisting lawful immigration policy ceases. One side is effectively a terrorist holding hostages in a building, reading from a childish, dishonest manifesto rationalizing why it deserves the ransom. That's not a scenario capable of any meaningful compromise and should not be "negotiated." Or perhaps all the many cities and towns across the country opposed to abortion should set themselves up as "pro life sanctuaries" ban abortion in their jurisdictions, destroy any abortion facilities and imprison anyone performing or having an abortion... because it's the exact same thing as illegal alien sanctuary cities and other resistance to the country's immigration laws. Wonder how that would go over? I'll simplify your tiers into a few basic planks: 1. Deport all illegal aliens. Narrow the "refugee" loopholes significantly and speed up that process drastically. 2. Send the National Guard into all "sanctuary cities" and break non compliance with the laws of the United States using martial law and all necessary force. Taxpayers across the country should not be forced to subsidize the extra costs of dealing with seditious local governments. Alternatively and perhaps in addition, cease all federal funds to jurisdictions and their residents that do not comply with the immigration laws. 3. Immediately cease all public services of any nature granted to illegal aliens. 4. Build a strong wall on our Southern Border. 5. Rely on and comply with the representative federal government's immigration legislation in all respects all across the country.
Democrats/neo-commies illegal immigration platform Sneak into America Obtain services like healthcare and welfare paid for by Americans Vote for anti American globalist Democrats who aid and abet illegal immigrants Victimize Americans Get deported from America REPEAT
And nobody knows how many unsolved crimes are committed by illegals who come and go across our borders as they please. Commit murder, go back across the border to escape justice, rinse, repeat.
Democrats/neo-commies literally believe people don't cross the border illegally in the desert, especially bad people.
Wrong, the media is not a reflection, nor is Hollywood. They are simply propaganda trying to manipulate your brain.. So that you become faithful followers of evil.
This is a part of "3" in the OP that always gets conveniently left out by the lie narrators. One main purpose of our immigration laws is to catalog and document noncitizens in the U.S. for obvious reasons. If we don't even know who or where they are, how do we adequately protect citizens from crimes they may and do commit?
Democrats/neo-commies hate Americans. They literally make threads here talking about how foreign nationals sneaking into America lowers our crime rate because Democrats/neo-commies believe foreign nationals are better human beings then the Americans already here.
Article I Section 8 empowers the Congress to establish a Uniform rule of Naturalization. Why does it ignore that duty?
There was no such thing as "illegal aliens" when the Constitution was written. We had open borders when it came to immigration back then.
I speak English sir. It's my primary language, and I know the meaning of 'naturalization' as it was used in 1787. Thanks, though.
Here's part of the problem in a nut-shell ... When I say, "I don't think a wall is worth the money because it's easily defeated ..." The conservatives on this board hear, "I want open borders so that illegals can vote ..." Seems to be a brain-ear hardwire problem from listening to too much Hannity and Rush.
Democrats/neo-commies be like... the wall isn't worth the money. Nobody crosses the border illegally in the desert, especially bad people. If they do we need to make it as easy as possible.
Interesting the new Budget limits wall construction and localities where it can be built and I reckon the Builder & Chief will sign another one that doesn't give him his campaign pledge. Per the original post "THEY" are breaking the law and anything else is simply BS used to get the republicans cheap labor and the democrats cheap voters.
Probably something like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ef46d8-daf1-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html The tiers represent the relative amount of support those provisions received in the vote. Tier 1 items received significant support, tier 2 received less but still quite a lot, while tier 3 items received little support but still had more folks for them than against. In my opinion, all the stuff in tiers 1 and 2 are needed in one form or another for a fully comprehensive plan. Looking at your items though, there may yet be a thing or two that can be added/fleshed out... 1. We discussed refugees and asylum seekers in the vote, but never got to the level of talking about whether or not the rules on who should count as a refugee/the process for determining that should be changed. Including such considerations in a compromise sounds pretty reasonable to me. 2. We did also briefly discuss what should happen to sanctuary cities. It ended up being a lower tier 3 item that such cities should have federal funding pulled from them. I think that to escalate things to sending in the National Guard and using force beyond that might put things over the top though as far as there then being more people against such an idea than for it. 3. This is one aspect we didn't really cover in the vote. I'd say it could go either way as to how many people would support it. 4. I think that one's going to be a hard sell for most folks. The prospect of the wall was a major part of the discussion and vote, but at the end of the day only 3 people voted for it, with only 2 of those giving it a high rank. Even among other voters who generally took an anti-immigration stance, a wall wasn't something they seemed to want. The sense I get is that almost everyone seems to view a wall as a waste of money, especially given other more efficient/effective options. Things like increased border fencing, drones, sensors, and border personal in contrast got among the highest ranks in the vote, and I personally share the sentiment that those would be better options. 5. Don't think you'll get much disagreement from anyone there. All in all, I'd say your 5 points are not completely terrible as far as an ideal solution goes. When it comes to getting enough folks on board to actually implement something like that, I think the only major sticking points would be the wall, the part about the National Guard, and... ...possibly...also the public services piece. Just for arguments sake... let's say you were able to get enough folks to agree to everything except for the part about a wall and sending in the National Guard... would you still be able to accept as a compromise a plan such as the following without those two items included? And if not, are there any concessions/assurances you'd be willing to offer in order to make things more acceptable to folks who were opposed to including them? -Meta
