Politics

[Irish YJ]

These people are already here. That's what we're discussing. Christ almighty.

We're discussing the impact of illegals. You can't ignore the failures that created the condition in the first place. But go ahead and sidestep it again. Let's just forget about the problems and causes, and concentrate on rewarding all of those that broke the law.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yep.

I work for the Air Force/DoD.

The amount of waste (both real $$$ and productivity ) is insane. We had... in my office...3 separate Christmas parties. Each of which started at 11 am, which we all know means nothing got done those days. That's three full days gone. Usually once or twice a month, we have events (cookouts on the beach usually) that also are pretty much full day events.

During our performance reviews, they give out bonus vacation time like candy. I got a full week awarded to me when I still didn't have computer access (took over 4 months).

Some folks want to create MORE government agencies to handle their problems? Lmaooooo wut

Sounds like they need to move resource out of the party planning group to the get-me-some-F'ing-computer-access group.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We're discussing the impact of illegals. You can't ignore the failures that created the condition in the first place. But go ahead and sidestep it again. Let's just forget about the problems and causes, and concentrate on rewarding all of those that broke the law.

What am I side stepping? I think I stated clearly that the whole reason the system is fucked up is because big money wants labor and to keep wages down.

TIL "Rewarding those who broke the law" is the same as recognizing that the law as it is written is intentionally unenforceable. Unless you think deporting 12 million people is feasible and financially, economically, or morally justified.

See you're at square one obsessed with all of the negatives. There are negatives, we know that. No shit. Get past that for a moment and realize that the removal of these people would be demonstrably worse than the negatives. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face stuff.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Lol. The Civil Rights act? How about eliminating rivers that caught on fire with the clean water act? Or elminating acid rain? Unlesss of course you think a lack of civil rights and pollution are not societal problems. I got free lunch as a kid at school. That program eliminated the problem of me being hungry everyday at school. Unless of course you think hungry kids at school aren’t a societal problem.

Is immigration enforcement a government program? Sure seems like one to me. If so aren’t you advocating using that program to curtail illegal immigration? Is illegal immigration not a societal problem in your opinion?

Nice way to take the train off tracks. I was talking more in line with alcohol, drugs, prostitution, etc. as it relates to people, not acid rain.

No, immigration enforcement isn't a government program. It's the law lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A&feature=youtu.be&t=103

 

[Irish YJ]

What am I side stepping? I think I stated clearly that the whole reason the system is fucked up is because big money wants labor and to keep wages down.

TIL "Rewarding those who broke the law" is the same as recognizing that the law as it is written is intentionally unenforceable. Unless you think deporting 12 million people is feasible and financially, economically, or morally justified.

See you're at square one obsessed with all of the negatives. There are negatives, we know that. No shit. Get past that for a moment and realize that the removal of these people would be demonstrably worse than the negatives. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face stuff.

Like I've said many times, I not for mass deportation. I am interested in fixing it. Fixing it is not simply making them legal. You seem obsessed with only the micro economic positives while ignoring how we got here and the impacts. Enforcing law (I'm not talking about mass deportation) is not unenforceable.

Still waiting for your answer in the immigration thread. Since I've reminded you a couple times, I have to assume you don't want to answer it. If that's not the case, here it is..

So question...

Would you trade:

DACA approved and Amnesty for all illegals currently in the US who have no criminal record.

for....

Strict law enforcement going forward (including businesses who break the law), increased border security, the end of sanctuary cities, no citizenship for those that entered illegally (they can stay permanently, but never a citizen), and an end to chain immigration.

 

[NorthDakota]

Would you trade:

DACA approved and Amnesty for all illegals currently in the US who have no criminal record.

for....

Strict law enforcement going forward (including businesses who break the law), increased border security, the end of sanctuary cities, no citizenship for those that entered illegally (they can stay permanently, but never a citizen), and an end to chain immigration.

I'd also want to end citizenship by birth. If you are on vacation or here illegally and give birth, your kid isn't American...they just have a cocktail anecdote for the future.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'd also want to end citizenship by birth. If you are on vacation or here illegally and give birth, your kid isn't American...they just have a cocktail anecdote for the future.

I'd agree as well. I know some folks that did a visa overstay to accomplish citizen by birth. While I'm happy they are still here, citizen by birth is just something that encourages illegal immigration. And anyone who isn't trying to work the system isn't traveling in their 9th month in most cases.

Overall, I think what I laid out accomplishes everything folks "say" they want. If they are truly only concerned with the well being of people already here, this solves the problem. It also turns off the faucet going forward. I'm all for legal immigration and open to making things easier with caveats. I'm not however for open borders or the thought that everyone who wants to come can come. Immigration can be a great thing if properly managed.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Like I've said many times, I not for mass deportation. I am interested in fixing it. Fixing it is not simply making them legal. You seem obsessed with only the micro economic positives while ignoring how we got here and the impacts. Enforcing law (I'm not talking about mass deportation) is not unenforceable.

Still waiting for your answer in the immigration thread. Since I've reminded you a couple times, I have to assume you don't want to answer it. If that's not the case, here it is..

So question...

Would you trade:

DACA approved and Amnesty for all illegals currently in the US who have no criminal record.

for....

Strict law enforcement going forward (including businesses who break the law), increased border security, the end of sanctuary cities, no citizenship for those that entered illegally (they can stay permanently, but never a citizen), and an end to chain immigration.

You know a couple of months ago I asked IE if we could solve the immigration program among ourselves? We did. Not dodging ya.

No I wouldn't take that deal.

It doesn't make sense, especially at the local level, to not be able to become a citizen. The notion that someone could live here 50 years and be permanently barred from voting is a joke. "But they broke the law!" ....well, felons can vote. I am not for creating a permanent underclass of disenfranchised people. It makes even less sense for DACA/DREAMERs.

"No criminal record" is a stretch. I don't think a father who once committed a misdemeanor like underage drinking should be deported. If they haven't committed a felony or violent crime, I'm fine with it. We already know that first-generation immigrants commit crime at a muuuuch lower rate than Americans.

Chain immigration should be reformed but I do think having family here should count for something. Per usual, Canada is heading in the right direction.

Also eliminate the per country cap. IMO it is designed to encourage Mexican illegal immigration specifically. If Mexico split into 100 countries, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. Everybody always talks about immigrating the right way, but the line is simply longer from a large country and it is very clearly designed to get illegal labor from the one large Central American nation.

We need to substantially increase the number of legal immigrants we allow annually. Maybe 1.5 million.

I would want reform of the H-1B program and foreign students. Anyone who obtains a STEM degree, or a Master's/Ph.D in anything here in the states should be fast-tracked to permanent residency and then citizenship should they decide to stay. I would also want the employer/sponsor of an H-1B immigrant to have to pay a fine of ~10% on top of what they pay the foreigner and that money must go to a nearby or in-state college/vocational school to fund programs for that position, eg if I "can't find any Americans to be a chemist" and hire a foreign guy at $50,000, they must give $5,000 to State U for their chemistry department.

Eliminate birthright citizenship.

A year after those reforms, I would make knowingly hiring illegal immigrants a fifth-degree felony.

The border wall is a waste of money, but if it makes you feel better, sure.

 

[NorthDakota]

You know a couple of months ago I asked IE if we could solve the immigration program among ourselves? We did. Not dodging ya.

No I wouldn't take that deal.

It doesn't make sense, especially at the local level, to not be able to become a citizen. The notion that someone could live here 50 years and be permanently barred from voting is a joke. "But they broke the law!" ....well, felons can vote. I am not for creating a permanent underclass of disenfranchised people. It makes even less sense for DACA/DREAMERs.

It 100% isn't a permanent underclass. They die just like anyone else. Letting them stay here without fear of being kicked out seems like MORE than they are should get. I'd keep things as is before giving them citizenship.

 

[Irish YJ]

You know a couple of months ago I asked IE if we could solve the immigration program among ourselves? We did. Not dodging ya.

No I wouldn't take that deal.

It doesn't make sense, especially at the local level, to not be able to become a citizen. The notion that someone could live here 50 years and be permanently barred from voting is a joke. "But they broke the law!" ....well, felons can vote. I am not for creating a permanent underclass of disenfranchised people. It makes even less sense for DACA/DREAMERs.

"No criminal record" is a stretch. I don't think a father who once committed a misdemeanor like underage drinking should be deported. If they haven't committed a felony or violent crime, I'm fine with it. We already know that first-generation immigrants commit crime at a muuuuch lower rate than Americans.

Chain immigration should be reformed but I do think having family here should count for something. Per usual, Canada is heading in the right direction.

Also eliminate the per country cap. IMO it is designed to encourage Mexican illegal immigration specifically. If Mexico split into 100 countries, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. Everybody always talks about immigrating the right way, but the line is simply longer from a large country and it is very clearly designed to get illegal labor from the one large Central American nation.

We need to substantially increase the number of legal immigrants we allow annually. Maybe 1.5 million.

I would want reform of the H-1B program and foreign students. Anyone who obtains a STEM degree, or a Master's/Ph.D in anything here in the states should be fast-tracked to permanent residency and then citizenship should they decide to stay. I would also want the employer/sponsor of an H-1B immigrant to have to pay a fine of ~10% on top of what they pay the foreigner and that money must go to a nearby or in-state college/vocational school to fund programs for that position, eg if I "can't find any Americans to be a chemist" and hire a foreign guy at $50,000, they must give $5,000 to State U for their chemistry department.

Eliminate birthright citizenship.

A year after those reforms, I would make knowingly hiring illegal immigrants a fifth-degree felony.

The border wall is a waste of money, but if it makes you feel better, sure.

You seem more interested in increasing immigration, than you seem to care about providing a lasting and safe environment of those already here.... Anyway, I'll play...

I don't need a THE WALL, but border security does need to be enhanced.

I'm not sure how lack of citizenship creates a permanent underclass of disenfranchised people. They are legal, safe from being screwed by employers, but lets say any new children become citizens?

Criminal record, I agree to an extent. How about minor misdemeanors are fine. Any violent crime or major offenses are deal killers.

In terms of cap, I'd be OK with a fair ratio based on country of origin population. That doesn't necessarily mean the total number of immigrants allowed are increased dramatically from all countries. And I don't think the existing policies/caps encourage illegal immigration. I think lack of enforcement, shitty border security, and sanctuary cities do a great job of that. We saw the numbers drop a great deal with just the threat of enforcement.

Chain migration needs a lot of reform. Let's say we allow parents only?

That work?

 

[Buster Bluth]

You seem more interested in increasing immigration, than you seem to care about providing a lasting and safe environment of those already here.... Anyway, I'll play...

I don't need a THE WALL, but border security does need to be enhanced.

I'm not sure how lack of citizenship creates a permanent underclass of disenfranchised people. They are legal, safe from being screwed by employers, but lets say any new children become citizens?

Criminal record, I agree to an extent. How about minor misdemeanors are fine. Any violent crime or major offenses are deal killers.

In terms of cap, I'd be OK with a fair ratio based on country of origin population. That doesn't necessarily mean the total number of immigrants allowed are increased dramatically from all countries. And I don't think the existing policies/caps encourage illegal immigration. I think lack of enforcement, shitty border security, and sanctuary cities do a great job of that. We saw the numbers drop a great deal with just the threat of enforcement.

Chain migration needs a lot of reform. Let's say we allow parents only?

That work?

LOL

From "I'm all for legal immigration" to your initial reason being "you seem more interesting in increasing immigration"....you guys are all about legal immigration right until it comes up in conversation that more legal immigration might be part of the solution to fight illegal immigration. It's really impossible to get anywhere..

The entire point of sanctuary cities is creating an environment in which illegal immigrants will talk to and aid local law enforcement. Get a clue dude.

If you don't see how nation caps create illegal immigrants, that's totally on you. I explained it pretty simply.

 

[Irish YJ]

LOL

From "I'm all for legal immigration" to your initial reason being "you seem more interesting in increasing immigration"....you guys are all about legal immigration right until it comes up in conversation that more legal immigration might be part of the solution to fight illegal immigration. It's really impossible to get anywhere..

The entire point of sanctuary cities is creating an environment in which illegal immigrants will talk to and aid local law enforcement. Get a clue dude.

If you don't see how nation caps create illegal immigrants, that's totally on you. I explained it pretty simply.

Not enforcing existing laws, and sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration. It's pretty clear that tough talk alone about enforcement and border security curbed things.

But hey, you just proved that you're not really interested in the well being of those already here. Your primary objective is pretty much only to increase immigration. Amnesty for those already here is fricking huge, but you're not willing to compromise.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Not enforcing existing laws, and sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration. It's pretty clear that tough talk alone about enforcement and border security curbed things.

But hey, you just proved that you're not really interested in the well being of those already here. Your primary objective is pretty much only to increase immigration. Amnesty for those already here is fricking huge, but you're not willing to compromise.

I'm willing to actually solve the problem.

But there ya go "Your primary objective is pretty much only to increase immigration."

Fuck you and your broad brush. Talking with you is like talking with a child.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm willing to actually solve the problem.

But there ya go "Your primary objective is pretty much only to increase immigration."

Fuck you and your broad brush. Talking with you is like talking with a child.

I just offered amnesty, which no GOP would even touch (but hey, per you I'm all about the GOP). You respond with NO, fuck you and your broad brush. Who's the child?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I just offered amnesty, which no GOP would even touch (but hey, per you I'm all about the GOP). You respond with NO, fuck you and your broad brush. Who's the child?

Amnesty doesn't solve the problem, which is why the GOP opposes it. DURRRR

 

[Irish YJ]

Amnesty doesn't solve the problem, which is why the GOP opposes it. DURRRR

Your name calling, insults, F bombs, and durrrrs are so entertaining.

I bet if the current illegals were offered amnesty, they would sure in the hell take it.

There are two problems. The folks that are here, and going forward. You want both citizenship and free borders going forward. You are willing to give nothing. Which is why you're a typical politician.

 

[NorthDakota]

Your name calling, insults, F bombs, and durrrrs are so entertaining.

I bet if the current illegals were offered amnesty, they would sure in the hell take it.

There are two problems. The folks that are here, and going forward. You want both citizenship and free borders going forward. You are willing to give nothing. Which is why you're a typical politician.

Yep. "Let them all stay.... oh and give them citizenship.... and let more of them come."

Sounds like reducing incarceration rates by freeing murderers, getting rid of their criminal record, and legalizing it as well.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yep. "Let them all stay.... oh and give them citizenship.... and let me of them come."

Sounds like reducing incarceration rates by freeing murderers, getting rid of their criminal record, and legalizing it as well.

Yup, it's sad. Buster is a typical politician (both sides). I just laid out something the GOP would never offer, and he basically said F you, I want it all but F you for compromising.

And people accuse the left of only caring about immigrants for the vote.... wonder why (in several aspects). Prime example of why DC as a whole is a pit.

 

[loomis41973]

Great entertainment!!!

Dealing with TDS victims is like visiting Willie Wonka's chocolate factory.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You made the absurd blank statement that the federal government has solved zero social problems. A simple understanding of US history proves that to be false. Now you are walking it back it would appear and want to focus on specific problems. The problem with that is that “social problems” cannot be easily compartmentalized. Polluted water and air contribute to heath issues. Rising sea levels are starting to drive housing speculation in places like Miami that is causing lower income folks to start to be displaced and on and on.

Enforcement is the application of the law. So yes, enforcement actions would constitute a program or set of programs.

We have different views of social problems.

Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will all be insolvent before 2040. Sorry for my lack of confidence in the federal government creating a program to help our opioid issue, let alone a national healthcare system you want.

 

[Bluto]

We have different views of social problems.

Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will all be insolvent before 2040. Sorry for my lack of confidence in the federal government creating a program to help our opioid issue, let alone a national healthcare system you want.

Ok. I can understand the skepticism.

 

[ulukinatme]

I'm willing to actually solve the problem.

But there ya go "Your primary objective is pretty much only to increase immigration."

Fuck you and your broad brush. Talking with you is like talking with a child.

Amnesty doesn't solve the problem, which is why the GOP opposes it. DURRRR

#WeAreBuster'sUnwashedMasses

 

[drayer54]

If the left caved on the stupid wall, the right would likely cave far on some of their ideas and maybe a rational solution would result. Of course, it would include a wall. Both sides could go home and take something to point at as a victory.

Immigration is down the list for me. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I get that we need to control the border and crime... but we act like it yuuuuuuge.

 

[Irish YJ]

If the left caved on the stupid wall, the right would likely cave far on some of their ideas and maybe a rational solution would result. Of course, it would include a wall. Both sides could go home and take something to point at as a victory.

Immigration is down the list for me. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I get that we need to control the border and crime... but we act like it yuuuuuuge.

I don't need a wall either, but security does need to be enhanced. Hell, just the tough talk of enforcement cut illegal immigration significantly. If we'd just enforce the existing laws, that's more than half the battle. Instead, welcome mats like sanctuary cities are warm welcomes.

 

[connor_in]

I don't need a wall either, but security does need to be enhanced. Hell, just the tough talk of enforcement cut illegal immigration significantly. If we'd just enforce the existing laws, that's more than half the battle. Instead, welcome mats like sanctuary cities are warm welcomes.

Dude, so much of this in immigration and so many different areas of government. Numerous times when someone complains that there needs to be a law for something, if you look it up, you can find that there is something on the books as far as a law or regulation. It just isn't one that is paid any attention.

 

[Bluto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A&feature=youtu.be&t=103

That’s funny...and spot on.

 

[Irish YJ]

Dude, so much of this in immigration and so many different areas of government. Numerous times when someone complains that there needs to be a law for something, if you look it up, you can find that there is something on the books as far as a law or regulation. It just isn't one that is paid any attention.

Yup. If you don't like the law, change it. If you don't change it, enforce it. Cities and states that ignore federal law should be ignored when it comes to federal funding...

 

[Irish YJ]

My gripe with Praetorian was that, like you, he couldn't pick a side! He posted like he had no conviction on issues. Ambiguity is fairly maddening, to me. At least jump in an argument and go for it.

I hope Cack throws in some comments in the "Drinking" thread. That dude is a fellow fan of whisky.

IMO, simply picking a side is whats wrong with politics today. There aren't simply two sides. There's a huge middle in between. I try to understand all sides knowing one or the other extreme (in most cases) will just further divide while nothing get's fixed or improved. The extremes have zero interest in working together. And I've been a GDI for over 20 years now.

I've gone for it plenty of times, but typically only when I see someone unwilling to consider alternative points to their own, or actually discuss a compromise that would satisfy both sides. Sensationalism, fake outrage, glass house living, arrogance, and holier than thou attitudes TRIGGER me lol.

PS.. Praet and I disagreed on as much as we agreed with. I think we just both shared in the belief that extremes were ruining America.

 

[Bishop2b5]

IMO, simply picking a side is whats wrong with politics today. There isn't simply two sides. There's a huge middle in between. I try to understand all sides knowing one or the other extreme (in most cases) will just further divide while nothing get's fixed or improved. The extremes have zero interest in working together. And I've been a GDI for over 20 years now.

I've gone for it plenty of times, but typically only when I see someone unwilling to consider alternative points to their own, or actually discuss a compromise that would satisfy both sides. Sensationalism, fake outrage, glass house living, arrogance, and holier than thou attitudes TRIGGER me lol.

PS.. Praet and I disagreed on as much as we agreed with. I think we just both shared in the belief that extremes were ruining America.

I really liked Praetorian. He & I had several private exchanges. He was once pretty far left and became disillusioned with some of the stuff that makes us Conservatives gag or roll our eyes, and began to drift more to the center and even right on many things. I think he was still moderately liberal overall, but rather disgusted with much of the Progressive/Radical stuff and the way some of the more leftist members here expressed their opinions. Definitely a bright, thoughtful, good guy who was a lot more interested in civil discourse than name calling and insults.

 

[SonofOahu]

IMO, simply picking a side is whats wrong with politics today. There aren't simply two sides. There's a huge middle in between. I try to understand all sides knowing one or the other extreme (in most cases) will just further divide while nothing get's fixed or improved. The extremes have zero interest in working together. And I've been a GDI for over 20 years now.

I've gone for it plenty of times, but typically only when I see someone unwilling to consider alternative points to their own, or actually discuss a compromise that would satisfy both sides. Sensationalism, fake outrage, glass house living, arrogance, and holier than thou attitudes TRIGGER me lol.

PS.. Praet and I disagreed on as much as we agreed with. I think we just both shared in the belief that extremes were ruining America.

I didn't necessarily mean sides of the aisle. Hell, I agree with conservatives on issues (mostly economic), but I'm also for stuff like the death penalty.

Praet couldn't pick sides on core views. I recall his mindset being extremely open. Some may say "that's great, nothing is black and white," which is true. But, I tend to have core beliefs which keep me (I hope) consistent in arguments.

For instance, I believe in the freedom and application of death as a part of life (or justice) so I believe in:

1. Abortion
2. The Death Penalty
3. Medical Aid in Dying

Some of those are lefty beliefs, some are righty. Either way, it's consistent with my worldview.