Talk Elections

Both parties agree immigration reform is needed. But what would your personal solution be?

Mine is as follows:
-Crack down heavily on illegal immigration. Finish the fence, put a segment of the national guard or military along the border on a permanent basis. Do an operation similar to Eisenhower's to deport already-present illegals. Children of illegal immigrants who are at or over the age of 18 will have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens with no penalty put upon them.

-At the same time, make legal immigration faster and fast track the legal applicants. But by 2020, sign a bill into law which caps the number of allowed immigrants per year to say, 150-200,000 from any country, with preference given to skilled laborers, professionals or those with close family already in the US. Criminal offenders of any kind or those with a history of severe mental illness (meaning having been committed unvoluntarily to a mental hospital) would be restricted from immigrating here.

-Slowly begin steps to formalize English as the national language of the country; get rid of all signs in other languages; reinstate the English testing process for naturalization. At the same time, provide dramatically increased funding for ESL programs.

Mandotarty E Verify

Any company found hiring illegal immigrants will get severely sanctioned and maybe arrests

Deploy the troops in Afghanistan to the Border

Make most legal immigration come from high skilled  workers

If an international student gets a degree in STEM  or buisness immediately give him a green card same with an H1b1 worker in those jobs for over 5 years

I like the idea of pulling troops out of Afghanistan to use on the border.

Unparalleled genius right there.

Abolish all borders and States.(Not a xenophobic and nationalist piece of sh*t)

It's most important for all undocumented migrant workers to be afforded basic labor rights (minimum wage, 40hr work week, etc). On that basis, if not for purely humanitarian reasons, we should grant full blanket amnesty. Long term, I would want an open border policy with a shorter path to citizenship for all would be immigrants.

Abolish all restrictions on immigration and allow for the free movement of people.

But here's the thing. Currently, as it stands, every immigrant who arrived here illegally has broken the law. Even if they've not broken a single law since, they still got here through illegal means. It's like if a homeless person breaks into your house, and then go and claim it's theirs because of squatters' rights. Sure, the 'nice' thing to do would be to give them the house...But it isn't really theirs. Maybe not the best metaphor but...

Say tomorrow illegals get as you call it "full blanket amnesty". Isn't that a gigantic slap in the face to every person who has come here the legal way, who has waited, filed paperwork and taken tests and actually worked to have become a US citizen?

I understand there is a moral component to the illegal immigration issue. As soon as any illegal immigrant has a child here, that child is by default a citizen, and people don't want to rip families apart. But the law is the law. If we let one law not mean anything because morally we're too weak to make a hard choice, one that isn't "nice", that sets a negative precedent IMO. My history is a little rusty, but wasn't one of the reasons for the Fall of Rome the massive migration of the 'Barbarians' into the borders of the Empire?

I believe in the idea that, roughly speaking a country needs to have borders, a common language and a common culture. We've never held to that rigidly here in the US, and I'm not saying we should. But we've veered too far from the concept. I live in an area that is dominated by immigrants in terms of sheer people. I go to bus to college every day, back and forth. Most of the time, I ride the bus with either Eastern European or Asian Americans. Neither of whom, or the majority of whom, do not speak a word of English the entire trip. They chat amongst each other in their languages....I just feel there's something off about that. I love looking at the people and seeing diversity and wondering where all of them came from. I have no problem with their presence here. But at one time, immigrants assimilated into mainstream American society, and in the process they gave a little something of their former culture to America to create that 'Melting Pot.' Nowadays, immigrants from my experience don't assimilate, and continue acting/dressing/talking the way they did in their former culture while not 'sharing' any of their culture to mainstream America.

The Mexicans have set approximately zero cities on fire and are not attempting to conduct an armed occupation.


Being made uncomfortable by the presence of people who speak a language other than yours or who dress differently than you is racism. Sorry.

He indicated it was specifically linked to their racial/ethnic background.

Finish the border fence, increase patrols there, grant the illegal aliens already here legal residential status and an expedited one-time opportunity for citizenship provided they haven't done anything major wrong since they've been here, and crack down on hiring of future illegal aliens.

The US economy depends on illegal immigration...

That is a bad metaphor because, in your example, the homeless man has deprived me of something I am entitled to. An undocumented immigrant selling his labor in the US illegally does not deprive me of anything and actually has a demonstrably positive effective on the cost of goods and services. Unfortunately, that "positive" effect comes at the cost of unconscionable exploitation of undocumented migrants' situation.


I would argue that the arbitrary requirments we concocted for legal immigration are the slap to legal immigrants faces. Naturally, blanket amnest would be paired with a general deregulation of legal immigration.


The sanctity of our laws, however arbitrary, and whatever patriotic warm and fuzzies some may get from their enforcement does not supplant our country's moral obligation to promote human dignity and fight exploitation.


I don't mean this to sound demeaning or condescending, but a big part of life is making peace with the fact that there are people around you who are not like you—they may not speak your language, they may not care about the history of the United States, they may hate baseball and hot dogs...but they are workers and residents, like you and on those grounds you can find solidarity. To deprive migrant workers of basic human rights and the protections of our labor laws because they are from somewhere else is inhumane and emblematic of the worst sort of authoritarian regimes through history.

Yes.

I'm guessing you're a Commie/Socialist/Anarchist, some sort of anti-American ideology?

And being against the American State is bad, how exactly?

Dazey is a boring troll not worth engaging with.

That being said, this is the correct position:

Well if you live here, you should support the government that we live under, and not try to destroy from within every fabric of American social, economic and cultural life. If you want a Commie or Anarchist paradise, go try it somewhere else.

You are a fascist troll, you are now on ignore.

What facism wow you are noting but a anti American commie. If you dont like the country you can just leave , unlike your commie countries where you get shot if you leave. If it's fasict to be patriotic then I guess FDR was a fasict lol. I agree with him if you want to destory every fabric of American culture, life, economic culture, and hate the country you should  leave and go to some other country which supports your ideals and frankly advocating that is illegal (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385) and whoever supports destroying the country should be deported.

Correct, I am a socialist. I am opposed to nationalism and xenophobia—whether that viewpoint is "anti-American" or not is irrelevant to me. Being patriotic at the expense of rationality and humanity is thoroughly fascist behavior.

It's called pragmatism. In case you haven't noticed, this is sudden death. Politics isn't touchy feely kiddie stuff. This is the real world - not the dreamland that Marx lived in. And sometimes the 'humane' option isn't the right one, the pragmatic one. I put the interests of America, and Americans first - not some pie-in-the-sky globalist dreams.

If migrant workers want to come here, and be afforded all the legal rights and protections that come with citizenship, they can do it the legal way. It's not that hard.

Socialists like yourself, ultimately though, see, your aim isn't really the peachy keen utopian visions you try to sell. You want a 'stateless' society that you control. You want to undermine this country from within and utterly change the culture, the society, the customs. You don't like America as we know it - in fact, from what I have seen, most Socialists abhor America. So for the last 40/50 years they've tried to destroy America from within by destroying faith in our institutions, belittling our Founders, and blaming every problem in world history on 'old white men.' Your hope is that minorities and white women will rally together to bring about utopian Socialism, where ultimately, it will just become another USSR. You hate America because America represents the cold hard truth - that Capitalism, if regulated, works, and Socialism does not.

I'm not a Fascist. I don't believe in any of the ideals put forth by it. Fascism and Socialism are two peas in a pod. I'm an American and damn proud of it.

a) There is nothing pragmatic about deporting 12,000,000 people or keeping them around as second class citizens. Pragmatism would be to make peace with the fact that they aren't leaving, that our price index is heavily influenced by their exploitation, and that legal immigration is arbitrarily burdensome and in desperate need of reform.

b) A "stateless" society under any singular entity's control is oxymoronic. The rest of that screed was simply moronic.

c) If opposing white entitlement, exploitation of labor, and imperialism is to hate America, then America is not worth loving.

If I leave where the f**k would I go? Another imperialist, plutocratic, xenophobic, sexist State that works only for the Capitalist class?

A) The pragmatic idea would be to obey the law and get rid of them.

B) I put 'stateless' in quotation marks because a stateless society will never exist. It will always go to tyranny, you silly Commie.

C) Are you a self hating white person? 'White entitlement'. Guess what, homeboy? The white man isn't the devil. Get over it. 'Exploitation of labor' - You Commies live for exploitation of labor! Without it you wouldn't have anything to complain about. Want to talk about exploitation of labor, go look at the lovely Commie countries who have tried what you've been pushing. Imperialism is the way of the world. I'm sorry, silly Commie, but the world isn't a happy Marxist dreamland. Deal with it.

And get out of this country. Go to Cuba or Venezuela - your ideas are more at home there. And if you want to try to destroying America from within, do it the way the Founders did - don't be a coward hiding in the shadows indoctrinating children.

Go to Venezuela - That's a good place for little anti-American Commie scumbags like yourself.

Yeah, Venezuela's still a Capitalist State last I checked.

The founders tried destroying America from within?

a) prag·mat·ic
praɡˈmadik/
adjective
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Please explain how mass deportation and cultural litmus tests are either sensible, realistic, or practicle.

b) What relevance does the liklihood of a successful stateless society have to do with the definition of "stateless"?

c) Settle down, Beavis. I don't have to hate myself to understand that my race is privileged in this country, nor do I get off on complaining. Apparantly, I am actually a masochist who gets off on attempting to reason with thick neanderthals who want to deport me for not being patriotic enough... which is not fascist at all.

I love how you call me and him fasicts and other names just because we are centrists in my case(lean Republican) a little bit(which we are not by long shots). And if supporting America and business is imperialistic and only working for Capitalist Class then I am proud of it. Y

Do you know America has an friendlier immigration system then Europe

Relevance? Since when do conservatives want to have more in common with Europe?

Amnesty for all immigrants here illegally (no, it's not fair to those who are waiting in line, but it's just not feasible to deport millions of people, including children), crack down on border control to reduce future illegal immigration and make the path to citizenship simpler and easier.

Sounds quite similar doesn't it?

My immigration stance?


My ancestors were accepted into this country as refugees fleeing vicious pogroms in Russia. Why would I ever abandon that most American of ideals, that this is a country that anyone can come to to build a new life?

How does that all that translate into actual legislative language and rules? 

The concern with unrestricted movement is that the equilibrium would be when standards of living and subsidies and transfer payments are about the same over the bulk of the population of the world, suggesting over time a rather large decline in the US standard of living, or at least its standard of living vis a vis the world's median.

It translates as my being aware that if the Immigration Law of 1924 had been in place 10 years earlier my ancestors wouldn't be able to come here. I'm very, very suspicious of immigration controls as a result. Who knows what talent we're losing right now by not opening the door wider to Syrian or South Sudanese refugees fleeing certain death at home to pursue a new life?

The refusal to actively recruit  suffering refugees to our shores and treating them like ordinary immigrants is a violation of this country's core values.

Opening the borders and allowing freedom of movement would result in a massive decline in living standards for the country 1) because we would be flooded with poor, which would bring down the average income (although I'm guessing they don't mind that, since it would be bringing up the individual incomes of the immigrants slightly) and 2) More importantly, a constant flow of desperate, low skilled workers would keep wages stagnated at best. How are you going to fight for $15 when there's a 10k people coming everyday willing to work for half?

I'm guessing all you leftists advocating for no borders aren't fans of austerity. Existing austerity programs will be nothing compared to the reduction in living standards caused by redistributing wealth between the United States and all of Latin America/the third world.

Not to mention it would make establishing a meaningful welfare state logistically impossible.

Basically this.

As I said before, I can't trust anyone whose arguments would've kept my unskilled refugee great-grandparents out of the country back then. It would be hugely hypocritical of me to turn my backs on Guatemalan refugees fleeing the most violent society in the Western Hemisphere and the likelihood of a gruesome death at home in hopes of a better life here when my own ancestors fled the pogroms for much the same reason. If it drags down wages, well, f**k wages. Preserving human life is more important. Asylum-seeking refugees from Eritrea and Syria and Sudan are more important than the difference between a $7.25 and a $10.10 minimum wage.

What kind of descendant of refugees would I be if I turned my back on those following in my great-grandparents' footsteps?

Yes, precisely this.  If there is anything about America that is exceptional and worth celebrating the world over, it is our status as an open, welcoming beacon of hope to people of all creeds and colors the world over.  Restricting immigration is quite simply a betrayal of our values– and even if a "flood" of new residents were to lower some wages (and I'm pretty damn skeptical they'd do that– let the record show that immigrants are instead the backbone of our country's growth and prosperity), it would be the right thing to do anyway.

I am aware that policy is unlikely to ever comport 100% with my ideal values on this issue.  But they are values worth defending and celebrating, goddamnit.  

but it's not just the difference between a 7.27 minimum wage and a 10.10 minimum  wage.

It's also the difference between having universal health care and not having universal health care.

Yes, immigration is an American tradition. But so is not having a meaningful safety net. Those two things are linked.

Frankly, I don't care about "fixing" the safety net anywhere near as much as I care about preserving the USA as a place of safety and refuge for the persecuted and harried driven from their native lands. That is far, far more important than health care subsidies or Social Security benefits or anything else.

As I said earlier, it would be a betrayal of my most deeply-held core values to align myself with the heirs of those who tried to keep my impoverished, unskilled great-grandparents out of this country using much the same arguments you make now.

I hate this fake liberal nationalism about "American values." As if hypothetically America had never allowed immigrants you would be fine with keeping it that way. You want more immigrants because you want more immigrants, not because it's "an American tradition."

Me, I don't even pretend to be a nationalist. A country is only as good as the life it provides to its citizens.

If we allow immigrants in at the rate we do, our standard of living will remain the lowest in the first world.

Also, you're confusing the issue by bringing up refugees, which are a totally different issue from economic migrants.

I don't feel the two are separate issues at all. Certainly the debate last year about the Guatemalan refugee children in Arizona was treating them like economic immigrants despite their fleeing the most violent society in the Western Hemisphere looking for a new life in a society where they wouldn't have to worry about getting murdered in their sleep. Alternately, look at the coverage of the boat peoples in the Mediterranean, very little of which mentions that most of those immigrants are refugees from Eritrea and South Sudan, two of the most horrifying places in the world today with huge refugee crises. The talk about the people from Syria dislocated from their homes ends up with a lot of language about "not wanting them here" as well.

I don't feel there's anything "fake" about my championing of immigrants coming here. My great grandparents fled Russia with little in the way of talent and no English and thrived on this side. I will never, ever sympathize with anyone whose arguments would have locked the door to this country to them. It is a bright line for me, a position that betrays that the person holding it is utterly incompatible with my core values and principles.

Frankly, it is far, far more important that people are able to live without fear of getting gunned down in their sleep or murdered for being considered the wrong ethnicity in a civil war than what average wages and benefits are in this country. This country has always prided itself on being, to quote Cole Porter, "the kind of a nation/where people go from Poland to polo in one generation," and that  upwards mobility of people considered the impoverished refuse of the Old World into the comfortable class at the core of the United States is the very premise of what the American Dream is.

By the way, how dare you call my beliefs "false" in your opening sentence, as if you're implying dishonesty here. I've made it clear for years that a more open and welcoming immigration policy is a primary focus of mine, far outstripping wages or health insurance or pensions or anything else. It's pretty close to my #1 issue.

Grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants already here. No border fence, and eliminate nearly all restrictions on immigration. Also make applying for citizenship a lot easier.

Immigration reform should consist of removing the incentive structure (i.e. ending birthright citizenship, restricting assistance programs, etc.) Any other proposals for immigration reform do not address the heart of the problem and thus will kick the bucket down the road (as in 1965 and 1986).

Immigration policy itself should be streamlined. Any immigrant must be either sponsored by a natural-born citizen or post a bond equivalent to 10 years median citizen income. Citizenship is granted if after 10 years residents have no criminal history, proves capable of supporting themselves, and passes a comprehensive civics exam (violation of the first two conditions at any point during permanent residency results in deportation)

Agree with the sentiment, but building a fence/militarizing the border would be ineffective at combating those that come here through the airports. Granting citizenship to children only serves as encouragement to break the law. 


Once again, I agree with the sentiment, but I think that strictly regulating the quality of immigrants makes regulating the quantity of immigrants both unnecessary and superfluous.


Agree with this, except for the funding for programs. I suppose funding ESL could be acceptable if they were deducted from the aforementioned bond, but preferably immigrants should not require added incentive to assimilate into the culture. The various waves of immigrants prior to 1965 did not require ESL programs to obtain a functioning understanding of English.

Full blanket amnesty to all non-criminal illegals who have been in the U.S. for at least 7 years. 

Fine employers who hire illegals. Take away their business license after repeated offenses. Revoke H1B Visas. A moratorium on legal immigration or at least a reduction to 200 thousand a year.