CDZ IMMIGRATION: Not what it is but what it should be.

[Meathead]

I live in Maryland and they can’t find anyone to pick crabs

I shall resist the temptation.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no 'right of free movement' across borders. Period.

I'd love to know just where you even get that idea...who legislated that 'right'?

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

Those who choose to live and work here with permission of the United States have never been required to apply for citizenship. And I can't think of a good reason such a requirement should be imposed. It should be just as hard to get that green card as it is to have an application for a path to citizenship accepted though.

 

[danielpalos]

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

Those who choose to live and work here with permission of the United States have never been required to apply for citizenship. And I can't think of a good reason such a requirement should be imposed. It should be just as hard to get that green card as it is to have an application for a path to citizenship accepted though.

any tourist should be able to do that; immigration should Only be, applying for citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

Immigration policy, at least until recently, has always included the requirement that a person applying for citizenship will learn English sufficiently to be able to communicate. This is in recognition that a country is stronger and more cohesive if there is a common language regardless of all other languages that may be spoken.

And it also included, at least until recently, the expectation that those receiving citizenship status would renounce loyalty to their previous and all other countries and would be American with all the rights and duties that come with that. Yes, each person would bring elements of their former culture that would be fun, interesting, and enriching of the American culture, but nevertheless, America has its own unique and identifiable culture, expectations for courtesy/protocol, laws, and regulations. We didn't want people who hated America to come here, but those who would love and respect and be good citizens of America.

Which doesn't address either your claim or my response.

Your claim was that a country was not a country without 'borders, language and culture'- not whether immigrants had to learn English(another relatively recent addition).

Do you agree that the United States for most of our history had relatively poorly defined borders that had no immigration controls at all?

Do you agree that the United States has always been a nation of people who have spoken a multitude of languages- not just one?

Tell me more about the American 'unique and identifiable culture'- and how it applies to the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Navajo, Mormons and Cajun citizens of America.

You are entirely missing the point. Yes, various groups have their own ways, cuisine, customs, traditions, even rules, but nevertheless they consider themselves American above all, and those who deserve to be here consider themselves extremely fortunate that they are American. And having a common language benefits us all and certainly is not the same thing as 'an ONLY language.)

In the late 18th Century, America was wide open and needed people to populate it. By the mid to late 19th Century, America was well populated and we were being more careful who came by routing new immigrants through Ellis Island. By the 20th Century it was prudent to establish laws to control who came here. The first comprehensive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920's.

Population when the Constitution was ratified: about 4 million or the current population of Los Angeles.

Population in 1850: about 23 million or a little more than the current population of Florida.

Population in 1950: about 151 million. Large cities were becoming over crowded and more of the nation's resources are routed to them that started the stress and depletion of rural America.

Population now: about 320 million. At that rate of growth we will be 600 million by 2040 or 2050 with a corresponding increase in need for public resources..

To preserve quality of life and also our ability to be a shining example for the world and also to have the resources to help others in times of distress, we simply cannot continue taking in everybody who wants to be here instead of where they are--that number no doubt is in the billions.

In order to become a U.S. citizen, you need to satisfy the various requirements described in the article Who Can Apply for U.S. Citizenship. Most people also need to pass tests on their knowledge and understanding of:

• the fundamentals of history and of the principles and form of government of the United States, and
• the English language, as it is spoken, written, and read.

MORE

Becoming a U.S. Citizen

At one time I was blessed to be able to teach citizenship classes to immigrants seeking citizenship and have attended quite a few swearing in ceremonies, never with dry eyes. It is quite a moving experience. But if the folks did not have a reasonable command of English, they wouldn't have benefited from the classes as that was the only language I taught in and interpreters were not provided. (We also offered classes in English as a second language.)

And again- you skipped away from your previous statement. without addressing them.

Nor did you answer my questions.

I have been down this road before- and recognize the futility of trying to pursue that further.

Our nation has existed just fine without well defined borders, with completely open immigration and without a single language.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

Um.. wait... we've got the cart before the horse here. The question, "What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy?" when de-euphemized, means, "When do you think it's acceptable to have men with guns infringe upon the right of free movement of presumably innocent people?"

The only moral answer to that question is "Never".

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

The Constitution is a document described by the Founders as establishing a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People. This country belongs to we the people, the citizens of the United States, as much as my home belongs to me. And we the people, through our lawfully elected representatives, have every right to determine what laws will protect our borders, our language, our culture. Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.

I have no say re who you invite onto your personal property or your home, nor do you have any say who I invite onto my personal property or my home. We both have a say via our lawfully elected representatives who may use the courthouse we and everybody else lawfully residing in our county jointly owns, who uses the state capital building that we and everybody else lawfully residing in the state owns, or who enters the country that we all jointly own.

So we all have joint ownership over the entire country? Obviously this can't mean that I have partial ownership over the property you purchased with your own money, so it must mean only the parts of the country nobody purchased. But how can anyone have a claim on land that they didn't pay for, have never stepped upon, and aren't using in any capacity? Where does the claim to ownership come from?

Now I know where you think it comes from. You think the government owns it because they say so, and since we are the government, that means we own it. But they have no valid claim, since they didn't buy it from a rightful owner or develop it in any way (at least not all of it). In addition, we are not the government. This is just indoctrinated nonsense. You think pulling a lever every 2-4 years, then being a subject to their rule makes you them? They make law which you must follow under threat of punishment, while they routinely live above the law. How many politicians or cops go to jail, despite the fact that we know they do illegal stuff all the time? I know it's not supposed to be like that, but that's how it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, so who's really in control?

Your only recourse within the system is to choose someone new next time, but in practice, there are only a few options to choose from, and those options are presented to you by people who have the wealth and influence to fund the campaigns, and get sufficient media coverage (advertising). How hard is it for those people to present you with options that will serve their agenda no matter who you choose? You have no power in this system at all. It's all smoke and mirrors to inhibit revolt; to hide the fact that you're enabling gangsters to steal your money and rule the world.

And it's not just that the system is broken, it's that it's fundamentally invalid. It's rooted in inequality of rights. Congress can make law, but you can't. It's rooted in invalid delegation, as the voters don't have the rights they "grant" to their "representatives". So how can they be said to represent you? And how can anyone actually represent anyone else? It's impossible unless they became that person. Ever vote for someone who did something you wouldn't have done yourself? Then there goes your "representation", even it if it only happened once.

You have to be able to cut through the cultural paradigm to see the truth that lies beyond. You're a resource for their control, and a spectator to their agendas. Really think about it in the most basic terms.

I elect my representatives to oversee the administration of the country. That is how a representative republic works.

 

[Foxfyre]

Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.
.

Well lets talk about that- I have heard that claim before but is it really true?

Let us look at the history of the United States as an example.

Borders: For the vast part of the American history we had borders- not always well defined or agreed upon- but those borders were not closed at all. People went back and forth between the United States and Canada and Mexico with no restrictions for most of our history. So was the United States not a country for most of our history?

As far as 'language' is concerned- while English has always been our foremost language- it certainly has never been our only language. Did the United States suddenly stop being a country after the Louisiana Purchase and the addition of a population that was majority French and Spanish speaking?

And culture? We have always been a melting pot of cultures. Amish. Orthodox Jews. Mormons. Navajo. Cajuns. There is no one 'American culture'- and never has been- but there is one American constitution that all Americans should know and uphold.

Immigration policy, at least until recently, has always included the requirement that a person applying for citizenship will learn English sufficiently to be able to communicate. This is in recognition that a country is stronger and more cohesive if there is a common language regardless of all other languages that may be spoken.

And it also included, at least until recently, the expectation that those receiving citizenship status would renounce loyalty to their previous and all other countries and would be American with all the rights and duties that come with that. Yes, each person would bring elements of their former culture that would be fun, interesting, and enriching of the American culture, but nevertheless, America has its own unique and identifiable culture, expectations for courtesy/protocol, laws, and regulations. We didn't want people who hated America to come here, but those who would love and respect and be good citizens of America.

Which doesn't address either your claim or my response.

Your claim was that a country was not a country without 'borders, language and culture'- not whether immigrants had to learn English(another relatively recent addition).

Do you agree that the United States for most of our history had relatively poorly defined borders that had no immigration controls at all?

Do you agree that the United States has always been a nation of people who have spoken a multitude of languages- not just one?

Tell me more about the American 'unique and identifiable culture'- and how it applies to the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Navajo, Mormons and Cajun citizens of America.

You are entirely missing the point. Yes, various groups have their own ways, cuisine, customs, traditions, even rules, but nevertheless they consider themselves American above all, and those who deserve to be here consider themselves extremely fortunate that they are American. And having a common language benefits us all and certainly is not the same thing as 'an ONLY language.)

In the late 18th Century, America was wide open and needed people to populate it. By the mid to late 19th Century, America was well populated and we were being more careful who came by routing new immigrants through Ellis Island. By the 20th Century it was prudent to establish laws to control who came here. The first comprehensive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920's.

Population when the Constitution was ratified: about 4 million or the current population of Los Angeles.

Population in 1850: about 23 million or a little more than the current population of Florida.

Population in 1950: about 151 million. Large cities were becoming over crowded and more of the nation's resources are routed to them that started the stress and depletion of rural America.

Population now: about 320 million. At that rate of growth we will be 600 million by 2040 or 2050 with a corresponding increase in need for public resources..

To preserve quality of life and also our ability to be a shining example for the world and also to have the resources to help others in times of distress, we simply cannot continue taking in everybody who wants to be here instead of where they are--that number no doubt is in the billions.

In order to become a U.S. citizen, you need to satisfy the various requirements described in the article Who Can Apply for U.S. Citizenship. Most people also need to pass tests on their knowledge and understanding of:

• the fundamentals of history and of the principles and form of government of the United States, and
• the English language, as it is spoken, written, and read.

MORE

Becoming a U.S. Citizen

At one time I was blessed to be able to teach citizenship classes to immigrants seeking citizenship and have attended quite a few swearing in ceremonies, never with dry eyes. It is quite a moving experience. But if the folks did not have a reasonable command of English, they wouldn't have benefited from the classes as that was the only language I taught in and interpreters were not provided. (We also offered classes in English as a second language.)

And again- you skipped away from your previous statement. without addressing them.

Nor did you answer my questions.

I have been down this road before- and recognize the futility of trying to pursue that further.

Our nation has existed just fine without well defined borders, with completely open immigration and without a single language.

No I didn't. And if you don't see the difference between 4 million people and 330 million people, well, have a pleasant evening.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, you do not. All of us do so all the time, but even pulling into the neighbor's driveway to turn around and go the other direction without your neighbor's permission to do that is classified as a trespass. Nobody has a right to enter the USA without permission. Citizens have automatic permission but even they are still subject to inspection by Customs.

Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.

That is true. And I'm sure the Founders would agree that the defense and security of our borders falls into that general category.

The right wing just likes to make up stories.

This has nothing to do with right wing or left wing. The thread is about what should the immigration laws be? The same law will apply to all who are allowed to come here regardless of their ideology.

it is about solutions; the right wing only has socialism on a national basis.

The thread is to discuss what the immigration law should be. Not what it is. What it should be. Not what it has been. What it should be.

And that has nothing to do with right wing, socialism, or any other wings or -isms.

 

[Foxfyre]

That may make sense to you, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense to me. The question is pretty cut and dried. Do you or could you support any of the proposed laws listed in the poll and explained a bit in he OP? Or would not not support any of them? And why?

Guns is a topic for another thread.

No, I do not support any of the laws proposed because they are all founded on an immoral premise - that one man has a right to deny passage to a presumably innocent person without a valid property claim.

I do not have a right to cross the border of your personal property without permission, but who may make a valid property claim on an entire half-continent? And to deny passage to that individual is to violate the valid right of free association of every individual within that half-continent. If I want a Mexican person to come to my house for dinner, who are you to deny him passage if he's not walking over your property?

The Constitution is a document described by the Founders as establishing a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People. This country belongs to we the people, the citizens of the United States, as much as my home belongs to me. And we the people, through our lawfully elected representatives, have every right to determine what laws will protect our borders, our language, our culture. Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.

I have no say re who you invite onto your personal property or your home, nor do you have any say who I invite onto my personal property or my home. We both have a say via our lawfully elected representatives who may use the courthouse we and everybody else lawfully residing in our county jointly owns, who uses the state capital building that we and everybody else lawfully residing in the state owns, or who enters the country that we all jointly own.

So we all have joint ownership over the entire country? Obviously this can't mean that I have partial ownership over the property you purchased with your own money, so it must mean only the parts of the country nobody purchased. But how can anyone have a claim on land that they didn't pay for, have never stepped upon, and aren't using in any capacity? Where does the claim to ownership come from?

Now I know where you think it comes from. You think the government owns it because they say so, and since we are the government, that means we own it. But they have no valid claim, since they didn't buy it from a rightful owner or develop it in any way (at least not all of it). In addition, we are not the government. This is just indoctrinated nonsense. You think pulling a lever every 2-4 years, then being a subject to their rule makes you them? They make law which you must follow under threat of punishment, while they routinely live above the law. How many politicians or cops go to jail, despite the fact that we know they do illegal stuff all the time? I know it's not supposed to be like that, but that's how it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, so who's really in control?

Your only recourse within the system is to choose someone new next time, but in practice, there are only a few options to choose from, and those options are presented to you by people who have the wealth and influence to fund the campaigns, and get sufficient media coverage (advertising). How hard is it for those people to present you with options that will serve their agenda no matter who you choose? You have no power in this system at all. It's all smoke and mirrors to inhibit revolt; to hide the fact that you're enabling gangsters to steal your money and rule the world.

And it's not just that the system is broken, it's that it's fundamentally invalid. It's rooted in inequality of rights. Congress can make law, but you can't. It's rooted in invalid delegation, as the voters don't have the rights they "grant" to their "representatives". So how can they be said to represent you? And how can anyone actually represent anyone else? It's impossible unless they became that person. Ever vote for someone who did something you wouldn't have done yourself? Then there goes your "representation", even it if it only happened once.

You have to be able to cut through the cultural paradigm to see the truth that lies beyond. You're a resource for their control, and a spectator to their agendas. Really think about it in the most basic terms.

I elect my representatives to oversee the administration of the country. That is how a representative republic works.

Well, they’re doing a lot more than “overseeing the administration of the country”. This euphemistic speech makes it sound like you’re hiring a stockbroker. There are millions of people who’ve been locked in a cage for victimless actions; trillions upon trillions are robbed from the citizenry under threat of financial ruin and physical violence; a war machine fueled by those stolen resources is scorching the earth and slaughtering innocents in your name. You better have a damn good argument for why this is legit, cause it sounds like shit to me.

First tell me where you think you get the right to take these actions against others, by proxy of your esteemed “representative”, and then we’ll discuss the severe lack of self-worth a person has to have to submit himself and his children to the will of another.

I will refer you to the U.S. Constitution:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

And remind you that the topic of this thread is what Immigration law should be or what it should not be.

 

[Syriusly]

Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.

That is true. And I'm sure the Founders would agree that the defense and security of our borders falls into that general category.

The right wing just likes to make up stories.

This has nothing to do with right wing or left wing. The thread is about what should the immigration laws be? The same law will apply to all who are allowed to come here regardless of their ideology.

it is about solutions; the right wing only has socialism on a national basis.

The thread is to discuss what the immigration law should be. Not what it is. What it should be. Not what it has been. What it should be.

And that has nothing to do with right wing, socialism, or any other wings or -isms.

Of course it has to do with 'right wing'- you presented a right wing wish list.

Nothing wrong with that of course- but it is disingenuous to pretend that your OP doesn't have a particular political direction.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is true. And I'm sure the Founders would agree that the defense and security of our borders falls into that general category.

The right wing just likes to make up stories.

This has nothing to do with right wing or left wing. The thread is about what should the immigration laws be? The same law will apply to all who are allowed to come here regardless of their ideology.

it is about solutions; the right wing only has socialism on a national basis.

The thread is to discuss what the immigration law should be. Not what it is. What it should be. Not what it has been. What it should be.

And that has nothing to do with right wing, socialism, or any other wings or -isms.

Of course it has to do with 'right wing'- you presented a right wing wish list.

Nothing wrong with that of course- but it is disingenuous to pretend that your OP doesn't have a particular political direction.

It is not a rightwing list. It is not a leftwing list.

It is a list.

Period.

 

[danielpalos]

it is only immigration, if they apply for citizenship.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution is a document described by the Founders as establishing a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People. This country belongs to we the people, the citizens of the United States, as much as my home belongs to me. And we the people, through our lawfully elected representatives, have every right to determine what laws will protect our borders, our language, our culture. Without borders, language, and culture, a country isn't really a county.

I have no say re who you invite onto your personal property or your home, nor do you have any say who I invite onto my personal property or my home. We both have a say via our lawfully elected representatives who may use the courthouse we and everybody else lawfully residing in our county jointly owns, who uses the state capital building that we and everybody else lawfully residing in the state owns, or who enters the country that we all jointly own.

So we all have joint ownership over the entire country? Obviously this can't mean that I have partial ownership over the property you purchased with your own money, so it must mean only the parts of the country nobody purchased. But how can anyone have a claim on land that they didn't pay for, have never stepped upon, and aren't using in any capacity? Where does the claim to ownership come from?

Now I know where you think it comes from. You think the government owns it because they say so, and since we are the government, that means we own it. But they have no valid claim, since they didn't buy it from a rightful owner or develop it in any way (at least not all of it). In addition, we are not the government. This is just indoctrinated nonsense. You think pulling a lever every 2-4 years, then being a subject to their rule makes you them? They make law which you must follow under threat of punishment, while they routinely live above the law. How many politicians or cops go to jail, despite the fact that we know they do illegal stuff all the time? I know it's not supposed to be like that, but that's how it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, so who's really in control?

Your only recourse within the system is to choose someone new next time, but in practice, there are only a few options to choose from, and those options are presented to you by people who have the wealth and influence to fund the campaigns, and get sufficient media coverage (advertising). How hard is it for those people to present you with options that will serve their agenda no matter who you choose? You have no power in this system at all. It's all smoke and mirrors to inhibit revolt; to hide the fact that you're enabling gangsters to steal your money and rule the world.

And it's not just that the system is broken, it's that it's fundamentally invalid. It's rooted in inequality of rights. Congress can make law, but you can't. It's rooted in invalid delegation, as the voters don't have the rights they "grant" to their "representatives". So how can they be said to represent you? And how can anyone actually represent anyone else? It's impossible unless they became that person. Ever vote for someone who did something you wouldn't have done yourself? Then there goes your "representation", even it if it only happened once.

You have to be able to cut through the cultural paradigm to see the truth that lies beyond. You're a resource for their control, and a spectator to their agendas. Really think about it in the most basic terms.

I elect my representatives to oversee the administration of the country. That is how a representative republic works.

Well, they’re doing a lot more than “overseeing the administration of the country”. This euphemistic speech makes it sound like you’re hiring a stockbroker. There are millions of people who’ve been locked in a cage for victimless actions; trillions upon trillions are robbed from the citizenry under threat of financial ruin and physical violence; a war machine fueled by those stolen resources is scorching the earth and slaughtering innocents in your name. You better have a damn good argument for why this is legit, cause it sounds like shit to me.

First tell me where you think you get the right to take these actions against others, by proxy of your esteemed “representative”, and then we’ll discuss the severe lack of self-worth a person has to have to submit himself and his children to the will of another.

I will refer you to the U.S. Constitution:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

And remind you that the topic of this thread is what Immigration law should be or what it should not be.

People writing stuff down on paper isn’t where rights come from, quite obviously, otherwise they could agree upon and write down the “right to rape” and make it so.

You’ve attempted to dodge an immensely important question, which undermines the legitimacy of your position drastically. Not answering me is one thing, but not being able to answer these questions for yourself should be cause for great concern.

I’m completely on-topic: the “law” should be nothing. Who is coming and going is not something anyone has a right to intefere with, except on private property, and half a continent can never be anyone’s private property.

To take an opposing position and have it be anything other than “I want, I need”, you have to demonstrate your personal right to stop people from crossing an imaginary line on free property (or private property with consent) such that you may delegate this right to government via representation.

Instead of just trying to fight me off, earnestly consider what I’m saying. If you can’t answer for this, change your position in light of new understanding. How do you think I got here? I grew up with the same lies you did. But when compelled by sound reason, one must either adopt the new perspective, or resign themselves to cognitive dissonance. Self-respect dictates the latter to be wholly unacceptable.

I believe what defines a nation are its borders, its language, its culture. I believe that rights-- natural/unalienable, civil, legal, constitutional-- are acknowledged, respected, and protected only when you have a nation of laws.

If you believe we should be a nation without borders, fine. I accept that your position is that there should be no immigration laws. I do not accept that position as how it should be, so let's agree to disagree okay?

Your vote is none of the above.
For the rest of us, I would like to discuss what the immigration policy should be.

 

[Foxfyre]

natural rights?

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

For any number of reasons a person might not wish to relinquish his/her citizenship in another country, but would wish to live and work here without benefit of citizenship. So long as the person is here legally, contributes to the economy and general welfare, and is not a burden to it, I don't have a problem with that.

I would guess the vast majority of green card holders would be on a path to citizenship, however.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am still curious about 3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.

This proposed law has received the lowest number of votes. Again, is that because you think the family members should be allowed to stay? Or because you think the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So we all have joint ownership over the entire country? Obviously this can't mean that I have partial ownership over the property you purchased with your own money, so it must mean only the parts of the country nobody purchased. But how can anyone have a claim on land that they didn't pay for, have never stepped upon, and aren't using in any capacity? Where does the claim to ownership come from?

Now I know where you think it comes from. You think the government owns it because they say so, and since we are the government, that means we own it. But they have no valid claim, since they didn't buy it from a rightful owner or develop it in any way (at least not all of it). In addition, we are not the government. This is just indoctrinated nonsense. You think pulling a lever every 2-4 years, then being a subject to their rule makes you them? They make law which you must follow under threat of punishment, while they routinely live above the law. How many politicians or cops go to jail, despite the fact that we know they do illegal stuff all the time? I know it's not supposed to be like that, but that's how it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, so who's really in control?

Your only recourse within the system is to choose someone new next time, but in practice, there are only a few options to choose from, and those options are presented to you by people who have the wealth and influence to fund the campaigns, and get sufficient media coverage (advertising). How hard is it for those people to present you with options that will serve their agenda no matter who you choose? You have no power in this system at all. It's all smoke and mirrors to inhibit revolt; to hide the fact that you're enabling gangsters to steal your money and rule the world.

And it's not just that the system is broken, it's that it's fundamentally invalid. It's rooted in inequality of rights. Congress can make law, but you can't. It's rooted in invalid delegation, as the voters don't have the rights they "grant" to their "representatives". So how can they be said to represent you? And how can anyone actually represent anyone else? It's impossible unless they became that person. Ever vote for someone who did something you wouldn't have done yourself? Then there goes your "representation", even it if it only happened once.

You have to be able to cut through the cultural paradigm to see the truth that lies beyond. You're a resource for their control, and a spectator to their agendas. Really think about it in the most basic terms.

I elect my representatives to oversee the administration of the country. That is how a representative republic works.

Well, they’re doing a lot more than “overseeing the administration of the country”. This euphemistic speech makes it sound like you’re hiring a stockbroker. There are millions of people who’ve been locked in a cage for victimless actions; trillions upon trillions are robbed from the citizenry under threat of financial ruin and physical violence; a war machine fueled by those stolen resources is scorching the earth and slaughtering innocents in your name. You better have a damn good argument for why this is legit, cause it sounds like shit to me.

First tell me where you think you get the right to take these actions against others, by proxy of your esteemed “representative”, and then we’ll discuss the severe lack of self-worth a person has to have to submit himself and his children to the will of another.

I will refer you to the U.S. Constitution:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

And remind you that the topic of this thread is what Immigration law should be or what it should not be.

People writing stuff down on paper isn’t where rights come from, quite obviously, otherwise they could agree upon and write down the “right to rape” and make it so.

You’ve attempted to dodge an immensely important question, which undermines the legitimacy of your position drastically. Not answering me is one thing, but not being able to answer these questions for yourself should be cause for great concern.

I’m completely on-topic: the “law” should be nothing. Who is coming and going is not something anyone has a right to intefere with, except on private property, and half a continent can never be anyone’s private property.

To take an opposing position and have it be anything other than “I want, I need”, you have to demonstrate your personal right to stop people from crossing an imaginary line on free property (or private property with consent) such that you may delegate this right to government via representation.

Instead of just trying to fight me off, earnestly consider what I’m saying. If you can’t answer for this, change your position in light of new understanding. How do you think I got here? I grew up with the same lies you did. But when compelled by sound reason, one must either adopt the new perspective, or resign themselves to cognitive dissonance. Self-respect dictates the latter to be wholly unacceptable.

I believe what defines a nation are its borders, its language, its culture. I believe that rights-- natural/unalienable, civil, legal, constitutional-- are acknowledged, respected, and protected only when you have a nation of laws.

If you believe we should be a nation without borders, fine. I accept that your position is that there should be no immigration laws. I do not accept that position as how it should be, so let's agree to disagree okay?

Your vote is none of the above.
For the rest of us, I would like to discuss what the immigration policy should be.

If you don't want to explore the issue and demonstrate the validity of your claims, that's fine; be resigned to a position based upon an unfounded assumption. But we're not simply "agreeing to disagree". I have put forth arguments in favor of my position, which you have neither refuted nor accepted, but instead merely asserted your opinion as valid without demonstrating how it is so. That's where we're at; not just parting ways with two equally justifiable, but differing opinions.

 

[danielpalos]

Ahhh...so the Palestinians were just trying to exercise their 'natural rights' in Gaza?

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

For any number of reasons a person might not wish to relinquish his/her citizenship in another country, but would wish to live and work here without benefit of citizenship. So long as the person is here legally, contributes to the economy and general welfare, and is not a burden to it, I don't have a problem with that.

I would guess the vast majority of green card holders would be on a path to citizenship, however.

They are either, citizens or tourists. There is no time limit on tourism. And, we should be generating revenue from foreign nationals wanting to "try their luck", in our markets.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on. Please keep this to U.S. immigration laws please. We can go off in all sorts of directions but I would really appreciate a reasoned discussion on what the immigration laws should be and why.

immigration means applying for citizenship. anything else is simple tourism.

That is one way to look at it and I tend to agree. But the law generally defines green card holders, i.e. those residing here permanently whether or not they ever apply for citizenship, to be immigrants. I would think the proposed immigration laws in the O.P. would also apply to those receiving green cards.

Why the distinction? It should be a path to citizenship, not a "way of life". Any tourist, can do that.

For any number of reasons a person might not wish to relinquish his/her citizenship in another country, but would wish to live and work here without benefit of citizenship. So long as the person is here legally, contributes to the economy and general welfare, and is not a burden to it, I don't have a problem with that.

I would guess the vast majority of green card holders would be on a path to citizenship, however.

They are either, citizens or tourists. There is no time limit on tourism. And, we should be generating revenue from foreign nationals wanting to "try their luck", in our markets.

Tourists from other countries are here with visas that do not allow them to work legally in the USA. They can enjoy our country and spend their money here for up to six months, and then they have to go home. Green card holders can stay, live, and work here up to ten years and then must renew to stay longer. Most complete the requirement for citizenship within that time, however, and are sworn in as full citizens with all the rights that offers.

But this thread is not about those who are here legally. No. 1 on the poll was to require all who come here to do so legally and that received more votes than any other provision. This thread is about what the immigration policy should be. Please focus on that.

 

[danielpalos]

Complex public policies, are the problem.

Immigration is applying for Citizenship, otherwise, it is simple Tourism.

Tourist visas could be renewable annually and include work authorization, for a market friendly fee.

 

[Foxfyre]

Complex public policies, are the problem.

Immigration is applying for Citizenship, otherwise, it is simple Tourism.

Tourist visas could be renewable annually and include work authorization, for a market friendly fee.

The visa system is already multi-tiered with different visas for tourists, for students, for those who receive permission to work. These are not considered immigrants but simply people here on legal visas.

Green card holders are not required to apply for citizenship but if they do not, and their green card is not renewed, they must leave. Most green card holders are considered 'permanent residents' even though the green card expires in 10 years, and most are on a path to citizenship.

People who come here with the intention of being Americans with all the obligations and benefits that includes are the true immigrants. But the most common definition of an immigrant is somebody who goes to a different country with the intention of residing there permanently.

But I would like not to quibble over the definition of immigrant here as we all know what we mean in current vernacular re the term: illegal immigrant which, though applied incorrectly if we are technical, refers to all persons who are in the country illegally. People who hold bonafide visas or green cards of whatever type are not in the country illegally. And we have a reciprocal agreement with Canada that our mutual citizens may cross that border for short visits or to do business without visas.

It used to be that way with our Mexican neighbors until we started getting so many of their citizens, plus Central and South Americans et al, coming through Mexico settling here illegally plus the drug cartels and other illegal activity crossing the border.