Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
the more complex the public policy, the more expensive it is.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 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.
the more complex the public policy, the more expensive it is.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 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.
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.
First of all, while not the majority, there is a substantial illegal immigration issue through the Canadian border. Second, terrorists have come through the border. So, saying there is no need to secure it is fundamentally wrong.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.
That wall along the border with Canada will be mighty expensive.
Which is my point.
I suspect you mean a wall along the Southern Border- but that is a relatively symbolic measure. If we really needed a wall to protect us from illegal immigration- we would need a wall along our Northern border also.
Maybe but Canada does a pretty good job of keeping the illegals out of their country. And we haven't had a real big problem with being overrun by illegal Canadians. And Canada is not giving its people instructions on how to illegally enter the USA.
but we must be able to protect our borders.
So you don't really mean we must be able to protect our borders- but that you are concerned about protecting our Southern border because more illegal immigrants come across there.
Pretty much the huge lion's share of illegal immigrants are coming across the southern border. If the Canadian border ever becomes a similar problem, then we can deal with that. Right now there is no need to protect our Canadian border.
First of all, while not the majority, there is a substantial illegal immigration issue through the Canadian border. Second, terrorists have come through the border. So, saying there is no need to secure it is fundamentally wrong.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.
That wall along the border with Canada will be mighty expensive.
Which is my point.
I suspect you mean a wall along the Southern Border- but that is a relatively symbolic measure. If we really needed a wall to protect us from illegal immigration- we would need a wall along our Northern border also.
Maybe but Canada does a pretty good job of keeping the illegals out of their country. And we haven't had a real big problem with being overrun by illegal Canadians. And Canada is not giving its people instructions on how to illegally enter the USA.
but we must be able to protect our borders.
So you don't really mean we must be able to protect our borders- but that you are concerned about protecting our Southern border because more illegal immigrants come across there.
Pretty much the huge lion's share of illegal immigrants are coming across the southern border. If the Canadian border ever becomes a similar problem, then we can deal with that. Right now there is no need to protect our Canadian border.
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.
The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries
Most countries have some version of these programs.
Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.
On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.
Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.natural rights?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'?
There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.
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.
It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.
I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.
Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?
we have an illegal problem. with a more market friendly system, we could end our illegal problem on a permanent basis and generate revenue at the same time.the more complex the public policy, the more expensive it is.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 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.
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.
It is not at all complicated or expensive. Visas and green cards are issued for people to legally come here to visit, to shop, to work, to live without benefit of citizenship.
But the laws have become muddled and at times incomprehensible re immigration due to incoherent rules based on 'political correctness', fuzzy emotions, political expediency.
The law right now is explicit: if you are in the country illegally and commit a crime, you are subject to fine, jail, imprisonment, and otherwise you will be deported.
But through mostly illegal applications of the law by previous administrations and the courts, everybody now thinks we need to revamp the policy for illegal immigration.
This thread is to discuss THAT. Those here on legal visas or green cards are not included in that policy.
The right wing claims our Second Amendment is about natural rights.Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.natural rights?
There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.
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.
What defense of self/property is cause for crashing the border of a sovereign country? What part of immigration code is this? If you're asserting a natural right never coded into law anywhere or sheer anarchy as some of the posters are doing here -- that's REALLY not part of this topic. The US is not run by "natural law" or anarchy and is beyond the scope of this topic... It's not a theoretical debate.
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.
The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries
Most countries have some version of these programs.
Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.
On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.
A, B, C are fine. Tho in the case of refugees, there shouldn't be an immediate assumption that they are on a path to citizenship. Refugee status should be treated as temporary. UNLESS the people coming here to STAY ALIVE honestly DECLARE they love the USA and chose to come here on principles. Not simply to survive.
Lottery is brain-dead policy. No logic or reason for that. And family sponsored immigration needs SOME restrictions and pledges of support from the sponsors.
It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.
I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.
Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?
The parents of DACA kids are old. They don't largely drive the labor force. They've been as Americanized as their children. And there's no reason to forcibly separate those families. They've ENCOURAGED and watched their kids to become Americans. They did a great job in most cases. They are the least of our worries.
we have an illegal problem. with a more market friendly system, we could end our illegal problem on a permanent basis and generate revenue at the same time.the more complex the public policy, the more expensive it is.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 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.
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.
It is not at all complicated or expensive. Visas and green cards are issued for people to legally come here to visit, to shop, to work, to live without benefit of citizenship.
But the laws have become muddled and at times incomprehensible re immigration due to incoherent rules based on 'political correctness', fuzzy emotions, political expediency.
The law right now is explicit: if you are in the country illegally and commit a crime, you are subject to fine, jail, imprisonment, and otherwise you will be deported.
But through mostly illegal applications of the law by previous administrations and the courts, everybody now thinks we need to revamp the policy for illegal immigration.
This thread is to discuss THAT. Those here on legal visas or green cards are not included in that policy.
The right wing claims our Second Amendment is about natural rights.Defense of self and property are considered, natural rights.apples and oranges; and, yes, you have have a right to trespass, in defense of self and property.There is no 'natural right' to cross a border when a nation's laws forbid that any more than there is a 'natural right' for you to enter my home without my permission.
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.
What defense of self/property is cause for crashing the border of a sovereign country? What part of immigration code is this? If you're asserting a natural right never coded into law anywhere or sheer anarchy as some of the posters are doing here -- that's REALLY not part of this topic. The US is not run by "natural law" or anarchy and is beyond the scope of this topic... It's not a theoretical debate.
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.
The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries
Most countries have some version of these programs.
Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.
On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.
A, B, C are fine. Tho in the case of refugees, there shouldn't be an immediate assumption that they are on a path to citizenship. Refugee status should be treated as temporary. UNLESS the people coming here to STAY ALIVE honestly DECLARE they love the USA and chose to come here on principles. Not simply to survive.
Lottery is brain-dead policy. No logic or reason for that. And family sponsored immigration needs SOME restrictions and pledges of support from the sponsors.
Refugees in my opinion are a different topic with different criteria and different applicable laws than immigrant. I don't want illegals would are unable or unwilling to obtain immigrant status claiming to be refugees just to get ahead of everybody else. So I think refugees should have their own thread, otherwise we will be dragged off into all sorts of international issues and such.
Otherwise we seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I checked #1 through #10 without reservation.
It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.
I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.
Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?
The parents of DACA kids are old. They don't largely drive the labor force. They've been as Americanized as their children. And there's no reason to forcibly separate those families. They've ENCOURAGED and watched their kids to become Americans. They did a great job in most cases. They are the least of our worries.
Well thank you and a gold star for the first one to actually discuss that topic.
My problem with the parents is the same as all other of these 'humanitarian' heart breaking type issues. When more than four million people are respecting our laws and patiently waiting to be issued visas through legal channels that would allow them to live and work here, to allow those who thumbed their noses at our laws to jump to the head of the line just seems wrong to me.
I am willing to listen to any persuasive arguments though as to why that would be okay.
It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.
I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.
Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?
The parents of DACA kids are old. They don't largely drive the labor force. They've been as Americanized as their children. And there's no reason to forcibly separate those families. They've ENCOURAGED and watched their kids to become Americans. They did a great job in most cases. They are the least of our worries.
Well thank you and a gold star for the first one to actually discuss that topic.
My problem with the parents is the same as all other of these 'humanitarian' heart breaking type issues. When more than four million people are respecting our laws and patiently waiting to be issued visas through legal channels that would allow them to live and work here, to allow those who thumbed their noses at our laws to jump to the head of the line just seems wrong to me.
I am willing to listen to any persuasive arguments though as to why that would be okay.
Thought my argument was VERY persuasive. As opposed to ripping those families apart. The elderly parents are not gonna affect future demographics or the employment pool. And their kids know no other country and are now de facto functional Americans. You're never gonna wedge those families apart thru deportation. The kids are now professionals, or skilled labor US employees for the most part. In one generation that family went from menial labor in the shadows to fully contributing in skilled positions.
Same with families who delivered US citizen children while in the US illegally. Took way too long to address this. Life happens. Need to accept that our political inaction is largely responsible for these awkward calls to SPLIT UP core families. I can't support doing that after 1/2 a lifetime of legal/political neglect.
It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.
I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.
Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?
The parents of DACA kids are old. They don't largely drive the labor force. They've been as Americanized as their children. And there's no reason to forcibly separate those families. They've ENCOURAGED and watched their kids to become Americans. They did a great job in most cases. They are the least of our worries.
Well thank you and a gold star for the first one to actually discuss that topic.
My problem with the parents is the same as all other of these 'humanitarian' heart breaking type issues. When more than four million people are respecting our laws and patiently waiting to be issued visas through legal channels that would allow them to live and work here, to allow those who thumbed their noses at our laws to jump to the head of the line just seems wrong to me.
I am willing to listen to any persuasive arguments though as to why that would be okay.
Thought my argument was VERY persuasive. As opposed to ripping those families apart. The elderly parents are not gonna affect future demographics or the employment pool. And their kids know no other country and are now de facto functional Americans. You're never gonna wedge those families apart thru deportation. The kids are now professionals, or skilled labor US employees for the most part. In one generation that family went from menial labor in the shadows to fully contributing in skilled positions.
Same with families who delivered US citizen children while in the US illegally. Took way too long to address this. Life happens. Need to accept that our political inaction is largely responsible for these awkward calls to SPLIT UP core families. I can't support doing that after 1/2 a lifetime of legal/political neglect.
Well, setting aside for the moment our very real and not unimportant feelings of compassion for the DACA families, how do you square allowing the DACA family to stay while telling the deserving family that has been waiting for years for legal admission that they will have to continue to wait?
First of all, while not the majority, there is a substantial illegal immigration issue through the Canadian border. Second, terrorists have come through the border. So, saying there is no need to secure it is fundamentally wrong.That wall along the border with Canada will be mighty expensive.
Which is my point.
I suspect you mean a wall along the Southern Border- but that is a relatively symbolic measure. If we really needed a wall to protect us from illegal immigration- we would need a wall along our Northern border also.
Maybe but Canada does a pretty good job of keeping the illegals out of their country. And we haven't had a real big problem with being overrun by illegal Canadians. And Canada is not giving its people instructions on how to illegally enter the USA.
but we must be able to protect our borders.
So you don't really mean we must be able to protect our borders- but that you are concerned about protecting our Southern border because more illegal immigrants come across there.
Pretty much the huge lion's share of illegal immigrants are coming across the southern border. If the Canadian border ever becomes a similar problem, then we can deal with that. Right now there is no need to protect our Canadian border.
I'm pretty sure Canada is not intentionally allowing people to enter the USA illegally. Mexico is. When Canada is deliberately encouraging some of its worst to come here, then we can deal with that.
