Immigration Reform:

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/
   
   How about it?
   
   Tearing down the wall, would be a better solution?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      why would that be better?

      replyreport
   2. 82

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Economist Miltion Friedman pose this statement for your consideration.
      
      He said - you can have open borders or you can have an entitlement society but you can’t have both.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This takes some figuring out. Why would an open border prevent the entitled from getting what they expect/want/need?
         
         So socialism and open borders do not go hand in hand?
         Interesting.
         
         What does the elite want? A sunken lifeboat that can't provide for the entitled ... or anyone else!?
         
         
         Perhaps they are trying to tear down the world, implement chaos so they can take over with their brand of new world order.
         
         yeah?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            A couple of years ago Switzerland debated a guaranteed income for everyone, regardless of whether they worked.  Govt. was to send a monthly check to every resident.  It was voted down, and one of the legislators there explained why:
            
            "Meanwhile, Luzi Stamm, a member of parliament for the right-wing Swiss People's Party, opposed the idea.
            
            "Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island, the answer is yes. But with open borders, it's a total impossibility, especially for Switzerland, with a high living standard," he said.
            
            "If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland."
            
            Open borders, coupled with an entitlement society, will inevitably attract masses of people that do not wish to participate in providing for the needs of the country.  No matter how many "rich" are available to pick up the tab it will ultimately fail as a result.
            
            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks, wilderness.

               replyreport
2. 93

   peeplesposted 5 years ago

   Did you fully read the article? I think it was spot on. I mean facts don't change based on party affiliation (even though everyone seems to try). Immigration isn't a bad thing. The process for doing so legally is massively flawed.
   I'm not so good with open borders, but I'm for sure in favor of making it easier for them to get in and easier to go back home to family whenever they want.
   We're brainwashed to think these people are a threat, when the reality is, our current next door neighbors are statistically more likely to be a threat.

   replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   So, if you are not for the wall, you are for open borders. If you are for a wall you should back Trump.
   It seems that we are very wishy-washy with an issue that is extremely urgent as far as opening up the government. We need to pick a side Yesterday!
   
   But it seems people will not step up to the plate and proclaim what they truly want.
   
   Or, proclaim so, if you think the border is fine and we should leave it as it is. After all, the need for corder control is a a made up, manufactured crisis.
   
   Maybe, we do need a nation wide vote.
   
   Q. How Come Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer don't see the need for funding the continuation of building a wall which was approved of back in the last century.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The idea that you are either for a wall or for open borders is delusional. Why is it such a weird concept to be FOR immigration reform, against illegal immigration, and against the wall?
      I'm for immigration reform. I'm for making the process of immigration easier while at the same time making it safer. I'm not sure why this is such a weird concept to so many.
      I am against the wall because it is an archaic waste of money, that will likely do minimal.
      If we are looking at statistics, the illegal immigration stats have been going down (as a whole) since 2007. In fact, the number of mexican illegals has been declining as a whole also. And out of the states that did have an increase in illegal immigrants, only 2 were on the border.
      We need border control. We just don't need to pretend there is some huge crisis that's going to be fixed by a wall, and I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks the wall is some miracle cure.
      Where is the common sense in all this?
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         ... and why would they cross over illegally?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And, of course, we would have the ability to detect such an event.
            ... wouldn't we?
            could't we?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Why are they doing so now?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Disregard for law?

               replyreport
            2. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               ... why are they?

               replyreport
4. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Its not fair that Chuck and Nancy continue their resistance. The government needs to open up. The wall was on the table when Trump was elected. The people elected Trump. The people wanted the wall. And now Chuck and Nancy are standing there with their arms folded over their chests preventing what the people wanted. And STILL WANT! How DARE They?
   
   Either tear down the wall or build it up. Make up your mind, America!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In fairness, the country was divided on that election so to say the wall is what the people want, by virtue of the fact that Trump is president, isn't accurate.
      
      I'm for orderly immigration. I think we should allow for work visas over citizenship in some cases. I don't think people who are economic migrants should be allowed to step over the border and immediately benefit from social programs, thus over burdening an already money strapped system.
      
      If we could monitor the flow, categorize the influx fairly into those who are asylum seekers (who should be put on the path of citizenship), people simply looking for work (who should be given work visas) and those who are possible threats to civil order (who should be denied entry) we'd be well on the way to a fair, equitable and sustainable immigration system.
      
      I wasn't initially for the expansion of a wall but having seen reports from California towns which claim the wall has reduced crime and poverty in their communities I am more favorable toward it now. Although the images of people simply walking up to spots where they can shimmy through, beneath the wall, make me wonder how effective it might be if we put it up and assumed that was all we needed in order to direct the flow to legal entry points.

      replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Mexico has wonderful citizens pouring into the country and they should be welcomed with open arms.
           for ever and ever.
   
   The aliens from outer space waiting in underground caverns would agree. Whoever believes this is exactly right.
   

   replyreport
6. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Its a manufactured crisis!
   
     ...  and the king is wearing beautiful clothes.

   replyreport
7. 93

   peeplesposted 5 years ago

   Regard for their lives? Regard for their children's lives. Because they don't fit into employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection as their option to come here? Because they don't know if they'll survive that year? Because they're tired of their sons being taken and made gang members? Because they're tired of their daughter's being raped? Because they don't have years to wait? Because there are no jobs to feed their families that aren't connected to a cartel in one way or another? Because they can't afford the "war tax"? Because the turf wars have literally destroyed their homes?
   The list is a mile long.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I am all for asylum seekers who fear for their lives being admitted. But anyone who doesn't see most of the single men as simply economic migrants isn't listening to those talking in the migrant camps.
      
      If we have to foot the bill for failed governments I'd like to see some sanctions against them to help foot the bill for services we provide their refugees.
      
      All open borders do is allow bad people to become worse in the countries people are fleeing from.

      replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think that is a very compassionate, and real-life list peeples, but, is that just an explanatory list, or your rational of why we should accept all comers?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 93

         peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I never said I think we should accept all of them. Though I do think women and children should get priority. These reasons are reason enough to at minimal consider how we can help instead of doing the "Us vs them" mentality. So I guess it is an explanatory list, because apparently people really don't understand what these people go through.
         If we can make enough funds available for a wall, surely we can have enough funds to simply better vet those coming in, hire more people to process them, streamline the process so they aren't waiting years, etc.
         If we have funds for a wall, for endless wars, for helping every other country on the planet, etc, then we have money to help our own, and those closer to home. Just think we could do with a bit more empathy lately.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Those are all good points Peeples, and ones I agree with. With a couple caveats, of course. ;-)
            
            I am sure most US citizens cannot empathize with the circumstances many of these folks are fleeing. I am also sure that most Americans would do the same thing for their families if the situation was reversed.
            
            But, reality demands there be limits. As for beefing-up our processing system by hiring more to do the work, surely that would help, but I don't think it would fix the problem.
            
            Consider an asylum interviewer's choices when an asylum-seeking mom shows up with no more 'evidence' than her story: The interviewer can believe her story or investigate her story.
            
            Imagine she is from a small village in a remote area of Honduras, then imagine she is only one of 1000 - this week. I don't think even 1000 investigators could complete their week's work before next week's 1000 shows up.
            
            My point being I think there is more involved than just beefing up process personnel.
            
            As for helping all the other countries on the planet, we have also tried to help the countries these South American immigrants are coming from. We have programs that are intended to help those countries become better and safer for their citizens.
            
            I agree, more empathy would help our understanding, but all the empathy in the world won't float a sinking lifeboat. And if the US isn't able to control its borders and  immigration process, that is what we would become - a sinking lifeboat.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               .... and  w h o  wants the lifeboat to SINK????

               replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   we either need a wall or not.
   which is it?
   
   we've got to decide so we can open up the U NO WHAT.

   replyreport
9. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   An open border with Mexico is particularly problematic.
   Is this a true statement or not?

   replyreport