Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

The Best Immigration PolicyFollow

#1 Jul 07 2014 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
In the midst of what some are calling an immigration crisis with thousands of unaccompanied youths showing up at the border, our law-makers are, again, not going to act on immigration reform. That doesn't mean we can't second-guess their unlaid plans

From completely closed to completely open, where is best place to split the lines of immigrants being allowed, disallowed, regulated or financially supported?

Keep in mind that the population growth by birth in the US has pretty much plateaued and even has been decreasing. Fertility rates are down to about 1.87 babes/woman.

The Congressional Budget Office put out a report that claims the Senate Immigration Reform Bill (The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) could reduce the federal deficit by a couple hundred-billion over the next decade.
Quote:
The legislation would increase spending while increasing tax revenue even more, thus yielding overall budgetary savings and smaller deficits. The higher spending would largely go toward refundable tax credits and health care for new residents, while the increased revenue would result from a substantially larger workforce. According to the CBO, immigration reform would grow the population by 10.4 million people by 2023, with 6 million of those new residents participating in the labor force. Those new workers would pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as well as contribute to general income taxes.


Of course that's assuming you can create jobs for the additional 6mil peeps. I'm not sure that will happen within the current economic climate of the country. Still, not being able to employ peeps is not an immigration problem, it's an economic problem.

I hear there's another government shut down being tossed around - go go Congressional Gridlock.




Edited, Jul 7th 2014 8:50pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Jul 07 2014 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
A substantially larger workforce currently means people will have to go further down the street to get a better job in the mines.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 07 2014 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
A substantially larger workforce currently means people will have to go further down the street to get a better job in the mines.

They could mend our broken bridges, both literally and figuratively. But bridge-mending money has stalled.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Jul 07 2014 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,595 posts
The legislation would increase spending while increasing tax revenue even more

Mathematically impossible! Everyone knows the only way to increase tax revenue is to cut taxes.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Jul 07 2014 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,054 posts
I think the best policy is to close off entirely. Like a dome. Complete isolation; we can learn to survive on our own resources and let the rest of the world fuck itself to death.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Jul 07 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Elinda wrote:
In the midst of what some are calling an immigration crisis with thousands of unaccompanied youths showing up at the border, our law-makers are, again, not going to act on immigration reform. That doesn't mean we can't second-guess their unlaid plans


Honestly though, while we can (and should) discuss immigration reform ideas, these should be disconnected from the current "crisis" involving minors arriving at our borders in unprecedented numbers. That is the direct result of Obama's DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The problem is that Obama advertised (loudly even) to the world that illegal immigrant minors would not be deported from the US. Not a surprise to anyone with a brain what would happen.

Addressing that crisis needs to start with reversing that decision. To his credit, Obama has made a few public statements to try to send the message that this isn't really a free ride, and minors should not attempt to use the program in this way, but the damage is still largely done. Also, to my knowledge, while he's made those public statements, he hasn't actually changed the policy. So you kinda can't blame these kids (their parents really) for showing up unattended in record numbers. While it's not a fast pass to citizenship, by not being deported, it puts their foot in the door for themselves and the rest of their family down the line.

Start there first IMO. Then we can get back to looking at broader immigration reform. I just don't think that we should be allowing a crisis to influence how we approach something that this large in scope.

Quote:
From completely closed to completely open, where is best place to split the lines of immigrants being allowed, disallowed, regulated or financially supported?


There's a whole bunch of different aspects of the larger issue of immigration reform. I personally am in favor of some kind of guest worker visa program, designed to address the illegal immigrant aspect of the issue. Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the political aisle who don't want this solution, so it's an uphill battle at best.

Um... And having said that myself, I'll also point out that there really are more than just two "sides" to this issue. It's a lot more complicated and has a lot of different aspects.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jul 07 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Also, to my knowledge, while he's made those public statements, he hasn't actually changed the policy.

Nor should he. It's good policy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jul 07 2014 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Also, to my knowledge, while he's made those public statements, he hasn't actually changed the policy.

Nor should he. It's good policy.


Then don't call a hundred thousand unaccompanied minors showing up at our borders a crisis. It's Obama's policy "working as intended", right?

Edited, Jul 7th 2014 4:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jul 07 2014 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Working as intended? Well, it is for the people it's intended to assist. As for this supposed consequence, it should be addressed but it doesn't make DACA poor policy nor should DACA be ended because of it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Jul 07 2014 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Working as intended? Well, it is for the people it's intended to assist. As for this supposed consequence, it should be addressed but it doesn't make DACA poor policy nor should DACA be ended because of it.


It's an unavoidable consequence of the policy. If you advertise a free ice cream stand, you should not be shocked when people line up to get free ice cream. WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jul 07 2014 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, if that's your best understanding of it then I guess we're done here Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jul 07 2014 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, if that's your best understanding of it then I guess we're done here Smiley: laugh


How about you show some understanding of the policy yourself and make an attempt to counter what I said? Yeah. Crazy idea. I know.

How exactly do you suppose that a policy that says that we will not deport minors here illegally isn't responsible for the massive increase in unaccompanied minors we're experiencing? There's a pretty clear cause and effect relationship here. Now, if you're fine with that consequence, then say you're fine with it. But ignoring that consequence or claiming that it isn't really a consequence of the policy at all is just burying your head in the sand.


Why do you suppose the number of unaccompanied minors has increased so dramatically (like an order of magnitude increase)? It just randomly happened? That's crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jul 07 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How about you show some understanding of the policy yourself and make an attempt to counter what I said? Yeah. Crazy idea. I know.

Because you didn't say anything showing any understanding to counter. I'm really supposed to debate how it's not like free ice cream?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Jul 07 2014 at 6:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,078 posts
Obama care is like free ice cream. Everybody loves ice cream.

Check, and mate.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#15 Jul 07 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about you show some understanding of the policy yourself and make an attempt to counter what I said? Yeah. Crazy idea. I know.

Because you didn't say anything showing any understanding to counter. I'm really supposed to debate how it's not like free ice cream?


No. Debate how it's not an advertisement saying "send your children to the US and we wont deport them". Cause... wait for it... that's exactly what the **** policy is. How can you be surprised when people send their children to the US?

If you disagree that this is what the policy is, or you disagree that this is how people outside the US might respond to that policy, then by all means attempt to make those claims and defend them. But you're just saying "that's not it" over and over and refusing to say what "it" is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jul 07 2014 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. Debate how it's not an advertisement saying "send your children to the US and we wont deport them".

Oh. Well, probably because the policy only applies to children who have been continuously in the US since 2007 so anyone showing up now is about seven years too late. That was easy!
Quote:
Cause... wait for it... that's exactly what the **** policy is.

Right. If you know nothing more about the policy than little soundbites someone told you like "It's like free ice cream!" then this is probably what you think. Now that we know that neither Guatemalan parents nor conservative tools know how to use Google, I think we've identified a big part of the problem. Hint: It's not with the policy itself but rather with the ignorant who make assumptions about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Jul 08 2014 at 5:46 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,595 posts
Not a surprise to anyone with a brain what would happen.

Were you excited to be so surprised? I bet that was super fun!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Jul 08 2014 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
I think one would rather not conjure up an image of an excited gbaji.

Here's a thrill....


Edited, Jul 8th 2014 2:54pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#19 Jul 08 2014 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I don't get it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#20 Jul 08 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Obama care is like free ice cream. Everybody loves ice cream.
Obamacare is like green eggs and ham.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Jul 08 2014 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Elinda wrote:
From completely closed to completely open, where is best place to split the lines of immigrants being allowed, disallowed, regulated or financially supported?
In a perfect world we'd have a more open immigration problem and work to solve the instability in Central America that's driving people to risk their lives to come here.

In reality we have no appetite for foreign intervention right now, and its doubtful we'd really solve any problems by getting involved anyway. The best we could probably hope for is turning a couple of countries into corrupted military states dependent on foreign aid. Maybe we could get them to implement some strong border security around their lands making them a road block to Northward migration. That would help alleviate some of the problem at least, and would keep us from having to deal with the problem ourselves.

I mean we could deploy the military all along the border and shoot lots of people, but that has political problems written all over it. Our people would feel bad, Mexico would throw a hissy fit, and the bleeding hearts all over the world would campaign against us killing innocent people who are just struggling to stay alive. It seems there's not really a good solution in the end of course, which I imagine is why no one actually does anything about it.

I say we welcome everyone who wants in, and then move to Canada.


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#22 Jul 08 2014 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's really no "fixing" the problems in Central and South America from an external sense. The primary problem is government corruption which is surprisingly difficult to fix with F-22s.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jul 08 2014 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Which is why we have to use the corruption to our benefit. Prop up some Saddam Hussein like person to act as a buffer, and then dispose of him once he gets uppity. Shame there's not more oil in the region. We need something to help fund this endeavor. Is there anything in Guatemala we can exploit?

This has worked in Central America before right? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jul 8th 2014 9:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 Jul 08 2014 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
We need something to help fund this endeavor. Is there anything in Guatemala we can exploit?

Bananas and coffee are the traditional choices. Worked in 1899, no reason it couldn't work today.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jul 08 2014 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
Cocaine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Jul 08 2014 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
We need something to help fund this endeavor. Is there anything in Guatemala we can exploit?

Bananas and coffee are the traditional choices. Worked in 1899, no reason it couldn't work today.
Coffee could work, people like to buy overpriced drinks. Do you think Starbucks would be on board with it? Maybe them and Dunkin could carve out regions of influence, or we could give Tim Horton a token chunk of land and call it a NATO intervention.

Anyway I thought cocaine was more of a South American thing?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#27 Jul 08 2014 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All brown people look alike to Lolgaxe.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jul 08 2014 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
There was a seizure of an 1,800-acre poppy plantation in Guatemala recently, and for a while there has been an estimated of 400+ tons of cocaine per year trafficked through the region by the various cartels.

Your drug news is outdated, crackahs.

edit: I really need to proof read some days.

Edited, Jul 8th 2014 12:48pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Jul 08 2014 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
That's the hip thing these days. You're out of touch with the whole war on drugs, it's unnecessary, ineffective, and just an excuse conservatives use to keep you from getting legal pot.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Jul 08 2014 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Through the region, sure. I don't think it's originating there but rather is just real estate between the US and Colombia, Ecuador, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Jul 08 2014 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
It's starting to originate there. Cheaper transportation costs, I imagine
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Jul 08 2014 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
I suggest we just keep taking in all their teens that show up at our door yard. Give them some cool tennis shoes a college education and an Obama phone. We can create and retain the next wave of young problem-solvers.

In a decade or so the drug lords will have no minions and the politicians no one to corrupt while we're busy enjoying self-powered cars, vacations to Mars and all the clean energy we can handle.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#33 Jul 08 2014 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,595 posts
The primary problem is government corruption

Yeah, what a bizarre coincidence, that they ended up with corrupt government infrastructures. It's almost as if some regional power worked tirelessly to undermine any efforts at self determination or empowerment instead replacing it with puppet regimes. Almost. Of course we all know it's because those hot head latinos are so impulsive! ¡Ay, caramba!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Jul 08 2014 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
The primary problem is government corruption
Yeah, what a bizarre coincidence, that they ended up with corrupt government infrastructures.

Simmer down, Justice Warrior. I never said it was "their fault" but, regardless of the origin (European influence then US influence) the current primary issue is corrupt governments.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jul 08 2014 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. Debate how it's not an advertisement saying "send your children to the US and we wont deport them".

Oh. Well, probably because the policy only applies to children who have been continuously in the US since 2007 so anyone showing up now is about seven years too late. That was easy!


Except that it send the message that if you come here illegally, at some point in the future you'll be rewarded just like those who were here illegally between 2007 and 2012. That's the point of this. You've just rewarded the last set of illegal minors by granting them special status. This is going to act as an incentive for the next batch of illegal minors to come to the US in the expectation that they'll get the same thing. It doesn't matter that *this* act doesn't directly give them those benefits. It tells them that the next round will.

Um... Also, you have to realize that the language the president used while arguing for DACA (and a DREAM Act) certainly encouraged this idea

Obama wrote:
Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.


Realize that while this was in the context of the DREAM Act (and an addendum to DACA IIRC), no where in this statement does he say what the requirements are *except* to be a minor in the US illegally. The point is that the president has on multiple occasions made very very broad statements about deportation of minors which, in the absence of actually reading the laws in question, would be assumed to mean that he's not deporting minors. This is why we're seeing such a massive increase in unaccompanied minors on our borders. It would be beyond coincidence to even suggest some other reason.


Quote:
Quote:
Cause... wait for it... that's exactly what the **** policy is.

Right. If you know nothing more about the policy than little soundbites someone told you like "It's like free ice cream!" then this is probably what you think. Now that we know that neither Guatemalan parents nor conservative tools know how to use Google, I think we've identified a big part of the problem. Hint: It's not with the policy itself but rather with the ignorant who make assumptions about it.


The policy is about rewarding illegals who arrived here as minors and have lived in the US otherwise legally since then. It's going to act as an incentive for the next group of illegal minors. How can it not?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jul 08 2014 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
Hey, Brazil is here, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Jul 08 2014 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. Debate how it's not an advertisement saying "send your children to the US and we wont deport them".

Oh. Well, probably because the policy only applies to children who have been continuously in the US since 2007 so anyone showing up now is about seven years too late. That was easy!

Except that it send the message that if you come here illegally...

The policy pertains to people here prior to 2007. Now if you need to take that and start some extrapolations to justify your hissy-fit then God knows I can't stop you. But, no, the DACA policy is not to blame here. If you wanted to argue that uninformed misconceptions about the policy are to blame, that might be true. The answer then is to address those misconceptions, not to trash a good policy just because some people fail to understand it.

Going back to your ice cream analogy, what you're arguing here is that if I throw a birthday party for my kid and invite ten of his friends and then ten more kids from the neighborhood show up and say "Hey, free ice cream", the only logical course of action is to stop having birthday parties. Not to send the kids away, not to contact their parents and let them know, not to put up a sign or anything else just "Oh shit, extra kids. Well, no more birthday parties because that's the only answer I have".

Edited, Jul 8th 2014 6:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Jul 08 2014 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,967 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. Debate how it's not an advertisement saying "send your children to the US and we wont deport them".

Oh. Well, probably because the policy only applies to children who have been continuously in the US since 2007 so anyone showing up now is about seven years too late. That was easy!

Except that it send the message that if you come here illegally...

The policy pertains to people here prior to 2007.


The "policy" is that we grant amnesty to anyone who came here as a minor and has lived here for X number of years without committing a felony or major misdemeanor. The specifics of this one instance of that policy reflect years between 2007 and 2012. But when you couple that with a number of Obama speeches calling for an extension of this program, and passage of a DREAM Act (which would also make this sort of thing ongoing), and it's not hard to figure out why unaccompanied minors are showing up in droves. They all want to get here before the next cut off happens.

You can't possibly actually not be able to see this.

Quote:
Going back to your ice cream analogy, what you're arguing here is that if I throw a birthday party for my kid and invite ten of his friends, and then 10 more kids show up uninvited, so I decide to give them ice cream, and then ten more kids from the neighborhood show up and say "Hey, free ice cream", the only logical course of action is to stop having birthday parties.


Made some slight alterations to your analogy.

Do you see how no one would be stupid enough to fail to realize that the second group of 10 uninvited kids showed up because you gave ice cream to the first 10 who were uninvited but received ice cream anyway? That's what's going on here. And no, I'm not saying you must stop having birthday parties, but that the correct action was to not give ice cream to the first 10 kids who showed up uninvited. Not because you're cruel or mean or anything, but because you're smart enough to realize that unless you have enough ice cream for every kid in town, you have to create a cut off somewhere, and to be arbitrary about it is far more cruel than just sticking to a fixed "if you weren't invited you don't get ice cream" rule.

What Obama is doing is saying that the rules say one thing, but he's going to bend them, just for the set of kids that are right in front of him. What this does is tell every other kid that if they put themselves in that position of being right in front of him, he'll make the same decision for them as well. What's cruel about this is that in order to put themselves in front of Obama to receive his benevolent rule bending, they have to risk their lives first. So by doing that, Obama is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to put their lives at risk. And we only have data on the number who have arrived and sought out asylum (which is about 50k so far this year and expected to hit 100k by years end). We have no way of knowing how many minors have died, or been captured, sold into slavery and prostitution, or any of a number of horrible fates while seeking Obama's rule bending.


That's why you don't freaking do that in the first place.


EDIT: Oh. And to make the ice cream analogy numbers more accurate, it's more like 1 kid showed up uninvited, and you gave him free ice cream, cause it's just one kid. Then 10 more kids showed up seeking free ice cream. And now you've got a problem. Before you would have just inconvenienced the one kid who showed up and was turned away without ice cream and ended the whole thing. Now there's 10 times more kids who will have wasted a trip if you turn them away. But... if you give them all ice cream, how many kids will show up next? The scary thing is that I can guarantee you that right now the Obama team is trying to figure out how to grant amnesty to the minors who've shown up. They don't want to appear to be mean by deporting them. But if they don't? We're going to see this sort of crisis happening more often and in greater numbers. And the cost in lives will be that much greater as well. He's not helping by trying to be nice about this.

Edited, Jul 8th 2014 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jul 08 2014 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The "policy" is that we grant amnesty...

Oh, so we're talking about imaginary policies and stuff and not the real things put into effect. Well, I thought maybe you wanted to actually discuss it but I see I was wrong.

Quote:
Made some slight alterations to your analogy.

No, it was already accurate. I mean, it wasn't accurate for your imaginary policies where you just make shit up and throw a temper tantrum about it. But for the real world with real things? Yeah, it was already spot on.

Anyway, if you ever want to grow up and talk about things happening instead of things you wish were happening, let me know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Jul 09 2014 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
gbaji wrote:
Made some slight alterations to your analogy.
You should start by making sure your own analogies aren't moronic before pretending to be capable of altering other people's.
gbaji wrote:
We have no way of knowing how many minors have died, or been captured, sold into slavery and prostitution, or any of a number of horrible fates while seeking Obama's rule bending.
I guess citing potentially captured, slave, prostitute, and/or dead children isn't considered an emotional argument when you do it.

I'd make fun of your edit, but it was just you repeating your original "slight alteration," to fluff your word count and didn't add anything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jul 09 2014 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We have no way of knowing how many minors have been [terrible thing] because our broken immigration system keeps them in messed up countries or because they're mistreated in the US but can't seek help due to their immigration status.

Appeal to Emotion! I win!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jul 09 2014 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
gbaji wrote:

The policy is about rewarding illegals who arrived here as minors and have lived in the US otherwise legally since then. It's going to act as an incentive for the next group of illegal minors. How can it not?

The US is not a magnet. These kids aren't being 'drawn' here. They're fleeing violence and poverty.

Pull your head out of your self-preserving gernbogatorish for once.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#43 Jul 09 2014 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but every dollar we spend on these kids to keep them from starving or whatever is a dollar not being put into Gbaji's pocket by dint of his hard work and stuff 'cause the government is spending it. Honduran moocher children are bleeding Gbaji dry!

That's what this really comes down to, isn't it? Children escaping poverty is all well and good until it starts to cost someone money and then they just become a burden that should stay home?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Jul 09 2014 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
******
44,535 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but every dollar we spend on these kids to keep them from starving or whatever is a dollar not being put into Gbaji's pocket by dint of his hard work and stuff 'cause the government is spending it.
Don't forget the countless gorillians of children that suffer from [random appeals to emotional] because of it!

Edited, Jul 9th 2014 10:40am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Jul 09 2014 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
And no, I'm not saying you must stop having birthday parties, but that the correct action was to not give ice cream to the first 10 kids who showed up uninvited. Not because you're cruel or mean or anything, but because you're smart enough to realize that unless you have enough ice cream for every kid in town, you have to create a cut off somewhere, and to be arbitrary about it is far more cruel than just sticking to a fixed "if you weren't invited you don't get ice cream" rule.
Why not stop when you run out of ice cream? I mean if you don't it'll just sit in the back of the freezer for 2 months until you throw out the half-eaten container anyway.

gbaji wrote:
We have no way of knowing how many minors have died, or been captured, sold into slavery and prostitution, or any of a number of horrible fates while seeking Obama's rule bending.
I think Elinda summed this up nicely:

Elinda wrote:
The US is not a magnet. These kids aren't being 'drawn' here. They're fleeing violence and poverty.
Which is really the problem. The whole death, slavery, etc thing is basically their existence back home. If we want to keep them from trying to get here we'd have to make the U.S. suck to a similar degree, so that it wouldn't be worth the journey. I'd prefer not to do that. The only difference you see now is they're showing up at a border station instead of wandering through the desert, it's bringing a hidden problem to light. Short of shooting anyone who shows up at the border there's not really much you can do that will deter people significantly.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#46 Jul 09 2014 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,340 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean if you don't it'll just sit in the back of the freezer for 2 months until you throw out the half-eaten container anyway.

In what crazy world do you live in where ice cream goes uneaten and gets thrown out?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#47 Jul 09 2014 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, when WE traveled thousands of miles to escape persecution and seek opportunity, it was just a bunch of dumb-*** Indians here so it was commendable and something for the history books. When they travel thousands of miles to escape persecution and seek opportunity, they're terribly inconvenient for us. So couldn't they just stay home?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jul 09 2014 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean if you don't it'll just sit in the back of the freezer for 2 months until you throw out the half-eaten container anyway.

In what crazy world do you live in where ice cream goes uneaten and gets thrown out?
The kind of world where the flavor you bought for the kid's party isn't one that you'd touch with a 10ft pole. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Jul 09 2014 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
The kind of world where the flavor you bought for the kid's party isn't one that you'd touch with a 10ft pole. Smiley: lol

Who wants ice cream!? We have chocolate, strawberry, and beef flavored.

Edited, Jul 9th 2014 10:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Jul 09 2014 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,535 posts
Mmmm, Hog'n'daaz.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Jul 09 2014 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,863 posts
Looks like the only humanitarian thing to do is going to require that we spend money. We can either help the children fleeing violence here, or in their own countries. Since most of our attempts at trying to make changes in other countries fail unless the majority rise up first to make change possible, the money would be better spent in welcoming the children here, giving them an education and hope that when they grow up they will go back and create better conditions for further children.

Of course the GOP seem to get all prissy, whenever the right thing means spending money on people that don't look like them.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 30 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Bijou, Iamadam, LordMagius, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (25)