Author Topic: Immigration reform - Amnesty bill (Read 18590 times)

Ironwolf · « **Reply #40 on:** July 08, 2013, 07:11:48 PM »

Isn't it odd that many on both sides feel the same way and yet they are powerless to chnage it?

I know Sarah Palin is seriously considering forming the Freedom party that returns to an originalist view - ignoring personal feelings on her love/hate it is a very good idea. It would cause ripples that would pull things back to the center of our opinions and not pass bills that have on 30% of the publics backing.

Some will jump now and say the original folks allowed slavery - they also allowed for a stable way for our country to learn and grow and abolish such issues. Voting rights for women, solved. Amendments allow us to fix a country gone down the wrong path and also repealing those that have gone to far. When the Victorian era over shot and passed Prohibition - it was corrected. Now we need more actual laws to enforce the checks and balances. Remember it says the President can be impeached for High Crimes - and Misdemeanors. So he was to uphold the laws.

Kyriani · « **Reply #41 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:23:57 PM »

Ironwolf · « **Reply #42 on:** July 09, 2013, 02:31:23 AM »

You may know I am not a christian, however having said that the American way was founded on a Judao-christian ethic. There is religion mentioned when it openly states all of our rights are god given. Our rights do not originate from the power of government but in the eyes of the founders - by virtue of us being alive and a citizen of this country that god saw fit to help establish.

There is much to honor in the true christian/jewish mindset. They do not judge you for not believing if they are real believers - they are sorry you don't know god's love. Some modern view points have gone to excess to battle what many see as the rapid decay of moral fibre in our country. The mindset of allowing no religion to reflect in peoples lives was also not the standing of the original documents. You could not work to establish a government ran central church like the Church of England they escaped from.

I don't feel put upon or threatened when folks want to pray. i quietly listen to they words and where we agree I add my positive thoughts. It really has been proven that the tidal forces of prayer have at times caused miracles. I can join the forces without directing mine the same way

Kyriani · « **Reply #43 on:** July 09, 2013, 03:22:21 AM »

FatherXmas · « **Reply #44 on:** July 09, 2013, 05:29:31 AM »

Well for the most part the founders were "enlightened" Christians, Deists who basically believed in one God, who created everything, who gave us reason and free will, and then sat back and watch what unfolds. Sort of the basis of "The Sims" without the bricking people into rooms or removing ladders from the pool and watch them die.

They believed that any religious text was imperfect, that organized religion is corrupt and imperfect due to them, like any organization, being run by men (as in mankind). And men are imperfect beings with agendas that may not be necessarily looking out for the good of all.

But there is still a chicken and the egg thing going on with the most basic rules of society. Did they come down from upon high first as some say or were they later attributed to a greater power as a means to encourage following them. You can't really have a stable community if murder, stealing and coveting each other's SOs isn't highly discouraged and what better discouragement than saying an all powerful entity says it's wrong, you will be punished if you do those things and you can't avoid punishment by simply dying. Fear of God(s) works most of the time.

There is also some truth about Judeo-Christian ethics since the vast majority of the existing population at the time of the founding, at least the ones that count (yes that is a reference to slavery), were from England or Europe which was Judeo-Christian for hundreds and hundreds of years. Certain "rules" of society had been collectively drilled into the societal psyche for countless generations until they were held as truths. And a lot of those "rules" were codified into laws and it's not like we started laws from scratch here when the country was founded, the founders brought them with them from the old world.

What the founders did try to do is to separate the governance of the people from future organized religious influence. The ye olde separation of Church and State. State can't interfere in organized religion while organized religion can't interfere with the State. But men are involved running the State and men bring their religious beliefs with them. Men are imperfect beings after all. Which is why the Supreme Court is suppose to be the final arbiter of laws by going back to the Constitution, which was suppose to be limiter of what the State is allowed to do.

Ironwolf · « **Reply #45 on:** July 09, 2013, 12:02:19 PM »

Segev · « **Reply #46 on:** July 09, 2013, 01:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Kyriani on July 08, 2013, 06:54:13 PM

I can't really disagree with alot of what you say. I just wanted it to be clear that it isnt one party or the other doing bad things. Both of them are and it sucks. I wish we could have a real third party that finally knocks the socks off of both reps and the dems and brings about a golden age in the United States.

Er, no. There were maybe 6 left-wing groups "targeted," and even that seems spurious on further investigation (as they all got their approvals, while the Tea Party groups did not). There were hundreds of Tea Party groups treated in this way, most of whom still haven't gotten approvals (and neither have they been rejected for being invalid; they're being held up with endless bureaucratic delays).

Don't get me wrong; I don't care for the so-called "leadership" of the Republican party in the current government. But to say "both sides do it" is not maturity; it is either willful blindness or out-right apologia for the Left. "Well, um, you did it, too!" is a school-yard attempt to justify bad behavior, not an actual statement of fact nor justification.

I don't trust the Republicans who run the party machine or who are in supposed positions of leadership; I don't doubt that more than a few of them are corrupt, but comparatively, that's not why I distrust them. I don't think they would, on their own, completely ignore the law with the only pretense to following it being saying "nuh uh! We're totally following it!" as they ignore it. I think, rather, they cannot lead, because they WANT the power of an unfettered government...they just lack the guts and audacity to act on it without the Democrats to give them cover by actually taking the lead on it.

I do think the Republican party is the best hope we have, but only if the leadership is more or less gutted and stronger souls are put in place to run the thing. Say what you like about "Tea Party Republican" members of the House and Senate; they do what they said they would (or they lose the support that put them there...and I suspect Rubio is going to no longer be quite so warmly received for just that reason). Regardless of who is right about where the country is and how to get us out of this mess, surely it is to everybody's best interest that the Republican party give up on trying to be Democrat-lite and get leadership that represents its base.

If the Left is right, and that spells the doom of the Republican party by "showing its true colors," then won't that be to the benefit of the nation as the Democrats absorb whatever moderates there are and are pulled towards fiscal responsibility while staying the course on the policies that - under the hypothesis that the Left is right about how things should be run - will save the country and make it greater than it ever has been?

If the Right is right, and a staunchly conservative and boldly unapologetic Republican party properly represents its base and the majority of American views on personal responsibility and hunger for equal and unfettered opportunity, would that not be best for the nation as that party swept into power and instituted policies that - under the hypothesis that the Right is right about how things should be run - will save the country and turn it loose to find the path that leads it towards further greatness?

I think the only people served by a Republican party led by weak-willed, mealy-mouthed, "moderate" RINO Republicans are the disingenuous who are only out for their own personal power. On the Left because they know it will create a weak opposition party that is perpetually defeatable and secure their power no matter what they do to the country in pursuit of their own philosophical goals and personal wealth and power. On the RINO side because they are clinging to power and a place in the ruling class that they couldn't hold if they were replaced by people who better represent their supposed constituents. Republican consultants make a lot of money selling the idea that moderates are where it's at, and it doesn't seem to matter whether the campaigns they run win or lose; they still get paid a ton of money. Republican "leaders" get invited to the right kind of parties when they kow-tow to the Left and compromise (which, I must say, I've yet to see the Left actually do: "compromise" always means "move towards the Left's position, which is declared to be already the moderate one," and no matter how far the Republicans go, if they don't just give in completely, they are "refusing to compromise").

So again, I think it is best for all honest seekers of America's best interests for the Republican party to truly represent the Right-wing base. The Democrats - if they're being honest about what they believe - should applaud such a self-destructive move, as it will destroy their opposition so they can get on with the business of running the country. The Right - if they're right about the true state of things - will finally have representation in the leadership of the nation that they haven't truly had in a quarter-century.

We'll see which is truly representative of the nation, and we'll get honest and open debate. Win-win for all honest men and women on both sides.

Ironwolf · « **Reply #47 on:** July 09, 2013, 01:44:33 PM »

Segev - you beat me to it - the IRS targetted at a ratio of roughly 100 to 1 - Tea party versus Liberal groups. The IRS openly apologized and the White House admitted it was done and said it was not right.

So far only 6 Liberal groups were kown to have been asked extra questions. This when about 600 tea Party groups were targetted. Also the FBI under Holder's direction has not asked a single Tea Party group what happened. They were told to investigate. They are not because it leads back to the White House.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #48 on:** July 09, 2013, 02:58:18 PM »

Can we steer this back to Immigration reform.

I would like to point out that Europe and Asia strictly enforce their immigration laws and illegal immigration is treated harshly including imprisonment followed by deportation.

The problem we have is at our core we are a country of immigrants. And while our nation was growing we really didn't mind taking to many in of those fleeing Europe. Back then we needed lots of strong bodies to help develop this country. Problem now is we aren't growing anymore where it counts, and that's financially. As long as the GDP was growing faster than inflation, sure more the merrier, but now that our economy has stalled out, more people means everyone's slice is smaller.

And that's the fear about amnesty. If we offer amnesty and an alternate way to get your green card or citizenship then why would anyone want to follow the proper procedure? We'll end up with a situation like AE in CoH. AE was an alternate means to achieve the same goals as if you played the regular game content. So a lot of people simply choose that as the easiest way to level up their character. We have this tendency to grant amnesty every 30 years or so and every time was the very last time we will bend the rules so why not assume we'll be doing this again in another 30 years? If we have amnesty we need enforcement with teeth and the manpower and willpower to do it. It's just we aren't willing to really do enforcement because that's where most of the costs are involved.

Nos482 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 09, 2013, 03:28:16 PM »

Quote from: silvers1 on June 28, 2013, 11:47:35 AM

Cost - healthcare for these people is already bankrupting us. If all of them come out of the shadows, in combination with Obamacare, the
cost will be staggering. The economy cant take it.

LOLWUT?
Wars and Wallstreet banksters have bankrupted you.

Quote

5. Balance of Political Parties - as of now, we have a stalemate between the two political parties. I'd like to keep it that way.
If you give voting rights to all of these "immigrants", lets face it, they're voting Democrat. That stalemate will be broken forever,
and the Dems will have complete control - forever. While I'm sure Dems would love that, I dont think it's healthy for the country to give one
party that amount of power. Just look at the level of corruption in the NSA and IRS, and that's just from 5 years of control.

Actually you live in a one party system. What's the biggest difference between Bush's and Obama's administration?
Umm....healthcare maybe. But besides that it's the same stuff, and I highly doubt it will change when the Republicans get back to power...but maybe it will get worse.
NSA, IRS and the other three letter groups have always been bastards...it's their fricking job. They just become more corrupt the more power they get; and with all those Stasi laws you have right now that's a lot of power for them.

@Joshex
Just marry her.
Her parents will either accept it or they already hate you. In which case they'll never give their OK.

dwturducken · « **Reply #50 on:** July 09, 2013, 06:52:29 PM »

Quote from: Ironwolf on July 09, 2013, 12:02:19 PM

Declaration of Independance:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_Independence

I am really at a loss when someone can ignore that those who wrote this document were almost to a man well known as christians and the words of the Declaration of Independance follow those in the Bill of rights very closely.

I'm really getting tired of seeing this misconception tossed around as "proof," and it's not an aspersion on you, Wolfie. I see it frequently on both sides of the argument, at all levels of education.

The Declaration of Independence is not a document of governance. It is a list of grievances, an open letter to the editor, so to speak. Yes, there is a lot in the Bill of Rights that parallels those same grievances, but the English Magna Carta had more actual influence on the drafting of the Constitution than the Declaration of Independence did. True, as you say, the Constitution was drafted and passed by a bunch of white, Christian men. However, like the Bible, there are some things that have not carried forward with the times as well as some would have hoped, like anything in either document dealing with the regulation (not the abolition) of slavery.

I'm not taking sides in this, and I'm not even sure why I'm reading it, let alone commenting on it. Carry on.

Rust · « **Reply #51 on:** July 09, 2013, 08:06:37 PM »

Quote from: dwturducken on July 09, 2013, 06:52:29 PM

like anything in either document dealing with the regulation (not the abolition) of slavery.

Ironically for the very reason Immigration Reform is often dodged around - Economic. Immigrant workers are the backbone of the economy, especially agriculture.

Ever buy meat under the Tyson Brand? The Processing Centers for Tyson operate at speeds in excess to what mechanization could achieve, and they slow for No Man.

Like Spinach? Savor the flavor while reminding yourself that what you spend 30 seconds consuming was hand picked in the field by a man who spends nine hours a day on his knees.

It's not that mechanization and more efficient methods don't exist - it's that there's no reason to implement mechanization when you have cheap, ultimately disposable labor at your beck and call. A lot of people who come in to my place of business are hispanics about my age, but are using canes, walkers, and wheelchairs. They've literally destroyed their bodies working.

Joshex · « **Reply #52 on:** July 09, 2013, 08:42:26 PM »

As always I try to solve my own problems, so I wrote a short bill of reforms.

as with alot of my works it is a rough draft.

you may be able to tell why I would suggest these reforms.

Spoiler for Hidden:

bassically; let them in, let them protect our borders, they can't vote or claim benefits until they are Full citizens However they must still pay taxes and social security (help recharge the declining social security funds the government had illegally dipped into.) by allowing everyone in only the undesireables will be crossing at illigitimate points of entry hence treating them as terrorists unless they can provide documents of residence (for emergencies), jail them in thier own country if they are found guilty of crimes (to encourage them to be crime free and to unburden american jails from having to deal with them.

Border Control Duty INSTEAD of Jury Duty

Kids of these must be paid for to discourage large foriegn families trying to unload kids into our public education system. and especially to discourage overpopulation from foriegners.

they can't be criminals or have ties to a foriegn government or cult or violent organization.

they can't be carrying diseases.

Segev · « **Reply #53 on:** July 09, 2013, 09:19:32 PM »

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No, the proper procedure is to secure our border, ourselves, have a strict deportation policy for any illegals caught committing crimes (and yes, being here illegally is a crime, but we can prioritize with those we catch because they're committing other crimes that actually draw attention through their criminal activity), crack down on employers who employ them (but give them a fair chance to prove they did all they could to verify and were fooled; we're after justice and encouragement of good behavior, not punitive measures for the sake of being "tough").

We then, in separate legislation, after this is enacted and being executed, work on reforming our legal immigration laws to use modern technology and techniques geared for modern needs.

Honestly, we would be better off with legislation designed to protect the rights of LEGAL immigrants ALREADY HERE against the exploitation and harm caused by their illegal counterparts; it devalues the legal immigrants' efforts to be here legally, and it actively foments distrust of immigrants to have this horrid conflation of legal and illegal immigration in the language of the discussion.

We should be lauding our legal immigrants, and working with them to identify the illegals and prevent them from taking the legals' opportunities.

Rust · « **Reply #54 on:** July 09, 2013, 10:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Segev on July 09, 2013, 09:19:32 PM

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No different then hiring illegal immigrants to build a border fence. No, seriously.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #55 on:** July 09, 2013, 11:06:11 PM »

Quote from: Joshex on July 09, 2013, 08:42:26 PM

As always I try to solve my own problems, so I wrote a short bill of reforms.

as with alot of my works it is a rough draft.

you may be able to tell why I would suggest these reforms.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Immigration Reform (Short Bill)

For the consideration of the house of representatives, the president and the senate.

I: First and foremost we must address border security, Desire to live here, Respect for USA culture and Loyalty.

Ia: Border security; Currently we have insufficient units in place to moderate our borders against potentially harmful persons. This will be addressed in the following articles.

II: Desire to live here; there is a distinct desire of persons in other countries to come and reside in the USA. This aspect of 'Hopes of Freedom' could very well influx our country with too many people to the point of over population bringing disease and other things with it. This is a serious concern as it could lead to citizen deaths from multiple sources including being pushed out of work.

IIa: Desire and border security; to be able to combine these two would be preferential.
IIb: Open the borders on a conditional basis; Foreigners can come here with pseudo-citizen status under the following conditions;
1: They are not listed as a Terrorist or violent member of a gang or violent cult or potentially violent religion.
2: There is no known record of them breaking US laws in their previous country of residence or in the United States prior to their official admission.
3: They contain no infectious diseases, STD or otherwise.
4: this admission does not constitute full citizenship, admission in this state disables the person(s) from receiving disability, welfare, public assistance and social security. In addition any and all gambling, sweepstakes, game-show and lottery winnings will be forfeited unless the persons obtain legal permission to accept such prizes.
5: They will be legally allowed and given identification documents to Work or gain employment in the United States as long as all other provisions of this document continue to be met., they must still agree to pay taxes.
6: While in the United States these persons can apply for citizenship; this citizenship will be admitted on the basis of their country's yearly allowance and all normal legal citizenship considerations by the United States Government.
7: while under the provisions of this document persons may be selected for mandatory Border Control Duty for which they will be compensated at a adequate rate. At any time individuals in these conditions may make provisions to stay employed in this position indefinitely.
8: persons under this provision may not join the armed forces or military other than the coast guard and border patrol.
9: persons under this provision are required to send their kids to school for which they are legally forced to pay a fee of $200 per child per year unless they are married to a USA citizen.
10: these persons children who are born in the united states will not be considered USA citizens from birth, but rather citizens of their parent's country.

III: loyalty
1: loyalty must be proven through a legal signing of documents and an oath by the person(s) immigrating indicating that they will refrain from taking back or sending more that 10% of their earnings to their country of origin each year. The documents must be explained to them in their own language and the oath must be given in English by them or a person legally authorized to translate for them.

2: persons immigrating in this manner must sever ties with any foreign government positions or organizations they formerly were in proceedings with unless they were a violator of that government's laws at which point their will be handed back over to their country of origin.

IV: Respect
1: Person(s) immigrating through any immigration program must willfully acknowledge through oath and signing of documents in a manner they can understand, that they are no longer in their old country and it is forbidden for them to vote or cast their ideologies, religion or culture onto the persons of this country, in addition they must respect that the official language of this country is English, as such there is no legal method for them to file lawsuit based on lack of compensation for their own language.

2: The moment they are caught offending a USA law or the articles of this document they will be treated as a foreign criminal and their immigration rights may be revoked and they may be deported.

3: Persons caught crossing the border at illegitimate points of entry will be considered and treated as terrorists until proven otherwise by official immigration or USA identification documents.

4: Immigrated Violators of our laws will be prosecuted and jailed in their country of origin.

bassically; let them in, let them protect our borders, they can't vote or claim benefits until they are Full citizens However they must still pay taxes and social security (help recharge the declining social security funds the government had illegally dipped into.) by allowing everyone in only the undesireables will be crossing at illigitimate points of entry hence treating them as terrorists unless they can provide documents of residence (for emergencies), jail them in thier own country if they are found guilty of crimes (to encourage them to be crime free and to unburden american jails from having to deal with them.

Border Control Duty INSTEAD of Jury Duty

Kids of these must be paid for to discourage large foriegn families trying to unload kids into our public education system. and especially to discourage overpopulation from foriegners.

they can't be criminals or have ties to a foriegn government or cult or violent organization.

they can't be carrying diseases.

Ah no. Border control is just another example of security theater, like the TSA. You can't defend the US border it's too darn big. What you can do is enforce existing laws dealing with work permits/green cards and harshly punish companies who are repeat offenders in terms of hiring the undocumented. This goes with individuals as well who hire undocumented as household staff. Besides helping to eliminate one of the main reasons to cross the border it also helps to eliminate the kind of exploitation that happens with undocumented workers.

Actually point those who have exceeded their visa stay by more than, say 6 months, and tag them in the various criminal databases like they do bail jumpers and court skippers. Find these people and force them to either reapply, seek citizenship or leave.

Joshex · « **Reply #56 on:** July 10, 2013, 12:29:48 AM »

Quote from: Segev on July 09, 2013, 09:19:32 PM

Er, isn't putting "open" immigrants on the border to guard it kind of like having the foxes guard the hen-house?

No, the proper procedure is to secure our border, ourselves, have a strict deportation policy for any illegals caught committing crimes (and yes, being here illegally is a crime, but we can prioritize with those we catch because they're committing other crimes that actually draw attention through their criminal activity), crack down on employers who employ them (but give them a fair chance to prove they did all they could to verify and were fooled; we're after justice and encouragement of good behavior, not punitive measures for the sake of being "tough").

We then, in separate legislation, after this is enacted and being executed, work on reforming our legal immigration laws to use modern technology and techniques geared for modern needs.

Honestly, we would be better off with legislation designed to protect the rights of LEGAL immigrants ALREADY HERE against the exploitation and harm caused by their illegal counterparts; it devalues the legal immigrants' efforts to be here legally, and it actively foments distrust of immigrants to have this horrid conflation of legal and illegal immigration in the language of the discussion.

We should be lauding our legal immigrants, and working with them to identify the illegals and prevent them from taking the legals' opportunities.

it's one of those instances of "do you like this country? then prove your loyalty. " by the way the immigrants wont be the only ones there they will be watched by a government overseer. so if they don't do the job right they'll be reported and they will breach the loyalty article of the immigration reform.

Tahliah · « **Reply #57 on:** July 10, 2013, 04:14:25 AM »

FatherXmas · « **Reply #58 on:** July 10, 2013, 08:08:46 AM »

So say we all.

Segev · « **Reply #59 on:** July 10, 2013, 12:32:54 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on July 10, 2013, 08:08:46 AM

So say we all.

Sadly, perhaps not "we all," but the freedom to disagree openly is a freedom. It doesn't make disagreement correct, but it's a right we must protect by our own standards.

However, for me, personally, I can at least say, "Hear here."

News:

Author Topic: Immigration reform - Amnesty bill (Read 18590 times)