Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Soxbadger]

1) Then do it. There's nothing stopping them. "Well officer, I mean I wanted to follow the speed limit, but it's so much faster to get to my destination going 150mph than 65mph..." Oh, ok. That's acceptable!

 

2) And yes, I'm arguing there were not as many benefits because people didn't EXPECT those benefits like they do today. That fundamentally changes the entire argument. And of course we're ignoring the main reason we had such an open door policy - a vast wild west that needed to be populated.

 

And again, no one is claiming that LEGAL immigration is a bad thing, so i'm not sure why you keep saying what the benefits of LEGAL immigration are. I agree with you. 3) What I don't agree with is just unilaterally declaring illegal aliens legal. That's condoning legal behavior. That's giving a big stink finger to everyone else who did things the right way and worked hard to get here. Alphadog made a good point about that that no one has addressed yet.

 

Ill break down your points because I think you raise some of the classic arguments, and I want to go through them.

 

1) There is nothing stopping them. That is not true, there is bureaucracy stopping them, there are immigration quotas stopping them.

 

The better example is:

 

"Well officer I wasnt following the speed limit because Toyota only could make a speedometer for every other car, and my car didnt come with one, so I had no idea what the speed limit was. When I went to the store to buy a speedometer, they said that even though they had plenty of them, they legally couldnt sell it to me because they already had sold their quota. So I would have to put in an application for a speedometer and maybe I would get one in the next 2-3 years."

 

2) People didnt expect those benefits.

 

Im not sure how we can argue this one. Most people who immigrated in the early 20th century are dead. All I can go by is anecdotal evidence that they were trying to escape to a better place.

 

That being said, I work with immigrants (legal and illegal) on a daily basis, not one has ever said that they wanted "free benefits", they all wanted to "escape to a better place".

 

 

3) Do you think it was okay for Lincoln to unilaterally declare slaves free?

 

What about slaves that did it the right way, they earned their freedom? Werent they being given the stink finger by Lincoln who unilaterally declared slaves free?

 

My family came here legally. I dont care if all the illegal immigrants are declared legal, that makes more legal immigrants, which you just said isnt a bad thing. So if you can turn something bad, illegal immigrants, into something good, legal immigrants, just by merely waving a wand and saying "And so it shall be done", you wave the wand. You dont sit around worrying that someones feelings might get hurt because they had to work harder.

 

I would expect most illegal immigrants would gladly switch their positions with those legal immigrants who were lucky enough to win the lottery. And I also would expect those legal immigrants would not switch places with illegal immigrants.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Ill break down your points because I think you raise some of the classic arguments, and I want to go through them.

 

1) There is nothing stopping them. That is not true, there is bureaucracy stopping them, there are immigration quotas stopping them.

 

The better example is:

 

"Well officer I wasnt following the speed limit because Toyota only could make a speedometer for every other car, and my car didnt come with one, so I had no idea what the speed limit was. When I went to the store to buy a speedometer, they said that even though they had plenty of them, they legally couldnt sell it to me because they already had sold their quota. So I would have to put in an application for a speedometer and maybe I would get one in the next 2-3 years."

 

2) People didnt expect those benefits.

 

Im not sure how we can argue this one. Most people who immigrated in the early 20th century are dead. All I can go by is anecdotal evidence that they were trying to escape to a better place.

 

That being said, I work with immigrants (legal and illegal) on a daily basis, not one has ever said that they wanted "free benefits", they all wanted to "escape to a better place".

 

 

3) Do you think it was okay for Lincoln to unilaterally declare slaves free?

 

What about slaves that did it the right way, they earned their freedom? Werent they being given the stink finger by Lincoln who unilaterally declared slaves free?

 

My family came here legally. I dont care if all the illegal immigrants are declared legal, that makes more legal immigrants, which you just said isnt a bad thing. So if you can turn something bad, illegal immigrants, into something good, legal immigrants, just by merely waving a wand and saying "And so it shall be done", you wave the wand. You dont sit around worrying that someones feelings might get hurt because they had to work harder.

 

I would expect most illegal immigrants would gladly switch their positions with those legal immigrants who were lucky enough to win the lottery. And I also would expect those legal immigrants would not switch places with illegal immigrants.

 

(1) There's nothing stopping them. You might have to wait in line, but you're not stopped from ever immigrating to this country legally. Is there some universal right to be free to enter a country and demand citizenship at any time? Come on. The rest of the world doesn't operate this way, and neither should we. Speed up the process? Absolutely, i'm 100% in agreement with that. But it's bulls*** to claim people are denied access to this country. That's clearly not true.

 

(2) So people that come over here specifically to have a kid so they can be born as an American citizen are doing it because they like the weather here? GMAB. People come here because it's a better opportunity than at home. Period. And most do so because they know their kids will get a free education and free healthcare that their home country doesn't provide.

 

(3) Couple things: First, Lincoln used his war powers to do that, so unless Obama is going to really stretch the meaning of those powers, that's not applicable; and two, please show me in the Constitution where immigration to this country is a Constitutionally protected right.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

The real problem of course is that there IS no good answer that will satisfy you, because the only answer that will satisfy you is "They're all illegal and therefore they all must be deported". Anything other than that, any policy which remotely acknowledges that we already have 10 million people sitting here in this country is an amnesty and that isn't an option because amnesty is evil. Whether it's paying a fine, filling out an application, etc., any policy which acknowledges that there are 10 million+ people already here and gives any advantage to those 10 million people is an amnesty under your definition of amnesty.

 

You cannot simply pass policy and pretend that there aren't 12-20 million illegal immigrants already in this country. We're spending $20 billion a year now on the Southern border, and despite that, it's taken >8% unemployment to get immigration to settle mostly at that level. Deportations are at record highs, and that hasn't made a dent, and no one is out there praising the President for how much he's ramped up deportation enforcement, because none of it makes a dent. If you try to write a policy which requires all 10 million of them to leave, they're just...not going to leave, and you will continue to have the same problem.

 

If you're going to continue demanding that there be a solution that doesn't acknowledge that overly strict limits to immigration have created a problem on the scale of 10 million+ people, then there can be no solution.

 

So this justifies blanket amnesty? Come on. I'll meet you half way, i've only argued that what he's doing is wrong. Penalties/fines should be mandated. Mandatory deportation from this point forward (even for children), etc. etc. We can't keep saying, "oh think of the kids! make them all legal" and then in 10 years do the same thing. That's not a system for making people utilize the legal process. It's condoning and promoting illegal activity.

[StrangeSox]

(1) There's nothing stopping them. You might have to wait in line, but you're not stopped from ever immigrating to this country legally. Is there some universal right to be free to enter a country and demand citizenship at any time? Come on. The rest of the world doesn't operate this way, and neither should we. Speed up the process? Absolutely, i'm 100% in agreement with that. But it's bulls*** to claim people are denied access to this country. That's clearly not true.

 

(2) So people that come over here specifically to have a kid so they can be born as an American citizen are doing it because they like the weather here? GMAB. People come here because it's a better opportunity than at home. Period. And most do so because they know their kids will get a free education and free healthcare that their home country doesn't provide.

 

(3) Couple things: First, Lincoln used his war powers to do that, so unless Obama is going to really stretch the meaning of those powers, that's not applicable; and two, please show me in the Constitution where immigration to this country is a Constitutionally protected right.

 

Many Latin American countries have more sociliazed programs than we do, especially when it comes to health care. One of the fears of Republicans is that legal, voting immigrants come from more-socialized countries and will vote for those types of policies.

[Balta1701]

So this justifies blanket amnesty? Come on. I'll meet you half way, i've only argued that what he's doing is wrong. Penalties/fines should be mandated. Mandatory deportation from this point forward (even for children), etc. etc. We can't keep saying, "oh think of the kids! make them all legal" and then in 10 years do the same thing. That's not a system for making people utilize the legal process. It's condoning and promoting illegal activity.

My problem is that anything I describe is going to come back to you as being described as "Blanket amnesty".

 

The general ideas behind any workable proposal would have to involve taking the 10 million+ people here already and providing them a path to citizenship. I am more than willing to listen to whatever penance people suggest they need to perform to get on that path. Paying a significant fine of several thousands of dollars, a long (perhaps extra-long) waiting period if they don't return to their home country, fine. But by your standard, anything along those lines would condone and promote illegal activity, because it is rewarding people who are already here.

 

Any attempt to solve this problem while maintaining your focus on refusing amnesty...refusing to "condone and promote illegal activity" will fail. It's no different than what we're doing right now.

 

Unless you give the 10-20 million people already here a better option than being undeclared, they will remain undeclared, and you will continue to be outraged over why we're tolerating those lawbreakers. If you try to deport them and the jobs remain, others will just continue to take their place, no matter how much money or effort is put into border security.

[Soxbadger]

1) Is there some Universal right? It depends on your culture. I am of Judeo-Christian descent, I believe that my culture dictates that I do not arbitrarily create lines in the sand for who has the ability to be free and who does not. I believe that we are not free, until all people are free. So while maybe other people in the world do not agree, I personally believe that all humans should have the right to live in whatever country they want, so long as they are willing to follow the rules of that country upon acceptance. I believe that no country should set arbitrary quotas to deny people from seeking freedom.

 

So, I dont care what other countries do, I am saying what I think the US should do.

 

But it's bulls*** to claim people are denied access to this country.

 

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigratio...nality_act.html

 

the U.S. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S. government abroad).

 

Anyone who is after the 170,000 is denied legal access. This is an arbitrary quota system.

 

2) Where is this free health care you speak of? Where is this free education? Last I checked they were paid by taxes. So if you are a legal immigrant, you pay for these things, they are not free.

 

You were right on one thing:

 

People come here because it's a better opportunity at home.

 

But its not free services that are the better opportunity, its the ability to have freedom. Its the ability to walk down the street and not worry about being murdered because you are not the right race, religion, etc. Its the hope that through hard work and dedication you can make a better life for your family, that the cards arent stacked against you from the start because you werent born into the dominant religion, race, etc.

 

That is why people come to America, I have not met 1 immigrant who came here because "They wanted free healthcare or free education". I doubt you have met an immigrant who has said that either. You are just using non-first hand anecdotal evidence without any basis.

 

3) Well thats an entirely different argument (your first argument was that it wasnt fair to legitimate immigrants). And Obama may have gone way beyond his power, but I am not arguing whether or not what Obama did was legal or within his powers. Whether it is within his power or not, does not have any relevance on whether or not we should let more legal immigrants into the US or whether we should offer amnesty. That is merely an argument on what was the right way to accomplish the program.

 

Thus the comparison, you said it was unfair to legal immigrants who worked hard, I said if thats the case, isnt what Lincoln did also unfair?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[cabiness42]

Thus the comparison, you said it was unfair to legal immigrants who worked hard, I said if thats the case, isnt what Lincoln did also unfair?

 

Terrible analogy. Illegal immigrants came here by choice. Slaves did not.

[Soxbadger]

Its not about how they got here, its one group getting a "unfair" benefit that the other group didnt get.

 

But if youre unhappy with it, Ill make it better.

 

Slave A: He escaped prior to the emancipation proclamation, which was illegal under the law.

 

Slave B: He didnt escape, he followed the law.

 

Both slave A and B were freed by Lincoln, shouldnt slave B be upset that slave A got freedom even though slave A was a criminal who broke the law?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Terrible analogy. Illegal immigrants came here by choice. Slaves did not.

 

[Soxbadger]

Right because you completely ignored the analogy.

 

Slave A is a criminal who broke the law, exactly like an illegal immigrant, who then was freed, even though they broke the law.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Right because you completely ignored the analogy.

 

Slave A is a criminal who broke the law, exactly like an illegal immigrant, who then was freed, even though they broke the law.

 

Again you are missing the whole voluntarily put themselves or family into that situation part. It is just a terrible analogy.

[Balta1701]

Right because you completely ignored the analogy.

 

Slave A is a criminal who broke the law, exactly like an illegal immigrant, who then was freed, even though they broke the law.

it's ok, the slaves were defying an unjust law, whereas determining that 170,000 immigrants is the maximum number allowable into the country during a given year is a just law based on an exacting, reasonable standard, which totally has nothing to do with race.

[cabiness42]

Its not about how they got here, its one group getting a "unfair" benefit that the other group didnt get.

 

But if youre unhappy with it, Ill make it better.

 

Slave A: He escaped prior to the emancipation proclamation, which was illegal under the law.

 

Slave B: He didnt escape, he followed the law.

 

Both slave A and B were freed by Lincoln, shouldnt slave B be upset that slave A got freedom even though slave A was a criminal who broke the law?

 

I think an expert on slavery is the best place to direct the question, but I don't think that slave B would be upset that slave A got freedom by escaping.

 

I know for a fact that legal immigrants from Mexico who waded through mountains of red tape to get and stay here are upset that illegals are getting amnesty.

 

It's a different time frame and a different set of circumstances.

[Soxbadger]

Again you are missing the whole voluntarily put themselves or family into that situation part. It is just a terrible analogy.

 

How was escaping not voluntary? How if you escaped with your family from your master, was that not voluntarily escaping?

 

They chose to escape, they could have just accepted their lot and stayed a slave.

 

That is a choice, no matter how much you refuse to accept it.

 

I think an expert on slavery is the best place to direct the question, but I don't think that slave B would be upset that slave A got freedom by escaping.

 

I know for a fact that legal immigrants from Mexico who waded through mountains of red tape to get and stay here are upset that illegals are getting amnesty.

 

It's a different time frame and a different set of circumstances.

 

I would love to meet them and to get 20 minutes in a room where I can light their hypocritical position up like a finely rolled blunt.

 

My firm does immigration, I have never met a legal or illegal immigrant who was upset about this.

 

Not to mention, my family legally immigrated here. I have no problem offering amnesty.

 

Why do you not want to offer amnesty? What is your excuse?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

How was escaping not voluntary? How if you escaped with your family from your master, was that not voluntarily escaping?

 

They chose to escape, they could have just accepted their lot and stayed a slave.

 

That is a choice, no matter how much you refuse to accept it.

 

 

 

I would love to meet them and to get 20 minutes in a room where I can light their hypocritical position up like a finely rolled blunt.

 

My firm does immigration, I have never met a legal or illegal immigrant who was upset about this.

 

Not to mention, my family legally immigrated here. I have no problem offering amnesty.

 

Why do you not want to offer amnesty? What is your excuse?

 

Not a single slave came to the US voluntarily to be a slave. That is where this ridiculousness breaks down completely.

[Soxbadger]

it's ok, the slaves were defying an unjust law, whereas determining that 170,000 immigrants is the maximum number allowable into the country during a given year is a just law based on an exacting, reasonable standard, which totally has nothing to do with race.

 

Immigration is one of those areas where I will never back down.

 

As an anecdote, my cousin's father was on the last boat accepted into the US from Germany during WWII. The next boat was the SS St Louis.

 

If you are not familiar:

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...st/stlouis.html

 

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/voyageofthedamned.htm

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Not a single slave came to the US voluntarily to be a slave. That is where this ridiculousness breaks down completely.

 

Not a single person came to Mexico hoping to be poor and living in squalor.

 

What does it matter how or why they got there?

 

If I could trace certain Mexican ancestors to prove that they were forcefully repatriated to a certain place (say that they were forced to move from Texas to Mexico because of the US winning the Spanish American war) would they then get rights? Or if they could show that they were actually Aztecan and that Cortez took them as prisoners?

 

What does any of that matter?

 

So if someone involuntarily is taken into the US, they should get to be a citizen?

 

And what about a black person who came voluntarily to the US, only then to be captured and turned into a slave? They voluntarily came to the US...

 

Once again, no one has said why its a bad thing to give amnesty.

[southsider2k5]

Not a single person came to Mexico hoping to be poor and living in squalor.

 

What does it matter how or why they got there?

 

If I could trace certain Mexican ancestors to prove that they were forcefully repatriated to a certain place (say that they were forced to move from Texas to Mexico because of the US winning the Spanish American war) would they then get rights? Or if they could show that they were actually Aztecan and that Cortez took them as prisoners?

 

What does any of that matter?

 

So if someone involuntarily is taken into the US, they should get to be a citizen?

 

And what about a black person who came voluntarily to the US, only then to be captured and turned into a slave? They voluntarily came to the US...

 

Once again, no one has said why its a bad thing to give amnesty.

 

It.doesn't.work.

 

Read some history.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I would love to meet them and to get 20 minutes in a room where I can light their hypocritical position up like a finely rolled blunt.

Honestly, I woudln't blame anyone who came to this country legally who was annoyed at any process that was established that fixed the system. They'd have a right to be annoyed, given the red tape. But that isn't a good justification for keeping it broken.

[Soxbadger]

It.doesn't.work.

 

Read some history.

 

Show me where the US has offered complete amnesty and lifted immigration restrictions to pre-1924 not working?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[Balta1701]

It.doesn't.work.

 

Read some history.

It didn't work because the underlying problem, quotas imposed to keep the dirty races out that were too strict to meet demand for work, was not dealt with.

[southsider2k5]

Show me where the US has offered complete amnesty and lifted immigration restrictions to pre-1924 not working?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

They offered amnesty in 1986. What did that solve? I am also curious how you plan on paying for millions and millions of new people when we are over $15 trillion in debt?

[southsider2k5]

It didn't work because the underlying problem, quotas imposed to keep the dirty races out that were too strict to meet demand for work, was not dealt with.

 

The reason is that there is no reason not to break the law. Wait it out long enough, and you get what you want.

[Soxbadger]

They offered amnesty in 1986. What did that solve? I am also curious how you plan on paying for millions and millions of new people when we are over $15 trillion in debt?

 

But they didnt change immigration, so its not comparable. You both have to offer amnesty and change immigration law, so once again, I ask you to show me where that has happened and failed, as you said I could read a history book and find it, so Im waiting. I really want that information because if you have it, it could change my entire argument. So once again, thanks in advance.

 

How do I plan for paying for it?

 

By collecting taxes from people that previously were getting benefits and not paying taxes.

 

Right now they are in the US, getting services, costing money, and many of them pay $0. How would it be a bad thing if they are in the US, getting services, costing money and paying something?

 

Amnesty would force some people who get benefits to actually pay something. If anything it should immediately reduce the debt.

 

That is not even considering the cost of keeping people out, and the benefit of saving that money.

 

[Balta1701]

That is not even considering the cost of keeping people out, and the benefit of saving that money.

You're not allowed to count that $20 billion a year, because stop asking questions, that doesn't count.