Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Criminals are villains. No 2 ways about it. The fact that they have enablers and partners doesn't change that fact. I am all for hammering the employers, the landlords or anyone else enabling them.
You assume that all illegals have a life struggle. Maybe some do, but many, in fact most do not.
Many also claim they are just sending money back home where the currency exchange rate is so imbalanced they will retire quite well off. They aren't being persecuted they are going after the money kind of like some military do here.
when's the last time we were the ones to begin the destabilization of a country? The last time we chose a side for political influence rather than furthering democracy?
and btw, we have had TPS for those people, as well as the asylum process.
See, don't think the Embassy method is "safe" because of political persecution/violence? Then you are allowed to walk up to 35 spots on the US-Mexico border, present yourself for asylum, and see if your case passes muster. 90% of them don't, because they are "seeking a better economic life", not "fleeing persecution, violence, and death"
We are not doing a thing for the illegal aliens. We are fixing our own screw up.
The illegal aliens are here because past politicians failed to properly fix our immigration system. After the Reagan Amnesty the problem should have been fully resolved. We did not do so.
So now Biden et al are going to pay the piper and hopefully gets us to a point at which we can control US Immigration.
Hope we do not again screw it up.
this is one of your more interesting takes. It doesn't fit neatly into "white guilt" or "Stockholm Syndrome" .... but "it's not the illegals fault they are here, it's our fault for not stopping them. So they can't be held responsible" is a unique stance.
It's like "Well, everybody knows Wal-mart has a policy not to chase down shoplifters. Therefore, I should be allowed to walk in, grab what I want, and walk out without paying. Heck, why does ANYONE pay at Wal-mart when they don't have to?"
true - there's another "amnesty for illegals" topic on the front page.
I'd like to see us consider something like "beginning in 2024, we will increase the number of approved immigrants from Latin America to 3MM annually. However, those who have been shown in our country illegally are not eligible for 20 years. Oh, and we're doubling ICE's budget in 2021 through 2024".
that would be a way to get some/many of them to voluntarily leave.
No one has granted such thing. As the OP states a pathway already exists. As for Biden, I do not know what his 'pathway' looks like, but no one said they will simply grant citizenships to everyone. Typically when a "pathway" has been mentioned in the past, it has meant that the applicant would return home and apply from there.
surely you do not believe this would happen.
What was the practice for the 1986 amnesty? Which "'pathways' mentioned in the past" have specified this?
What was the practice for the 1986 amnesty? Which "'pathways' mentioned in the past" have specified this?
Exactly, no one amnestied back in 1986 had to return to their homelands first. The same would apply with Biden's amnesty only this time we have at least quadruple the number of illegal aliens here today. It's a slap in the fact to those who waited patiently in their homelands and followed the legal process to come here. I guess felony ID theft would just be forgiven then to? No regards for all the Americans that need the jobs that these illegals are holding?
true - there's another "amnesty for illegals" topic on the front page.
I'd like to see us consider something like "beginning in 2024, we will increase the number of approved immigrants from Latin America to 3MM annually. However, those who have been shown in our country illegally are not eligible for 20 years. Oh, and we're doubling ICE's budget in 2021 through 2024".
that would be a way to get some/many of them to voluntarily leave.
I agree with most of what you said but I disagree in increasing the number of approved immigrants from Latino countries. Why should they get more of a quota than other countries? They already hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country. What happened to diversity? It would tranform our country demographically.
What was the practice for the 1986 amnesty? Which "'pathways' mentioned in the past" have specified this?
Reagan's amnesty was not a "pathway", but "amnesty". My point was to say that when "pathway" has been brought up in the past it has usually included requirements like returning home to apply. That was the case in Obama era too, even though the DACAs were allowed to stay.
No one knows what Biden's pathway means, so its almost moot to even discuss it at this point.
Personally I would be opposed to giving amnesty to 11 million illegals, but it does not sound like that would be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Exactly, no one amnestied back in 1986 had to return to their homelands first. The same would apply with Biden's amnesty only this time we have at least quadruple the number of illegal aliens here today.
Again, Reagan granted amnesty, while Biden has only mentioned a "pathway". You are trying to reword it into "Biden's amnesty" even though he specifically said "pathway". And of course you have no idea what he is proposing, since he has not explained himself.
Amnesty = One time deal, - automatic. Pathway= Steps to be taken, - time consuming, - strings attached. In Obama's proposal the "path" would have taken 13 years and included a fine and other requirements. Vast majority of Americans supported such approach, including about 70% of Trump supporters. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan manner, but was iced in the House. A border wall was also a part of that deal.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-30-2020 at 09:09 AM..
Reagan's amnesty was not a "pathway", but "amnesty". My point was to say that when "pathway" has been brought up in the past it has usually included requirements like returning home to apply. That was the case in Obama era too, even though the DACAs were allowed to stay.
No one knows what Biden's pathway means, so its almost moot to even discuss it at this point.
Personally I would be opposed to giving amnesty to 11 million illegals, but it does not sound like that would be the case.
Again, Reagan granted amnesty, while Biden has only mentioned a "pathway". You are trying to reword it into "Biden's amnesty" even though he specifically said "pathway". And of course you have no idea what he is proposing, since he has not explained himself.
Amnesty = One time deal, - automatic.
Pathway= Steps to be taken, - time consuming, - strings attached.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
