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.
The question is how to control and enforce our immigration laws. At the moment the system is quite out of control. And we have over 10 million illegals without anywhere near the resources needed to remove them.
This discussion came about because someone said that flooding the country with hundreds of thousands of immigrants on top of legal immigration is unsustainable. I asked him to tell me how many immigrants are sustainable. But instead of giving me a number, he started ranting about how the problem is we don't have enough facilities to process them. Which isn't an argument against immigration, it is an argument for more facilities for processing. So then he says we don't have enough resources. So I mentioned that our population will increase dramatically over the next 100-200 years years, and we have more food potential than China. If we don't have enough resources for immigration, why do we have any immigration at all?
He isn't deriving his opinions from the facts he is presenting. He is deriving his facts from his opinion. He doesn't want illegal immigration, and he is desperately trying to find an excuse to oppose it. Which is why his reasoning is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. And he refuses to answer my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Ma
Name me a country, any country in the world, with high quality of life and open border. I‘ll wait.
None. Now answer my question.... What do you mean by "sustain"? And how many immigrants can be "sustained"?
Keep in mind, prior to the 1980's, immigration was almost entirely unique to the Western Hemisphere. Once upon a time, all of the richest countries had virtually no immigration. The United States and its English-speaking sister countries are pretty much the only places that are rich with significant historic immigration. And in every case, immigration had been limited pretty much only to white people until fairly recently.
So my real question to you is, how much immigration do you want? And why do you want any immigration at all?
This discussion came about because someone said that flooding the country with hundreds of thousands of immigrants on top of legal immigration is unsustainable. I asked him to tell me how many immigrants are sustainable. But instead of giving me a number, he started ranting about how the problem is we don't have enough facilities to process them. Which isn't an argument against immigration, it is an argument for more facilities for processing. So then he says we don't have enough resources. So I mentioned that our population will increase dramatically over the next 100-200 years years, and we have more food potential than China. If we don't have enough resources for immigration, why do we have any immigration at all?
He isn't deriving his opinions from the facts he is presenting. He is deriving his facts from his opinion. He doesn't want illegal immigration, and he is desperately trying to find an excuse to oppose it. Which is why his reasoning is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. And he refuses to answer my question.
None. Now answer my question.... What do you mean by "sustain"? And how many immigrants can be "sustained"?
Keep in mind, prior to the 1980's, immigration was almost entirely unique to the Western Hemisphere. Once upon a time, all of the richest countries had virtually no immigration. The United States and its English-speaking sister countries are pretty much the only places that are rich with significant historic immigration. And in every case, immigration had been limited pretty much only to white people until fairly recently.
So my real question to you is, how much immigration do you want? And why do you want any immigration at all?
You aren’t advocating for immigration, you are advocating for open border in the age of international terrorism. You are advocating for open border in the age of social welfare/public assistance.
You have to be nutty to believe that it’s a great idea to flood our schools, hospitals, public assistance line with the world’s poor.
But that’s cool. I guess we will have to invade more countries to steal their natural resources to feed more people.
You aren’t advocating for immigration, you are advocating for open border in the age of international terrorism. You are advocating for open border in the age of social welfare/public assistance.
Not to mention infectious diseases which has caused government to over react on every level and cost taxpayers and businesses Trillions.
Yet Leftists want to allow people in with no way to tell if they are infected and will further spread every disease in the book. And they want to close small businesses and restrict YOU with their silly masks and social distancing rules and other restrictions.
You aren’t advocating for immigration, you are advocating for open border in the age of international terrorism.
Where did I say I was in favor of open borders? If you knew anything about me you would know I hold the exact opposite position.
What irritates me is when people like you make claims you can't prove. You say "this is unsustainable", not because you know the facts and can make a coherent argument, but because you don't like it.
If we don't have enough resources for more immigrants, why do we have any immigration? How many illegal-immigrants are sustainable? Is 12 million sustainable? Is 20 million sustainable? Is 30 million sustainable? A lot of people believe there are already 30 million here. If so, how is that not sustainable?
Is 50 million sustainable? 100 million? 200 million? What does sustainable even mean?
You won't answer the question because you don't have an answer.
Borders are not wide open.
And if you keep saying it loud and proud -- guess what -- you convince everyone that they are and they surge the border.
Or is that the strategy?
Continually saying the border is NOT open doesn't make it so.
The border is a sieve and the situation down there a disgrace. Whether or not you believe people should have an easier path to enter and/or reside in the US is a different problem.
You aren’t advocating for immigration, you are advocating for open border in the age of international terrorism. You are advocating for open border in the age of social welfare/public assistance.
You have to be nutty to believe that it’s a great idea to flood our schools, hospitals, public assistance line with the world’s poor.
But that’s cool. I guess we will have to invade more countries to steal their natural resources to feed more people.
Why in the world would that poster make this comment......."He doesn't want illegal immigration, and he is desperately trying to find an excuse to oppose it".
Huh???? Why would anyone have to desperately find and excuse to oppose illegal immigration? It's against the law and is a big negative to our society! I can't believe the stupid, asinine comments that these pro-illegals make in here
Wide open borders are their first and primary objective. Hope the voters realize what they’ve done.
Dictator Joe ramming his dictator ways on all the states now.. they don't want all these illegals being bused and flown all over and Biden is showing how dictators run over states rights and Americans rights.
Yep, Joe said so. He said we could handle 3 million more . So rather than let the legal Immigration System handle the applicants , the Laws actually passed through Legislation, he just figured he would take command of the situation.
Like waving a magic wand, they’ll be three million illegals here in no time. Clean sheets, three squares, new pair of underwear, a Lawyer and an Activist to guide them to the nearest Sanctuary City , where a Democrat will greet them with open arms. Here in Connecticut, Murphy and Blumenthal even served some pizza to illegals , celebrating their wins in Court to stay a bit longer.
They don't want them in the sanctuary cities. They sued Trump when he tried to do that. What Biden's doing instead is having them shipped in the middle of the night to small towns and cities in places like Tennessee that aren't deemed to be diverse enough. Radical transformation of the voter base.
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.