Fully funding e-Verify would be cheaper and way more efficient than a wall, but I guess the promise wasn't solving a problem, it was WALL.
If only we had e-verify this guy would be alive
I'm sure all the angel moms would love to hear that all we need is som e-verify.
Cherry picking specific incidents is dishonest. This is like saying, "If only we had more "good guys with a gun, the victims of Parkland would still be alive." I don't think the victims of Parkland would want to hear that. They'd be much more interested in hearing how do you prevent people like Cruz from buying weapons.
You have to look at it from a macro perspective and see whether or not areas with higher immigrant populations are more violent than the US at large. I'll refer once again to the Unz report: http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/
Same exact logic using the macro perspective to see that the vast majority of gun owners aren't killers, so I don't think the actions of the few should result in punishing the responsible (i.e. "Ban all guns!"). My control policies are more based on science per brain development. The pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functioning, isn't matured until about 25. Similarly, I don't think it's moral to punish good people just looking to better their lives. Personally, I'd play ball with Lord Trump on his wall if he reformed immigration to make the process less bureaucratic and byzantine.
"angel moms" ? LOL goddamn, you're ing stupid
the vast majority of angels are killed by American citizens, not by illegal immigrants.
The problem with Parkland is we had good guys with guns who were told to stand down. I'm not cherry picking anything. These are real people who died. The only "good people" who were punished were those who happened to be in a way of an illegal immigrant. We have a system for people coming here legally. The only dishonesty I'm seeing it those were refuse to accept the reality of the situation making ridiculous arguments based on some kind of higher morality. This is just another form of virtue signaling bundled with despondent complacency. Looking forward to more copypasa in retort.
Read about the efficacy and expense of our "legal immigration system." I'm not sure of your ancestry, but when the first large wave of immigration hit from 1905 to 1907, the US murder rate ed by 30 percent. So you'd be fine with your ancestors being denied entry into the country based on some Nativists of the day posting stories about people killed by Irish and Italian immigrants?The problem with Parkland is we had good guys with guns who were told to stand down. I'm not cherry picking anything. These are real people who died. The only "good people" who were punished were those who happened to be in a way of an illegal immigrant. We have a system for people coming here legally. The only dishonesty I'm seeing it those were refuse to accept the reality of the situation making ridiculous arguments based on some kind of higher morality. This is just another form of virtue signaling bundled with despondent complacency. Looking forward to more copypasa in retort.
"Virtue singling." You're also technically virtue signalling with all these posts about illegals killing citizens, suggesting that it's an immoral position to be against the wall/tighter border security. That said, I don't reduce moral arguments down to cute buzzwords. Our disagreement stems from me looking at things from a macro perspective, while you look at them from a micro perspective. Do I think you're "wrong?" No, because this is a morally relative situation. Either of our solutions potentially preserves life.
I would easily compromise with Trump building a fortress across the sw border if the legal immigration process returned to the Ellis Island model.
As for the good guy with the gun. I think it's easier to just not sell AR15s to children than rely on "good guys with a gun."
You should show less snarky hostility to the one person here who still gives you the respect of a thoughtful and intelligence response. You might learn something.Looking forward to more copypasa in retort.
Native born Texan great great grandmother was pure Choctaw-Chickasaw not that it matters...No one is being denied that isn't willing to come through legally. Not sure why you keep going there, but I guess (?) it helps your argument to paint me as a villain.
No, I just want a border wall to protect our brave border security from cartels and to funnel the trafficking to ports of entry where have a chance to apprehend. Not sure why that's lost on the majority of Americans beside their need to virtue signal their bleeding hearts for these "poor souls just trying to find a better life." Some poem at the base of a statue at Ellis island seems to be the prominent argument for today's Liberal Socialist.
Shut up got.
^^^ magpie Chris trollin
Pentagon finds $12.8 billion for Trump's border wall
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ps-border-wall
Do you think a Honduran family without a penny to their name has the resources to navigate the current legal immigration process? Let's take a look at what that entails?
So even if the applicant chooses not to consult an immigration attorney, they still have to come up with 2K and then wait months for the process to unfold. Poor, desperate people don't have these luxuries.People seeking work visas, legal resident status or US citizenship must go through a highly detailed application process, and often choose to be guided by an attorney specializing in immigration law. What used to be the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now known as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Typical costs:
An immigration attorney may charge an hourly rate of $100-$300 or a flat fee covering specific services. Some immigration attorneys charge $75-$150 for an initial 20-30 minute consultation.
Charges for assisting in filing basic forms for an ongoing immigration case may run $300-$700, plus the USCIS fees. Attorney's fees for preparing a full visa packet average $2,000-$3,000, but can run $4,000-$12,000 or more, depending on the nature and complexity of the case, the location, and the attorney's level of experience.
A retainer is an up-front fee you pay to hire an attorney. Generally the retainer is either a percentage of the agreed-upon flat fee or the equivalent of several hours work. A lawyer on an hourly basis deducts that rate from the retainer as the work is done; when the retainer is gone, you are billed for more money.
Some work-visa applicants hire an immigration attorney for an hour's consultation at $100-$300, then file the paperwork themselves using the forms and other resources provided by the USCIS[1] . Often an employer will assist with the visa process.
While many applicants use the services of an immigration attorney, it is possible to navigate the complex system on your own. The paperback US Immigration and Citizenship[2] is available for $16 and Nolo Press offers books on immigration, visas, green cards and citizenship for $26-$40.
Additional costs:
Your lawyer's charges do not include USCIS filing fees[5] of $0-$1,000 per form; total application fees for a visa average $2,000.
Typically visas take 4-5 months to process; "premium processing" in about 15 days costs an extra $1,000.
Um, the trafficking is already being funneled to ports-of-entry. Maybe try looking at actual agency (DEA, CBP) reports instead of trusting what no-name conservative shills have to say on twitter. Here: https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/fi...resolution.pdf
Aren't you a proud American? Like it or not, the Lazarus poem has always been a celebrated tenant of our country's philosophy as "the Land of Opportunity." I guess Teddy Roosevelt was a "virtue signaling Liberal socialist" because he didn't clamp down on immigration when millions of Irish and Italian immigrants, whom the nativists of the day didn't think too highly of, poured in. And if you think those immigrants, as a collective group, just magically assimilated within months and didn't bring "violence" with them, just
Why okay then, but not now? Those immigrants from "non- hole countries" (well, they were arguably holes at the time) ed the crime rate higher than the immigrants who've come through our southern border over the past two decades.
tragic story.
it was a car accident/hit and run, though. the headline seems to infer something different imo
Yeah that’s as click baity as it gets right there
It's also an example of post-hoc fallacy. Chris's argument can also lead to some troubling moral conclusions. His argument is basically that a lax immigration policy leads to a greater influx of criminals, which in turn puts Americans at a higher risk. Per the stats, Latino and white American crime rate in the Southwest are about the same, so illegal immigrant entry doesn't increase risk anymore than a white American child being born. Both persons will be as likely/unlikely to commit crime at some point in their lives. Where this logic leads to a troubling conclusion is that it's actually more "immoral" to allow a black child to be born than to allow in an illegal immigrant, since blacks are the ethnic demographic that commit the most violent crime. Say we posed the question to Chris: If he had to choose, allow in 10 immigrants or allow 10 black children to be born. The coldly rational moral choice is the former.
That's why I don't like the implied logic underneath Chris's argument. I'd much prefer if he just stated he's against illegal immigration because it's illegal per the law, instead of trying to argue against it on moral grounds (morality and legality aren't the same thing).
Why does it matter that they are black? This isn't a racist thing. I know you really need that to be something for your argument to have legs. This is an enforcing the law that's on the books thing. Why is that hard to understand?
Hey at the end of the day as long as it's not someone you know or one of your loved ones - who cares right?
I'm not suggesting it's a racist thing. Not sure you understand my argument. When you post these stories of people killed by illegals or when Lord Trump trots out the Angel Moms, you/they are attempting to turn a debate on legality into a moral debate, suggesting that it's "immoral" to allow in illegals because it puts Americans in more danger. Truth is you are no more statistically likely to be harmed by an illegal than an American. The Angel Mom "strategy" is a dishonest red-herring and post-hoc fallacy. It suggests that the reason those people were harmed was because of our immigration policy. No. Those people were harmed because humans in general do bad/irresponsible things. The reason I referenced black crime is because you are more likely to be harmed by an African-American than an illegal, so on moral grounds, sterilizing a black person "protects" Americans more than letting in illegals.
And no, I don't like this logic, which is why I'm unpacking it. Fine. Argue it on legal grounds. Angel Moms, etc is a dishonest, appeal-to-emotion tactic that is based on troubling logic.
To further clarify the Angel Moms tactic. It's suggesting that tighter illegal immigration policy would "prevent incidents like this in the future." No it wouldn't, because again, those victims were just as likely to be harmed by an American citizen and more likely to be harmed by an African-American citizen. It would likely reduce frequency of being harmed specifically by illegal immigrants, so if you want to make the argument that it's easier to stomach crime from American citizens than from illegals, fair enough, I guess.
Tighter illegal immigration policy would infact prevent incidents like this from illegals. It will not impact crime from legal citizens.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
