Jimmy Kimmel Introduces DACA Opponents to Dreamers - General

Someone mentioned that this is basically emotional blackmail but I think people should see the ramifications of the political opinions. Otherwise you'll be guaranteed to end up with a unjust society.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104308]How is deporting DACA recipients on extended unemployment, welfare, are criminals, etc. making it hard for the good ones get work? DACA is a human issue and should be dealt with on a individual basis. Assuming everyone of the DACA recipients is good and having them commit crime or be lazy bums is just making all DACA recipients look bad. This is exactly how merit based immigration works. It's just like that except they already crossed the gate before geting permission.[/QUOTE] You do understand that if DACA is repealed all 800,000 recipients of it will be deported regardless of whether or not they are 'good' right?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104321]Yes, I'm in the same boat as you on that issue. I would rather have it not renewed than keep it as it is currently. There needs to be a change and if we keep on renewing it were back to square one. I would rather come up with a solution than putting a bandaid on the problem. I know this sounds extremely insensitive and immoral but so is the crime being committed by some of them. It takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me that because [I]some[/I] DACA recipients are bad apples, instead of waiting until we have a solution to repeal DACA, we should just repeal it immediately and deport every single one of them?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104321]I know this sounds extremely insensitive and immoral but so is the crime being committed by some of them. It takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.[/QUOTE] That's probably because it is extremely insensitive. It makes me sad that anyone would advocate to completely ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because they believe that the crimes a tiny fraction commit are somehow different than the average US civilian population and therefore extend to the entire group so loosely connected by the independent actions of their parents. But, as long as you get yours...

[QUOTE=cbb;53104066]How would you like us to respond to the destruction of innocent people's lives?[/QUOTE] I like skatehawk's suggestion of trying to change the law through democratic means; whilst the dreamers are of course morally innocent, they are in breach of immigration laws which will need to be changed to allow them to legally stay in their home country. [QUOTE=cbb;53104066]Shall we all take special care not to hurt the feelings of the opposition while they go about their business [I]actually[/I] persecuting people?[/QUOTE] You're conflating the people doing the questionable acts (e.g. ICE) with the people supporting it. If you hurt the feelings of the supporters, you entrench them and undermine your ability to change their minds and actually start supporting your cause. You're pointlessly creating vitriolic enemies out of people who simply disagree with you and are only increasing their support for the actions of groups like ICE. Of course there are lost causes who could never be reached, but a civil presentation of your side of the argument would be more inviting to onlookers; you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. [QUOTE=cbb;53104066]Perhaps to better illustrate your point, you can point to me when trying to understand the motives of the cruel has ever been of benefit to the civil rights of minorities. African Americans didn't try to understand racists when they fought for their rights. Women didn't try to understand misogynists when they fought for their rights. The gay community didn't try to understand homophobes when they fought for their rights.[/QUOTE] Actually the conceptualisation of and research into homophobia presented itself as a useful tool for the LGBT community in changing attitudes towards homosexuality. I've used it myself. The second wave feminists DID in fact try to understand misogynists in their struggle for equality. Perhaps you can point to me where are you getting this from that gays and women didn't try and understand homophobia and misogyny respectively. Would make an interesting read. [QUOTE=cbb;53104066]Should trans people try to understand the motives of the transphobic in the pursuit of their rights?[/QUOTE] Yes, definitely. Let me stereotype a hypothetical transphobe for a second and say their reason is theological and specifically Christian in nature, would the ample evidence that people who don't conform to gender norms are not only accepted but celebrated throughout the scriptures not go a long way in allowing them to accept trans people? Or you could just project bile at them or try and silence them, that might work too. /s [QUOTE=cbb;53104066]Should we all use delicate language when confronting people that deny others their right to exist?[/QUOTE] Harsh language and respect are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm advocating for the latter. Of course, it depends on what you mean by denying others the right to exist; If you mean advocating violence against trans people then no, they don't deserve delicate language nor respect. I don't think anyone could hope to convince those people otherwise once they've reached that point, and whilst I personally would not advocate violence against those people, sometimes violence may be the only solution to combat opposing violence. Preferably dealt by the proper authorities of course. If they simply do not accept the validity of gender theory and are denying them the right to exist "as they see fit", I stand by my assertion that trying to understand why they feel that way and showing respect might be better in convincing them. [QUOTE=cbb;53104066]Tell me what you think a proper response to tyranny is.[/QUOTE] Depends on the type of tyranny, I couldn't give a once-size-fits-all response to that. Hope all that helps you understand where I'm coming from. [QUOTE=SunsetTable;53104144]This is a middle ground fallacy,[/QUOTE] No, it's not. I'm not advocating for compromise here nor asserting the sole truth lies in the middle ground. I hold the view that two opposing perspectives can both be valid in a perceptually relativistic sense and am only calling for respect and sincere attempts to understand the motivation behind opposing beliefs. [QUOTE=SunsetTable;53104144]Today's Alt Right is inline with nazism and fascism, of which you cannot have a discussion of middle grounds because what is the middle ground of genocide?[/QUOTE] Not trying to have that discussion at all, I must have presented my argument terribly if you think I'm some wishy-washy centrist; I'm not really a fan unless it's of the radical kind. As to the middle ground of genocide, what an awful question to consider, I would suppose that some sort of paid deportation program would be a more centred approach to achieving the ethnostate that the alt-right and others on /pol/ seem to think would solve all the problems we're facing. [QUOTE=SunsetTable;53104144]Let me be clear, I can understand and even empathize with Conservative viewpoints. The Alt Right is not conservative, the republican party circa 1995 was conservative. The Alt Right is an even larger push rightward which is where fascism lies.[/QUOTE] Not entirely sure why you're explaining this, though I do appreciate your attitude, you seem like a nice person. I don't recall saying the alt-right were conservative. Am I being dense? Maybe you could elaborate on or rephrase what you mean.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53104460]I like skatehawk's suggestion of trying to change the law through democratic means; whilst the dreamers are of course morally innocent, they are in breach of immigration laws which will need to be changed to allow them to legally stay in their home country.[/QUOTE] Of course we should change the law through democratic methods. That's a far cry from repealing DACA without any further legislation ready to be passed, which is what Skatehawk has been defending. There is no moral defense that he can muster for this support of the Trump administration's actions. [QUOTE]You're conflating the people doing the questionable acts (e.g. ICE) with the people supporting it. If you hurt the feelings of the supporters, you entrench them and undermine your ability to change their minds and actually start supporting your cause. You're pointlessly creating vitriolic enemies out of people who simply disagree with you and are only increasing their support for the actions of groups like ICE. Of course there are lost causes who could never be reached, but a civil presentation of your side of the argument would be more inviting to onlookers; you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.[/QUOTE] It is important that the two are conflated. ICE could not perform their misdeeds without the support of the people. The people that support them are just as guilty, if not more so for granting ICE the legal powers to deport DACA recipients in the first place. I agree with you that a civil presentation of my side is better suited to convincing people, but only if I feel that I can actually convince someone of something in the first place. Furthermore, you're placing an intense amount of scrutiny on our side without placing any on the opposition's side. The current administration is a racist organization that strips away the rights of minorities and threatens to ruin their lives. Their followers wholeheartedly support their actions. Their opposition is under direct threat of physical harm and yet we are expected to treat them cordially and with respect. You place too heavy an expectation on us while casually equating the opinions of both sides. [QUOTE]Actually the conceptualisation of and research into homophobia presented itself as a useful tool for the LGBT community in changing attitudes towards homosexuality. I've used it myself. The second wave feminists DID in fact try to understand misogynists in their struggle for equality. Perhaps you can point to me where are you getting this from that gays and women didn't try and understand homophobia and misogyny respectively. Would make an interesting read.[/QUOTE] My initial statement was too broad and I can't effectively respond to this without shifting the goal posts so I'll concede this point outright. That being said, of course there is usefulness in understanding the mindset of a tyrannical opposition, but no major civil rights movement has been based on the understanding of the opposition. Always the opposition has been made to understand. Understanding them was never a prerequisite. [QUOTE]Yes, definitely. Let me stereotype a hypothetical transphobe for a second and say their reason is theological and specifically Christian in nature, would the ample evidence that people who don't conform to gender norms are not only accepted but celebrated throughout the scriptures not go a long way in allowing them to accept trans people? Or you could just project bile at them or try and silence them, that might work too. /s[/QUOTE] There is no religious movement that can be swayed by evidence from scripture. It is far too up to interpretation and only a minority of religious people even read or care about their holy texts to begin with. I would be ecstatic if proven wrong but I have little faith in the cognitive consistency of the religious. [QUOTE]Harsh language and respect are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm advocating for the latter. Of course, it depends on what you mean by denying others the right to exist; If you mean advocating violence against trans people then no, they don't deserve delicate language nor respect. I don't think anyone could hope to convince those people otherwise once they've reached that point, and whilst I personally would not advocate violence against those people, sometimes violence may be the only solution to combat opposing violence. Preferably dealt by the proper authorities of course.[/QUOTE] In regards to trans people, the right to exist can be as little as an objection to the scientific validity of being trans. In regards to immigrants, it could be an objection to their right to exist in the same space as someone born in the United States. I was too vague in this statement and my definition of 'exist' is too broad for to use without clear explanation. It's my fault for using it in that way. [QUOTE]If they simply do not accept the validity of gender theory and are denying them the right to exist "as they see fit", I stand by my assertion that trying to understand why they feel that way and showing respect might be better in convincing them.[/QUOTE] I feel very much the same way about opponents of gender theory as I do about climate change deniers. There is a wealth of material on the subject that leaves them little to no room for argument and there is a life threatening risk in granting them any semblance of legitimacy. Try to reason with them as much as possible but never treat their ideas with respect.

(rest of the discussion already moved on from this small bit, but)[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104172]This logic makes no sense. It does not matter if you live in a studio apartment or a mansion, the point is it does not feel good to have someone that has no right to be in your house and they are being ungrateful for it. I feel like you don't actually believe this.[/QUOTE] You posed a question, you had it answered. You don't get to go "no no no that's not the answer I'm looking for, you don't actually think this" Read your own post right now, do you not see how ridiculous this is?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53104666]Mugging is an action, not a group of people.[/QUOTE] Yet people like skate are right mugs

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53104144]This is a middle ground fallacy, at its birth, the Alt Right was definitly not born of racism but rather a frustration of several people getting sold up the creek by faux-leftists.[/QUOTE] This isn't correct either really. The alt-right are a divergence of neo-reactionary thought, but more publicly accepted as they at least try to hide their bigotry and shittier ideals a little bit. It's still an ideology founded from a schism in neo-reaction, a pretty fucking nasty group of people who manage to combine all the awful parts of conservatism, nationalism, monarchism, fascism and just outright bigotry into one neat package to laugh at from a distance. The alt-right were always fascists, were always neo-nazis. That hasn't changed. What has changed is how they present themselves to the public. Whilst other sects of neo-reaction (like the out and out "biodiversity" losers) are happy to present their awful views to the world, the alt-right codes those views into more palatable soundbites and propaganda. The modern view of the alt-right as a group fed up with "faux-leftists" is another attempt at rebranding the movement into something it isn't truly to attract more people. They're very, very good at the whole information warfare thing because for the longest time neo-reactionaries have been constrained to the bowels of the Internet, where information was always manipulated to further entrench themselves in their views. For a general overview of how the alt-right came about I recommend some "light" reading of Star Slate Codex; A shorter FAQ: [url]http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/[/url] The real deal: [url]http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/[/url]

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105531]Deportation is an action that affects people. Mugging is an action that affects people.[/QUOTE] Holio fuck my dude. The scale of impact of those two actions is astronomically different and it's frankly disgusting you're trying to compare the two. A mugging is a short term act that leaves you down a few possessions or some cash (unless the police manage to get it back), with the potential of mental harm. A deportation is a radical destruction of somebodies life that removes them from everything they currently own, their families, their friends and their careers and places them in another country entirely where they almost certainly have to start again from scratch to make a living. Which has a reasonable potential of mental harm. So much for "logic and facts" huh. One of those two, logically, is certainly worse than the other. But this is all besides the point. How can you justify sending a DREAMer back to a country they quite literally do not know? They came to the US as children, on average I'd assume very young children at that. They wouldn't have experienced living in their "home" country because they wouldn't have gone through enough formative years there to actually be involved in whatever culture and society was there. Sending them back as adults would make them total aliens to that country, with zero prospects compared to someone who had grown up there their entire lives. (also stop using the anecdote that DREAMers "caused problems" for people you know as if that justifies shit, natural born citizens cause trouble too, it's got fuck all to do with their immigration status and is a disgusting appeal to emotion Mr. "facts and logic")

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105531]Deportation is an action that affects people. Mugging is an action that affects people.[/QUOTE] Neither is good and neither should be done unless absolutely necessary. [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105531]The logic cbb was using does not add up. You can't say yeah I wouldn't do that if it was my house but because everyone is collectively being screwed over; it's ok. I'm saying he doesn't actually believe this because he understands what I am trying to say and it would look bad for him to agree with anything I said.[/QUOTE] The logic doesn't add up because your question was a strawman. Not all immigrants are lazy and disrespectful. The difference between us is that I understand that with all the good immigrants we take in, we're going to get some bad ones, and I'm fine with that because I also understand that there's going to be a very similar distribution of good and bad native citizens. Illegal immigration should probably be opposed but that doesn't mean we should ruin the lives of the children of illegal immigrants that have no home but the United States and nowhere else to go. They are not so considerable a drain on the economy that the moral wrong of shipping them off to a country they've never lived in before can be justified. In fact they actually become an economic boon if we provide them with a path to citizenship. There is [I]nothing[/I] to be gained from deporting them. I challenge you to name a single benefit from it.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105577]What I say: We should keep those of good character and deport those without.[/QUOTE] This isn't what people are taking issue with. We're taking issue with your defense of the repeal of DACA when that would leave [I]all[/I] DACA recipients open to deportation. If you only want to deport the 'bad' DACA recipients (which is a whole other issue we could argue about) then you should not defend the repeal of DACA.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105602]You're right, I don't defend the repeal of DACA but I also don't support the renewal of DACA. DACA was always a temporary solution. What I really want at the end of the day is a better solution for the problem. If we renew DACA we are back a square one. If we don't renew it, I think the left will have no choice but to compromise for a better solution. In all reality I don't think there is going to be a mass deportation even if it is not renewed. DACA and the DREAM act already have some of the criteria that I mentioned like being of good moral character. I also think we need more preventive measures so we don't have this problem to begin with. I don't think Trump's wall is the most effective border security but it can only help the problem (albeit, a huge amount of money for little affect). We need to stop putting a band-aid on the problem (renewing DACA) and actually come up with a permanent solution that benefits the American people first and makes concessions for the children who were brought here without their consent.[/QUOTE] Your argument is that in order to come up with a better plan we have completely scrap the [I]only[/I] plan we have right now and just hope that nothing bad happens to all of the people that would be opened up to deportation. Repealing DACA is not a prerequisite to creating better legislation. This dilemma you're presenting is completely fallacious.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105628]We have been waiting for 17 (DREAM Act) and 6 (DACA) years for a solution, why do you think one will be made now if we just keep pushing it off? No action will be done if we keep renewing it.[/QUOTE] Are you honestly under the impression that the Republican party has any interest in moving forward with a comprehensive plan to assist the children of illegal immigrants? They aren't threatening to not renew DACA because they want action, they're threatening to not renew DACA because Trump's reputation will be damaged if he doesn't build his stupid wall. If you want progress then I'm all for it but it's very clear that the Republican party has no interest in progress beyond deporting as many immigrants from the country and preventing as many immigrants from coming into the country as possible.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105666]and the left has no interest in making a compromise for harder regulations to keep the bad ones out... You see what i'm saying. Nobody is right when everyone is wrong. I don't see how an improvement in border security is going to hurt you. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the wall, there are much better ways of improving border security but some is better than none.[/QUOTE] If the Republican party wants to introduce harder regulations then they should actually work on legislation rather than discriminatory executive orders and the repeals of existing laws in the form of political blackmail. We don't actually know if the current Democratic party would be receptive to harder regulations because the ones that have been presented by the current administration have all been completely ridiculous to the point where no compromise is reachable. Your argument for the wall is facile. Its many negatives are not outweighed by one small benefit we gain in border security.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105666]and the left has no interest in making a compromise for harder regulations to keep the bad ones out...[/QUOTE] You're going to have to show me where "the left" are happy about murderers, drug smugglers, etc. coming over the borders? Because I honestly cannot see anybody calling for the border to be made so weak that "literally anybody" can come across it? And how do you identify "the bad ones" anyway? Unless you've got some top-fucking-tier precognition you're not going to see who's "good" and who's "bad" until they've actually committed a crime, and those who are known criminals in their home country almost certainly aren't getting past the border checks without lying anyway. And the ones coming across illegally can't be checked anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's not like the kids coming over at young ages illegally will have had the time to become criminal masterminds either.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105696]I notice a pattern here. You don't want any compromise, you just want your ideology and that's it. I have agreed with you on more things than not but yet you have not done the same. You can't say you want compromise when you are being stubborn.[/QUOTE] I'm being stubborn because the current administration's immigration policies have so far involved outright banning people from certain countries on a purely racist basis and using previously implemented legislation as blackmail for the purposes of building a fucking wall that would be a considerable drain on the already strained US budget. I'll start compromising when you can show me some reasonable suggestions. [QUOTE]If the democratic party is really for morals and not the money they should have no problem in making a deal. I don't think building a wall is hurting anyone. I would much rather see more technological improvements than just a brick wall but it can only help the immigration issue (I just don't agree it's the most effective).[/QUOTE] Building the wall is actively hurting the economy and would further drain the US budget. The Democratic party shouldn't be expected to compromise on an explicitly bad idea just so they can throw the Republican party a bone. [QUOTE]Cbb just said that he is for open borders that are effective, yet he can't say how to actually implement it.[/QUOTE] Yes. Because I am a private citizen that wouldn't know how to effectively implement an open border policy. That's just my moral and economic position. I don't think the expectation that I should know exactly how to implement a piece of legislation is a reasonable one.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105696]The left is not saying they are for those things but they make policies that have those consequences. Cbb just said that he is for open borders that are effective, yet he can't say how to actually implement it. [B]You can't identify the bad ones by face value. You look at their criminal history, education, values, work experience, family, etc.[/B] More likely than not a well educated and behaved individual is not going to be committing crime and use welfare. When you see a DACA recipient has been has been not showing any effort in making an improvement in their life why should we keep them?[/QUOTE] This is how things work currently. "Bad ones" [I]can still get in[/I] because they may not have had a criminal record at the time of applying for immigrant status, or just circumvented the whole process because US immigration is a genuine fucking nightmare even when you're not from a broke as fuck country that is actively hated by a scarily large number of the population. And why should you kick a DACA recipient out just because they "aren't improving their lives"? They came the country as kids and have no ties to their "home" country as the US is for all intents and purposes the only home they'll have known. They are deferred legal citizens of the country, a good portion of which are working towards actual citizenship in spite of being raised almost exclusively in poverty due to their parents actually illegal status. Again, should we not also be kicking out all the "American" trailer trash that actively avoid improving their lives and instead abuse welfare and commit crime? They're not being useful after all, so why keep them about? You've not given me a compelling reason why a country should kick people out who came at such a young age that they don't even know what living in their birth country is like, who have nothing to return to in their birth country. [editline]3rd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105696]If the democratic party is really for morals and not the money they should have no problem in making a deal. [B]I don't think building a wall is hurting anyone[/B]. I would much rather see more technological improvements than just a brick wall but it can only help the immigration issue (I just don't agree it's the most effective).[/QUOTE] Fucking Christ this tells me everything I need to know about you straight away. Border walls will never work in any way shape or form. No matter how advanced the technology, short of automated kill bots, people who are desperate enough will get over it or around it, or even under it. It's a waste of time, money and resources all for some xenophobic back-patting.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105744]So what you're just going to let them do it because you're stubborn? DACA won't be renewed without [I]some[/I] compromise from the left.[/QUOTE] The left [I]cannot[/I] compromise until something reasonable that they can actually compromise on is presented to them. There can be no compromising on racist policies and blackmail and to suggest that they should compromise with racism and blackmail is absurd. [QUOTE]Why does it have to be DACA or no DACA. Why can't it be new legislation which the right side would be willing to do with the wall money.[/QUOTE] It certainly could be new legislation. Unfortunately the Republican party hasn't presented any new legislation so there's nothing to compromise with them on. [QUOTE]To me it seems like you're more concerned about the money than the people witch is hypocritical when your whole argument is about morality.[/QUOTE] The economy and the well being of the population are directly correlated. My argument is two-fold. Open borders is morally correct and economically beneficial. I can defend both facets. [QUOTE]That is such a fallacy. I can say I am for world peace but I have no practical implementation of how it will happen. You can't stand on an issue when you have not even a clue on how to fix it.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the world is very complicated and as a layman I'm not equipped to fix complex issues. I have only the vaguest understanding of how global warming works but I can use the vast body of research that scientific experts have performed to formulate my opinions on it. Economics is just as complicated and similarly the consensus on the economic benefits of immigration are very clear. That being said, the issue is more nuanced than "LET EVERYBODY COME OVER THE BORDER YEEHAW" but I don't have enough of an understanding of it to speculate beyond useless suggestion and theory. I can certainly take a guess at how it could be practically implemented, but my opinion as a layman is inherently worthless.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105779]Most of the immigrants have have commited crime have not come here legally, what is the point you're trying to make? [B]Also, did you just seriously say "well, because the immigration system is bad it's ok if they come here illegally"[/B]?.[/QUOTE] No, I said it's understandable why they'd try and circumvent the system when it's so fucking terrible for anyone who isn't already loaded enough to pay around most of it. It's not a good thing people are being driven to that as they are put in a position where their life is on a wire the entire time, constantly under the threat of being thrown out. You still haven't actually answered the most important question btw. Which has been posted several times at this point; [quote]And why should you kick a DACA recipient out just because they "aren't improving their lives"? They came the country as kids and have no ties to their "home" country as the US is for all intents and purposes the only home they'll have known.[/quote] You're not solving the "illegal" immigration "crisis" by kicking DACA people out, you're just ruining lives. [editline]3rd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105803]From what it sounds, this whole issue is because of republicans. You can't possibly fathom that the left is part of the issue too.[/QUOTE] Yes...this entire problem is basically caused by the Republicans, I'm not sure how this is a controversial statement. DACA has only needed to be constantly renewed because the Republicans have steadfastly refused to make any kind of compromise that would expedite the citizenship process for DACA recipients. The Democrats have only needed to continuously renew it to avoid ruining lives and increasing human misery for no real function at all. And right now the Republicans are using human lives as blackmail to force the Democrats to fund an utterly preposterous project that will not provide any benefits and just waste time, money and resources instead. Actively increasing human suffering and misery for the benefit of a handful of rich benefactors, and driving xenophobia through the roof to do so. Sure sounds like the Republicans are the problem here tbh. Doing their usual obstructionist shit.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105803]From what it sounds, this whole issue is because of republicans. You can't possibly fathom that the left is part of the issue too. Guess what, when DACA is not renewed the republicans win anyways because they can deport all of the DACA recipients. They might not have the money to build a wall but they still won. You're so glued on the idea of letting everyone stay that you played yourself in the end.[/QUOTE] Yes. The whole issue [I]is[/I] because of the incompetence of the current administration. If they want changes made to DACA or new legislation put in DACA's place, then they should present actual changes to DACA or new legislation. What they shouldn't do is use DACA as a bargaining chip to get an ultimately harmful wall built on the border. For you to tell me "Well the Democratic party should allow the Republican party to blackmail them" is absurd.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105827]I've already answered it but you are not listening. They are not American citizens, they came here illegally, I don't care if they came here a second after they were born, they are not Americans. The difference between you and me is that you think we have an obligation to be the world's refugee camp. I think that we are being nice to even let them stay to begin with and give them an opportunity. If they don't use the opportunity, it's the fault of no one else.[/QUOTE] They are children. They do not have the autonomy to say to their parents "no i want to stay in my home town" because [B][I]they are children[/I][/B]. A parent isn't going to leave their kid behind unless they're really shitty, and a kid isn't going to do super hot in a country with minimal prospects without some kind of guardians. You're quite literally advocating punishing kids because of the choices forced upon them by parents who only wanted to give them a chance to not get fucking abused by the cartels or whatever. [quote]The difference between you and me is that you think we have an obligation to be the world's refugee camp.[/quote] Maybe it's because I'm not a nationalist scumbag or whatever but I don't see the issue with keeping some dudes who came to a country at such an age they have no ties to their birth country. That doesn't mean I want a free-for-all where anybody from anywhere can wander in a stay. But I'd rather not be punishing those who had choices made for them at an age where they can't actually mentally comprehend such choices. You're just putting words into peoples mouths at this point, I can only assume because your actual points are really unconvincing.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105838]Well, there you go. When you have the mindset of "i'm the one who is right" you will never reach a compromise. Why argue when you know you're always right? You're stubborness is to blame when they start to send thousands of good people out the door.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between being open to actual compromise (not "we will deport all these people unless you let us build a fucking useless vanity project") and holding the lives of fuck knows how many innocents hostage for a [I]useless vanity project[/I]. The Democrats have tried to compromise many a time to get DACA recipients the chances they need to become citizens, but have been consistently obstructed by the Republicans who either flat out refuse to play nicely and compromise themselves, or as it is now are using these people as hostages to get their awful ideas into motion. Stop trying to revise history.

Has anyone asked skatehawk11 to provide any sort of statistics about what percentage of DACA participants have criminal records, never mind how many have violent criminal records? And, if so, were any statistics provided, and were they sourced? Because if not, the last several pages of the thread have revolved around what are as far as I can see unknown anecdotal quantities of "bad-apple" DACA recipients. If the number is negligible, then kicking up this much fuss will have been retarded on all fronts. If the number is considerable, a reasonable debate can (but not necessarily will) be had, but those numbers are up to skatehawk11 to demonstrate.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53105844]Blackmail or not I think is is the only way for you to have anything close to a compromise. You don't want compromise, you want your ideology and that's the end of it. If you really cared for the people, the wall wouldn't be an issue. You care more about the money. I think it is both sides for causing this. I am not a republican or a democrat. You are the reason for polarization of the country.[/QUOTE] I'm disappointed in myself for wasting my time with you. What's sad is that you can't see that you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53105860]Has anyone asked skatehawk11 to provide any sort of statistics about what percentage of DACA participants have criminal records, never mind how many have violent criminal records? And, if so, were any statistics provided, and were they sourced? Because if not, the last several pages of the thread have revolved around what are as far as I can see unknown anecdotal quantities of "bad-apple" DACA recipients. If the number is negligible, then kicking up this much fuss will have been retarded on all fronts. If the number is considerable, a reasonable debate can be had, but that's up to skatehawk11 to demonstrate.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the percentage of DACA recipients that are criminals is irrelevant to him. Any amount of "bad apples" is too many because they weren't born in America and so he is more than ready to discriminate against them on the basis of their place of birth. He can very easily handwave the statistical argument by falling back on the position that the 'good' immigrants should be allowed to stay.

So, skatehawk11, how many people in DACA [I]deserve[/I] to be deported because they're unemployed welfare bums and criminals? Please at least tell us how many dangerous wretches we are unwisely defending. I want to know the number of people that you're fighting so passionately over. Either a percentage or a rough headcount. And it goes without saying that I want a source, too.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53105886]So, skatehawk11, how many people in DACA [I]deserve[/I] to be deported because they're unemployed welfare bums and criminals? Please at least tell us how many dangerous wretches we are unwisely defending. I want to know the number of people that you're fighting so passionately over. Either a percentage or a rough headcount. And it goes without saying that I want a source, too.[/QUOTE] I typed up a real long post this morning about shit like this, but figured it wasn't worth it because the dude [I]clearly[/I] can't formulate coherent arguments and I thought this thread had died down. These aren't necessarily the best stats, but [URL="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/25/daca-demographics-show-less-ideal-dreamers-media-i/"]using numbers from a conservative Op-ed[/URL], 2,100 out of 690,000 DACA recipients had their status revoked due to crime or crime associations. We're talking about 0.3% of DACA recipients being criminals. Assuming that the rate of 0.3% is accurate and not inflated, and using another [URL="https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says"]conservative source[/URL], DACA recipients are better than bulk immigrants AND US Citizens when it comes to criminality: [QUOTE]“[R]oughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. The disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial census. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.”[/QUOTE]

I don't get why conservatives can't compromise on their dumb ideas. I always see issues framed in a way that suggests liberals need to compromise.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53106140]I don't get why conservatives can't compromise on their dumb ideas. I always see issues framed in a way that suggests liberals need to compromise.[/QUOTE] Both sides [I]should[/I] compromise. The problem we're having right now is that the incompetency and bigotry of the current administration makes compromise impossible. They either want to repeal legislation without a plan going forward or introduce sloppily and deviously written legislation.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53106140]I don't get why conservatives can't compromise on their dumb ideas. I always see issues framed in a way that suggests liberals need to compromise.[/QUOTE] I don't think splitting politics into teams is a good thing. To be honest I'm starting to think anyone who just picks a team and plays ball is a moron. Lately I've started to refuse to be classified (as opposed to saying "I'm a conservative but..." like I used to). I state my position on every individual issue as it comes up. I think if everyone took this approach our political climate would be a lot better. A lot of conservatives refuse to compromise and a lot of liberals refuse to compromise. Depends on the issue and who's taking the active stance on it. The bulk of conservatives won't compromise on healthcare. The bulk of liberals won't compromise on gun control. If you grill either on their individual convictions you will usually find a more moderate viewpoint buried under the party line. It's time to move past the two-party system and abandon the left/right spectrum. It's outdated as fuck and nowhere near an accurate enough gauge to be used the way it's being used.