• Clinton and Sanders pledge to not deport illegals
    84 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49907068]Defending our own border won't further destabilize the Mexican government, it won't lead to bombing cities; it's mostly just barien land in the middle of nowhere. As to "fixing the problem". Legalizing all drugs in the US (to kill demand for illegal drugs)--which probably isn't the best idea--still leaves other revenue streams like human trafficking. The majority of the problems are to do with Mexico and other South American governments being weak and corrupt, unable to deal with their own problems, and thus those problems pour over into the US. So, unless the US is going to invade Mexico to deal with the Cartels and replace the government--which actually might create a Mexican ISIS--the US can't fix Mexico in any short amount of time. Given that, why is it bad to put a bandage on a wound to stem the bleeding until the doctor can get around to fix it properly? Why should the US sit around on its hands going "well it will all be better once we fix the problems Mexico and the other South American countries are having"?[/QUOTE] You've been bandaging it for 40 fucking years. There's no doctor coming. You are the doctor, and you guys would rather put a bandage on the issue, and kick the can down the road, than do the shit you have to do, and get it over with. You as a country have delayed it long enough. Mexico is highly destabalized as it is. How you can be so certain putting a wall up won't cause problems is beyond me. You're saying "Hey, we've got some crazy shit happening right here, if we put a wall around it, the crazy shit will just go away on it's own" when in reality, the chances are "That crazy shit will get crazier because you put it in a box." The US has helped that corruption exist in those governments for years by turning a blind eye, and by putting bandages on the problems. Legalization isn't a cure all. No one said it is. There's steps to be taken, and handwaving drug legalization processes away with a "Well they'll still make money on human trafficking", so fucking what? They won't make 1/10th the money and that's the thing you're ignoring. "Well I can't solve the problem, better bandage it, and wait for a doctor" when in reality you could fix it, you could do something about it, you could create a better situation but you're saying it's not worth it because you can't get rid of them entirely with one method? How ridiculous.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49907105]You've been bandaging it for 40 fucking years. There's no doctor coming. You are the doctor, and you guys would rather put a bandage on the issue, and kick the can down the road, than do the shit you have to do, and get it over with. You as a country have delayed it long enough. Mexico is highly destabalized as it is. How you can be so certain putting a wall up won't cause problems is beyond me. You're saying "Hey, we've got some crazy shit happening right here, if we put a wall around it, the crazy shit will just go away on it's own" when in reality, the chances are "That crazy shit will get crazier because you put it in a box." The US has helped that corruption exist in those governments for years by turning a blind eye, and by putting bandages on the problems. Legalization isn't a cure all. No one said it is. There's steps to be taken, and handwaving drug legalization processes away with a "Well they'll still make money on human trafficking", so fucking what? They won't make 1/10th the money and that's the thing you're ignoring. "Well I can't solve the problem, better bandage it, and wait for a doctor" when in reality you could fix it, you could do something about it, you could create a better situation but you're saying it's not worth it because you can't get rid of them entirely with one method? How ridiculous.[/QUOTE] How is legalization not also a bandage too then? To be clear, I don't have a problem with legalization of weed and other "safe" drugs; it just seems dangerous to legalize highly addictive or dangerous drugs. Their use should be decriminalized so people seek help; the treatment rather than incarceration approach. But I don't think legalizing substances so companies can make money off of addition is a good idea; just look at the massive amount of time and effort it's taken to get rid of cigarettes. Further, it's funny; the US goes in and overthrows governments and people hate the US for it, the US doesn't go in and overthrow government and the US is kicking a problem down the road. It's exactly the same as the "world police" thing. The US can't win because regardless of what they do, people will hate them.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49907194]How is legalization not also a bandage too then? To be clear, I don't have a problem with legalization of weed and other "safe" drugs; it just seems dangerous to legalize highly addictive or dangerous drugs. Their use should be decriminalized so people seek help; the treatment rather than incarceration approach. But I don't think legalizing substances so companies can make money off of addition is a good idea; just look at the massive amount of time and effort it's taken to get rid of cigarettes. Further, it's funny; the US goes in and overthrows governments and people hate the US for it, the US doesn't go in and overthrow government and the US is kicking a problem down the road. It's exactly the same as the "world police" thing. The US can't win because regardless of what they do, people will hate them.[/QUOTE] I never said legalize hard drugs. By making the social stigma, and punishment for such things far less, rather than directly legalizing hard drugs, you can minimize the uptake rate, you can lower the return rate, and you can help lower recidivism and relapse. Your governments actions, even in your own borders, spill out onto other nations. 40 years ago, you guys started a "Drug war" that fucked these countries up. You whole heartedly refuse to take responsibility for it seems. It's not a matter of over throwing governments, having coup's, that's the kinda shit you guys did in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's that caused the world we live in today. We don't need more of that. But to really, honestly, not see your part to play in reversing the shit you guys fucking started, then I guess there's no discussion to be had at all.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49905797]Honestly there's merit to that. They're in the country and utilizing its infrastructure, they should pay for it like everyone else using the infrastructure. [I]but[/I] if they want a say in how the government does its job, [I]they should become citizens and actually join the country they want to have a say in.[/I][/QUOTE] illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49907238]illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, how would an illegal immigrant pay income tax? I'm aware that they pay sales tax but I've always been confused about income tax.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49907205]I never said legalize hard drugs. By making the social stigma, and punishment for such things far less, rather than directly legalizing hard drugs, you can minimize the uptake rate, you can lower the return rate, and you can help lower recidivism and relapse. Your governments actions, even in your own borders, spill out onto other nations. 40 years ago, you guys started a "Drug war" that fucked these countries up. You whole heartedly refuse to take responsibility for it seems. It's not a matter of over throwing governments, having coup's, that's the kinda shit you guys did in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's that caused the world we live in today. We don't need more of that. But to really, honestly, not see your part to play in reversing the shit you guys fucking started, then I guess there's no discussion to be had at all.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't see what can be done that will have a significant impact, even in the next 10 to 20 years; stopping the pointless war on drugs--which should be done--is not going to undo the issues it has caused for a long time to come. Not to say the US shouldn't stop it regardless. And that's just one of many things the US has done to the determent of the world; the meddling in the middle east for decades now, the overthrowing of south american governments. If there are ways to help fix the problems the US created, they should; I simply worry that any action the US takes will ultimately fail and make the situation worse, as has happened recently in the middle east.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49906559]Smoking weed makes you a criminal. Burning churches makes you a criminal. Jaywalking makes you a criminal. Robbing a bank and murdering everyone inside makes you a criminal. Now I don't think calling them "illegals" is dehumanizing like it's been said in this thread. But this? This is as dehumanizing as it gets[/QUOTE] Criminal isn't a demagogy term or a racial slur. It's a legal term for someone committing a crime, which unless it's decriminalized, they've done. [editline]10th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49906745]You keep reiterating this "criminal" things but what I'm hearing is "I see everything as moral black and whites". People come to the country illegally because our immigration system is broken. You want to make to system more fair for those who use it legally? Stop charging thousands of dollars, get rid of the decade-long waiting periods, and make it easier for people to come to this country legally, and they won't come here illegally. That's how you solve illegal immigration. You and Trump? I doubt you want to solve it; I think building a wall is just a big ideological way to show that Trump and his supporters just don't like minorities. You honestly think a big expensive wall is going to prevent illegal immigration? It's not. You'd need an army of people to patrol it and at that point we're just resigning ourselves to emulating the North Korean DMZ. There are diplomatic and smart ways to solve illegal immigration, but that would just encourage brown people to come to the United States, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE] I don't understand what your arguing at all. Criminal as a term is as binary as it gets. If you commit a crime you're a criminal if you don't you're not. It's not up to personal morals it's up to the law which is out of our hands. If you want that to change then crossing illegally would need to be decriminalized first.
[QUOTE=srobins;49907249]Out of curiosity, how would an illegal immigrant pay income tax? I'm aware that they pay sales tax but I've always been confused about income tax.[/QUOTE] I had to look it up real quick, apparently though they can't get a SSN they can get a Individual Taxpayer Identification Number: [url]http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentid=8418[/url] "Yes. Even though it is illegal to use false information to get work, for tax purposes there is no difference between legal or illegal income. Illegal income is still taxable and must be reported." Pretty interesting lol. But anyways, any quick search can show that illegal immigrants actually pay a shitton of taxes including paying into medicare/medicaid etc. It's also totally false that they take away jobs from citizens or hurt legal immigration, which any quick search can also easily show. I really don't understand those in this thread arguing that. Do you guys really think a US citizen or legal immigrant is gonna be a migrant farmer or the other types of work these people take on?
[QUOTE=plunger435;49907267]Criminal isn't a demagogy term or a racial slur. It's a legal term for someone committing a crime, which unless it's decriminalized, they've done.[/QUOTE] It's more than obvious that everyone here knows what a criminal is, but thanks for the lecture. What I'm getting at is not the meaning of the word, but the intent behind reducing them to nothing [I]but[/I] criminals. Which is what started this argument in the first place: someone who is apparently unable to see past one of the most basic and negative of denominations.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49907327]It's more than obvious that everyone here knows what a criminal is, but thanks for the lecture. What I'm getting at is not the meaning of the word, but the intent behind reducing them to nothing [I]but[/I] criminals. Which is what started this argument in the first place: someone who is apparently unable to see past one of the most basic and negative of denominations.[/QUOTE] Except no one here has done that. Most are arguing that only hard crimes should result in deportation for illegals.
So clinton "evolved" again... [t]http://i.imgur.com/mtn7RUO.jpg[/t]
The wall will never be built and we will never be able to deport all illegal immigrants. There's no point pretending any of that will fix our problems.
Seal the borders a-la Trump, and grant the illegals who are already here a path to citizenship. Building a wall is actually a good idea and I haven't heard anybody actually argue against that point. And if they're not criminals and they're not leeching off the system, why not let them stay and be productive? After that, we should be good.
It needs to be improved too imo. My girlfriend and her family have been here for around a decade now, paying taxes like everyone else and everything, yet they've been trying to apply for citizenship for several years now and haven't gotten any progress or heard from them. The wall seems redundant too, since they're going to find another way, where there's a will there's a way and whatnot, someone I knew came here from Mexico by taking a boat to Canada I believe and came that way. I remember seeing a video saying that the majority of Hispanic immigrants don't come via land either they take boats that the wall won't cover.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49905668]I think we should deport criminal illegal immigrants, but all the hardworking people should be given some sort of path to citizenship.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what both Clinton and Sanders said in the debate.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49908128][B]Seal the borders a-la Trump, and grant the illegals who are already here a path to citizenship. Building a wall is actually a good idea and I haven't heard anybody actually argue against that point.[/B] And if they're not criminals and they're not leeching off the system, why not let them stay and be productive? After that, we should be good.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/[/URL] [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html[/url] Trumps wall is dumb and won't happen.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49908219][url]http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/[/url] [url]http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/[/url] Trumps wall is dumb and won't happen.[/QUOTE] Even your biased source says in the end [quote]Trump’s border wall is not impossible, but it would certainly be a more challenging endeavor than he would ever lead you to believe. Maybe he should stick to 95-story buildings.[/quote] I mean honestly, statements like [quote]That quantity of concrete could pave a one-lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the Earth, which would probably be just as useful.[/quote] are just stupid. I ballparked with Google Maps that would be around 16,000 miles "the long way around", and mind that's just a one-lane road. NY city alone apparently has [url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/commbio.shtml]6,000 miles of road[/url]; if we assume it's all two-lane (it isn't but anyway) then that's already 12,000 out of that 16,000 in a single city. No longer does it seem like this hilariously big amount of concrete, it just seems like a lot of concrete.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49908594]Even your biased source says in the end I mean honestly, statements like are just stupid. I ballparked with Google Maps that would be around 16,000 miles "the long way around", and mind that's just a one-lane road. NY city alone apparently has [url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/commbio.shtml]6,000 miles of road[/url]; if we assume it's all two-lane (it isn't but anyway) then that's already 12,000 out of that 16,000 in a single city. No longer does it seem like this hilariously big amount of concrete, it just seems like a lot of concrete.[/QUOTE] Yeah but those are roads which are monumentally easier to build than walls You basically need non stop concrete pre-fabs being done, for 1900 miles worth of wall, 25 feet tall(including the underground section). Sure, you can compare the numbers and go "That's not THAT much concrete". I guess you're right, it isn't. But the wall needs to be done all at once, quickly, and efficiently and somehow, be paid for by mexico(definitely not happening, so the states will eat the cost and they'll want to keep it low too), and it needs to be done in pre-fabs and it needs to be durable and thick enough to actually make a difference. It starts becoming exponentially more expensive when you drag those details into it. [editline]10th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE]Twelve million, six hundred thousand cubic yards. In other words, this wall would contain over three times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam — a project that, unlike Trump’s wall, has qualitative, verifiable economic benefits.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49906308]I'm not saying we shouldn't change it, but I think that illegal immigrants should have to follow the same channels as legal immigrants. When we talk about a path to citizenship, it shouldn't mean preferential treatment for illegal immigrants but at the very least an equal opportunity. They should have to pay the same fees, and be subject to the same screening process (though I think that having spent years in the US as an illegal immigrant, working a job to sustain one's family and having a clean record should give one an advantage over immigrants without any history in the United States). I'm just saying that we shouldn't treat illegal immigrants like criminals, but we shouldn't give them preferential treatment either[/QUOTE] I think there's just been a miscommunication. What I'm pulling for (and what I imagine most others are, though I could be wrong) is a [I]total[/I] revamp of the immigration system applying to any and all future immigrants equally. A system that is available and efficient enough to make illegal immigration effectively pointless, and one that gives illegal immigrants already in the country a chance to pursue citizenship through the proper channels. [editline]10th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;49908128]Seal the borders a-la Trump, and grant the illegals who are already here a path to citizenship. Building a wall is actually a good idea and I haven't heard anybody actually argue against that point. And if they're not criminals and they're not leeching off the system, why not let them stay and be productive? After that, we should be good.[/QUOTE] This wall is effectively useless, however. At best, it's symbolic, at worst it's a multi-billion dollar self-gratification project. The logistics of building a wall that would actually have a dramatic impact on illegal smuggling and immigration would be so immense as to be almost impossible. It would need to be fifty feet tall, constantly monitored along its entire length by armed guards, be equipped with seismic sensors, motion detectors, low angle radar, extend fifty miles into the gulf and the ocean, and have the waters surrounding it patrolled by the coast guard. The costs of [I]just building[/I] this monstrosity would be astronomical, and the costs of staffing and maintaining it from year to year would be incredibly wasteful. Cartels have planes, tunnels, submarines, boats, and all manner of less sophisticated methods of smuggling (literal catapults) that simply aren't going to be inhibited by this proposed wall. A wall would have such little impact on their operations as to be essentially pointless. At best, it would be a mild inconvenience forcing them to invest a bit more into alternative smuggling methods. As for immigrants? Jeez, I hope none of them thought to bring a ladder. I would agree that we need to be doing whatever is reasonable to help prevent the cartels from smuggling people, drugs, and weapons into the US, but a wall just isn't a serious obstacle for them. They're much more sophisticated organizations than you might think. Even if we did go whole-hog and build a colossal structure with all the bells and whistles I outlined above, and even if that did prove to be effective at preventing the cartels from effectively smuggling things into the US, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. The costs of such a project would be incredible to us.
[QUOTE=cody8295;49907922]So clinton "evolved" again... [t]http://i.imgur.com/mtn7RUO.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] undeniable proof that evolution exists and creationism is a lie
[QUOTE=cody8295;49907922]So clinton "evolved" again... [t]http://i.imgur.com/mtn7RUO.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] clinton has too put sludge to be the DNC nominee, the republicans have so much ammo they can use to shoot her campaign down whereas Sanders has a handful of things they could use
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49910015]clinton has too put sludge to be the DNC nominee, the republicans have so much ammo they can use to shoot her campaign down whereas Sanders has a handful of things they could use[/QUOTE] With Sanders they have the "dreaded Socialism." That's really all the political right needs to drum up a furor.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49905797]Honestly there's merit to that. They're in the country and utilizing its infrastructure, they should pay for it like everyone else using the infrastructure. [I]but[/I] if they want a say in how the government does its job, [I]they should become citizens and actually join the country they want to have a say in.[/I][/QUOTE] Introducing a population with no rights sounds like a really bad idea. [editline]10th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49909920]I think there's just been a miscommunication. What I'm pulling for (and what I imagine most others are, though I could be wrong) is a [I]total[/I] revamp of the immigration system applying to any and all future immigrants equally. A system that is available and efficient enough to make illegal immigration effectively pointless, and one that gives illegal immigrants already in the country a chance to pursue citizenship through the proper channels. [editline]10th March 2016[/editline] This wall is effectively useless, however. At best, it's symbolic, at worst it's a multi-billion dollar self-gratification project. The logistics of building a wall that would actually have a dramatic impact on illegal smuggling and immigration would be so immense as to be almost impossible. It would need to be fifty feet tall, constantly monitored along its entire length by armed guards, be equipped with seismic sensors, motion detectors, low angle radar, extend fifty miles into the gulf and the ocean, and have the waters surrounding it patrolled by the coast guard. The costs of [I]just building[/I] this monstrosity would be astronomical, and the costs of staffing and maintaining it from year to year would be incredibly wasteful. Cartels have planes, tunnels, submarines, boats, and all manner of less sophisticated methods of smuggling (literal catapults) that simply aren't going to be inhibited by this proposed wall. A wall would have such little impact on their operations as to be essentially pointless. At best, it would be a mild inconvenience forcing them to invest a bit more into alternative smuggling methods. As for immigrants? Jeez, I hope none of them thought to bring a ladder. I would agree that we need to be doing whatever is reasonable to help prevent the cartels from smuggling people, drugs, and weapons into the US, but a wall just isn't a serious obstacle for them. They're much more sophisticated organizations than you might think. Even if we did go whole-hog and build a colossal structure with all the bells and whistles I outlined above, and even if that did prove to be effective at preventing the cartels from effectively smuggling things into the US, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. The costs of such a project would be incredible to us.[/QUOTE] I feel like a wall would also be a big ol' terrorist bullseye. If you tell them no, how far would people be willing to retaliate to such a middle finger? I'm not saying that we should cowtow to terrorism and I'm not trying to be overly afraid of terrorism (honestly, I don't care), but I figure people would try to at least dismantle it or vandalize it.
I can imagine that it would be vandalized regularly, sure. I don't think we'd see armed assaults against it, or anything of that nature. The people with the means to commit armed assaults on the wall wouldn't be inconvenienced enough by it to care. Still, it'd suffer some serious wear and tear over the years, only adding to what would already be very high costs of upkeep.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.