An Idea for Immigration

[Granule]

If I mistranslated the gibberish, feel free to explain what was meant.

i just did. lol

Reread the top post. You misunderstood to a hilarious degree. The whole post was laying out a means for boosting legal immigration, which is obviously something I wouldn't be selling if I love illegal immigration, since higher legal immigration is likely to mean lower illegal immigration (by filling up some of the job niches that lure people here illegally).

Uh-uh. What you're saying here is that whether it's legal, or illegal, make immigration legal and get rid of the word "illegal" altogether. That, comrade, is not acceptable.

What makes you imagine that? Be specific, please.

You have zero interest in maintaining our borders. Prove me wrong.

Quite the contrary. You should note that when Trump tries to wipe his ass with it, as with his threat to declare a state of emergency to circumvent the separations of powers, I speak out against that, even as you weak-willed conservatives fall to your knees.

"Separation" in your pervert world has nothing to do with the Constitution. "Eradication" is what you degenerates want.

[Oneuli]

Uh-uh. What you're saying here is that whether it's legal, or illegal, make immigration legal and get rid of the word "illegal" altogether. That, comrade, is not acceptable.

You misunderstood. Try rereading. Again, this isn't a Reagan-style policy of amnesty, where we merely hand legal status to people previously here illegally and say we've solved the problem. Instead, this is establishing a more practical (and economically and socially effective) path for people who want to come here legally. I urge you to actually read what I wrote.

You have zero interest in maintaining our borders.

Our borders aren't being threatened. They've been there for many years and nobody is attempting to move them. We don't need to build Trump's boondoggle on our southern border to maintain it, any more than we'd need to build a wall between us and Canada to maintain our northern border. This is just a dumb idea that the dumber wingnuts have signed up to for no better reason than their God King, Trump, told them to.

"Separation" in your pervert world has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I urge you to stop and think through what will happen if Trump declares a state of emergency as an excuse to misappropriate military funds (or storm funds) to address this "emergency" he has dreamed up. If the courts allow that to stand, it's a precedent, and in the future, other presidents can use the same maneuver to destroy the separation of powers when they aren't being given some spending they want.

Just to take an absurd example, to illustrate the point, imagine if President Kamala Harris decides we have a crisis of racial insensitivity in this country and she asks Congress for a $5 billion down-payment for a new federal after-school program that will educate every American child about white privilege. And say Congress says "no -- we've got better things to do with our money." If an "emergency" is "any damned thing a president wants to call an emergency," and it entitles the president to go rogue and spend money appropriated for one thing on some other pet project, what's to stop her from doing so? Can't she just, say, take money meant for storm emergencies and reassign it to the "racial crisis"? Can't she order military personnel to prepare white-privilege training courses and then present them at schools, on the Pentagon's dime?

I understand what the Republicans are hoping. They're hoping they can give Trump dictatorial powers and then go back to screeching about presidential overreach the moment the president comes from the other party, and everyone will just play along and ignore their hypocrisy. But these things have consequences. If you erode the separation of powers for momentary political convenience, they don't just rebuild themselves once you no longer need them eroded. It's a process that builds over time, until the barriers we rely on no longer exist, and the president is basically a dictator. That's why all the patriots in the country oppose Trump's idea of using emergency powers to get his pet political project done against the will of Congress.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cornelius,

illegals can qualify for some welfare benefits, including childcare. They also clog emergency rooms and increase healthcare costs. They also increase costs of education. Overall they cost the united states around 50 billion dollars a year https://www.heritage.org/immigration...he-us-taxpayer

Bringing dumber, poorer people into this country and allowing them to use our services, any services... puts a further burden on our systems. They are not our problem.

"Asylum" is a bullshit excuse because they cross through half a dozen countries they could have received asylum in. If you want to pick and choose, you are just moving to America, not persecuted to such an extent you'd take anywhere else. Hondurans aren't being persecuted, they aren't jews in nazi germany. Give me a break.

You are just trying to move the goal posts. It used to be illegal immigrants, then "undocumented immigrants" and now it's "Asylum seekers" because you refuse to tell the truth that really this is just the worlds useless dirty poor. If they had anything of value to offer, their own countries would be greater.

IN spite of all that, you don't seem to disagree with my premise, that I am ok with full amnesty as long as they are NEVER ALLOWED to become citizens and vote themselves free shit, or be able to use welfare. As long as you aren't just trying to be a camel poking it's head into a tent, then I think I have offered a fair compromise. Would you accept my plan? Or are you really going to insist to me that illegals are no big deal because they totes don't take welfare but by the way in the future once we get them allowed to stay we are definitely going to get them welfare" and think I wont notice the more insidious nature of your argument?

That Heritage Foundation Study has been sharply criticized by the libertarian CATO Institute, Senator Rubio, and many others because it counted many American citizens as illegal immigrants if they were birthright American children born to non-citizens residing in the USA. It also doesn't mention or quantify any economic benefit from all the sweat-equity wealth generated by their work and participation in the US economy. Millions of US jobs held by Americans are dependent on the business of non-citizens living in the USA.

It also makes no comparison to the level of safety net usage by American citizens, which is FAR greater. Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for most government services, and they are fearful to reveal their presence to government authorities. They tend to use far fewer government services than Americans do.

Many argue that undocumented immigrants contribute more in taxes than they use because they contribute to Medicare, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, but receive very little of these benefits in comparison.

They contribute more to the economy than hurt it, and if they were evicted, it would cause our economy to slow down.

[PoliTalker]

Here's a very good reason to raise legal immigration levels:

U.S. birth rate too low to sustain population