Republicans Opposing Legal Immigration

#101
#101
lawgator1 said:
Sure. But it ought to balance a lot of things, a lot of ideals:

1) economic needs of the State
2) expense
3) ability of the State to absorb it
4) human compassion
5) alternatives which give weight to the above


To name a few. I just don't think the GOP candidates do much other than lip service to # 2 and use it as a guuse to shield the less noble of their interests.
Click to expand...

Well obviously to item 3..even rich MV cannot handle it.

How many is too much? That is the issue, disregarding who are these people and their character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#103
#103
This is bull ish, the liberal Dem's don't believe in legal immigration. They believe in a open borders policy and Republicans don't agree with it..?? Surely this is what the author of this grand thread meant..????
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#104
#104
The Republicans need to do a better job at being racists. They nominated Clarence Thomas for the SCOTUS over 30 years ago.

They are also bad at misogyny. Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated over 4 decades ago.

When Leftists’ mouths are moving, they are lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#105
#105
Orangeburst said:
Well obviously to item 3..even rich MV cannot handle it.

How many is too much? That is the issue, disregarding who are these people and their character.
Click to expand...


Exactly my point. All I hear on that issue from the GOP is "they are costing us tax dollars and not contributing!" All I hear from Dems is "we can afford it!"

I never hear actual numbers from either. No discussion of what it actually costs and no discussion of whether, if allows in and to work and pay taxes, it would be a net positive economic effect. And we never hear discussion of where they might be sent for best economic effect.

And then we never hear a thoughtful discussion of whether even if a net negative our moral benefit in allowing them in outweighs it.

You donate money to a cause, right? Maybe more than one every year. That's a net negative economically. But you see a reason to do it, anyway, despite the raw cost.

I'm just advocating for an honest discussion of what it costs and how it could be managed and how that cost compares to the unquantified benefit.

Instead I get moral indignation on one side and lies about the cost from the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, SamRebel35 and Orangeburst
#106
#106
lawgator1 said:
Exactly my point. All I hear on that issue from the GOP is "they are costing us tax dollars and not contributing!" All I hear from Dems is "we can afford it!"

I never hear actual numbers from either. No discussion of what it actually costs and no discussion of whether, if allows in and to work and pay taxes, it would be a net positive economic effect. And we never hear discussion of where they might be sent for best economic effect.

And then we never hear a thoughtful discussion of whether even if a net negative our moral benefit in allowing them in outweighs it.

You donate money to a cause, right? Maybe more than one every year. That's a net negative economically. But you see a reason to do it, anyway, despite the raw cost.

I'm just advocating for an honest discussion of what it costs and how it could be managed and how that cost compares to the unquantified benefit.

Instead I get moral indignation on one side and lies about the cost from the other.
Click to expand...

I can agree. All I said all along is vetted immigration. This is nothing but chaos and unsustainable..and the drugs. Fentenayl is being pissed in our water system...


https://cen.acs.org/environment/water/opioids-down-drain-scientists-tracking/97/i16
Americans have a work ethic crisis. I spend my time in plants and factories and the Hispanic work culture is something without we would collapse.


There is a point where the economy doesn't need that many immigrants
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#107
#107
Orangeburst said:
I can agree. All I said all along is vetted immigration. This is nothing but chaos and unsustainable..and the drugs. Fentenayl is being pissed in our water system...


https://cen.acs.org/environment/water/opioids-down-drain-scientists-tracking/97/i16
Americans have a work ethic crisis. I spend my time in plants and factories and the Hispanic work culture is something without we would collapse.


There is a point where the economy doesn't need that many immigrants
Click to expand...


Ok, I think we'd all agree that it's a problem. Both sides talking past each other without an honest evaluation of it is in the end exactly what allows the worst scenario to develop.
 
#108
#108
But isn’t illegal immigration the new legal immigration? Thank you for your service? Am I doing this correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
Exactly my point. All I hear on that issue from the GOP is "they are costing us tax dollars and not contributing!" All I hear from Dems is "we can afford it!"

I never hear actual numbers from either. No discussion of what it actually costs and no discussion of whether, if allows in and to work and pay taxes, it would be a net positive economic effect. And we never hear discussion of where they might be sent for best economic effect.

And then we never hear a thoughtful discussion of whether even if a net negative our moral benefit in allowing them in outweighs it.

You donate money to a cause, right? Maybe more than one every year. That's a net negative economically. But you see a reason to do it, anyway, despite the raw cost.

I'm just advocating for an honest discussion of what it costs and how it could be managed and how that cost compares to the unquantified benefit.

Instead I get moral indignation on one side and lies about the cost from the other.
Click to expand...

You're right. We never have a meaningful discussion because obscurantists like to change the subject or pretend that you're a bigot if you want anything other than an absolute moratorium on borders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#110
#110
SamRebel35 said:
You're right. We never have a meaningful discussion because obscurantists like to change the subject or pretend that you're a bigot if you want anything other than an absolute moratorium on borders.
Click to expand...

Absolutes are the enemy in this discussion.
 
#114
#114
Huffs premise..if you limit immigration you are anti immigration.
At the other extreme, lets flood our nation with a few billion and see how that works out
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Fun coupon VOL
#115
#115
lawgator1 said:
Sure. But it ought to balance a lot of things, a lot of ideals:

1) economic needs of the State
2) expense
3) ability of the State to absorb it
4) human compassion
5) alternatives which give weight to the above


To name a few. I just don't think the GOP candidates do much other than lip service to # 2 and use it as a guuse to shield the less noble of their interests.
Click to expand...
We can place objective measures on #1-3

#4 is entirely subjective is it not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#116
#116
Fun coupon VOL said:
Yet you use blanket statements to describe an entire groups thought process regarding a subject. Brilliant.
Click to expand...


No, no. I said that the GOP candidates use the issue as a wedge issue and appeal to the worst sentiment. That's a criticism of a political strategy.

As many of us have said before on this issue, the politicians on neither side want it solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#118
#118
n_huffhines said:
It's not entrances into the country. It's permanent residence granted to people already here (which was down 20% in 2019).
Click to expand...

That's for the few who follow the rules. Easier to come in illegally, pop out a baby, and use the kid as an anchor. As hog says, until we end birthright citizenship or jus soli like most of the world has done, the problem doesn't go away. That practice is a magnet - the way in for anybody; and if somebody is here illegally, then the kid should never be considered a citizen. Citizenship of a child should always be the same as citizenship of the parents.
 
#119
#119
lawgator1 said:
No, no. I said that the GOP candidates use the issue as a wedge issue and appeal to the worst sentiment. That's a criticism of a political strategy.

As many of us have said before on this issue, the politicians on neither side want it solved.
Click to expand...
Very similar to how Dems use social security and scare old people that the GDP wants to take it from them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and AM64
#120
#120
lawgator1 said:
No, no. I said that the GOP candidates use the issue as a wedge issue and appeal to the worst sentiment. That's a criticism of a political strategy.

As many of us have said before on this issue, the politicians on neither side want it solved.
Click to expand...

What policy issue? Do you lock your door to deny admittance to just anyone who wants in? Do businesses lock doors or use security measures to keep trespassers out? Do military bases (part of the government) have fences and gates to keep unauthorized people out? Nuclear plants? Private clubs? What about events such as football games, concerts, etc where tickets are sold and non ticket holders kept out - breaking and entering there and any number of other places represents loss to the people holding the event - illegal? But you don't see a nation with rules and privileges for members (citizens) as an extension of all that??? Remember we the citizens pay taxes that supposedly support what it takes to keep us safe and the place civil.
 
#121
#121
lawgator1 said:
Exactly my point. All I hear on that issue from the GOP is "they are costing us tax dollars and not contributing!" All I hear from Dems is "we can afford it!"

I never hear actual numbers from either. No discussion of what it actually costs and no discussion of whether, if allows in and to work and pay taxes, it would be a net positive economic effect. And we never hear discussion of where they might be sent for best economic effect.

And then we never hear a thoughtful discussion of whether even if a net negative our moral benefit in allowing them in outweighs it.

You donate money to a cause, right? Maybe more than one every year. That's a net negative economically. But you see a reason to do it, anyway, despite the raw cost.

I'm just advocating for an honest discussion of what it costs and how it could be managed and how that cost compares to the unquantified benefit.

Instead I get moral indignation on one side and lies about the cost from the other.
Click to expand...

Remember the old jokes about how many Frenchmen it takes to protect Paris, and we don't know because it's never been done? How could you possibly derive a number without understanding systemic leakage around border enforcement and liberal courts constantly undermining the process? You have to try the first version to derive the numbers for the next versions, but none of it is any good without enforcement of the current rules. You'd think of all people that a lawyer could understand that. Unenforced borders makes exactly as much sense as a community deciding not to prosecute shoplifters.
 
#122
#122
lawgator1 said:
No, no. I said that the GOP candidates use the issue as a wedge issue and appeal to the worst sentiment. That's a criticism of a political strategy.

As many of us have said before on this issue, the politicians on neither side want it solved.
Click to expand...

You don't think dem politicians constantly use issues to drive wedges? The dems have used issues for decades to buy elections - see educational loan forgiveness. If a GOP platform runs an argument against a newfound dem policy, is that obstructionism or is it merely a difference of opinion in how things work - representative government at work? Again there are contracts for any number of things and part of the legal system is enforcing contracts; did those students not sign a contract? We have a set of rules that outlined how thing are supposed to work, and dems have a nasty habit of bypassing the rules in favor of segments (especially when elections are at stake), but you blame republicans for defending established policy like it's some new kind of alien concept.
 
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
Exactly my point. All I hear on that issue from the GOP is "they are costing us tax dollars and not contributing!" All I hear from Dems is "we can afford it!"

I never hear actual numbers from either. No discussion of what it actually costs and no discussion of whether, if allows in and to work and pay taxes, it would be a net positive economic effect. And we never hear discussion of where they might be sent for best economic effect.

And then we never hear a thoughtful discussion of whether even if a net negative our moral benefit in allowing them in outweighs it.

You donate money to a cause, right? Maybe more than one every year. That's a net negative economically. But you see a reason to do it, anyway, despite the raw cost.

I'm just advocating for an honest discussion of what it costs and how it could be managed and how that cost compares to the unquantified benefit.

Instead I get moral indignation on one side and lies about the cost from the other.
Click to expand...
I could easily be wrong, but I think you got worked up the last time a Republican purposefully sent immigrants somewhere.

I think that level of control, making sure the workers get where they are needed, and stay there relatively long enough to be worth it, is a level of immigration control that even the Rs havent thought of. Like holy ish the logistics of trying to organize that in some meaningful manner
 
#125
#125
Apparently, @n_huffhines is the Eli Whitney of nut picking.

He put a couple of nuts in the basket and the rest of you nuts couldn’t help but jump right in after them. 😂😂

Well played.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top