345d
@athousandyoung saidSorry, dont remember your answering here. I assume that you do not agree that the teacher would have to slow down the daily curriculum, given that they will have trouble translating 'eleven goes into 132 how many times' or such as that.
That highly relevant statement was in reply to your statement:
If your 8 year old was surrounded in class by little alliens who do not speak english, in a class which is there to prepare your child to move up to the next class by learning what the curriculum is in the present class, would you be cool with that?
Yes, I would be just fine with it. M ...[text shortened]... nt.
It's not my fault you have the conversational memory and reading comprehension of a goldfish.
Tell you what. Let's keep it simple. Does this example mean that, indeed, everyhone along with your child and 14 other aliens will sit in stunned silence while the teacher goes to the little fella's desk, pencil in hand, for a little unplanned tutelage?
Notice that your answer that you just gave mentioned, #1, how much money people pay to put their kids in such an environment. What the hell is that about? Does that answer? Excuse me, are you writing about other people, the money they pay? Not about your opinion of the school room at 10:20 AM on Tuesday?
#2, you then talk about my conversational memory. I assume you mean that I should remember something you said before? And does what I, AvJoe, remember have ANYTHING to do with the question?
Do you mind if I mention this thing with you in another thread?
@wildgrass saidHardly. You're talking about denying entrance for totally arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with the validity of their asylum claims.
It is hyperbolic to call it "abuse" just because an asylum seeker made it to Mexico but was denied entrance to the US. You can compare crime rates from many different countries, but just because one countries crime rate is higher does not make it abusive.
I don't think the anecdotes help your case, as if crime in the US doesn't exist. The deaths you are highlighting in t ...[text shortened]... safer for migrants:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/13/americas/mexico-us-amlo-intl-latam/index.html
Maybe you're not a fan of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but its Article 14 states:
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
I'd say violation of a right universally recognized in international law is "abuse". Not sure why you would say differently.
Your simpleminded ideas are laughable; making things illegal doesn't stop them from happening. IF the US made the granting of asylum easier and the processing of claims faster it would likely reduce the number trying to cross between official points of entry but simply enacting harsher laws is unlikely to do anything but make certain politicians happy.
345d
@wildgrass saidNo, the bill is far worse for migrants for the reasons I already gave.
You use flawed logic here. Just like Republicans, who say they don't want to pass it to help Biden, you don't want to pass it "merely" to help Biden, ignoring the fact that it does more than that, checks some of your boxes for what is needed to fix US immigration policy.
Similarly it does not matter what Lankford's selling points are. He's not selling it to progressives. It's whats in the bill, which is better for migrants right now than not passing anything.
I'm simply flabbergasted you would claim otherwise; what specific provisions make it "better for migrants right now than not passing anything"?
Yes, Lankford's selling point matters because it's true. We'll have harsher, more draconian, more immigration unfriendly laws with this "compromise" then we'll have with a xenophobic bigot in the White House. I'll pass on that even if you think it will help Joe Biden politically (it probably won't and I don't care if it would; it's a bad bill reversing decades of progress).
345d
"“Everything that I’ve heard that’s in this bill is going to set immigration reform — real comprehensive immigration reform — back 10 or 15 years,” said Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), the head of the Hispanic Caucus.
“If there was something in there like pathways [to citizenship] or Dreamers, that would be a very different conversation,” she continued. “But there was no negotiation. It was really a hostage-taking, and saying, ‘OK, what more do you want?’ And it was mostly concessions on things that there’s evidence is not going to fix the problem.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/31/biden-border-deal-progressives-00138687
345d
@wildgrass saidThe bill does have a few positive features: it expediates asylum decisions, adds $20 billion in funding for hiring Border Patrol, ALJs and providing counsel to migrant children and does allow asylum seekers to immediately work. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached
You use flawed logic here. Just like Republicans, who say they don't want to pass it to help Biden, you don't want to pass it "merely" to help Biden, ignoring the fact that it does more than that, checks some of your boxes for what is needed to fix US immigration policy.
Similarly it does not matter what Lankford's selling points are. He's not selling it to progressives. It's whats in the bill, which is better for migrants right now than not passing anything.
However, sending $14.1 billion to Israel to war on Palestinians would be a deal breaker for me even if I could swallow the limitations on immigration the bill provides in exchange for the improvements cited above.
344d
@no1marauder saidHow can something be draconian against people who are not even supposed to be here. I guess we could also say that executing a murderer, who should not have murdered, is draconian. No, it is not. You make no sense.
No, the bill is far worse for migrants for the reasons I already gave.
I'm simply flabbergasted you would claim otherwise; what specific provisions make it "better for migrants right now than not passing anything"?
Yes, Lankford's selling point matters because it's true. We'll have harsher, more draconian, more immigration unfriendly laws with this "compromise" then ...[text shortened]... lly (it probably won't and I don't care if it would; it's a bad bill reversing decades of progress).
344d
@no1marauder saidWhy do you keep saying that it will benefit this country to have 300,000 people a month come in here? 300,000 people a month.
It's a bad bill and I'm glad it won't be passed. It will discourage and reduce all immigration when the country would greatly benefit, especially economically, from increasing immigration.
That Republicans won't pass it for reasons diametrically opposed to mine is irrelevant.
344d
@averagejoe1 saidMore than that would probably be better for reasons that I've repeatedly explained to you i.e. it would be economically beneficial esp. in a country with 9 million job openings, an aging population and a low birth rate.
Why do you keep saying that it will benefit this country to have 300,000 people a month come in here? 300,000 people a month.
344d
@averagejoe1 saidHow do we know someone isn't supposed to be here unless a hearing is held to determine if they have a valid legal claim for asylum?
How can something be draconian against people who are not even supposed to be here. I guess we could also say that executing a murderer, who should not have murdered, is draconian. No, it is not. You make no sense.
344d
@no1marauder saidI don’t know this, but is there a limit as to how many people we let into the country? Then we could answer that question. If there is not a limit, however, then I think that discussion deserves its own thread. Can you imagine.
How do we know someone isn't supposed to be here unless a hearing is held to determine if they have a valid legal claim for asylum?
344d
@averagejoe1 saidHave any of you realized that with 3 1/2 million people come into this country, actually 3,600,000, each year, that is the number of babies that are born in this country each year. So the same amount of people come in here, as are being born. We are inviting, a tremendous amount of aliens equaling the amount that we have in our country.
I don’t know this, but is there a limit as to how many people we let into the country? Then we could answer that question. If there is not a limit, however, then I think that discussion deserves its own thread. Can you imagine.
This logically leads to populating our country with 50% foreigners. Ask Netherland-man if they would be good with that, Are you?
344d
@averagejoe1 saidNow you know that this is "encounters" and not "people", right?
Why do you keep saying that it will benefit this country to have 300,000 people a month come in here? 300,000 people a month.
344d
@averagejoe1 saidI already said that based on levels of immigration in the late 1800s (when the nation was much less prosperous) which were approximately 1.5% of the US total population, the country could comfortably handle 5 to 5.5 million immigrants per year.
I don’t know this, but is there a limit as to how many people we let into the country? Then we could answer that question. If there is not a limit, however, then I think that discussion deserves its own thread. Can you imagine.
344d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou're not very good with math, are you?
Have any of you realized that with 3 1/2 million people come into this country, actually 3,600,000, each year, that is the number of babies that are born in this country each year. So the same amount of people come in here, as are being born. We are inviting, a tremendous amount of aliens equaling the amount that we have in our country.
This logically leads to popul ...[text shortened]... ng our country with 50% foreigners. Ask Netherland-man if they would be good with that, Are you?
3.6 million is a little more than 1% of the United States' population. It would take a rather long time for the population of immigrants to equal the population of native born at that rate. And that's even assuming that would constitute a problem, which you've given no reason to believe.
Immigrants are much better for the economy than newborns BTW. They have full time jobs at higher rates than babies (and their natural born parents). Additionally they make less noise on buses and in movie theaters (which they pay full price for unlike babies).
344d
@suzianne saidI don’t know that Breibart has referred to the numbers who come (300,000 in December) here as encounters.
Now you know that this is "encounters" and not "people", right?
Can you educate us on that? I mean, they are crossers, trespassers, invaders, immigraters, being called many things. Are you saying they are encounters (or encounterees)? What do you mean, what is your point?
What are the immigrants who beat up the NYC police?