World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

I don't believe we can come to terms on immigration though, we are worlds apart. We obviously see the world through a different lens.

When I see someone broken down on the side of the road, I stop and help. People use this as a way to lure in folks and harm them, but it's a risk I will always take. I view the paranoia about immigration the same way.

See, I'm not looking at it through a lens of paranoia like so many people do. I look at it from the position of either we let in everyone or we enforce our rules about who can and cannot come in. I personally don't see the former as being a good policy, as at some point the influx is going to overwhelm us.

Yes, I can understand the concern. I'm not sure how I'd address that situation, certainly there are creative ways to deal with the issue other than building a wall and perpetuating hateful stereotypes. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

[MrPopo]

Oh, most definitely. Plus, Pacific Rim showed a wall just won't cut it; you need a giant mecha.

[Sarge]

I don't believe I'm paranoid, I just realize that there are good and bad people in the world. Again, if folks want to come in legally and contribute to this great country, by all means!

As regarding the spoilerpop:

That's an interesting verse, in that the Jews wanted to treat people well, especially if they were formerly idolators and now want to worship God. The whole point of this was to spread the name of the Lord.

As we know as well, Israel was not devoid of attempts to enforce its own borders, from expelling people groups to battling with various groups like the Philistines. I truly believe there is a balance here. I don't think that the proper response is to always turn away immigrants (clearly!), but neither do I think that we can have what amounts to an open-border policy.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Oh, most definitely. Plus, Pacific Rim showed a wall just won't cut it; you need a giant mecha.

Now THAT I can get behind.

[jp1]

As regarding the spoilerpop:

That's an interesting verse, in that the Jews wanted to treat people well, especially if they were formerly idolators and now want to worship God. The whole point of this was to spread the name of the Lord.

As we know as well, Israel was not devoid of attempts to enforce its own borders, from expelling people groups to battling with various groups like the Philistines. I truly believe there is a balance here. I don't think that the proper response is to always turn away immigrants (clearly!), but neither do I think that we can have what amounts to an open-border policy.

Ok. How about your take on this?

I also don't believe that just because Israel attempted to enforce their own borders, it somehow negates the message of the verse.

Matthew 25:40-45

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

[CRTGAMER]

Wow, lady has issues. A minute in gets even more entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLm99RLjBR4

Must have flown in from Berkley.

They all took a known risk when they decided to cross the border illegally. They should be prepared to handle the consequences if they get caught. That said, as I mentioned before it's not worthwhile for us to go hunt them down. As you point out, the majority are productive members of society trying to make a life for themselves. But if circumstances arise that makes their illegal status known to people in authority them yes, INS should proceed with a deportation.

I was listening to a radio talk show host (no not Rush) who spoke at length concerning the immigration ban. One of the key points was how much United States Constitution rights should be allowed to non citizens during the vetting process. Do immigrants going thru the vetting even when still in another country fall under our Constitution protection? Should the protection be allowed for dual citizenship when the individual has allegiance divided to the two different countries? If an immigrant is turned away with the U.S. rights debacle, does this open a window allowing to sue for all the years of potential social benefits lost?

I am for immigration when done right, everyone should have an opportunity of a better life. Go thru the vetting process, enter the country and make it on your own way. No handouts to encourage many who arrive to exploit the social wealth of our country. The vetting process will not prevent all terrorists from slipping in, but there has to be a more thorough screening check. Some of the crazed cowards that killed citizens and immigrants in the past had green cards. All with honest intentions should enter our country and prosper, the huge diversity is the true wealth of our country.

[marurun]

I have very complex feelings on the immigration issue, but some of my thoughts are very simple.

A wall will do nothing but waste our tax money.

Some jobs in the US Americans will simply not do, like commercial crop picking. In order to pay Americans enough to do the work, our food prices would skyrocket.

What is it with rich people and illegal immigrant nannies? You can afford to pay a citizen, you cheapskates.

Most who immigrate to the US illegally do so because the American immigration system is horribly broken in that it is far too slow. Typically it is Democrats who propose reforms that speed the immigration process and typically it is Republicans who want to keep it drip slow. The US generally does fairly thorough vetting, but that's not really the core of why the immigration process takes so long.
Speed issues are two-fold:

• Quotas: We have arbitrary quotas on employment and family immigration which are far smaller than we have people interested.
• Judges: We have far too few immigration judges handling deportation cases, meaning the entire system gets so bogged down over people being removed from the US that there's no capacity to expedite people coming in. In 2014 it took almost 3 years to get a proper deportation hearing.

The end result is that our legal immigration system is so slow and restrictive that people with relatives already in the US and no red flags may end up waiting 25 years to get a green card for no other reason than all the spots are full and that's how long it takes to get to the front of the line.

With these kinds of pressures on the system it is inevitable that people will force their way into the US. What we need is an easier, faster system for letting people get legal temporary entry to the US in such a way that they can establish themselves, and then give any temporary entries that have proven themselves successful (by a broad definition of successful) a fast track (like, a real fast track, not a 15-year fast track) to permanent resident status and then citizenship. Right now our system is so tight that temporary residents can spend years and years under constant threat of removal. It's much easier to be illegal and undocumented, because then all you have to do is keep your nose clean and your head down. If you're documented temporary they always know where to find you and you are always subject to the whims of the system, a system that's so slow that there may be no permanent status within clear sight.

Basically, the US system punishes people who try to do things legally by dragging things out to a ridiculous degree. This is why I think a specific kind of amnesty would be helpful in combination with comprehensive immigration reform. First, we need to eliminate pointless bottlenecks. Then, if there are illegals here who have been peaceful and productive and have truly kept their noses clean other than their immigration status, we should extend them a kind of temporary status that will ultimately let them get a shot at permanent status, and not with lottery-level low odds, because that's why drives current people away from legitimacy. No, we shouldn't let them jump ahead of highly-qualified fully legal immigration candidates who currently would be pretty much guaranteed permanent resident status except for the whole 20-year wait thing, though I wouldn't mind them jumping ahead of randos who just kinda think it would be kewl to live in the US.

As for safety/security concerns, I did a quick analysis of terrorist attacks in the US linked, even if loosely, to radical Islam since 9/11. As you can see from the list below, based on nationality, at least, our current stayed immigration ban would do very little. Half of them are US citizens. And only half of the US citizen perpetrators were 1st generation children of immigrants. Domestic white and/or Christian extremist terrorism is still a bigger threat to Americans than middle-east-linked Islamic-extremist terrorist. I think that's a good sign that our vetting processes are already pretty good. There is no such thing as perfect security, and the law of diminishing returns definitely applies.

Omar Mateen
--US citizen, Parents Afghanistan
Abdul Artan
--Refugee Somalia
Syed Farook
--US citizen, Parents Pakistan
Tashfeen Malik
--Green Card from Pakistan
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez
--Naturalized citizen from Kuwait
Alton Nolen
--US citizen
Tamerlan Tsarnaev
--Son of Russian Asylee, born in KASSR (Kalmykia, Russia/USSR)
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
--Son of Russian Asylee, born in Kyrgystan
Ibragim Todashev
--Chechnyan Asylee
Nidal Hasan
--US citizen, Parents Palestinian immigrants
Carlos Leon Bledsoe
--US citizen
Naveed Afzal Haq
--US citizen

[Ack]

I think one reform that should be done to our immigration system would be to state unequivocally that any illegal immigrants who manage to enter our armed forces and serve with distinction(ie. without facing courts martial or dishonorable discharge) should automatically be granted US citizenship out of gratitude for their service.

Second, considering where some illegal immigrants are coming from and why(such as El Salvador), I believe we should instead consider granting them refugee status.

[MrPopo]

I think one reform that should be done to our immigration system would be to state unequivocally that any illegal immigrants who manage to enter our armed forces and serve with distinction(ie. without facing courts martial or dishonorable discharge) should automatically be granted US citizenship out of gratitude for their service.

I can get behind that. And I'm picking up what marurun's putting down.

[Sarge]

Ok. How about your take on this?

I also don't believe that just because Israel attempted to enforce their own borders, it somehow negates the message of the verse.

Matthew 25:40-45

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

I don't think it negates it, I just don't think it applies in a completely global fashion. An interesting form of "extreme vetting" occurs in Judges 12:5-6.

The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, "Let me cross over," the men of Gilead asked him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" If he replied, "No," they said, "All right, say 'Shibboleth.'" If he said, "Sibboleth," because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

This is obviously very extreme, but the point is that even with God's people, there was some form of vetting to keep out those who wished to do them harm. This did not negate the necessity of helping others, but it clearly did not apply in every circumstance.

Again, I am not advocating turning my back on those in need. However, that call in Matthew is to the individual, not to the state. A state's priorities are different from an individual's. Even then, I am not opposed to helping where we can. But even our resources aren't unlimited.

Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line on who to help?