Author Topic: Republican controlled committee votes to grant backdoor open borders via asylum regulation  (Read 11451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,279
  • Gender: Male
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change.  Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.

 It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate.  Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only,  to set the thread on fire.  They think they are clever
.
  BORING, TIRESOME.

I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are.
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
   
   I like You.

@corbe
You’re about the only one.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change.  Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.

 It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate.  Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only,  to set the thread on fire.  They think they are clever
.
  BORING, TIRESOME.

@corbe

Winning friends and influencing people.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
I don't believe that domestic violence should serve as criteria for asylum (just leave your house, not your country),  but I could support appropriate legislation that makes findings regarding pervasive gang violence in specific countries and permits consideration of asylum from folks fleeing such violence.  In our anti-immigrant zeal, we should not lose our sense of humanity, folks.

I agree that Congress, not the President, is the authority for determining the broad criteria for asylum and issuing findings regarding specific countries from which asylum requests will be considered.   And persons seeking asylum should be disqualified if they sneak in across the border - they must arrive at designated points of entry.     
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change.  Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.

 It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate.  Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only,  to set the thread on fire.  They think they are clever
.
  BORING, TIRESOME.

I'm curious, based on the post you answered to, how do you figure that the "TROLL" said anything " inflammatory and nasty"?
Just a piece of friendly advice:
A lack of a sense of humor is no way to do through life, not one worth a darn, in my book.
If everything is a major crisis or a huge ordeal, it loses its meaning, than nothing is a major crisis or a huge ordeal.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
No American citizen, in the history of this country, has ever voted for mass immigration. It was foisted upon us by politicians that wanted to either virtue signal, or get cheap labor.

If you explicitiy ask anyone if they want to import millions of people or have open borders, it will be explicitly rejected by the vast majority, yet somehow we still got it.

No one is disputing that a nation has the sovereign right to determine its own immigration policies, and to protect its borders.   But this nation was built on immigration;  you yourself are probably the descendant of immigrants.   It is rational to support immigration that spurs economic growth and, in appropriate situations,  permits asylum seekers to find a home in this generous and prosperous nation.   

We will see if the extreme nativism and implicit racism of Trump's rejection of traditional immigration policy carries the day.  It is, to be sure, very different than the GOP of my day, which saw immigration as a net benefit.     We are a sovereign nation and we can choose to be welcoming or choose to close our borders and hunker down against the rest of the world.

Note that the foregoing has nothing to do with the question of ILLEGAL immigration.   We can all agree that the law must be enforced, and rules followed.   But there are sound reasons to encourage more legal immigration; our economy will grind to a halt without it.    As for asylum,  that is a question of our humanity.   I advocate a generous policy that is not an open door, but recognizes that our policies (e.g., our inability to curb demand for illegal drugs that has created the market satisfied by violent gangs) have created real victims in some parts of the world. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
No one is disputing that a nation has the sovereign right to determine its own immigration policies, and to protect its borders.   

Laughable on its face. Time and time again politicians have chosen to ignore the clear will of the voters on this issue, in favor of other political & monied interests.

So yes, obviously that right is being disputed since this country was founded 'by the people for the people'.

The rest of your statement is globalist claptrap.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
How about we primary their azzes at the earliest opportunity! 

Edit to add And stop letting the Washington establishment tell us who we can elect to represent us!

We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks.  Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.

Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.

People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.


Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
The rest of your statement is globalist claptrap.

There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism.   That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy.    Border protection and enforcement.  Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals.   Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth.   Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism.   That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy.    Border protection and enforcement.  Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals.   Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth.   Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation.

You'd do your argument a huge service if you'd leave the 'racism' charge out of it. Flinging it around make you look unserious.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks.  Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.

Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.

People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.

@AbaraXas

Tell me about it!  I was there for the better part of forty years!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
You'd do your argument a huge service if you'd leave the 'racism' charge out of it. Flinging it around make you look unserious.

As an historical matter,  American know-nothingism has always been rooted in implicit racism or anti-religious bias.  Always.   What once was opposition to immigration from Ireland morphed into opposition to immigration from southern Europe.  Today's nativism is rooted in opposition to immigration by Hispanics, or Muslims. 

It is unserious to refuse to recognize that anti-immigrant nativism is motivated in large part by fear of folks who are culturally different.  And over the course of American history, legal immigrants and their descendants have successfully managed to assimilate and become part of the American diaspora.   Always.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,071
We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks.  Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.

Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.

People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.



   @AbaraXas

   After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught.  Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
   Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
   @AbaraXas

   After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught.  Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
   Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.

You could say the party apparatus wasn't interested in what the base wanted, that's for sure.
We see evidence of this in every congressional vote, like what they are doing in this committee now.
I'm half surprised they didn't try to manipulate the whole primary process, like the Dems did for Hillary.
At least they let the results stand with no "Super Delegates", I'll give them that.


Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
As an historical matter,  American know-nothingism has always been rooted in implicit racism or anti-religious bias.  Always.   What once was opposition to immigration from Ireland morphed into opposition to immigration from southern Europe.  Today's nativism is rooted in opposition to immigration by Hispanics, or Muslims. 

It is unserious to refuse to recognize that anti-immigrant nativism is motivated in large part by fear of folks who are culturally different.  And over the course of American history, legal immigrants and their descendants have successfully managed to assimilate and become part of the American diaspora.   Always.   

Not sure what your point is in bringing up what personal motives might inform a person's opinions on immigration policy. Are you saying that those Americans who have a 'fear of those culturally different' should have no voice in the legislation? Perhaps they should be prevented from voting?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 05:24:02 pm by skeeter »

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
   @AbaraXas

   After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught.  Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
   Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.

There were delegates and attendees who had personal conversations with Manafort about their non-vocal support. Some were bribed (what can we give you for your vocal support), others threatened. Some of these were unbound, others were bound but were just not 'cheering' or showing enough loyalty (they expected more than just their duty, they wanted cheerleaders).

There was a big to-do around Trump waiving that 'gays for Trump' flag, it was the condition for one delegate to give his vocal support (versus just bound vote). The PTBs gave them that carrot. Another delegate from New Mexico (if I recall correctly) was told if he didn't cheer enough, he could kiss his own office run goodbye.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Not sure what your point is in bringing up what personal motives might inform a person's opinions on immigration policy. Are you saying that those Americans who have a 'fear of those culturally different' should have no voice in the legislation? Perhaps they should be prevented from voting?

Of course not.   But I think we cannot be naïve and ignore the history of know-nothingism in this country and the implicitly racist/anti-religious motivations of many of its adherents.   

Again - I am not disagreeing with you about the need to have an effective immigration policy that secures the borders and requires prospective immigrants to follow the rules.   But you condemned me as spouting globalist claptrap.   And I'll repeat my response:

Quote
There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism.   That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy.    Border protection and enforcement.  Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals.   Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth.   Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation. 
 

It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Of course not.   But I think we cannot be naïve and ignore the history of know-nothingism in this country and the implicitly racist/anti-religious motivations of many of its adherents.   

Again - I am not disagreeing with you about the need to have an effective immigration policy that secures the borders and requires prospective immigrants to follow the rules.   But you condemned me as spouting globalist claptrap.   And I'll repeat my response:
 

IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society, and forming your opinion on immigration policy accordingly. There are good, legitimate reasons based upon evidence at hand for believing this and those who have these opinions shouldn't be made to feel immoral for it. Thats just a cheap rhetorical ploy.

A much more honest approach would be to explain why we shouldn't believe that our current immigration policy isn't leading to a form of balkanization which in turn will ultimately lead to further erosion of our individual liberties and necessitate a far more authoritarian form of government than we are suffering now.



Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society, and forming your opinion on immigration policy accordingly. There are good, legitimate reasons based upon evidence at hand for believing this and those who have these opinions shouldn't be made to feel immoral for it. Thats just a cheap rhetorical ploy.

A much more honest approach would be to explain why we shouldn't believe that our current immigration policy isn't leading to a form of balkanization which in turn will ultimately lead to further erosion of our individual liberties and necessitate a far more authoritarian form of government than we are suffering now.

If it's a "cheap rhetorical ploy" to view anti-immigrant nativism as implicitly racist, it is one based on the motivations of such nativism throughout American history.   And it is a cheap rhetorical ploy to label those of us who want robust legal immigration to ensure a growing, prosperous economy, or who favor considering asylum requests from those fleeing gang violence spawned by our government's failed drug policies,  as "globalists" who favor "open borders". 

We should both be able to agree that we need sensible immigration policies that promote the interests of our sovereign nation, and that such policies, once enacted, be enforced.     

 
 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
If it's a "cheap rhetorical ploy" to view anti-immigrant nativism as implicitly racist, it is one based on the motivations of such nativism throughout American history.   And it is a cheap rhetorical ploy to label those of us who want robust legal immigration to ensure a growing, prosperous economy, or who favor considering asylum requests from those fleeing gang violence spawned by our government's failed drug policies,  as "globalists" who favor "open borders". 

We should both be able to agree that we need sensible immigration policies that promote the interests of our sovereign nation, and that such policies, once enacted, be enforced.   

Playing the 'racist' card is the cheap rhetorical ploy and a transparent one at that.  Today's Scarlet Letter.

However, I don't mind being considered a nativist. Not in the least.


Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Playing the 'racist' card is the cheap rhetorical ploy and a transparent one at that.  Today's Scarlet Letter.

However, I don't mind being considered a nativist. Not in the least.

So what exactly are the attributes of "cultural difference" that make you so averse to immigration?   Do you disagree that, historically, most immigrant groups have assimilated quite satisfactorily after the first generation?   I'm not trying to get at your objections to current immigration policies (e.g., so-called chain immigration vs. merit-based immigration), or the government's scandalous unwillingness to enforce the law.  Rather, I am trying to vet your apparent claim that unwanted "cultural differences" aren't rooted in racism or anti-religious bias.     
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
So what exactly are the attributes of "cultural difference" that make you so averse to immigration?   Do you disagree that, historically, most immigrant groups have assimilated quite satisfactorily after the first generation?   I'm not trying to get at your objections to current immigration policies (e.g., so-called chain immigration vs. merit-based immigration), or the government's scandalous unwillingness to enforce the law.  Rather, I am trying to vet your apparent claim that unwanted "cultural differences" aren't rooted in racism or anti-religious bias.   

This country has done a remarkable job at assimilating its immigrants in the past. However, with the growth of the welfare state in conjunction with progressive ideologies devaluing our traditions, values and heritage, political expedients of the democrat party (or the state) AND the increase of immigration from regions more and more foreign and antithetical to our own obviously we are doing an increasingly less efficient job of it.

As I've said before, if you had spent the last 30 years in California instead Pennsylvania I suspect you would understand exactly what my concerns are. Its clear to me that immigrants are changing the USA as much if not more than we're changing them. I'll admit I resent it. No one I know was asked if this is what they wanted - DC decided all on its own.

Now explain to me why its necessary the USA continually absorb more and more immigrants with traditions antithetical to our own? After all, I advocate keeping the status quo - you seemingly want change. Its more incumbent upon you to explain your reasons why the US needs to be demographically transformed.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 09:40:28 pm by skeeter »

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society,

This is scientifically supportable, in a psychology study of "disgust."

See Jordan B. Peterson, and Jonathon Haidt, Stephen Pinker


! No longer available
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
This is scientifically supportable, in a psychology study of "disgust."

See Jordan B. Peterson, and Jonathon Haidt, Stephen Pinker


! No longer available

Yikes, this'll take some time to digest. At first blush this explanation seems rather skewed toward the anthropological with little consideration given to the rationality, let alone morality of a given issue. I didn't really appreciate the Hitler reference either :bullie smokin:

« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 09:59:34 pm by skeeter »

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Yikes, this'll take some time to digest. At first blush this explanation seems rather skewed toward the anthropological with little consideration given to the rationality, let alone morality of a given issue. I didn't really appreciate the Hitler reference either :bullie smokin:

Forget about Hitler. These are top guys in the field, decidedly not politically biased, aiming only to learn how the human mind works.


My takeaway is: What is usually dismissed as "racism" is actually deeply entrenched human instinct and behavior. At the level of DNA and Epigenetics.

Their work is NOT justification for racism. It IS explanation of human behavior. 
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln