Where does everyone stand?
Keep DACA or provide amnesty because that is the US fault for not enforcing laws. Further attempts should be investigated and given in waves.
Begin enforcing laws and deporting illegals. Oh, and secure our boarders to prevent a mess like DACA from ever happening.
Not sure it keeping DACA or amnesty is a good idea because It is not necessarily a fault of the US, but the fault of something that is SOOOOOO hard to regulate. Federal agents aren't going door-to-door seeing if people in a residence are illegal immigrants or not because quite frankly they don't have the man power. Also, building a wall would pretty much do nothing since most people that come illegally into America are actually flying in, not running across the border.
Honestly, it is a very complex problem and I am really not sure how to handle it.
It's government incompetency. The rest is to protect civil rights. We aren't a totalitarian government after-all, or at least, I hope not.
While building a wall won't prevent all illegals from coming in, it will definitely help minimize the problem. We have fences set up right now across the boarder. We wouldn't use and maintain them if they had an effective rate of 0% or less than 50%.
Well, what do you expect? The government literally sucks at everything.
Anyways, lets look at the whole "wall argument" shall we? So I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the amount of illegals that come into the US (from plane) is between 60% and 70% (from the studies that I remember). For argument's sake, lets just say that number is 70% so we have 70% of illegals coming by plane and 30% coming from crossing the border. If we build a giant wall, sure that would temporarily stop the 30% from crossing the border, but wouldn't they eventually just start flying over to the point where close to 100% were just flying into the US?
Basically, there are definitely pros and cons to building a said wall, but a wall by itself really won't have the desired effect. First, after a wall is built, you would also have to enact a travel ban to and from Mexico which I think would be EXTREMELY hard to implement, but what about a temporary travel ban shortly after the said wall is built? The travel ban can be up to two years and that would give the US government the ability to figure out how handle the illegals that are currently living in America, but it would also give them some time to figure out a workable immigration process because the current process is a shit show.
Keep DACA or provide amnesty because that is the US fault for not enforcing laws. Further attempts should be investigated and given in waves.
Begin enforcing laws and deporting illegals. Oh, and secure our boarders to prevent a mess like DACA from ever happening.
Not sure it keeping DACA or amnesty is a good idea because It is not necessarily a fault of the US, but the fault of something that is SOOOOOO hard to regulate. Federal agents aren't going door-to-door seeing if people in a residence are illegal immigrants or not because quite frankly they don't have the man power. Also, building a wall would pretty much do nothing since most people that come illegally into America are actually flying in, not running across the border.
Honestly, it is a very complex problem and I am really not sure how to handle it.
It's government incompetency. The rest is to protect civil rights. We aren't a totalitarian government after-all, or at least, I hope not.
While building a wall won't prevent all illegals from coming in, it will definitely help minimize the problem. We have fences set up right now across the boarder. We wouldn't use and maintain them if they had an effective rate of 0% or less than 50%.
Well, what do you expect? The government literally sucks at everything.
Anyways, lets look at the whole "wall argument" shall we? So I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the amount of illegals that come into the US (from plane) is between 60% and 70% (from the studies that I remember). For argument's sake, lets just say that number is 70% so we have 70% of illegals coming by plane and 30% coming from crossing the border. If we build a giant wall, sure that would temporarily stop the 30% from crossing the border, but wouldn't they eventually just start flying over to the point where close to 100% were just flying into the US?
Basically, there are definitely pros and cons to building a said wall, but a wall by itself really won't have the desired effect. First, after a wall is built, you would also have to enact a travel ban to and from Mexico which I think would be EXTREMELY hard to implement, but what about a temporary travel ban shortly after the said wall is built? The travel ban can be up to two years and that would give the US government the ability to figure out how handle the illegals that are currently living in America, but it would also give them some time to figure out a workable immigration process because the current process is a shit show.
They're likely coming from planes on a VISA, later being expired and staying in the US past their expiration date. If it was that easy to just hop on a plane as an illegal, everyone would be doing it.
So the problem lies within the government for not enforcing the law, and of course, limited to what they can do.
I think a travel ban with Mexico would affect our economy and actually be a waste of a money on top of a wall.
Keep DACA or provide amnesty because that is the US fault for not enforcing laws. Further attempts should be investigated and given in waves.
Begin enforcing laws and deporting illegals. Oh, and secure our boarders to prevent a mess like DACA from ever happening.
Not sure it keeping DACA or amnesty is a good idea because It is not necessarily a fault of the US, but the fault of something that is SOOOOOO hard to regulate. Federal agents aren't going door-to-door seeing if people in a residence are illegal immigrants or not because quite frankly they don't have the man power. Also, building a wall would pretty much do nothing since most people that come illegally into America are actually flying in, not running across the border.
Honestly, it is a very complex problem and I am really not sure how to handle it.
It's government incompetency. The rest is to protect civil rights. We aren't a totalitarian government after-all, or at least, I hope not.
While building a wall won't prevent all illegals from coming in, it will definitely help minimize the problem. We have fences set up right now across the boarder. We wouldn't use and maintain them if they had an effective rate of 0% or less than 50%.
Well, what do you expect? The government literally sucks at everything.
Anyways, lets look at the whole "wall argument" shall we? So I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the amount of illegals that come into the US (from plane) is between 60% and 70% (from the studies that I remember). For argument's sake, lets just say that number is 70% so we have 70% of illegals coming by plane and 30% coming from crossing the border. If we build a giant wall, sure that would temporarily stop the 30% from crossing the border, but wouldn't they eventually just start flying over to the point where close to 100% were just flying into the US?
Basically, there are definitely pros and cons to building a said wall, but a wall by itself really won't have the desired effect. First, after a wall is built, you would also have to enact a travel ban to and from Mexico which I think would be EXTREMELY hard to implement, but what about a temporary travel ban shortly after the said wall is built? The travel ban can be up to two years and that would give the US government the ability to figure out how handle the illegals that are currently living in America, but it would also give them some time to figure out a workable immigration process because the current process is a shit show.
They're likely coming from planes on a VISA, later being expired and staying in the US past their expiration date. If it was that easy to just hop on a plane as an illegal, everyone would be doing it.
So the problem lies within the government for not enforcing the law, and of course, limited to what they can do.
I think a travel ban with Mexico would affect our economy and actually be a waste of a money on top of a wall.
You are correct- they mostly come on planes on a VISA and then the VISA later expires. I think we both agree that the travel ban wouldn't be the best idea, but how about just either getting rid of VISAs altogether or changing requirements to make it more strict?
Not sure it keeping DACA or amnesty is a good idea because It is not necessarily a fault of the US, but the fault of something that is SOOOOOO hard to regulate. Federal agents aren't going door-to-door seeing if people in a residence are illegal immigrants or not because quite frankly they don't have the man power. Also, building a wall would pretty much do nothing since most people that come illegally into America are actually flying in, not running across the border.
Honestly, it is a very complex problem and I am really not sure how to handle it.
It's government incompetency. The rest is to protect civil rights. We aren't a totalitarian government after-all, or at least, I hope not.
While building a wall won't prevent all illegals from coming in, it will definitely help minimize the problem. We have fences set up right now across the boarder. We wouldn't use and maintain them if they had an effective rate of 0% or less than 50%.
Well, what do you expect? The government literally sucks at everything.
Anyways, lets look at the whole "wall argument" shall we? So I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the amount of illegals that come into the US (from plane) is between 60% and 70% (from the studies that I remember). For argument's sake, lets just say that number is 70% so we have 70% of illegals coming by plane and 30% coming from crossing the border. If we build a giant wall, sure that would temporarily stop the 30% from crossing the border, but wouldn't they eventually just start flying over to the point where close to 100% were just flying into the US?
Basically, there are definitely pros and cons to building a said wall, but a wall by itself really won't have the desired effect. First, after a wall is built, you would also have to enact a travel ban to and from Mexico which I think would be EXTREMELY hard to implement, but what about a temporary travel ban shortly after the said wall is built? The travel ban can be up to two years and that would give the US government the ability to figure out how handle the illegals that are currently living in America, but it would also give them some time to figure out a workable immigration process because the current process is a shit show.
They're likely coming from planes on a VISA, later being expired and staying in the US past their expiration date. If it was that easy to just hop on a plane as an illegal, everyone would be doing it.
So the problem lies within the government for not enforcing the law, and of course, limited to what they can do.
I think a travel ban with Mexico would affect our economy and actually be a waste of a money on top of a wall.
You are correct- they mostly come on planes on a VISA and then the VISA later expires. I think we both agree that the travel ban wouldn't be the best idea, but how about just either getting rid of VISAs altogether or changing requirements to make it more strict?
They could revamp and implement a new system but I have no experience or any idea where to start. The only people that would know are the people currently working in a government position or indirectly with them through some civil service like bureaucrats.
Simple answer: no!
@perfect_blue: You didn't hear? Mexico is paying for it.
@Jacanuk: let me guess, your probably one of those "smart" conservatives we all keep hearing soooo much about these days?
The natives had laws too, before colonialists murdered them all and took their land.
LOL the natives had laws?
Ok, please provide a credible source of their legal works.
Yup. In fact, our Constitution was inspired by native law. So much so that Congress declared the following:
Whereas, the original framers of the constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and government practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; and
Whereas, the Confederation of the original thirteen colonies into one Republic was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself ….
The Congress, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the historical debt which this Republic of the United States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of enlightened, democratic principles of government ….
Further, here's a little snipped of history from the county I live in. These kinds of illegal maneuvers were repeated elsewhere across this continent:
Before the formation of Anderson County, Tennessee, that territory was initially land of what is today called the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, which had been settled by several pioneer families including the Wallace, Gibbs, Freels, Frost and Tunnell families. Although the Treaty of Holston, signed in 1791, was intended as a negotiation with the Cherokee to prohibit settlement of the area including what is today Anderson County, the treaty became ineffective as more settlers moved through the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia and North Carolina into Tennessee.
Booyah, boy.
@br0kenrabbit: Another example on the left of someone using emotion rather then reason. Sorry to break it to you but if Europeans never colonized the country the US would be a third world shithole.
Before being ravaged by diseases brought by Europeans, the Americas had some of the largest cities the world had seen to that point. The Mississippi delta area was the site of several large urban settlements.
I'd like to see that alternate history crystal ball you've got. Have you ever thought about selling your supernatural services to historians? I'm sure they'd be fascinated.
The law is the law.
So if you do not have legal status, you need to go back to your Org. country or work on becoming legal through legal avenues.
Fortunately 70-80% of Americans disagree with you when it comes to Dreamers. I'm sure Congress will make a deal.
Depends on a case by case basis. How old were they when they came here, are they a productive member of society right now? (I.e. self employed, business owner, etc), do they or their family have military service on record? And how much worse would their situation be if deported?
Immigrants who served in the military should be 100% safe. I know that brings up a weird Starship Troopers-esque corny jingoism, but still.
Pretty much this. I keep reading stories about doctors who have been here for 40 years getting deported, nurses getting deported, veterans getting deported. I know that is media sensationalism but still, it deserves to be done on a case by case basis like you said.
And the Starship Troopers thing was more of a Spartan analogue, not so much immigration; everyone in that society was a member of that society, but only people that served in the military could be appointed to political positions, vote, etc.
@br0kenrabbit: Largest cities and most advanced cities are two totally different things. The Americas had a large population but their advancement was far behind Europeans. It doesn't take a crystal to ball to see that but rather the simple fact a group of people on a boat were able to conquer an entire civilization aught to give you an idea oh how technilogically inferior they were. The simple fact they couldn't build a boat capable of exploring other continents should be another decent indication as well.
Kick them out. Build the physical wall and and also an electronic wall with drones.
NO DACA.
@br0kenrabbit: Largest cities and most advanced cities are two totally different things. The Americas had a large population but their advancement was far behind Europeans. It doesn't take a crystal to ball to see that but rather the simple fact a group of people on a boat were able to conquer an entire civilization aught to give you an idea oh how technilogically inferior they were. The simple fact they couldn't build a boat capable of exploring other continents should be another decent indication as well.
You can't extrapolate that to the modern era. Hell, look at China. China was a shithole well into the 20th century, but look at them now.
People have this idea of Native Americans being small groups living in Teepees and chewing bark. Fact is they were a very civilized people before 90%+ of them were killed one way or another and the remainder herded onto reservations.
@br0kenrabbit: Could we not compare them to other countries that have far less western influence and have a reasonable idea on how they would fair today? Guatamalla and mexico being two examples?
China was also far more advanced then Native americans in their time. Their country being a shithole had more to do with a combination of dictatorships and over population.
@br0kenrabbit: Could we not compare them to other countries that have far less western influence and have a reasonable idea on how they would fair today? Guatamalla and mexico being two examples?
China was also far more advanced then Native americans in their time. Their country being a shithole had more to do with a combination of dictatorships and over population.
Guatemala and Mexico are as they are today because the USA is there. Look at what fuels much of the violence in Central America. Those are US dollars and guns that are fueling that unfortunate situation.
North America is one of the most resource-rich areas in the world. If the Natives were still in charge, why would you think they wouldn't capitalize on that?
You're trying to make a very complex geopolitical issue way too user-friendly. Just stop.
The law is the law.
So if you do not have legal status, you need to go back to your Org. country or work on becoming legal through legal avenues.
Fortunately 70-80% of Americans disagree with you when it comes to Dreamers. I'm sure Congress will make a deal.
Well, what is the question being asked in those polls you love so much? is it "should the "dreamers" get an easy pass to legal status" or is it "should the Dreamers have an option to apply through legal ways for a green card"
Because even i agree that they should have an option to apply through legal avenues, like much of America does.
@br0kenrabbit: Those are not US drugs though. Thats a resource they decided to make themselves. You conveniantly left that piece of the puzzle out.
Why wouldn't they capitalize on it? You tell me most of Africa has the same issue. Extremly rich resources yet the most powerful among their own polulation has basically hoarded the wealth for themselves leaving the rest of the continent to suffer.
Im basically simply stating the obvious and you want to refuse to accept it at all cost.
@br0kenrabbit: Those are not US drugs though. Thats a resource they decided to make themselves. You conveniantly left that piece of the puzzle out.
Why wouldn't they capitalize on it? You tell me most of Africa has the same issue. Extremly rich resources yet the most powerful among their own polulation has basically hoarded the wealth for themselves leaving the rest of the continent to suffer.
Im basically simply stating the obvious and you want to refuse to accept it at all cost.
You mean people who get support and military aid from the US?
@br0kenrabbit: Those are not US drugs though. Thats a resource they decided to make themselves. You conveniantly left that piece of the puzzle out.
Why wouldn't they capitalize on it? You tell me most of Africa has the same issue. Extremly rich resources yet the most powerful among their own polulation has basically hoarded the wealth for themselves leaving the rest of the continent to suffer.
Im basically simply stating the obvious and you want to refuse to accept it at all cost.
Where there's demand there will always be someone willing to provide. If the Mexicans didn't supply it, you'd better believe someone else would. But that's a completely different subject as to what is being discussed; you cannot extrapolate the pre-Columbian conditions to the modern era. That's just silly.
As for Africa, perhaps you should research why such a dichotomy exists. It's a long, sad history that is far too complicated to go into here, but you should at least understand the amount of external interference that has occurred throughout its long history and to this day. Most resources in Africa are not extracted by, nor is it profitable to, Africans.
The Colonial era of Africa may have ended (only!) 50 or so years ago, but multinational corporations continue to pillage the wealth of Africa to no benefit to Africans.
Your understanding of these complex issues appears elementary and not fully informed. These aren't issues that can be dismissed as simply how the locals play. It's not that at all. Please at least think a bit deeper before replying. Few problems in this world can be broken down to simply casting blame.
The law is the law.
So if you do not have legal status, you need to go back to your Org. country or work on becoming legal through legal avenues.
Fortunately 70-80% of Americans disagree with you when it comes to Dreamers. I'm sure Congress will make a deal.
lol "Law is the law" is one of the worst cop-out defenses.
The law is the law.
So if you do not have legal status, you need to go back to your Org. country or work on becoming legal through legal avenues.
Fortunately 70-80% of Americans disagree with you when it comes to Dreamers. I'm sure Congress will make a deal.
lol "Law is the law" is one of the worst cop-out defenses.
And why is that?
There are no nuances in the law, either you uphold it or you don´t.
But maybe when you get to be a bit older you will learn this.
I'm in favor of changing our immigration laws to allow legal work permits for anyone who can hold a job and wants to come and also giving those permits to the people who are already here. Employers would have to pay at least the same minimum wage they would have to pay US citizens, and the labor would be taxed. The current immigration policy is way too tough, to the point that we can't enforce it without crippling our economy, so I really don't understand the people that think it needs to be tougher.
And why is that?
There are no nuances in the law, either you uphold it or you don´t.
But maybe when you get to be a bit older you will learn this.
Some laws that are still on the books locally:
It is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
When you pull up to a stop sign you must fire a gun out the window to warn horse carriages that you are coming.
It is Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians.
It is illegal to give any pie to fellow diners.
Giving and receiving oral sex is still prohibited by law.
Yes, those are all still on the books. No, no one really gives a shit.
But according to you...well...law is law, right?
And why is that?
There are no nuances in the law, either you uphold it or you don´t.
But maybe when you get to be a bit older you will learn this.
Some laws that are still on the books locally:
It is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
When you pull up to a stop sign you must fire a gun out the window to warn horse carriages that you are coming.
It is Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians.
It is illegal to give any pie to fellow diners.
Giving and receiving oral sex is still prohibited by law.
Yes, those are all still on the books. No, no one really gives a shit.
But according to you...well...law is law, right?
Funny.
But it´s not up to the public to decide which laws to follow, The government, however, can do what is called discretionary enforcement
Funny.
But it´s not up to the public to decide which laws to follow, The government, however, can do what is called discretionary enforcement
Thanks for admitting that. So can we stop with the 'what's the use having laws if they're not enforced' BS?
Funny.
But it´s not up to the public to decide which laws to follow, The government, however, can do what is called discretionary enforcement
Thanks for admitting that. So can we stop with the 'what's the use having laws if they're not enforced' BS?
Again it´s not up to the illegals to decide which laws are supposed to be upheld.
We have immigration laws for a reason and they should, of course, be upheld 100% and if the illegals don´t like it, they are not welcome here
Again it´s not up to the illegals to decide which laws are supposed to be upheld.
We have immigration laws for a reason and they should, of course, be upheld 100% and if the illegals don´t like it, they are not welcome here
No one is arguing that immigrants should make that decision. What is being argued is that common human decency be considered. Not all cases are the same. Some people didn't make the decision to come here; their parents did. Some people may have fled here due to very real dangers to themselves or loved ones. As many in this thread have said, each case should be considered on its own merits.
That the government has discretion is the entire point people are trying to get across. You've just admitted the government has such discretion, so what's the problem?
@br0kenrabbit: Oh i have no doubt people would still supply it my issue is Mexico seems to make more money off drugs then any legal export they produce. So to blame the issue strictly on US guns and money is a bit disengenious.
We can talk about wealthy corporations pillaging Africa. But the reason it doesn't benefit african people is because a terribly corrupt government distributes the money amongst themselves.
Blame colonialism all you want but if you think these nations would be like the fictional land of Wakanda you are kidding yourself.
Nope
@br0kenrabbit: Oh i have no doubt people would still supply it my issue is Mexico seems to make more money off drugs then any legal export they produce. So to blame the issue strictly on US guns and money is a bit disengenious.
We can talk about wealthy corporations pillaging Africa. But the reason it doesn't benefit african people is because a terribly corrupt government distributes the money amongst themselves.
Blame colonialism all you want but if you think these nations would be like the fictional land of Wakanda you are kidding yourself.
I've told you repeatedly that the problems are complex, and I have not absolved Mexico of all blame, but neither do I lay the entirety of blame on Mexico. My contention with you currently is your attempts to simplify the issues and not give due weight to the complexity of said issues.
Simplifying issues to such an extreme that the actual problems get buried beneath one-line summaries is not the way to approach such problems.
Further, my initial point was that were the USA a different (or multiple) nation(s) of Natives then the situation south of the border would likely be very different due to the simple fact that the economic and political landscape would of necessity be different than what we have today.
Again it´s not up to the illegals to decide which laws are supposed to be upheld.
We have immigration laws for a reason and they should, of course, be upheld 100% and if the illegals don´t like it, they are not welcome here
No one is arguing that immigrants should make that decision. What is being argued is that common human decency be considered. Not all cases are the same. Some people didn't make the decision to come here; their parents did. Some people may have fled here due to very real dangers to themselves or loved ones. As many in this thread have said, each case should be considered on its own merits.
That the government has discretion is the entire point people are trying to get across. You've just admitted the government has such discretion, so what's the problem?
You are talking about two different things. A law that was made 100 years ago that no one is enforcing, and a current law that is a key part of the American legal system. Those two are not the same and no the government does not have the discretion to judge some illegals differently than others.
When it comes to immigration laws it is not a case on base any judgment on some die-hard liberal emotional BS. The law is the law and either we open our doors and let everyone who wants too, in or we uphold the laws, we put in place and of course, send the illegals back home where they belong.
You are talking about two different things. A law that was made 100 years ago that no one is enforcing, and a current law that is a key part of the American legal system. Those two are not the same and no the government does not have the discretion to judge some illegals differently than others.
When it comes to immigration laws it is not a case on base any judgment on some die-hard liberal emotional BS. The law is the law and either we open our doors and let everyone who wants too, in or we uphold the laws, we put in place and of course, send the illegals back home where they belong.
They certainly can, have and do selectively enforce immigration law. I don't know where you're getting that they can't do this. Even that republican stalwart Reagan granted blanket amnesty.
Depends on a case by case basis. How old were they when they came here, are they a productive member of society right now? (I.e. self employed, business owner, etc), do they or their family have military service on record? And how much worse would their situation be if deported?
Immigrants who served in the military should be 100% safe. I know that brings up a weird Starship Troopers-esque corny jingoism, but still.
Pretty much this. I keep reading stories about doctors who have been here for 40 years getting deported, nurses getting deported, veterans getting deported. I know that is media sensationalism but still, it deserves to be done on a case by case basis like you said.
And the Starship Troopers thing was more of a Spartan analogue, not so much immigration; everyone in that society was a member of that society, but only people that served in the military could be appointed to political positions, vote, etc.
I don't know about the doctors or nurses getting deported, but I can tell you that veterans are NOT getting deported. One of the main requirements of joining the United States military is that you have to be a citizen of the United States. Basically, every service member in the the U.S. military is a citizen and if they aren't then they lied about their citizenship to get in.
The U.S. military generally has 5 requirements:
Former member of the United States Marine Corps both active duty and reserves.
Depends on a case by case basis. How old were they when they came here, are they a productive member of society right now? (I.e. self employed, business owner, etc), do they or their family have military service on record? And how much worse would their situation be if deported?
Immigrants who served in the military should be 100% safe. I know that brings up a weird Starship Troopers-esque corny jingoism, but still.
Pretty much this. I keep reading stories about doctors who have been here for 40 years getting deported, nurses getting deported, veterans getting deported. I know that is media sensationalism but still, it deserves to be done on a case by case basis like you said.
And the Starship Troopers thing was more of a Spartan analogue, not so much immigration; everyone in that society was a member of that society, but only people that served in the military could be appointed to political positions, vote, etc.
I don't know about the doctors or nurses getting deported, but I can tell you that veterans are NOT getting deported. One of the main requirements of joining the United States military is that you have to be a citizen of the United States. Basically, every service member in the the U.S. military is a citizen and if they aren't then they lied about their citizenship to get in.
Former member of the United States Marine Corps both active duty and reserves.
You don't have to be a US citizen to enlist
Depends on a case by case basis. How old were they when they came here, are they a productive member of society right now? (I.e. self employed, business owner, etc), do they or their family have military service on record? And how much worse would their situation be if deported?
Immigrants who served in the military should be 100% safe. I know that brings up a weird Starship Troopers-esque corny jingoism, but still.
Pretty much this. I keep reading stories about doctors who have been here for 40 years getting deported, nurses getting deported, veterans getting deported. I know that is media sensationalism but still, it deserves to be done on a case by case basis like you said.
And the Starship Troopers thing was more of a Spartan analogue, not so much immigration; everyone in that society was a member of that society, but only people that served in the military could be appointed to political positions, vote, etc.
I don't know about the doctors or nurses getting deported, but I can tell you that veterans are NOT getting deported. One of the main requirements of joining the United States military is that you have to be a citizen of the United States. Basically, every service member in the the U.S. military is a citizen and if they aren't then they lied about their citizenship to get in.
Former member of the United States Marine Corps both active duty and reserves.
You don't have to be a US citizen to enlist
If you aren't a citizen, then you have to have a green card i.e permanent resident. That is the requirement.
Depends on a case by case basis. How old were they when they came here, are they a productive member of society right now? (I.e. self employed, business owner, etc), do they or their family have military service on record? And how much worse would their situation be if deported?
Immigrants who served in the military should be 100% safe. I know that brings up a weird Starship Troopers-esque corny jingoism, but still.
Pretty much this. I keep reading stories about doctors who have been here for 40 years getting deported, nurses getting deported, veterans getting deported. I know that is media sensationalism but still, it deserves to be done on a case by case basis like you said.
And the Starship Troopers thing was more of a Spartan analogue, not so much immigration; everyone in that society was a member of that society, but only people that served in the military could be appointed to political positions, vote, etc.
I don't know about the doctors or nurses getting deported, but I can tell you that veterans are NOT getting deported. One of the main requirements of joining the United States military is that you have to be a citizen of the United States. Basically, every service member in the the U.S. military is a citizen and if they aren't then they lied about their citizenship to get in.
Former member of the United States Marine Corps both active duty and reserves.
You don't have to be a US citizen to enlist
If you aren't a citizen, then you have to have a green card i.e permanent resident. That is the requirement.
Good on you for figuring that out
@mecha_frieza:
Why does everyone who tries to defend their talking point have to mention stuff like military enlisting? So that is supposed to give you more credibility? Obviously that's why you pointed it out like a cop with a badge! lol
mecha_frieza: "And I know what I'm talking about because I was a marine!"
Not that I'm saying it's impossible for you to be one, of course. Although it is really easy to lie on the Internet. It's just so fucking funny the moments people choose to mention shit like that!
@mecha_frieza:
Why does everyone who tries to defend their talking point have to mention stuff like military enlisting? So that is supposed to give you more credibility? Obviously that's why you pointed it out like a cop with a badge! lol
mecha_frieza: "And I know what I'm talking about because I was a marine!"
Not that I'm saying it's impossible for you to be one, of course. Although it is really easy to lie on the Internet. It's just so fucking funny the moments people choose to mention shit like that!
It does give me credibility because I was in the service thus I know what the requirements to joining are. Someone said that veterans are getting deported and that isn't really the case because you either have to be a citizen or a permanent resident (green card) in order to join. However, if you have a green card, you can still be deported if you commit a violent crime (usually felony orientated) which usually results in your green card being revoked. Not sure what you are attempting to gain by mocking my military service, but I suggest you tread carefully.
@mecha_frieza:
Why does everyone who tries to defend their talking point have to mention stuff like military enlisting? So that is supposed to give you more credibility? Obviously that's why you pointed it out like a cop with a badge! lol
mecha_frieza: "And I know what I'm talking about because I was a marine!"
Not that I'm saying it's impossible for you to be one, of course. Although it is really easy to lie on the Internet. It's just so fucking funny the moments people choose to mention shit like that!
It does give me credibility because I was in the service thus I know what the requirements to joining are.
except you were wrong
@mecha_frieza:
Okay, fine. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe you did enlist, maybe you didn't. After all, I obviously don't know you on a personal level and you don't know me..
Even so, you mean to tell me that you KNOW for a FACT that only citizens have enlisted in the military? You know that everyone is a citizen and has been a citizen the moment they enlisted?
@mecha_frieza:
Why does everyone who tries to defend their talking point have to mention stuff like military enlisting? So that is supposed to give you more credibility? Obviously that's why you pointed it out like a cop with a badge! lol
mecha_frieza: "And I know what I'm talking about because I was a marine!"
Not that I'm saying it's impossible for you to be one, of course. Although it is really easy to lie on the Internet. It's just so fucking funny the moments people choose to mention shit like that!
It does give me credibility because I was in the service thus I know what the requirements to joining are.
except you were wrong
How was I wrong? There are two types of immigrants that get deported, ones who seriously break the law and ones that don't bother getting citizenship or establishing permanent residency. I was responding to someone who said that veterans are getting deported, but you have to look at the circumstances. You could have been in the military as a permanent resident, but if you get out and commit a violent crime, then you will be getting deported.
There is nothing that I have said that is wrong so I am not sure what you are getting at. If you go into a recruiter's office (or have spent a lot of time working with recruiters like I have) you will learn what the requirements are.
@mecha_frieza:
Why does everyone who tries to defend their talking point have to mention stuff like military enlisting? So that is supposed to give you more credibility? Obviously that's why you pointed it out like a cop with a badge! lol
mecha_frieza: "And I know what I'm talking about because I was a marine!"
Not that I'm saying it's impossible for you to be one, of course. Although it is really easy to lie on the Internet. It's just so fucking funny the moments people choose to mention shit like that!
It does give me credibility because I was in the service thus I know what the requirements to joining are.
except you were wrong
How was I wrong?
One of the main requirements of joining the United States military is that you have to be a citizen of the United States. Basically, every service member in the the U.S. military is a citizen and if they aren't then they lied about their citizenship to get in.
@mecha_frieza:
Okay, fine. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe you did enlist, maybe you didn't. After all, I obviously don't know you on a personal level and you don't know me..
Even so, you mean to tell me that you KNOW for a FACT that only citizens have enlisted in the military?You know that everyone is a citizen and has been a citizen the moment they enlisted?
No, because you don't have to be a US citizen
@nepu7supastar7: Well, only citizens or people that have permanent residency in the United States (aka green card holders) can enlist. If an illegal immigrant lied to get into the military then that is grounds for a dishonorable discharge and they would likely be deported. Basically, the only way an illegal immigrant can be in the military is if they are committing fraud by providing the Justice Department driver license information and social security information that isn't theirs.
@mecha_frieza:
Okay, fine. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe you did enlist, maybe you didn't. After all, I obviously don't know you on a personal level and you don't know me..
Even so, you mean to tell me that you KNOW for a FACT that only citizens have enlisted in the military?You know that everyone is a citizen and has been a citizen the moment they enlisted?
No, because you don't have to be a US citizen
I thought I already established this. What I originally wrote wasn't the complete truth and I corrected it in another post. You either have to have a green card (permanent resident) or you have to be a citizen. Those are the requirements.
There is no such thing as the "Dreamers". It's purely a made up political term by the Left and the radical Left.
President Trump should absolutely not compromise with the radical Left.
@mecha_frieza:
Whoa, I was not talking about illegal immigrants! I was referring to non-citizens. Non-citizens can enlist in the army as long as they have their alien registration card or green card but they can still be deported at any time and the service does NOT shield any of them from deportation. Nor does it give them a path to citizenship.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment