Trump immigration megathread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This kind of "compromise" offers the worst of both worlds: It creates a massive underclass of people who can stay in the country indefinitely and compete with entry-level American workers for jobs, but that is totally disenfranchised and politically disempowered.

Irreplaceable "superstars" excepted, people should not be living and working in the United States for years unless they have full political rights. This means being a citizen or progressing toward citizenship.

Assuming that the status ultimately gained would be that of a U.S. national rather than a green card holder, I have no problem with that.  Their kids still get to be U.S. citizens and the only perks they lose out on for having bumped the queue to get in they can't vote or be on juries.  (There aren't many U.S. nationals these days, just people in America Samoa who decline to apply for citizenship, but the status already exists so there'd be no meed for new law to define what their rights would be.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This kind of "compromise" offers the worst of both worlds: It creates a massive underclass of people who can stay in the country indefinitely and compete with entry-level American workers for jobs, but that is totally disenfranchised and politically disempowered.

Irreplaceable "superstars" excepted, people should not be living and working in the United States for years unless they have full political rights. This means being a citizen or progressing toward citizenship.

Assuming that the status ultimately gained would be that of a U.S. national rather than a green card holder, I have no problem with that.  Their kids still get to be U.S. citizens and the only perks they lose out on for having bumped the queue to get in they can't vote or be on juries.  (There aren't many U.S. nationals these days, just people in America Samoa who decline to apply for citizenship, but the status already exists so there'd be no meed for new law to define what their rights would be.)

Why are you comfortable shrugging off voting rights and jury duty as trivialities? How do you think this would affect someone living in a place where most of their neighbors can't help in voting out a corrupt city councilperson, or working in a setting where most of their coworkers can't fully participate in political life?

I don't see them as trivialities, but they came here illegally.  It's irrational for them to expect that they somehow end up with U.S. citizenship at the end of the day.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see them as trivialities, but they came here illegally.  It's irrational for them to expect that they somehow end up with U.S. citizenship at the end of the day.

Well, if you lack the imagination to think of any other sanction, incentive, or compromise then of course it would seem irrational.

I can think of other sanctions, but they'd be even more draconian.  Simply granting amnesty as if they they were a legal immigrant as of the date amnesty is granted is not an viable option.  For that matter unless we do something to make illegal immigration less attractive in the future (and no I don't mean building that useless wall) there's little point in doing any sort of amnesty.  Personally, I favor making E-verify a requirement for all employers nationwide and considerably upping the penalties for failing to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point is that the worst possible outcome is giving legal legitimacy to a class of permanent non-citizen residents.

They aren't a permanent class.  Their kids would be citizens, even under the most limited interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point is that the worst possible outcome is giving legal legitimacy to a class of permanent non-citizen residents.

They aren't a permanent class.  Their kids would be citizens, even under the most limited interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Semantic pedantry, and not even correct semantic pedantry. People are not literally their children. Those actually covered by this policy would never become citizens.

No one forced the adults to come here, or for that matter to stay.  If being deprived of citizenship where they reside by being here bothers them that much, there's an obvious solution. (Note I speak of the general case of those who come here illegally for economic reasons, rather than reasons that would merit being granted refugee status.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point is that the worst possible outcome is giving legal legitimacy to a class of permanent non-citizen residents.

They aren't a permanent class.  Their kids would be citizens, even under the most limited interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Semantic pedantry, and not even correct semantic pedantry. People are not literally their children. Those actually covered by this policy would never become citizens.

No one forced the adults to come here, or for that matter to stay.  If being deprived of citizenship where they reside by being here bothers them that much, there's an obvious solution. (Note I speak of the general case of those who come here illegally for economic reasons, rather than reasons that would merit being granted refugee status.)

Who said anything about whether it bothers or harms them?

Well, what I propose certainly ain't going to harm us.  (And I include you in the us, since you're here legally.)  Despite your overblown rhetoric, having illegal immigrants not getting citizenship themselves isn't going to create a permanent underclass.  With birthright citizenship, that's impossible, and would be impossible even if legal immigrants could never become citizens themselves. (A stance I don't advocate at all, by the way.  I don't have a Blue Michigan avatar after all.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump administration considering separating women, children at Mexico border

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-idUSKBN16A2ES

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're cartoon villains at this point. How long before Trump drapes the Cobra flag over the White House?

He certainly has morons on his payroll.
http://dai.ly/x2pamtk?start=757

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Called it months ago. They recognize being anti-minority is going to backfire if Latinos turn out and continue voting Democratic. So ergo this.

I doubt the compromise will ever happen (Trump's base would revolt) but can you imagine the millions of new Democrats if a future Democratic President legalized them all?

This is hilarious to watch and I can only imagine Trump's base going apoplectic.

Of course Latino's are gonna continue to vote Dem most of them are immigrants or their parents of immigrants.

Well, the modern GOP acting like complete racist dicks to Hispanics of all stripes (except Cubans of course) doesn't help.

Hell, people are usually just as opposed to legal immigration as they are to illegal immigration for the same reasons.

It doesn't matter how the GOP acts towards Hispanics  for the most part they are still gonna vote for Dems because their parents or they themselves grew up in 3rd world countries where the governments do a whole lot of stuff.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

Think about it.  No really.  THINK!  You apparently are way out of practice, but try thinking for a change.  If they were being cared for by a safety net that worked, why did they come here in the first place? To experience food loaded with HFCS?  That would make about as much as sense as what you just said.