Reid: Immigration reform a top priority

[sirs]

On the contrary, I got the point of your comments. Diversity for the sake of diversity is bad. But no one was advocating diversity for the sake of diversity. So that whoosh sound was more likely your point as plummeted to the ground like a rock.

No, I'd have to opine the former is more accurate, as you went into this littany of how America is always changing, (Of course the America of today will eventually no longer exist. Just like the America of 1776 no longer exists, and the America of 1860 no longer exists, and the America of 1941 no longer exists).  In all those instances, a constant remained, those that came to America, largely came to become Americans.  So that whooshing sound is still apparently far overhead.

[Plane]

Why is keeping undesirables out of the US a bad idea?

Because they're coming in anyway, and will regardless. It's like outlawing guns to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's ineffective and only hurts people who don't need to be kept out.

There are tests and cures for many of these diseases. At the very least, we should cure them before they come into the US and infect us.

Why can't we just let them come to the U.S. and be cured? Anyway, I must have missed the story about the great TB epidemic started by Mexican immigrants. Perhaps you can point that one out to me.

Your clever concept leads me to believe that you have removed the doors to your house and allow everyone that wants to sleep in your bed and eat your food to pop right on in and snooze and snack at will, even the ones that will leave bedbugs and lice behind and will spit on your food.

If you don't know the difference between a nation's borders and a private residence, I doubt my explaining it to you would do any good.

The people of the US, through their laws and their Border Patrol and Immigration Service should have absolute control over every person who comes into this country.

period.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Absolute control is not possible. But you go ahead and petition the government to give you a list of all potential immigrants so you can mark down who you find acceptable or not. The real problem here is that we don't need absolute control over the U.S. national border any more than New York or Texas needs absolute control over their state borders. In point of fact, we should reduce the restrictions on immigration to the level of restrictions we have for interstate travel, which is to say, next to none. Or do you think people should be made to wait months, if not years, to move from one state to another so that each state can attempt absolute control over who comes into the state? Maybe you think your city should start working on absolute control over who comes into your city. Shouldn't you and the citizens of your city have, though your city government, absolute control over who comes into your city? Don't you want the diseased and the criminals kept out of your city? Why not just require every person in the country have to have specific papers from the government to prove they have permission to travel more than four or five miles from where they live? That would keep the undesirables out of your neighborhood. Or would it?

The USA is kinda like a gated community , just one more hurdle for the burgulars doesn't end burgulary , but haveing fewer burgularys is worth something.

Imagine now that the USA unilaterally stops enforceing its border, why would anyone less socialist than a Zapatista stay south of the border?

[Universe Prince]

In all those instances, a constant remained, those that came to America, largely came to become Americans.

Actually, yeah, I got that too. And it is a nice bit of propaganda, but I don't believe it for a second and don't know why I should. So far I see nothing at all that supports your absurd notion that "We harm ourselves by advocating complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists." For one thing, no one is advocating that we should have diversity the the point that America no longer exists. For another, the threat is meaningless. You might as well complain that when everyone is different no one will be the same. I see nothing to fear in diversity, and nothing you have said has presented me with a reason the fear the end of America. Or even "America." Speaking of which, you put the word America in quotes, but what does that mean? Please explain exactly what it is we are in danger of losing if we have too much diversity.

[Universe Prince]

The USA is kinda like a gated community , just one more hurdle for the burgulars doesn't end burgulary , but haveing fewer burgularys is worth something.

Of course it is. But I do not see how essentially giving immigrants, who want to come here to make money, more reason to work harder at remaining under the radar is going to lessen crime.

Imagine now that the USA unilaterally stops enforceing its border, why would anyone less socialist than a Zapatista stay south of the border?

I have no idea. Are we worried about a socialist invasion now? Is that the new immigration bugaboo?

[sirs]

In all those instances, a constant remained, those that came to America, largely came to become Americans.

Actually, yeah, I got that too. And it is a nice bit of propaganda, but I don't believe it for a second and don't know why I should. So far I see nothing at all that supports your absurd notion that "We harm ourselves by advocating complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists." .

Boy, it must be nice to sit there and pretty much refute anything that doesn't agree with you as being propoganda or "weak arguement".  Because obviously if it were valid commentary or a strong arguement, you'd actually have to deal with the ramifications of continuing to advocate your open border position.  So much the better when we can simply claim how bogus my position is, thus be able to ram rod an open border agenda minus its overt consequences.  You'd think I was debating Xo

...you put the word America in quotes, but what does that mean? Please explain exactly what it is we are in danger of losing if we have too much diversity

As i already said, my point regarding diversity just keeps flying right overhead, and news flash, it has nothing to do with "too much".  Not sure how many more times I need to repeat myself, before it becomes apparent that you just either won't get it, or refuse to get it.  And it appears you've already classified everything I've said as either weak or propoganda.  Why would I expect anything different in repeating myself?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suppose you would like to replace the border guards with guys that just count 'em as they come in, hunh, Sirs?

Step one to resolving the immigration problem is for the government to get as good a control of the border as possible. They are nowhere near this now.

Perhaps making it really hard to get across the border would result in only the smartest getting intpo the country. Maybe we should install mazes, and only allow those who can solve them to enter.

[sirs]

I suppose you would like to replace the border guards with guys that just count 'em as they come in, hunh, Sirs?

Ummm, no.  How did you come to that leap of illogic?  Who's your question being aimed at, Xo?

[Universe Prince]

Boy, it must be nice to sit there and pretty much refute anything that doesn't agree with you as being propoganda or "weak arguement".

Perhaps. But that isn't the problem. The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it. You said, "those that came to America, largely came to become Americans." Is there any evidence of this? Do we have thousands of letters to folks back in the old country by immigrants saying "I came to America to be American"? From what I've read about the issue, people came to make a better life for themselves, not because they had a yen on to become Americans. In fact many came intending to make money and then go back to their country of origin. Those that came to stay came because here was better than there, not because they felt a desire to be American. I have never encountered any historical accounting of immigration that says the multitudes came to America to be Americans.  So other than some feel-good propaganda, where does this "they came to be Americans" bit come from? What is the basis for it? Until you provide some reason to believe it, why should I consider it anything other than propaganda?

Because obviously if it were valid commentary or a strong arguement, you'd actually have to deal with the ramifications of continuing to advocate your open border position.

Yep. That's right. So what's holding you back?

So much the better when we can simply claim how bogus my position is, thus be able to ram rod an open border agenda minus its overt consequences.

Well so far, your position is weak at best. Close the borders because immigrants will ruin Medicare and they're not coming to be Americans. Yes, I admit the influx of immigrants may do bad things to the rigid socialist side of our medical industry. Why is that a bad thing? And I'm not trying to deny the consequences of an open border policy. I'm just not buying this whole "end of society as we know it" fear jive. Our society will adapt, and I know no reason to believe it will not.

As i already said, my point regarding diversity just keeps flying right overhead, and news flash, it has nothing to do with "too much".  Not sure how many more times I need to repeat myself, before it becomes apparent that you just either won't get it, or refuse to get it.

Well then perhaps you ought to explain your point, because quite frankly, if your point was not that we have to worry about too much diversity, as in "complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists" then what the bloody blue blazes are you talking about? I am really starting to get sick of you saying A and then insisting your point was not A but something else. And then when I ask you explain what your point is, you either say A again or you talk in exasperated tones about how I'm just not getting it. I'm not a stupid guy. I'm reasonably intelligent. I have a reasonable grasp of the workings of the English language. And from here, you keep saying A and then insisting you mean something that is not A. So whatever the hell it is you mean, I'm pretty sure you're not saying it clearly. It seems clear on the surface, but when I reply, you tell me I don't get it or I'm twisting your words. So obviously there is a communication problem, and I am fairly certain that I am quite capable of comprehending what I read. I accomplish that task just fine with other posters here and generally in everyday life. Only with you does there seem to exist this bizarre issue where A means something not A. So I have to conclude the problem is with what you're saying to me and not with my comprehension skills. Make your gorram point in clear and unambiguous language. If you're not complaining about too much diversity, then don't talk about "complete diversity" leading to "the point that 'America' no longer exists". In other words, keep repeating yourself until whatever your point is matches up with what you actually say.

And it appears you've already classified everything I've said as either weak or propoganda.

No, just the parts that are weak or come across as propaganda. I can be persuaded. You're just not doing a very good job of it.

[Universe Prince]

I suppose you would like to replace the border guards with guys that just count 'em as they come in, hunh, Sirs?

No, Sirs is the guy arguing we need stricter control of the borders. I'm the guy advocating open borders. Anyway, I'd like to replace the border guards with nothing, like we have between our state borders. But I'm willing to go along with something more like what we had at Ellis Island, people waited in line, there were questions asked, people were checked for disease, and then the vast majority of folks got to go on, with the whole process taking about three to four hours. That seems a reasonable compromise to me.

Step one to resolving the immigration problem is for the government to get as good a control of the border as possible. They are nowhere near this now.

That assumes the problem is with people coming in. But it isn't.

Perhaps making it really hard to get across the border would result in only the smartest getting intpo the country. Maybe we should install mazes, and only allow those who can solve them to enter.

Yes, treat them all like suspected criminals and add treating them like rats on top of that. Brilliant! That will surely solve our immigration problems. (For those keeping track at home, yes, that was sarcasm.)

[sirs]

Boy, it must be nice to sit there and pretty much refute anything that doesn't agree with you as being propoganda or "weak arguement".

Perhaps. But that isn't the problem. The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it.

Again, must be nice     

You said, "those that came to America, largely came to become Americans." Is there any evidence of this? Do we have thousands of letters to folks back in the old country by immigrants saying "I came to America to be American"? From what I've read about the issue, people came to make a better life for themselves, not because they had a yen on to become Americans.

We have no polls, or a laundry list of letters.  We simply have multidues of immigrants, who I've witnessed both on TV, the radio, and in person, who have referenced how great it was to come to america, to be American, to be part of this country as americans.  Not at the expense of their culture & heritage, simply that their background added to the meltiing pot of america.  I can't count how many LEGAL immigrants who came to america from Spain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Russia, India, Iraq, on & on & on & on, who referenced how great it was to come to america to better themselves, AS AMERICANS

Well so far, your position is weak at best. Close the borders because immigrants will ruin Medicare and they're not coming to be Americans. Yes, I admit the influx of immigrants may do bad things to the rigid socialist side of our medical industry. Why is that a bad thing? And I'm not trying to deny the consequences of an open border policy. I'm just not buying this whole "end of society as we know it" fear jive. Our society will adapt, and I know no reason to believe it will not.

Partially because I'm not trying to frame it is a "complete end of society".  Only a near complete end to american society.  Welcome to the People's Republic of America, government to the rescue as one after another health related industry collapses.  You want open borders, then look forward to Universal Healthcare to go along with an upgraded Universal Prescription drug plan, courtesy of the Dem legislature & President Hillary.  And it'll happen because the huge influx of new low income voters, streaming across the border, will vote for it.

As i already said, my point regarding diversity just keeps flying right overhead, and news flash, it has nothing to do with "too much".  Not sure how many more times I need to repeat myself, before it becomes apparent that you just either won't get it, or refuse to get it.

Well then perhaps you ought to explain your point, because quite frankly, if your point was not that we have to worry about too much diversity, as in "complete diversity to the point that 'America' no longer exists" then what the bloody blue blazes are you talking about?

1 last time.  It does require you grasp the the term "priority"
- Immigrant comes to America
- Immigrant comes to America legally
- Immigrant comes to America legally looking to embrace america as their new home, their new country, their new loyalty
- Immigrant maintains every bit of culture and diversity they came to america with.  It saturates their home, it permeates their language and actions
- Immigrant maintains every bit of their diversity, though america is still their primary embrace, their primary loyalty.  It takes priority.  It does NOT substitute for it

I am really starting to get sick of you saying A and then insisting your point was not A but something else. And then when I ask you explain what your point is, you either say A again or you talk in exasperated tones about how I'm just not getting it. I'm not a stupid guy. I'm reasonably intelligent. I have a reasonable grasp of the workings of the English language. And from here, you keep saying A and then insisting you mean something that is not A.

And I'm getting sick of telling you A, repeatedly, but you keep insisting I'm saying B, despite how many times I have to repeat A.  You do that every fricken time we debate immigration.  Yes, you are absolutely intelligent Prince, far more than myself.  Yet I strongly believe you've allowed your devote position on open borders to be seen in such a tunnel vision view, that regardless of the absolute VALID repercussions that would occur, you must deem any and all as "weak arguements", "propoganda", thus you don't have to deal with them, and simply keep claiming "The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it."  Right?

And it appears you've already classified everything I've said as either weak or propoganda.

No, just the parts that are weak or come across as propaganda. I can be persuaded.

Umm, yea, right

[Universe Prince]

We have no polls, or a laundry list of letters.  We simply have multidues of immigrants, who I've witnessed both on TV, the radio, and in person, who have referenced how great it was to come to america, to be American, to be part of this country as americans.  Not at the expense of their culture & heritage, simply that their background added to the meltiing pot of america.  I can't count how many LEGAL immigrants who came to america from Spain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Russia, India, Iraq, on & on & on & on, who referenced how great it was to come to america to better themselves, AS AMERICANS

So... that's it? You've seen it? I have no actual text or context, just that they all came to be Americans because you say they said it. How is that not a weak argument?

Partially because I'm not trying to frame it is a "complete end of society".  Only a near complete end to american society.

Oh. Well, that's different then isn't... oh wait, no, not really.

Welcome to the People's Republic of America, government to the rescue as one after another health related industry collapses.  You want open borders, then look forward to Universal Healthcare to go along with an upgraded Universal Prescription drug plan, courtesy of the Dem legislature & President Hillary.  And it'll happen because the huge influx of new low income voters, streaming across the border, will vote for it.

Okay. So? As much as I oppose government funded universal health care in this country, from where I stand, it seems damn near inevitable regardless of which political party is in power. President Bush and Republicans passed a huge increase in Medicare, just one more step toward the government funded universal health care. If the Republican Party cannot mount an even modestly effective defense against this sort of thing, then it becomes not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. And if 'when' comes sooner rather than later, it's still coming, and I see no reason to blame immigrants. If we didn't have the beginnings of government funded universal health care already, this would not be an issue. I don't blame the immigrants. I blame the Republican politicians for not taking up the issue and pressing ahead with it. All this bull--it about closing the borders and building fences and how the immigrants are going to ruin America and "oh my god they don't speak English!" was a lot of nonsense talk that served as good cover for ignoring the real problems we have here. The Republican Party had years to do something and they failed us. They not only did not do a gorram thing to shrink government, they made it grow faster than it grew under President Johnson for gosh sakes. And you're going to sit there and tell me I'm not facing up to the consequences of open borders? What a crock.

1 last time.  It does require you grasp the the term "priority"
- Immigrant comes to America
- Immigrant comes to America legally
- Immigrant comes to America legally looking to embrace america as their new home, their new country, their new loyalty
- Immigrant maintains every bit of culture and diversity they came to america with.  It saturates their home, it permeates their language and actions
- Immigrant maintains every bit of their diversity, though america is still their primary embrace, their primary loyalty.  It takes priority.  It does NOT substitute for it

It does not substitute for it. What does not substitute for what? America does not substitute for diversity or diversity does not substitute for America? Do we have immigrants coming here to give their loyalty to diversity? And how does this relate to your complaint about "complete diversity"? Suck it up and spell it out for me so I don't end up at the brunt of another one of your "you're twisting my words" rants.

And I'm getting sick of telling you A, repeatedly, but you keep insisting I'm saying B, despite how many times I have to repeat A.  You do that every fricken time we debate immigration.

You say A, and then I say so you mean A, and you start complaining that no, I'm twisting your words and what you really mean is A. Which never fails to confuse me, because I thought I said you meant A. Like you say you want immigration to be difficult, and then I say you want immigration to be difficult, and then you say I'm twisting your words around to mean something else and what you really mean is that you want immigration to be difficult. I'm left trying to figure out how you can mean both that immigration should be difficult and should not be difficult at the same time.

Yet I strongly believe you've allowed your devote position on open borders to be seen in such a tunnel vision view, that regardless of the absolute VALID repercussions that would occur, you must deem any and all as "weak arguements", "propoganda", thus you don't have to deal with them, and simply keep claiming "The problem is, all you've given me is weak arguments and propaganda. And if that is all you give me, that is what I'm going to call it."  Right?

Wrong. I am perfectly willing to address the consequences of open borders. I'm just not afraid of all the usual consequences used as arguments against open borders. They're not learning English. So? They're going to spread horrible disease. They haven't yet and show no signs of doing so in the future. They're going to increase crime. Are they? Are the crime rates drastically higher amongst the immigrants? Are they going on crime sprees and it's just not being reported? They're sending money home to Mexico or wherever. So? Why shouldn't they? They're going to overwhelm our hospitals and ERs and and Medicare and all that jazz. So either let them come in so they can pay taxes like the rest of us (which many of them do anyway with their fake IDs and such, they end up getting their pay taxed just like everyone else) or get the Republican Party off its fat ass to do something about ending the socialist side to our medical industry. Immigrants coming in to take advantage of the system is a symptom and not the disease. I'm still waiting for an argument against open borders that presents something about which I should actually be concerned. So far, no one has produced one.

[_JS]

I'm still waiting for an argument against open borders that presents something about which I should actually be concerned.

I'm wondering when that will come as well.

I've heard and read quite a bit about this "invasion" of "illegals." Interestingly, NAFTA was supposed to have opened the border in a similar manner to Schengen in Europe. Why don't we honor that?

Within the European Union one can travel, work, study, and live in any European Union country they so choose. You cannot be denied the rights and benefits of an EU citizen in another EU state. And guess what? If you are in France, but you need a government form in Italian - they'll get you one. I know it sounds insane, I'm sure it costs a fortune ($0.00000001) but it is your legal right to request that.

Equally amazing is that the French are still French, the Germans are still Germans, and the Dutch - well the less said the better . And chances are you probably have or will use a European product today or shop at a European store or market, or purchase European oil. So the economy seems to work, more or less.

For us, I don't see the problem. Or, I think I really do.

See, I don't think this would be a problem if it were a group of Irish, Canadian, Australian, or as the British say any of the "white dominions" who wished to reside in the United States. But it isn't. These are Spanish speaking, dark-skinned, primarily Catholic, Mexicans whose culture is completely different from most in the United States. Hence - "they'll destroy our society."

Of course they won't destroy our society. I've talked to a number of folks that come to our Spanish Mass and they are wonderful, caring people. If anything it will enrich our society and culture if we go ahead and start granting citizenship to those that have lived here for a long time and give them a reasonable path to citzenship (not ridiculous paths like seventeen to twenty-five years).

[Universe Prince]

I've heard and read quite a bit about this "invasion" of "illegals." Interestingly, NAFTA was supposed to have opened the border in a similar manner to Schengen in Europe. Why don't we honor that?

Good question. I've been wondering about that too.

See, I don't think this would be a problem if it were a group of Irish, Canadian, Australian, or as the British say any of the "white dominions" who wished to reside in the United States. But it isn't. These are Spanish speaking, dark-skinned, primarily Catholic, Mexicans whose culture is completely different from most in the United States. Hence - "they'll destroy our society."

Of course they won't destroy our society. I've talked to a number of folks that come to our Spanish Mass and they are wonderful, caring people. If anything it will enrich our society and culture if we go ahead and start granting citizenship to those that have lived here for a long time and give them a reasonable path to citzenship (not ridiculous paths like seventeen to twenty-five years).

I know it, and you know it. I've tried explaining it, but I apparently do a very poor job because explaining it doesn't seem to do any good. Maybe I've just heard one too many stories about the supposed dregs of Europe coming over here in third-class or worse passage to believe that the supposed dregs of Latin America are going to ruin everything for us. Of course, once upon a time, Asians were going to overrun America too, destroy our culture and ruin everything for us. Whew, good thing we stopped that, huh?

[sirs]

See, I don't think this would be a problem if it were a group of Irish, Canadian, Australian, or as the British say any of the "white dominions" who wished to reside in the United States. But it isn't. These are Spanish speaking, dark-skinned, primarily Catholic, Mexicans whose culture is completely different from most in the United States. Hence - "they'll destroy our society."

Couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, it's much more as to their economic state (or plight) than the color of their skin

[sirs]

I am perfectly willing to address the consequences of open borders. I'm just not afraid of all the usual consequences used as arguments against open borders.....

Since the rest of your rant is giving me a migraine Prince, let's focus on this area.  Let's logically (vs ideologically) discuss the ramifications of such an open border policy, you & Js advocating.  I already provided one of the greatest LOGICAL repercussions, that of our healthcare system, arleady overwhelmed, virtually crashing to a point that Government would be practically mandated to "come to the rescue" with Universal Healthcare.  You know damn well the pros & cons of such a system.  and it's likely one of the main reasons the vast majority of the left supports open borders, with the few exceptions of course.  Is that what you'd accept in order to continue to support the ideolical agenda of open borders? 

The influx of 12+million new "citizens" (a vastly conservative # than what's much more likely), nearly all of them in the poor to very poor class, with the vast majority of those looking to support those politicans that see them as "needing help", and of course with "the rich not paying their fair share", leading to ever increasing taxation on "the rich", leading to bigger and bigger Government intrusion and entitlements, with it not just being legislated in, but actually being voted for, by the same vast majority of "new citizens".  Is that what you'd accept in order to continue to support the ideological agenda of open borders?

And would you PLEASE stop trying to make this some racial thing!!  This has zip to do with what language they speak, what culture they come from, what color skin they possess.  You show me 1 instance where I EVER said or even implied the need to enforce current immigration law because "them there Mexicans down south of us.....can't be lettin all dem dark skinned mexicans loose all over"