Reid: Immigration reform a top priority

[_JS]

Sirs, you said it was because of their economic state. You typed it. Not me.

But fine, let's discuss national security and health care concerns.

What are your concerns with national security per the Mexican border and health care per the Mexican border?

[Universe Prince]

Did you miss the part I put 1st?

No. I saw the first paragraph, but I also saw the second. The basic theme of the two paragraphs, taken in context and together, appeared on the surface to be that open borders were going to result in the advancement of socialist politics.

The following paragraph simply stems from the original problem(s).  But obviously they're issues you simply want to turn a blind eye, yet claim that's my big beef.

Uh, no. They're issues I'm not going to blame on immigrants, legal or illegal. And you are the one who was doing the complaining about the matter, so I'm a little confused as to why you're upset.

Again, I say A, but Prince insists I say B

No. You said A and now insist you meant not-A. If you didn't mean to complain about socialist policies, then I suggest you should have phrased your argument differently.

I'm just not willing to blame the immigrants for something that is not their fault.

Who said it was their fault entirely?

I don't know. I said they are not to blame, meaning in this case that I believe it is not their fault at all.

You're saying that have no impact what-so-ever??

No. I never said anything like that. I said they are not to blame.

And let's keep this focused......we're referring to illegal immigrants, not just immigrants

We are? Since when? I've been arguing in favor of open borders and talking therefore about immigrants not just illegal immigrants.

No, I'm choosing to best protect both our finite resources, our Healthcare system, our national security, & yet still allow for orderly LEGAL immigration to this country, so that they may work and create a better life for themselves.

By punishing the immigrants with needlessly burdensome immigration law that prevents them from being able to simply come here to work and create a better life for themselves.

Traditionally, that's called following the American dream.

I don't remember having to wait for months and possibly years to get into the country being part of the American dream. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is not at all part of the American dream.

No one's being "prevented" from coming in,

The quotation marks mean you're joking, right?

the borders haven't been closed, so cease with the hyperbole, por fa vor.  If I simply wanted to (as you claim) be against immigrants, I'd be advocating complete border closure, no one gets in, all applications to be torn up, tough luck, go peddle your wares in your own country.  Oh yea, mass round-ups.  Strangely, I'm not doing that, despite how often you keep implying I am.  More of that A/B thing again

I have implied nothing of the sort. I meant only what I said. Try quoting me in context. What I said was that you're "against immigrants who simply want to come here to work and create a better life for themselves because you are against simply letting them do that." If that is A/B it is because you're complaining about something I didn't actually say.

You support instead a bureaucratic labyrinth of nearly mythic proportions that is intended precisely to prevent immigrants from simply coming here to work, et cetera. I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.

"it" being IILEGAL Immigration.

Uh, no. That antecedent to "it" was not "illegal immigration". You know, for someone who complains so much about me misrepresenting your position, you seem to have gone out of your way to insist I meant things I never said. Anyway, the antecedent to "it" was, in point of fact, immigrants "simply coming here to work, et cetera." And as I said, I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.

And so we endeth the debate, as I'm no longer willing to entertain your version of what my position actually is.

At this point, I'm not sure you even know what my version of your position is because you kept trying to force meaning to my words that simply was not there. But yeah, if you're going to be doing that, we probably should end the debate. No point in going on if you're going to keep insisting I meant things I did not say.

[sirs]

Sirs, you said it was because of their economic state. You typed it. Not me.

Yet, you're the one who implied I had some overt "distaste" of their economic status.  YOU typed that, not me. 

But fine, let's discuss national security and health care concerns.  What are your concerns with national security per the Mexican border and health care per the Mexican border?

My concerns regarding national security of ANY border are specific to that being the conduits by which terrorists & their supporters are apt to use not just for themselves, but in the potential of bringing WMD of some sort.  The more open the border is, the much greater potential for such ingress to occur, and not be caught.  Thus the greater potential for such terrorist activity (such as another 911) or even possible WMD use.  Thus the greater possibility in the death of innocent men, women & children

My concerns with Health Care per ANY border have already been copiously referenced.  Our services are finite.  Our Health Care system is already extremely overburdened, overworked, and over bureaucracized.  The more open the border, especially to low income individuals from ANYWHERE, places even greater strain on those very Health Care centers, Urgent Care Centers, Trauma Centers, and ER's already stretched to their limits.

Now, I do NOT want to go into a tangential discussion on how best to fix it, as that can be left for another thread. 1 side's gonna say Socialized medicine/Universal Health Care is the way to go & the other is going to pick the other extreme, and say let's privatize everything.  I'm not for either, and I'm not compelled to make this a "why not Universal Health Care?" thead.  What I am for is not making it worse, which the current open border agenda will most assuredly do.

[_JS]

My concerns regarding national security of ANY border are specific to that being the conduits by which terrorists & their supporters are apt to use not just for themselves, but in the potential of bringing WMD of some sort.  The more open the border is, the much greater potential for such ingress to occur, and not be caught.  Thus the greater potential for such terrorist activity (such as another 911) or even possible WMD use.  Thus the greater possibility in the death of innocent men, women & children

First, you can admit that the 9/11 terrorists were here legally, correct? In fact, they really did nothing exceptionally illegal until they hijacked those planes, correct? Also, there has never been WMD smuggled over the border, correct? Did the 9/11 commission ask for any more border security with Mexico? And before you place conditional clauses on your answers, will you provide a simple answer to the questions?

My concerns with Health Care per ANY border have already been copiously referenced.  Our services are finite.  Our Health Care system is already extremely overburdened, overworked, and over bureaucracized.  The more open the border, especially to low income individuals from ANYWHERE, places even greater strain on those very Health Care centers, Urgent Care Centers, Trauma Centers, and ER's already stretched to their limits.

If these individuals, who are working, were given health insurance as a benefit to their work - would that ease the burden on the health care system? Again, can you answer the question without conditionals first? As it is they must go to the ER.

[sirs]

First, you can admit that the 9/11 terrorists were here legally, correct? In fact, they really did nothing exceptionally illegal until they hijacked those planes, correct?

Close:  All of them entered the country legally on a temporary visa, mostly tourist visas with entry permits for six months.  Although four of them attended flight school in the United States, only one is known to have entered on an appropriate visa for such study, and one entered on an F-1 student visa.  And at least three of them had fallen out of their temporary visa status and were, therefore, in the United States illegally

Also, there has never been WMD smuggled over the border, correct?

Did I say there were?  Are you implying we need to wait to see some go off before doing something about it?  I sure as hell hope that's not what you're advocating

Did the 9/11 commission ask for any more border security with Mexico?

No.....so?  You think because they didn't outline specific border enforcement, then border enforcement isn't a problem with keeping terrorists out?  Wasn't the 911 commission mandated to look at the causes of 911 specifically, where we failed specifically, and what we could have done better specifically to prevent 911?  As you already mentioned, most of these folks were already here legally.  Had anyone crossed the border illegally, it's likely the commission would have addressed that then, now wouldn't it have

If these individuals, who are working, were given health insurance as a benefit to their work - would that ease the burden on the health care system?

What do you mean "given"?  Healthcare COSTS someone.  It costs the individual, the employer, the taxpayers, or all the above.  Originally, Healthcare was a perk provided for by various companies & employers to entice folks to come be an employee of theirs.  It was merely an incentive.  People were required to be responsible for their own healthcare, which brings us to the core issue.....Healthcare is not a right.  Providing a service is not a right

Again, can you answer the question without conditionals first? As it is they must go to the ER.

Well considering that's the area that is most at risk of collapse, to which I referenced, I'd say ER's, Trauma Centers, and Urgent Care centers are a necessary qualifier to my entire commentary, regarding the Healthcare aspect of this discussion