• RME Gear & Apparel

Political So now what

Political discussions within
Houndoc

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
ID Bronco said:
Some want to protect the borders and others don't. That's all this boils down to.
Click to expand...

An absurd simplification that is simply wrong.

There goal can be the same but with different ways of getting there.

My point all along has been that the only real solution to illegal immigration (and yes, that term applies) is to make legal immigration and realistic and viable option. I believe that will be far more effective than any wall as it addresses the underlying cause of illegal crossings.

glockman said:
the last section talks about people restricted from possessing or owning firearms. Guess who is on that list? Anyone in the US illegally. Maybe the State legislature could start prosecuting those gun crimes before they try to enact a waiting period or safe storage law.
Click to expand...

Can you offer evidence that they are not?
 
Houndoc

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
ID Bronco said:
Again, calling this "simply wrong" is like referring to illegals as immigrants.

It's ok if there is disagreement.

No minds will be changed in this forum, it's just interesting to hear the ideas.
Click to expand...

I say that your comment that you either "favor secure borders or don't" is wrong because (as is very often the case in the world of politics) people on different sides of policy debates very often have the same goal in mind just different views as to how to accomplish it.

With the border, one camp wants to attempt to stop illegal crossings entirely by enforcement & barriers (walls, armed intervention etc.), another camp says decrease the motivation for illegal crossings by reforming a very dysfunctional immigration system and giving people a realistic way to come legally.

I would dare say that any real solution is going to need some of both.
 
ID Bronco

ID Bronco

Registered User
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
Houndoc said:
I say that your comment that you either "favor secure borders or don't" is wrong because (as is very often the case in the world of politics) people on different sides of policy debates very often have the same goal in mind just different views as to how to accomplish it.

With the border, one camp wants to attempt to stop illegal crossings entirely by enforcement & barriers (walls, armed intervention etc.), another camp says decrease the motivation for illegal crossings by reforming a very dysfunctional immigration system and giving people a realistic way to come legally.

I would dare say that any real solution is going to need some of both.
Click to expand...

One of these is immigration policy, and one is a border issue only. If the border is porous the immigration discussion is immaterial. There have been a few "amnesty" events in our history and every time it was going to be the last one. Then non U.S. folks cross the border illegally and create a need for another amnesty event. The "what do we do with them now that they are here" argument doesn't matter if we don't keep new folks from coming in.

I would be much more open to a more broad LEGAL immigration policy if I knew the illegal folks wouldn't keep flooding in just waiting for the next round of "what do we do now, there are too many of them to deport them" Decreasing the motivation to come illegally is nearly impossible if there is no negative consequence to coming in this way. Unless you want "legal immigration" to really be come in with no scrutiny, obligation, or reason. Then why change the status quo?

Are both needed? Of course, but one won't work without the other being addressed and Proven to be implemented first.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
Location
Never Far From Nowhere
glockman said:
I found this chart from Utah DHS interesting. Apparently there are no Hispanics or someone building the table made an oversight.

View attachment 169765

I was looking for crime rates by race and found this info here.

IBIS-PH - Health Indicator Report - Homicide

ibis.health.utah.gov ibis.health.utah.gov
Click to expand...
"Hispanic" is not a race, its an ethnicity. Most people who are ethnically Hispanic are Caucasian, or White, as far as race. Though there is a relatively large percentage of Black Hispanics, usually people who come from Caribbean islands and other areas of Central and South America that had high levels of African slave populations. There are even Asian Hispanics, which might seem odd. But there are a large number of migrant communities from places like Japan and China in countries like Mexico, Columbia, Chili, etc. If I recall, Brazil has the highest Japanese population outside of Japan?
 
glockman

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
Stephen said:
"Hispanic" is not a race, its an ethnicity. Most people who are ethnically Hispanic are Caucasian, or White, as far as race. Though there is a relatively large percentage of Black Hispanics, usually people who come from Caribbean islands and other areas of Central and South America that had high levels of African slave populations. There are even Asian Hispanics, which might seem odd. But there are a large number of migrant communities from places like Japan and China in countries like Mexico, Columbia, Chili, etc. If I recall, Brazil has the highest Japanese population outside of Japan?
Click to expand...
Interesting. I had never thought about the distinction between race and ethnicity. This raises a question though. Are most stats delineated by ethnicity not race?
Edit: searching by ethnicity brings me to mostly the same sources.

Cody said:
I used to work with a Brazilian kid who's family moved to Brazil from Japan in the 30's. Homie looked like Bruce Lee and spoke English, Spanish, Portuguese and Japanese fluently. Unsure if he ever killed anyone though.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite Tom Segura bits is about him being identified as Japanese.
 
Houndoc

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
ID Bronco said:
One of these is immigration policy, and one is a border issue only. If the border is porous the immigration discussion is immaterial.

Are both needed? Of course, but one won't work without the other being addressed and Proven to be implemented first.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment with immigration reform is immaterial without full border security. The two issues are really two ends of the same rope.

If most who are immigrating are given a legal route to do so, illegal crossing automatically decrease by an equal amount (and addresses the concerns of those who say they are not opposed to immigration just want it done legally and to know who is coming.)

Right there border security has improved dramatically. It also frees up resources to address the smuggling (usually happens through legal ports of entry) and other illegal border issues.

The demands from Republicans in Congress to not address immigration reform until "the border is secure" is nothing but a way to avoid tackling a difficult issue. With the amount of borders the US has (northern, southern and coastlines) and the rugged terrain of much of the border, a Korean DMZ level secure border will never happen.
 
glockman

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
Houndoc said:
The demands from Republicans in Congress to not address immigration reform until "the border is secure" is nothing but a way to avoid tackling a difficult issue. With the amount of borders the US has (northern, southern and coastlines) and the rugged terrain of much of the border, a Korean DMZ level secure border will never happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think the border issue is a zero sum game. You don't have to completely surround the country with a wall. However, Texas enforcement has shown that patching a hole just adds pressure to the next weak point. Texas crossings are down dramatically but Arizona and New Mexico crossings are now increasing.


Houndoc said:
If most who are immigrating are given a legal route to do so, illegal crossing automatically decrease by an equal amount (and addresses the concerns of those who say they are not opposed to immigration just want it done legally and to know who is coming.)
Click to expand...

I think this statement is somewhat true but there has to be a cost/penalty motivator. The cost to cross illegally has to be higher than the cost to cross legally. The issue with that is the cartels/coyotes can change the cost for illegal crossing at will. Our cost is a policy issue that, like all government is slow to adapt.
If you make a legal process that takes longer and more effort than the illegal alternative, people will chose the easiest method unless we implement penalties once they are here if they came illegally.
 
Last edited:
ID Bronco

ID Bronco

Registered User
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
Houndoc said:
I disagree with your assessment with immigration reform is immaterial without full border security. The two issues are really two ends of the same rope.

If most who are immigrating are given a legal route to do so, illegal crossing automatically decrease by an equal amount (and addresses the concerns of those who say they are not opposed to immigration just want it done legally and to know who is coming.)

Right there border security has improved dramatically. It also frees up resources to address the smuggling (usually happens through legal ports of entry) and other illegal border issues.

The demands from Republicans in Congress to not address immigration reform until "the border is secure" is nothing but a way to avoid tackling a difficult issue. With the amount of borders the US has (northern, southern and coastlines) and the rugged terrain of much of the border, a Korean DMZ level secure border will never happen.
Click to expand...

Maybe the end result is the difference. My end result isn't endless immigration by legal or illegal means. I think there needs to be limits and there are a bunch of criteria that should be considered. So although the two issues definitely affect one another I don't see them as the same issue.

I don't want to assume your long term vision for this country so I'll stick to mine. Ultimately I don't want unfettered, endless immigration into the U.S. The folks that believe everyone should have a chance to live here no matter what don't seem willing to admit that openly when it's what they really want. Globalism

I like the U.S.A. and the American way of life. I don't want that to be drastically different, and millions of immigrants who are not expected to assimilate will make this a giant mess. Controlled, steady, sustainable immigration adds flavor and quality to our nation. The immigrants of old came to become Americans. Not Irish Americans, or Latino Americans and on and on. They assimilated and built this into a great place. Let's have more of that.

Both parties dance around "tackling the bigger issue" Do you really think the garbage put out by the Dems puts the priority on Americans whom they are sworn to protect and serve? I certainly don't.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
Location
Never Far From Nowhere
Over the years people have asked me what my political philosophy is, and I usually tell them I'm a "Nixon Republican". That always raises eyebrows because most people in our generation only know Nixon because of Watergate and his resignation, but he was an incredibly competent and intelligent man. Probably the most qualified person to hold the office of the President besides George H.W. Bush.

Anyway, it's things like this that have always made me appreciate Nixon's worldview:

 
Herzog

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wyoming
Stephen said:
Over the years people have asked me what my political philosophy is, and I usually tell them I'm a "Nixon Republican". That always raises eyebrows because most people in our generation only know Nixon because of Watergate and his resignation, but he was an incredibly competent and intelligent man. Probably the most qualified person to hold the office of the President besides George H.W. Bush.

Anyway, it's things like this that have always made me appreciate Nixon's worldview:

Click to expand...
On the topic of Nixon: I'm currently reading a book by the name of "Silent Coup" and it's been quite an interesting read so far.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
Location
Never Far From Nowhere
Herzog said:
On the topic of Nixon: I'm currently reading a book by the name of "Silent Coup" and it's been quite an interesting read so far.
Click to expand...
I've never read it, but I'm familiar with it. It's whole premise hinges on Alexander Haig having been "Deep Throat", right? But we now know that Mark Felt was the real Watergate informant.
 
Herzog

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wyoming
Stephen said:
I've never read it, but I'm familiar with it. It's whole premise hinges on Alexander Haig having been "Deep Throat", right? But we now know that Mark Felt was the real Watergate informant.
Click to expand...
I'm not far enough in yet but the Radford confession is pretty wild...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top