I don't think anyone suggested you were, I know I didn't.
The only clear intention I saw was your comments regarding all the "anti-immigration" "extremists" and their desire to maintain a nation of "wasps". I see the same sentiment constantly expressed by broadcast "journalists" and contributors to mainstream op-ed pages when they're clearly talking about resistance to illegal immigration. They don't see the value in differentiating between those "extremists" that you're familiar with (although I've never met) and the people who believe that immigration law should be followed and enforced. It would help us recognize your true intentions if you separated the two, otherwise we may just see your commentary as following the herd.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
My answer is right there in your comment. Because I didn't specifically say I was talking about people who are against both legal and illegal immigration several people, including you jumped to the conclusion I was talking about people who are against illegal immigration.
And the difference between the "extremists" that I'm familiar with and the people who believe that immigration law should be followed and enforced is very simple. The people I'm talking about are ANTI-IMMIGRATION. They think it would be a wonderful idea to put a blanket ban on people from certain countries coming here, and people of certain ethnicities, and people of certain religions. Are you seriously telling me you didn't see any rules like that put in place during the Trump presidency and you didn't see any people, including senators, supporting similar restrictions?
Ok, so if I say something about car drivers or motorcyclists I should always put the word "licensed" in front of the term because otherwise people will think I'm talking about the illegal car drivers and illegal motorcyclists who are riding around without a valid driver's license? Doesn't that seem pretty damn silly?
If I meant illegal immigration, I would have said so.
And that is EOCP (end of conversation permanently) for me because, as I said in post #48: "I flat out refuse to be drawn into a pointless debate about semantics. Nor will I engage in a debate about positions that I don't hold and have certainly never implied."
There are several parts of the current immigration situation that really bother me:
- the overwhelming amount of unaccompanied minors. How can we reasonably deal with them? They need homes, adult guidance, schooling, health care, and the list goes on. But within our current laws, there is no provision for providing for their needs.
- the “Dreamers” - who have worked hard, jumped through lots of hoops already, still with no clear path to citizenship. As a country, we have already invested a lot in these young people, it’s high time we made them citizens, IMHO. And then shut that door.
- people who overstay their visas, “forgot” to go home after their visit. We have laws against that, let’s enforce the laws.
[the US could take a lesson from Canada, if you go visit, for whatever reason, they are clear when you will be expected to leave. And they follow up.]
- Guest Workers- there is no doubt in my mind that our economy Needs a fair amount of guest workers, simply because they are willing to do the work that citizens will not. Right off the top, I can think of 2 industries that depend on guest workers, hospitality, and the wine industry. So let’s make this a formal program, yes, let them bring their wife and kids, work a specified amount of time, then go home. There are few things more demoralizing and destructive to the very fiber of society than hidden wives and children, many many of whom get no health care, and are kept out of school for fear of being permanently separated from their families.
so, just a few of the subsets of immigration, and a few thoughts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)