I think it'll make sense for me to just point out which of Dan's points I agree with, for two reasons.
1. It'll save time
2. It begins with common ground.
So, without further ado, here we go.
"2.
I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, ...
3. Engage in
public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in
countries where a high degree of danger exists.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7.
Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a
very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger
than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base
immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations.
9.
Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types
of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower
skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any
priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation."
All of the above, as edited, I agree with. If anyone in congress put forth a bill with the points listed above I would support it.
What I would add.
A. I would add more places outside of the US where the screening (or pre screening) can be done early. My hope would be that the screening could be done while the immigrants are in transit to expedite either entry or repatriation.
B. Expand the number of entry points, the number of screeners, and adequate areas where immigrants can stay while going through the screening process. Especially expand the number of spaces suitable for families.
C. Rethink the use of foreign aid money away from government to government aid and toward government to private or ONG aid.
D. Given the ability of the US military to transport, feed, house, provide medical care and other basic services to large numbers of people find innovative ways to involve the military in the processing and care of immigrants.
The question before us now, is how Dan will react to this. Will he agree that the two lists above would be something that the two of us could agree to compromise on and agree that something like the above would be a a policy that we both could support (if it was actually proposed as a bill), or will he decide that he can't compromise at all.
My hope would be that he could find a spirit of compromise.
Either way, I'll look at the rest of his list another time.
17 comments:
Two questions:
1. What is "ONG"?
2. Where does "the American government needs to be and is putting it's own people first" come into play amidst all these suggestions?
Just thought of a third question:
3. How do all these suggestions accommodate the current situation, particularly the almost 700,000 case backlog of asylum seekers? People won't stop coming while these suggestions are put into effect, assuming they even can be. That 700K will surely balloon in the meantime.
Still one more consideration: nothing can be accomplished if Trump has any connection to it, as there is nothing he can do with which his detractors will join, given their number 1 concern is his ouster or at least his failure. As president he can't NOT be involved, and thus I see no progress even if these suggestions are valid.
Call me cynical if you must, but these are tangible problems to overcome. Will the Pelosi and Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer types actually lift a finger if it means Trump might get any credit at all? I doubt it.
1. ONG is the Kreyol version of Non Governmental Organization. It’s a habit because that’s how I usually see it. Why Dan used it, I don’t know.
2. From my perspective, it comes into play in the screening process.
3. From my perspective part of the solution is expanding the capacity, but clearly this is no magic solution to everything. It is an aganda that I could support as a first step toward a more permanent solution.
If all we do is look at the hurdles, then all we’ll do is nothing.
As if right now I don’t expect any of the DFL leadership to support any legislation or to propose any, or to negotiate any. I think that their priorities might not be on a fix before the mid term elections.
Why didn’t they take care of immigration during the two years P-BO had a congressional majority? Why aren’t we hearing more about the drugging and abuse of detainees in 2012-2014?
If the DFL can’t put partisan politics aside, and take the chance that Trump might get a “win” out of putting a bill on his desk, who knows. I know that apportioning credit and blame will probably have little to do with reality.
Look at the the response to the EO.
But, this post is about seeing if Dan can compromise on a significant number of his points, that we have significant agreement on.
I agree with your list and your addendum.
That you are not willing to agree with the notion that people seeking safety should not be criminalized, EVEN IF they "enter in an incorrect manner..." is problematic and I would not go along with anything that continues to criminalize people who are merely seeking safety, but I could support legislation along the agreement points.
Now, can you bring Marshall along?
To your question about 2009-10 Obama/Dems, to be sure, they failed to strike while they had the chance. They should have.
On the other hand, the GOP was actively fighting against Obama with a pledge of non-cooperation and the Democrats were worried about losing (which they eventually did) over support with such opposition and demonization from a very hostile GOP, but still, it's on the Democrats for not doing it while they can... as well as the GOP and their hostility towards immigration reform and willingness to use it as a battering ram on the Democrats.
Obama was faced - as the first African American president who had been slandered and repeatedly attacked as a socialist, Muslim and non-American! - with the specter of his enemies finding support for all those charges ("See! He ISN'T AMERICAN! He wants to let in the Mooslims!" and, I've heard, he was just trying to come across as not "too liberal..." and willing to cooperate with a hostile GOP. It was sort of a lose-lose situation, but still, he should have pushed for immigration reform. I just don't think you can remove the topic from the context of hostile conservatives.
Like he does with the story of Sodom, Dan begins at the end as if what came first is of no consequence. Here, he assumes all claims of fleeing danger are true and legitimate, and our government officials, whose purpose is to protect American citizens, is to assume the same thing. It just doesn't, nor CAN'T work that way, until the claims can be confirmed as true, then indeed these people have broken the law and should be regarded accordingly. Even if there are legitimate mitigating circumstances that justifies the breaking of a law, it can't be ascertained without first treating the law-breaker as a law-breaker. Even now...even during all the previous administrations who kicked this can down the road...it is done this way. People are NOT being treated as criminals once their claims are confirmed as true. That is, certainly not those who lodged their claims properly according to our laws and regulation. We're focusing on those who have been caught going around our laws. In these situations it is perfectly, logically and morally reasonable and necessary to treat these people as law-breakers...criminals, if you will...because THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!! by entering in the manner they did. YOU, Dan Trabue, have absolutely NO IDEA as to whether or not any given person who enters in this manner is legitimately confirmed as one fleeing danger of a type considered worthy of granting asylum by internationally recognized criteria.
As such, I don't have to be "brought along" unless by which you mean I be brought along to join in your enabling of lawlessness in the guise of "seeking safety"...which is how it must be regarded until their stories can be confirmed. That's step number one. NOTHING else matters until that claim is confirmed, and still there's the matter of their having entered illegally.
There was no such pledge of non-cooperation with Obama and the Dems. That's rank BS promoted and perpetrated by the Dems themselves. That's going on now, without a doubt, but during the Obama era, the problem was the unwillingness of Obama to truly work with the GOP. He was ONLY willing to "co-operate" with the GOP if the GOP did things his way. This is not even questionable. The "lose-lose" was the situation the GOP faced during that time. What's more, there were too many in the GOP, and there are too many now, that support some form of amnesty. So that "hostile conservative" line is bunk.
BTW, Obama IS a socialist...most Dems are these days. I personally don't think he's any more muslim than he is a Christian. He's an Obaman and nothing more. And he's Non-American, not by place of birth, but by temperament and hostility to that which is American in favor of his socialist preferences.
You revise history as you do Christianity...poorly and dishonestly.
Craig,
1. I thought so, just wasn't sure. Now I can respond with more confidence. Thanks.
2. That's what Trump enforcing the actual law was doing, but he got crap for it. How will it be different now?
3. The problem, though, is really about getting them to stop coming. More capacity is a finger in the dike. It won't prevent the flow at all and will soon be overwhelmed as our people are now. So while the real problem of why they come needs the most focus, the next is what to do with the people who continue to come. Dan wants to let them all in with no questions, because if he assumes they're all honest, what's the point in having a port of entry and documentation at all?
As I've shown already with solid evidence that Dan deleted, the illegals cost way, way more than they add to our economy. Dan's links referred to legal immigrants who were vetted and granted entry because they'd be assets to our nation, and as such the notion that they are a net gain for us is a more reasonable proposition. With Dan's position, we'll be letting in those (even allowing for more of them attempting only legal entry options) to whom we weren't granting access because they were seen as a burden. Long story short, immigration in general will become more of a net loss than a net gain without the type of vetting that kept our interests as the prime consideration, as is moral and proper for our government to do, considering they work for US.
So it's not just a matter of only looking at the hurdles, but understanding what the hurdles are, which are the priorities that serve the most people most deserving without putting our interests out of the equation.
BTW, I won't believe any of the stories about drugging and abusing detainees until I see some convictions. There are far too many false claims from the open borders people, too many of whom are anti-government people, and certainly anti-Trump people.
Here's your chance, Craig, to demonstrate your good will you're trying to embrace.
Marshall has made a series of false claims and irrational points and borderline racist comments. You could begin by correcting him on the false claims (at least some of them should be very obvious... hint: "Here, he assumes all claims of fleeing danger are true and legitimate").
Marshall, of course I make no such assumptions. I'll pass on engaging further with you, given your lack of understanding basic points made by me and others.
Yes, Feodor, you are exactly right, many of Latin America problems and dangers come as a direct result of US policies and enterprise (and not just the drug problems). If we create a problem, then we own some responsibility in fixing the problem.
will he decide that he can't compromise at all.
Actually, there was no compromise in affirming those policies which I was fine with and have been fine with and have advocated.
"Now, can you bring Marshall along?"
It's not my job.
"That you are not willing to agree with the notion that people seeking safety should not be criminalized,..."
1. I thought I was clear that I was limiting this thread to the things that I agreed with, without reservation.
2. You seem to be assuming something based on your preconceptions.
3. As you so graciously pointed out at your blog, "seeking safety" is not currently a criminal offense enumerated anywhere in the US legal code.
4. You're assuming that because I might disagree with your terminology, that I disagree with your intent.
5. Perhaps patience would have been a worthwhile choice here.
P-BO had enough DFL votes to have passed any immigration legislation that he would have wanted to, and the GOP was virtually powerless to stop it. Yet, with that going for him, there was absolutely zero effort put into any immigration reform. This has the benefit of being both fact and reality. Add to this the news coverage coming out regarding abuse and drugging detainees in 2012-2014, makes the tepid after the fact criticism of P-BO and the excuses for his failure to act ring hollow and nakedly partisan.
"Actually, there was no compromise in affirming those policies which I was fine with and have been fine with and have advocated."
Once again, perhaps patience would have been the better course. Unless you are trying to say that you have no interest in compromise even though I haven't proposed anything.
Art,
As both Dan and I have pointed out, dealing with the issues that drive immigrants in their countries of origin is a key part of the bigger picture. Having said that there is room for asylum and other options while the real problems are being dealt with. I firmly believe that immigrants are the symptom, not the problem. While we need to do a better, more compassionate, job dealing with immigrants (while maintaining secure borders, and respecting the law), it's not the solution. Fixing the cause, at the source, is the solution.
I'll say the same thing to you I said to Dan. I think you're both getting ahead of me on this and responding to assumptions rather than to what I've actually said.
I agree that I'm taking reports of abuse and drugging in 2012-2014 with a grain of salt at this point, the bottom line is that it does demonstrate a double standard in the media.
"Here's your chance, Craig, to demonstrate your good will you're trying to embrace."
"Marshall has made a series of false claims and irrational points and borderline racist comments..."
Dan,
If I were you, I'd tread lightly with this kind of thing. You've increased your level of vitriol and personal attacks recently, as well as making quite a few false claims about me. You've frequently deleted comments of mine, then made false claims about their contents.
I intentionally started this by sticking to areas where we agreed and where we could find common ground. I'd appreciate it if you could try dial back the rhetoric and refrain from telling me what I should do at my blog. You certainly wouldn't welcome me telling you what to do at your blog, I don't understand why you think I would respond positively to you doing something you wouldn't tolerate at your blog.
I'm not going to delete anyone but Feo, and everyone knows why, I won't b
necessarily delete for language,but will edit.
It's your call, I'm asking for the extension of grace.
Art,
If you have questions, by all means ask them, but let's dial back the rhetoric. I understand that it's frustrating to have on comments that you believe to be on topic deleted, especially when the content of those comments is mischaracterized. But, here and now, let's dial it back.
Sorry Craig, but I honestly don't know what "rhetoric" you're referencing as necessary for me to dial back. I thought I was being quite coldly objective. I've lied about nothing, but have corrected some.
I will say that I still felt the actual problem that prompted all of this was still an issue for discussion, even with proposals for resolution added to it. Dealing with the reasons for their flight from home is far more difficult for us as the outsider in that scenario, than even our situation being overrun has shown itself to be. We have no control whatsoever other than to perhaps put economic sanctions on those countries, which will hurt the people more, and cause more to flee the increased deprivation. If the regimes are corrupt, there is no talking to them that will provide a better incentive than the profits their corruption provides. If they are merely impotent in dealing with their internal issues of criminal cartels, then the answer is of a more militaristic kind, be it with personnel, weapons, money or some combination of the three.
But our borders and our land is our business and our government's main priority in all of this. I can't think of anything that is worth subordinating any of that due to a lack or practicality. That is, perhaps one of you can provide an example where any of your ideas have been implemented with any success. But it seems to me that the reasons the people flee can only be dealt with in a very head-on manner due to the nature of those reasons.
And by the way, I just want to re-iterate that I'm really fed up with being referred to as a racist just because it's a cheap and easy thing to say.
One more thing...for Dan...
Dan,
Absolutely everything you say about this issue is akin to assuming "all claims of fleeing danger are true and legitimate". If this is not true, then you couldn't be characterizing the laws as immoral and/or "criminalizing immigration", because it is only because people enter contrary to our policies and procedures and are held accountable for doing so that you trot out this trope. When we talk about enforcing existing laws intended to protect and benefit our people, as such laws are supposed to do and have that as it's primary purpose, you act as if we know already that a given alien is truly fleeing imminent danger and merits our granting entry.
In addition, even the vague "seeking a better life" is not something that requires us to subordinate the responsibility of our laws and the enforcement of them, which is to benefit and protect US. That, too, is not "criminalizing immigration". If there's anyone who needs to dial back the rhetoric, it is you, with this expression and the constant suggestion that racism is afoot by a nation that welcomes legal immigrants of all races and ethnicity by the hundreds, if not thousands, every year, include about 20,000 asylum seekers per year who sought asylum the right way.
Art, I agree the the racist thing is a cheap shot and not helpful. As long as you dial back a bit I’ll police that.
Just saw this that supports my concerns about points 3, 4 & 7, which questions the success possible with working with other countries. Mexico happens to be the most important country in the mix as far as that goes, as all Central American illegals come through Mexico, joining with Mexico's illegals along the way. If the candidate for the Mexican presidency is going to promote a Mexican diaspora, then I fail to see how any help would be forthcoming from the dude should he win the election...a very bad prospect indeed.
Post a Comment