After a bit of prodding and respectful pressure, Dan came up with a list of specific policy proposals that he believes would help to improve the immigration situation in the US. I'm posting his comment in it's entirety to maintain the context that he wrote it in. I'm also posting it here, and will be responding here, because I would rather not be subject to the restrictions on commenters that Dan often implements. I will deal with each point or points in a separate post, to allow for some focus on the specific point and to make it easier to keep track of.
Finally, while I realize that the nature of a discussion is that it will wander away from strictly sticking to the original topic and don't want to stifle that natural tendency to drift, I reserve the right to delete, edit, or relocate comments comments that go too far astray. Personal attacks, foul language, and general vitriol will be grounds for adjusting comments.
------------------------------Dan's Post----------------------------------
SOME OF WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE FOR HANDLING IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS...
1. End the criminalization of Immigration, especially and specifically for those seeking safety/a better life.
2.
I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, but
it would NOT be a crime if you ended up across the border without the
proper documentation. I would not take children from their families if
they were found across the border without documentation. It would be a
paperwork problem, and you would be required to get your paperwork in
order, but NOT a crime, because it isn't a crime, morally speaking.
Criminalizing seeking safety IS a crime.
3. Engage in
public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in
countries where a high degree of danger exists. 3a. FUND THE STATE
DEPARTMENT sufficiently, this can be done by ending the huge investments
in the Defense Department, as many military leaders request be done.
This is done recognizing that more nations being stable and safe reduce
the need for military responses.
3b. Make financial reparations for
all the poorer nations that we have exploited or caused damage to. We
should begin, for instance, by paying our war crimes debt to Nicaragua,
but it would extend far beyond that.
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. IF someone
reports fleeing danger/starvation, take that claim seriously, because
turning away someone in such circumstances would be criminal.
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.
10.
Since we would have decriminalized immigration, Sanctuary cities would
probably disappear... but to the degree that any cities were still
providing sanctuary for whatever reason, Good on them, may their tribe
increase. Providing sanctuary IS the business of government when it's
properly working, as well as the business of individuals, churches and
other civic groups.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age,
or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate,
will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy
that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist.
Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm
would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held
accountable. Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of
escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do. Nonetheless, it will be
discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing
immigration is done away with.
With criminalized immigration and
the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current
administration go away, it will become apparent that the old sheriff is
gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
1. Immigration is not criminalized in this country. Never has been, likely never will be. Thousands immigrate annually and I doubt there will be a cessation of that any time soon. Why this would be included can only be because one considers ANY entry into this country, regardless of any laws or policies governing such movement, to be without distinction, with no thought to the impact to citizens of the country into which a migrant enters. This is absurd and constitutes a breach of a "principle" long held as absolute by pretty much every nation that has ever existed on earth in the history of mankind, including ancient Israel. That principle is the principle of national sovereignty.
2. What's the point of check points and ports of entry if documentation no longer matters in terms of legalities? One cannot get documentation without going through the designated ports of entry. One cannot have passed through the designated ports of entry without having been given documentation. To create more ports but not insist upon every immigrant having documentation is absurdly pointless. It does absolutely nothing to improve anything without the two being tied together...port of entry and documentation.
There is no "paperwork problem" if one enters in any way but through designated ports of entry. It is an avoidance of proper procedure. Ports of entry are in some way labeled as such. If one does not see anything that indicate a point of entry as being a PORT of entry, then the immigrant is intentionally entering in the wrong place and thus is acting criminally by ignoring our laws governing entry. This isn't rocket science, even for the most illiterate immigrant, who can simply ask if he can't read. "Yo, amigo. Is this a legal port of entry through which I can enter America?" "No, my foreign friend. This is my ranch. The front door is over there."
"I'm coming through anyway, gringo!" This is indeed a criminal act, even if by law it is only a misdemeanor. "But I'm seeking safety!" Not an excuse for ignoring our law, and not necessarily good enough to be granted access. For one, such a claim must be made at the legal port of entry, and entry granted after confirming the claim is legitimate. Not all such claims are.
3. How might this come to exist, given these countries are the reasons the people are leaving? How did our negotiations with Sadam Hussein go, or how are our negotiations with the Iranian mullahs going? I don't see Assad turning over a new leaf any time soon. The Central American "s**tholes" are no different. They are those who are oppressing the people, or doing nothing to protect them from the criminal element who threaten them, likely being that they are on the take. They clearly don't care about the people leaving, except to exploit them, and they've not reached out to deal with our issues because of them. So saying we need to do this is clearly not even within a light year of being enough. It amounts to nothing more than a platitude. Said another way, I don't see a "partnership" happening any time in this lifetime.
What needs to be done in these countries is no less than a coup of some sort, where the impotent governments are replaced with people willing to do the heavy lifting of attacking the thugs both in and outside of their own governments. When the people have a sense that they will be protected from the goons, they will even tolerate the poverty in order to remain in the land they know as their home.
3a. No legitimate military "leader" believes funding to the military is excessive, given the many needs the military has. Our military has been ignored by the previous administration and along with the producers, remains a primary target by the leftists when money is demanded for projects they want but aren't within their constitutional authority. No. This is another suggestion that puts others above our own, and in this case by disarming us under the guise of "defunding" an essential part of our national security. Foolhardy and irrational as only a leftist can be.
First, it must be established that State is underfunded, and not just asserted so in order to prompt increases. Second, it must be understood the purpose of State:
"The mission statement of the State Department reads: “To advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.”
The primary functions of the State Department include:
Provide protection and assistance for U.S. citizens traveling or living abroad;
Assist U.S. businesses and industries operating in the global marketplace;
Coordinate and provide support for international activities of other U.S. agencies, official visits overseas and at home, and other diplomatic efforts;
Inform the public about U.S. foreign policy and relations with other countries and provide feedback from the public to administration officials."
--from thoughtco.com
Even considering it's mission statement, it primary functions are citizen-centric, with concerns for foreigners subordinate. This is as it should be.
This short essay explains the problem with our federal budget process and how it affects the already strained military, but also suggests a similar problem with funding the State Dept and the ability to use funds efficiently. In short, military need the money and likely an increase should the time come when Congress gets its act together and quits playing political games.
But if you wish to take from another source to better fund the State Dept., take it from Education. Indeed, eliminate the department altogether and divert that money to State. We don't need and Education Dept and never did. Doing that will also satisfy those who hate on Betsy DeVoss.
continuing...
3b. This is just a crock. I reject the notion that we exploited other nations, or caused them damage, as no one provides actual evidence of this having happened. That we've involved ourselves where it wasn't always smart to do so is not the same as saying we are culpable for their problems. Find me one that was paradise before we involved ourselves and I might be able to concede the point. Certainly Nicaragua wasn't one of them, and anti-Reagan internationalists who assert we're guilty of war crimes are to be ignored for their communist enabling attitudes. Dan's a chump for the propaganda. So are his sources.
4. Improving living conditions in the 3rd World cannot be accomplished while the reasons they suck go unattended. Aid largely does nothing to bring about meaningful change. Too often it prevents it, as it becomes like a drug and the country in question just sits back and awaits the next check. Craig might build another house for someone in Haiti, and that's all well and good. But does the country still suck? Yes. Yes, I believe it does. I have a couple Haitian co-workers and while they love their homes, they know it sucks there incredibly. The only way to truly improve conditions is to replace the government with competent people who really want to serve their people and to produce things that other countries want to buy. We can't produce things for them, they must use their own talents and resources. All we can do with either of those two things is to find those who wish to serve and support them as they overthrow the despots who oppress them. Dan doesn't like that necessary strategy, so living conditions will never improve, or like will take whatever time is required for someone to step up and take the risks. This is called "reality".
5. I have no problem with this except for what I suggested elsewhere...that so long as people keep coming, this is just sticking a finger in another hole in the dike. Do it, but don't expect miracles. Of course it also means we're taking more of our own money and resources from the needs of our own people to serve the needs of foreigners. Dan has no problem with this because it won't be his money.
6. In theory I don't oppose this. In the real world, I'm not so sure this practical or even moral. Here's why: should one country be more severely affected by despotism, the most legitimate reason for granting asylum, naturally our limited resources would shift to serve that greater need. That's clearly a case of a quota, or a limitation of access to people from other, less hellish countries.
Also, if a country is known for having a large population of militant scumbags, such as an islamist, ISIS heavy nation, limiting access to any degree to such a nation is logical, rational and moral given the increased potential for danger to our own.
7. This is already happening with uneven success. Due to problems Dan likes to pretend don't exist, some countries are backing away from granting access to foreigners.
8. This is already happening, and now so more than ever before and Dan is among those bitching about it.
9. This is already happening and always has been. One thing Dan mistakes is that there is a distinct and significant difference between immigration and asylum. They are not synonymous and must be dealt with accordingly.
continuing...
10. This is the lie. WE DO NOT "CRIMINALIZE" IMMIGRATION. We never have and aren't doing it now. Regulating the crossing of our border is just and moral. Arresting those who ignore our laws and policies governing entry is just and moral as well, just as it is just and moral to arrest any other law-breaker. The burdens illegals put on our system, particularly when after being caught they then claim they are seeking asylum, is detrimental to those who came to us according to our laws and policies to claim asylum...which is immoral. Immigration and asylum laws and policies are for the benefit of OUR people and as such are just and moral laws. Dan is asserting the opposite on the basis of the consequences illegals justly experience after being caught breaking the law.
Governors and mayors who enable this lawbreaking by designating their jurisdictions "sanctuary cities/states" are criminals for aiding and abetting law-breakers. They are criminals by confounding ICE agents who seek to pick up arrested illegals by releasing these aliens from their custody before ICE arrives. If these miscreants believe they can ignore federal laws they do not like...as if the laws and enforcement of those laws are immoral, then a governor or mayor who refuses to, say, grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples...which is clearly an unequivocally immoral...should go ahead and deny those licenses. Why not? We all get to pick and choose which laws to obey. We all are, I am recently told, morally obliged to disobey immoral laws.
Providing sanctuary is the business of governments, individuals and/or churches insofar as it can be ascertained that the claim of the asylum seeker is legitimate and not just a ruse to gain entry. The law provides for asylum in the proper manner...by vetting those who approach us legally, and by incarcerating those who sneak in, are caught and then claim they are seeking asylum, until such time as their claims can be verified and deemed worthy of giving them a pass for breaking our laws. Totally moral, totally justified, totally righteous on the part of our government.
continuing...
"11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist."
What? Perhaps this is poorly worded, because it sounds to me that the presumption is that a policy is established on the racist basis, which is blatant and unsupportable crap. That it factually IS crap is supported by the fact that we welcome immigrants from all sorts of countries and therefore of all manner of race and ethnicity. This isn't the first time that Dan has played the race card in relation to this issue and he has yet to provide any evidence that racism is at play, any more than he's been able to produce any evidence that Trump is a racist. It also lends credence to the suggestion that Dan's position on this issue is political in nature as much as anything else. It's shameful and despicable, but oh so typical.
"Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held accountable."
But it is impossible to know one way or the other when aliens evade authorities by avoiding legal ports of entry. That act demands they be detained and investigated to see exactly who they are and if there is any reason to buy their story...whatever it is.
"Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do."
Perhaps from the alleged danger, but not from those from whom you seek protection. Dan's position is this: "I need help, and you WILL provide it on MY terms." In what fantasy world is this proper or moral? We don't know this person from Adan, and we're supposed to assume a lie is not one of many, that the next thing out of the alien's mouth, that he's fleeing danger, is truth. Again, in what fantasy world...?
"Nonetheless, it will be discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing immigration is done away with."
Now you want our government to lie and pretend we ever criminalized immigration! How many hundreds of days in a row of lying are you up to now? Uh oh! And here he goes again:
"With criminalized immigration and the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current administration go away..." Libel and lies as Dan embraces grace.
"...it will become apparent that the old sheriff is gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come."
It's already apparent as reasonable, adult and moral is manifested in obeying and enforcing moral, logical, practical and protective laws governing the entering of our country by foreigners.
So, as we see, after ignoring point 11 which isn't a suggestion at all, and point 1 which references something that is completely a lie, we find only nine suggestions total. Point 2 is totally contradictory as clearly explained above. That leaves 8 suggestions. #3 provides no indication for how that might be implemented and there's every reason to believe that it would be a waste of time, money and effort. #4 is just as detail free and also is problematic given the leftist meme that we aren't to impose our ideologies and culture upon other nations. These are what made us the go-to country for those who want to go-from. #5 & 6 have some merit with caveats. 7, 8 & 9 are already happening, and finally, point 10 is not a suggestion either, and just a re-iteration of Dan's lies. The score card is such:
Of the eleven "suggestions":
--3 aren't suggestions at all
--1 is contradictory in what it suggests
--2 require more detail while currently suggesting failure
--2 have merit with caveats
--2 are already happening
Only two suggestions out of 8, with one possible.
I’m struggling with the fact that the anti Trump folks are using fake pictures to drive this on an emotional lever.
1. The first few pictures that got published were taken during 2014 when Trump wasn’t president.
2. One is a cropped picture taken from a protest.
3. The crystal little girl was not ever separated from her parents.
How much of the rest of this could be fake news.
I’m addressing Dan’s points elsewhere, and will deal with specifics then. I just wanted the whole thing posted here for context.
“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants to this country”
Here, here!
Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once and s while.
PSA
Some people might not be aware that the "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once and a while." is not actually calling anyone a pig. It's a folk saying that means that even people who are unlikely to be right, occasionally get lucky and stumble across something profound every occasionally.
Post a Comment