Tiberius Posted June 12, 2019 Author Share Posted June 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, mjt328 said: We can handle more immigrants. We cannot handle more illegal immigrants. The millions of job openings are mostly for skilled workers, technicians, manufacturers, computer coders, etc. If someone coming from Mexico can speak/write English, and has the skills to handle such a position, then fantastic. They can get in line for a work permit, wait their turn, and maybe even become a U.S. citizen when the time comes. I'm all for it. But when you fail to address illegal immigration, you are opening the door to millions of unskilled workers who drag wages down for low-income American citizens and drain public resources (such as public schools) without contributing tax revenue. If born here, their children are also eligible for government benefits. Not to mention, drug smugglers, human traffickers and terrorists have an easier path into our country, when we aren't double-checking who is coming in the door. Most of the people presenting themselves at our borders are applying for asylum, they are not illegal immigrants. Being pro-life means we should recognize their humanity and give them help and let them stay here if that is what it takes. Lumping these poor people in with drug dealers and human traffickers is basically scapegoating them, something this president has disgustingly engaged in and IMO disqualifies him from being our president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Most of the people presenting themselves at our borders are applying for asylum, they are not illegal immigrants. Being pro-life means we should recognize their humanity and give them help and let them stay here if that is what it takes. Why would a person coming from Mexico need asylum? Do some research into this issue, and listen to what officials who handle this daily are saying. Most of these "asylum seekers" are actually individuals who were caught sneaking across the border. Once apprehended, they claim to be seeking asylum. So instead of being immediately deported, our laws schedule a court hearing and release them into the country. More than 90% never return for their hearing. I'm all for helping people. But it's foolish to just allow open-borders, and say anyone who needs help can come to the U.S. for free health care, education, housing, etc. Our country does not have the resources to help everyone in the world. Reality check: It's not the rich neighborhoods that are being hurt by illegal immigration. It's the poor ones. The guy making $500K per year is not worried about an illegal immigrant taking his job. It's the guy making minimum wage. It's not the wealthy school districts getting overcrowded without enough teachers to handle a classroom. It's the inner-city school districts. 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Lumping these poor people in with drug dealers and human traffickers is basically scapegoating them, something this president has disgustingly engaged in and IMO disqualifies him from being our president. Do you lock the doors to your home? Are you willing to allow just anyone who rings the doorbell into your house? Being careful/selective does not mean you believe EVERYONE outside is a dangerous criminal, a thief or a rapist. It doesn't mean you are lumping them all together. You lock the doors because SOME people on the outside ARE dangerous. You want to protect the people inside. Immigration should be no different. Everyone that wants to come here should come to the front door, ring the doorbell, and allow us to decide whether to let them in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 8 hours ago, KD in CA said: Uhh....doesn’t the law allow citizens the right to argue any point they want? Isn’t that the whole premise of holding the right to defend oneself in a court of law? Not entirely. There are certain defense tactics that are outright prohibited (jury nullification/rape shield), and other crimes, such as statutory rape (Rape in the Third Degree in NY) that the law explicitly says that there is no legal defense to. Obviously the defense has the right to make any ethical argument it wants, but there are some exceptions. Of course, a smart defense attorney can argue the illegal defense without arguing the illegal defense, but I digress... Starting to make exceptions for an Extreme Emotional Disturbance defense is a very slippery slope. Leave it up to the jury to decide if the defense is bullschiff or valid after hearing the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Not entirely. There are certain defense tactics that are outright prohibited (jury nullification/rape shield), and other crimes, such as statutory rape (Rape in the Third Degree in NY) that the law explicitly says that there is no legal defense to. Obviously the defense has the right to make any ethical argument it wants, but there are some exceptions. Of course, a smart defense attorney can argue the illegal defense without arguing the illegal defense, but I digress... Starting to make exceptions for an Extreme Emotional Disturbance defense is a very slippery slope. Leave it up to the jury to decide if the defense is bullschiff or valid after hearing the proof. anything involving TDS doesn't even interest the police to start the prosecution of a crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts