I can’t help but notice you used the word “defend,” as if you’re talking about the military holding off an enemy advance rather than a policy of not letting desperate poor people move here.
Of course in the conservative world, that’s exactly the thought process. Dehumanization and bigotry are the first step of many policies there.
This can be flipped just as easily. I am noticing that you seem to be viewing the existence of borders in an inherently hostile viewpoint. Do you believe that this country, or any country, could survive if they let anyone and everyone on earth that wanted to come for any reason at any time and without any limits, into the country? Could Canada survive in its current state if 100 million Americans suddenly moved there? Could Tibet or Ukraine survive if millions of Chinese or Russian citizens moved there?
You appear to be implying that nations and national identity is inherently bigoted, which is exactly the thought process in some corners of the leftist world. Anarchy and destruction of existing society is the first step of many policies there.
I think instead of being hostile to people coming to the US for a better life, perhaps we could create faster pathways to citizenship. Allow them to work and pay taxes while processing, and allow them to have that better life, and to be invested in making the US a better place.
And nobody is saying just allow anyone in, we could still screen people (like we already do), but we could also treat them like people. This whole thing of making these people the enemy is FUD in order to allow the Right to control its base, and the Left now feels they need to do “border-Nazi-lite” because the Right has controlled the narrative on this for so long.
The immigration system needs a major overhaul, it should not take years or decades, and we should have expanded guest and migrant worker programs for agriculture and other seasonal jobs. A solution is needed for the current illegal immigrants as well, but prior blanket amnesty legalization has not lowered illegal immigration. The question is if giving those who came in illegally a legal status to pay taxes and work while getting a pathway to citizenship will result in more people following that route instead of the legal pathways because it is faster/easier. Processing millions of applications takes time and manpower, and will require a robust department to deal with that.
Yes, there is a lot of FUD, and no, they are not the enemy and shouldn’t be treated as such. There are also those who do call for fully open borders and free travel for all, but it would be ludicrous to assign all Democrat voters with this anarchist, one world nation brush. Those who cross the border outside of a crossing and aren’t caught by border patrol aren’t being screened, and while this is honestly not a huge amount in comparison, it that allows the FUD to be driven even more successfully.
Working down the backlog requires investing in our judicial system, which the cons treat as growing the government and so reflexively oppose. So they’re at the heart of that problem, too.
Very true, because the ongoing border crisis currently works in their favor. We will see if they devote the departmental infrastructure to immigration under the Republican run government to improve the situation and “prove” that they are the correct handlers for the border, but I’m not holding my breath. I am also getting down voted to hell for saying that the solution is probably going to be more complicated than just making everyone legal in a blanket amnesty without also/first tackling the broken legal immigration system to prevent making the situation worse, so I’m not sure how popular investing in fixing the judicial system and immigration offices are on either side.
I can’t help but notice you used the word “defend,” as if you’re talking about the military holding off an enemy advance rather than a policy of not letting desperate poor people move here.
Of course in the conservative world, that’s exactly the thought process. Dehumanization and bigotry are the first step of many policies there.
This can be flipped just as easily. I am noticing that you seem to be viewing the existence of borders in an inherently hostile viewpoint. Do you believe that this country, or any country, could survive if they let anyone and everyone on earth that wanted to come for any reason at any time and without any limits, into the country? Could Canada survive in its current state if 100 million Americans suddenly moved there? Could Tibet or Ukraine survive if millions of Chinese or Russian citizens moved there?
You appear to be implying that nations and national identity is inherently bigoted, which is exactly the thought process in some corners of the leftist world. Anarchy and destruction of existing society is the first step of many policies there.
I think instead of being hostile to people coming to the US for a better life, perhaps we could create faster pathways to citizenship. Allow them to work and pay taxes while processing, and allow them to have that better life, and to be invested in making the US a better place.
And nobody is saying just allow anyone in, we could still screen people (like we already do), but we could also treat them like people. This whole thing of making these people the enemy is FUD in order to allow the Right to control its base, and the Left now feels they need to do “border-Nazi-lite” because the Right has controlled the narrative on this for so long.
The immigration system needs a major overhaul, it should not take years or decades, and we should have expanded guest and migrant worker programs for agriculture and other seasonal jobs. A solution is needed for the current illegal immigrants as well, but prior blanket amnesty legalization has not lowered illegal immigration. The question is if giving those who came in illegally a legal status to pay taxes and work while getting a pathway to citizenship will result in more people following that route instead of the legal pathways because it is faster/easier. Processing millions of applications takes time and manpower, and will require a robust department to deal with that.
Yes, there is a lot of FUD, and no, they are not the enemy and shouldn’t be treated as such. There are also those who do call for fully open borders and free travel for all, but it would be ludicrous to assign all Democrat voters with this anarchist, one world nation brush. Those who cross the border outside of a crossing and aren’t caught by border patrol aren’t being screened, and while this is honestly not a huge amount in comparison, it that allows the FUD to be driven even more successfully.
Working down the backlog requires investing in our judicial system, which the cons treat as growing the government and so reflexively oppose. So they’re at the heart of that problem, too.
Very true, because the ongoing border crisis currently works in their favor. We will see if they devote the departmental infrastructure to immigration under the Republican run government to improve the situation and “prove” that they are the correct handlers for the border, but I’m not holding my breath. I am also getting down voted to hell for saying that the solution is probably going to be more complicated than just making everyone legal in a blanket amnesty without also/first tackling the broken legal immigration system to prevent making the situation worse, so I’m not sure how popular investing in fixing the judicial system and immigration offices are on either side.