The funny thing about this meme is that there's a 99% chance Trump doesn't know how to play actual chess.
Illegals had no "deal" - there was a lack of enforcement of the law. This line of thinking is essentially like saying that crimes not enforced or investigated by one administration should not be enforced or investigated by any succeeding administration. Under Cohete's "deal", I would allow all current illegal immigrants to stay, if that is what they so choose to do, under the following conditions: Scale back immigration quotas for countries whose citizens make-up the illegal immigrant population of the US, and do so on a commensurate basis. Revoke current birth-right citizenship for those not born to at least one legal permanent US resident and create a more sensible plan in the same manner as France or other civilized countries which so many ClutchFans members look up to (i.e.. light-rail, single payer, etc). Scale back the H1-B visa program commensurate with increases in student visas. Implement a national voter ID (similar to what every country in the world has). Expand the E-Verify program. That is a deal. Looking the other way as Americans compete against $6.50-per-hour-laborers here at home and $2-per-hour-laborers abroad, all the meanwhile claiming that this is due to "automation" is insincere and disingenuous - at best.
I'd say there was an implicit deal, a social compact, that stems exactly from the lack of enforcement. An unenforced rule, imo, is not a rule at all, and it's capricious exercise is an injustice. If we're going to compare to unenforced crimes, why not consider that we have statutes of limitations for most other crimes to avoid exactly this capriciousness. It's been about 30 years since we've had an honest attempt at immigration reform. In those decades, undocumented immigration was nominally illegal, but as a society we encouraged it by providing work (and indeed mobilizing industries around that employment strategy!), and removed deterrents by being very bad and slow and divided about enforcement. We've said one thing in the law and done the exact opposite in practice. Deeds speak louder than words, and immigrants, employers, and the public have picked up on what the deal really is -- they can come if they're willing to work for low wages and keep their noses clean. Maybe you've never liked it -- I've never liked it -- but that's the deal. And people have come to take that deal. And we've had a steady relationship on those terms for a few decades and, relying on this nonbinding contract, they've built families and social networks, even investments and business networks. Now, we're talking about canceling that contract and damages will ensue. The question is who will pay for the damages. The immigrants, who are currently exposed to the most risk because they didn't build any protections into their contract? American companies, who are really the cause of the immigration problem for their failure to be able to regulate who they hire? The taxpayer, who through their elected representatives looked the other way and did nothing to resolve a worsening problem for 3 decades? I'm fine with all the bullets of your deal. I don't know to what extent legal immigration really needs a scaling back, but there is some appropriate level and I'd accept any reasoned policy on how much is enough. The only bullet I'd quibble with is revoking birthright citizenship. Aside from being politically almost impossible because it's in the Constitution, this is one area where I don't want to be like France. I see a festering problem in France with multiple generations of North Africans who are shut out of citizenship and it perpetuates that population as a subclass. If you want to deny birthright citizenship, we should at least have birthright permanent residency with some mechanism for gaining citizenship.
The "deal" is that you do things the right way, and you don't have a problem or you break the law and possibly have to face the consequences of that one day. Illegals are no different from any other criminal. A thief can go a REALLY long time without getting caught, it doesn't mean that it's okay for him to be a thief.
Is a person who pirates a song the same as the person who burns down the music store? Both are criminals, afterall.
And if both were held accountable for their crimes, I don't think anyone should cry for them..... That said, piracy effectively did burn down the music store but that's a different manner. I'm just saying that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that illegals are criminals and there are punishments for violating the laws of this country. It's not a bad thing when they have to face those consequences.
I am not complaining about ICE going out there and detaining the illegals that are actively committing crimes. But it gets morally more ambiguous when I consider there are illegal immigrants out there doing great things here, and they only reason they are illegal is because they did not have the means to come legally. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10013111
If so, a Trump administration spokeswoman outright lied to the American public by saying: "WASHINGTON — An internal Department of Homeland Security memo from last month proposed calling up as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up undocumented immigrants, an agency official said Friday. But DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said the memo, dated Jan. 25, was an early draft document that was not seriously considered. "The department is not considering mobilizing the National Guard,'' Christensen said in a statement to USA TODAY." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...94/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-j8opdBZTC1_rUIODPeEoOA So what is it... a fake policy, and the spokeswoman was lying? Or an early draft, and not a fake policy? You choose. Can't have it both ways... can't say one thing to the media, then claim is was a fake policy. What am I saying, this administration lies at the drop of a hat. This wouldn't be unthinkable for the Trump administration.
and if they're providing a net positive to our society why does that matter?? sodomy is illegal in many states... should we be spending our time and money rounding up all homosexual men and bootyhole loving heteros in those states simply because it's against the law? absolutism is about as impractical a policy as it gets because few issues are black and white in the grand scheme of things.
I am sure Bobby, and I do as well, would argue that laws should be changed. Although the courts can actually declare them to be invalid if someone tried to enforce them.
If a thief is providing a net positive to our society does that mean that we should ignore their crimes? What if a murderer is only killing bad people? Should it be legal then?
Very much so, and there are some terrible laws out there. I can't imagine a sodomy law ever being successfully enforced.
my point is that there are some laws where the victim isn't so clear... many an illegal work hard, provide for their families, pay into SSN on top of other taxes and contribute just as much as any citizen/legal alien with no other criminality outside of having crossed the border illegally.
You and I would argue these people should have a pathway to citizenship. But others strongly disagree.
I would be all for a path to citizenship so long as the border was legitimately secured so that the influx of illegals all but stopped entirely. After that happens, you can offer amnesty to those here so long as they jump through a few of the hoops that they should have jumped through to legally enter the country to begin with.....if they refuse, they go.
