I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
We have seen this movie before. The reality is US presidents from both parties have been implementing "tough," often deadly, policies at the border for 30 years. They haven't worked. It's time for US leaders to acknowledge the folly of policies aimed at deterring immigration and to re-think how borders can be managed in a way that respects human rights.
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis at our border with Mexico requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from crossing the border into the United States. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally across that border the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal.
But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration?
Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail? You get the idea.
This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only (1) built a segment of a wall on some portion of the border with Mexico; (2) stationed more military at various points of the border and made guarding it part of their mission: (3) something else? There always will be a point of diminishing returns.
That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to increased border security. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
True. the issue isnât immigration but how we monitor and process migrants (or the lack thereof)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 8, 2024 - 2:42pm
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis at our border with Mexico requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from crossing the border into the United States. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally across that border the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal.
But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration?
Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail? You get the idea.
This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only (1) built a segment of a wall on some portion of the border with Mexico; (2) stationed more military at various points of the border and made guarding it part of their mission: (3) something else? There always will be a point of diminishing returns.
That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to increased border security. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
apples and oranges no?
although i think the salt lake issue is more a state migration issue than a religious one.
If the argument is that there are too many people for the USA to deal with, and it's not about racism or provincialism, it's a reasonable corollary.
And the indications are that it's climate change and overpopulation of the area. This is from a philosophy called Quiverfull.
While the vast majority of migrants are here to build a better life and contribute to this country, as past migrants have...It seems our current handling of the situation may also be attracting the wrong element...or at least limiting our ability to weed out the wrong element.
Fine, whatever, but ... How many is too many ? We have had a housing shortage forever resulting in homelessness Now we just added another 10 million, who, wait for it ... need homes. So now what ? How many is too many ?
It's high time immigration stops being a political football, and we focus on actual solutions, create policy that better manages the flow of people to this country, that doesn't burden our systems. Good luck with that!?
Policy or laws ?
It has been a political football since the 60's. Caesar Chavez anyone ?
New laws are meaningless because they will never be enforced like the present ones we already have. Trump tried and look what happened.
To think new laws will change anything anymore is an outright lie and anyone who says so is a liar.
We need less laws because most of the ones we have on the books are either bad or just plain archaic.
We need laws that are enforceable. And that requires discussions and establishing priorities.
But we are not allowed to have discussions anymore. We just have narratives that are not allowed to be challenged cuz if you do ...
We have had a housing shortage forever resulting in homelessness
Now we just added another 10 million, who, wait for it ... need homes.
So now what ?
How many is too many ?
It's high time immigration stops being a political football,
and we focus on actual solutions,
create policy that better manages the flow of people to this country,
that doesn't burden our systems.
Can someone explain that to the guys with the big trucks that tailgate and then zoom by me going dozens of miles over the speed limit? Are we really a nation of laws, or is it just that we use laws to harass those that we don't approve of? (That's obviously rhetorical.)
They were vetted for travel with certain conditions (specific nations, have a sponsor, pay their own way, etc.) , outlined here somewhat. It's not as simplified and clandestine as Fox News or Trump has described.
So "immigrants," not necessarily 'illegal' with these vetted conditions. Got it!
They were vetted for travel with certain conditions (specific nations, have a sponsor, pay their own way, etc.) , outlined here somewhat. It's not as simplified and clandestine as Fox News or Trump has described.
