Message from @I AM ERROR
Discord ID: 416544162423504896
Anecdotally, after Hurricane Harvey, I began to learn how to install Sheetrock, a service that was vitally important.
i'm all for taking in people from actual war zones... educate them and send them back once the war is over to rebuild their country.
I'm in favor of shutting the border now, but providing everyone who's gainfully employed (and pays taxes despite being illegal, I dunno how the fuck that works) a road to citizenship
I'm not.
but taking in just everyone is not something that will ever work
Because setting that precedent is dangerous.
Anyone that has any criminal record outside of being illegal is sent back, even for something as small as speeding or something.
And it already has precedent, Rye: Machine gun amnesty.
I don't see how the two are related.
Even things like blatantly -stolen- machine guns fell under that amnesty.
Riiiiight, but....
I'm talking belt-feds and M-16s taken out of army depots
mmmhmmm... riiiiiight.... but....
Machine Guns were not always illegal to own.
you are not talking about inanimate objects, you are talking about people with the ability to move around themselves.
however, crossing the border into the US without passport, visa, or citizenship has always been illegal.
So a universal amnesty for people who are gainfully employed, pay taxes and do not have a criminal record, with a very specific cutoff date, is not far beyond a certain level of precedent.
So you're only proposing a ban on assault mexicans.
single-action mexicans can stay.
okay... you announce that, i move in with a friend of mine, he gives me a job and i can become an american...?
jokes aside, the point still remains, they didn't just break a law by crossing a border.
To exist in the United States in such a way requires repeated breach of law.
The point I'm making is that if that's the -only- breach of law they've made, and they've contributed to society outside of that, I see no reason other than a borderline spastic level of absolutist interpretation of the law (and justice cannot be absolute) that they should not be given a road to citizenship.
Working in the US without a Visa is also a crime, taxes or no. (Theoretically, everyone pays taxes, anyway.)
Giving a squatter tenancy in a house isn't justice, even if they put up nice curtains.
i mostly see a problem with the practicality
the principle... kind of... but there are multiple principles involved 😄
We're in the situation we're in because we've been lax on our laws. DACA, by the way stands for 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals'. The entire basis of that statement is that action will be taken later on.
Essentially, it bought time for a propaganda war to be fought, to try to fight for sympathy for the plight of the 'Dreamer'.
And I'm not *entirely* unsympathetic, either. But there's no fair way to do this.
Let's say, for instance, we only deport criminals.
The mother has a clean record. The child is in school. The father has a DUI accident that injured someone, while uninsured and unlicensed.
How would your proposed system handle this?
That sucks, good bye daddy.
So now the child grows up in a single-parent home?
you've separated the family unit.
No, I've not, they can move back with him.
I mean, I guess.
I still don't like that the citizenship that our Legal immigrants earned through years of effort is cheapened by a decree of amnesty.
Would this amnesty apply to those who are here on their visa working towards citizenship anyway?