A three point plan to end illegal immigration

[row_33]

yeah like SJW clowns want capitalism

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not going to debate the meaning of the word "American" with you or anyone else.

 

Oh, I'm sure wikipedia is the authoritative source on where Americans come from.  Certainly trumps the legal definition.

[row_33]

Canada takes all the doctors and engineers and other rich elites from Asia and considers it "immigration"

 

We win.

 

 

 

 

[Cugalabanza]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that those individuals seeking out changes to our immigration policy should outline the end goals of the policy changes they are advocating.

 

And I don't mean bumper sticker slogans, I mean what structural goals is the policy forwarding.

 

I agree, but I don't see it happening.  Those end goal principles, on both sides, have been so thoroughly demonized that it would be an instant partisan slapfight.

 

It's one of the true hot button issues of this time.  It's very unlikely that we'll see any rational conversation about it or any compromise.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I agree, but I don't see it happening.  Those end goal principles, on both sides, have been so thoroughly demonized that it would be an instant partisan slapfight.

 

It's one of the true hot button issues of this time.  It's very unlikely that we'll see any rational conversation about it or any compromise.

 

 

I think it's incumbent on individuals like you and I to attempt to force this to the forefront.

 

Much like the gun debate, people aren't talking about the same things.  They are advancing different moral philosophies, and disguising the tenants of those philosophies in hot button issues without talking about the structural systems, and accompanying foundational belief systems that are necessary to their policy preferences.

 

Policy doesn't happen in a vacuum.  It must be purposed towards something, and procedure is more important than individual outcomes.  All policy will be better for some people, and worse for others; it's the end goals the policy is both intended to incentivize, and it's unintended consequences which must be examined and debated first.

 

Otherwise, there's no point in having the conversation.

[Koko78]

42 minutes ago, row_33 said:

yeah like SJW clowns want capitalism

 

They do! So long as they get to approve who participates in the market.

[Cugalabanza]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think it's incumbent on individuals like you and I to attempt to force this to the forefront.

 

Much like the gun debate, people aren't talking about the same things.  They are advancing different moral philosophies, and disguising the tenants of those philosophies in hot button issues without talking about the structural systems, and accompanying foundational belief systems that are necessary to their policy preferences.

 

Policy doesn't happen in a vacuum.  It must be purposed towards something, and procedure is more important than individual outcomes.  All policy will be better for some people, and worse for others; it's the end goals the policy is both intended to incentivize, and it's unintended consequences which must be examined and debated first.

 

Otherwise, there's no point in having the conversation.

 

Well said.

 

The gun debate as an example:  Both sides dig in on a principle and it's ALL OR NOTHING!  There's a huge expanse of middle ground in there, uninhabited.  There's no discussion about what LEVEL OF REGULATION would be reasonable.  Not everyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of children and the criminally insane is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment. 

 

And lost in the war of principles is that the low hanging fruit of this particular problem (school shootings) would be to take a frank look at the security measures that were either not in place or not followed.  For example:  Why was the Parkland security footage on a long DELAY, making it impossible to see what was happening in real time?  That's asinine.  And why is it so easy for anyone to enter a school and bypass the front desk without signing in?  And why was that resource officer so clueless, unprepared and unwilling to intervene?

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Well said.

 

The gun debate as an example:  Both sides dig in on a principle and it's ALL OR NOTHING!  There's a huge expanse of middle ground in there, uninhabited.  There's no discussion about what LEVEL OF REGULATION would be reasonable.  Not everyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of children and the criminally insane is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment. 

 

And lost in the war of principles is that the low hanging fruit of this particular problem (school shootings) would be to take a frank look at the security measures that were either not in place or not followed.  For example:  Why was the Parkland security footage on a long DELAY, making it impossible to see what was happening in real time?  That's asinine.  And why is it so easy for anyone to enter a school and bypass the front desk without signing in?  And why was that resource officer so clueless, unprepared and unwilling to intervene?

 

 

 

I would ask that you consider the idea that on the issue of gun control you have, likely completely unintentionally, skipped over the part examining exactly what I was talking about:  what are the end goals of your policy preferences, and what are the under-pinning moral philosophies foundational to their implementation?  On the gun debate people are completely talking past each other.  You're talking about "reasonable levels of regulation", and yet I'm still back on what fundamental moral philosophy we should construct our system of laws upon.  We need to start there, because if we don't, again, there's no point in having the conversation because we're having different conversations.

 

As to what sorts of questions we should be asking in the wake of parkland, I'll add a few for you to consider:

 

 

[Cugalabanza]

44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I would ask that you consider the idea that on the issue of gun control you have, likely completely unintentionally, skipped over the part examining exactly what I was talking about:  what are the end goals of your policy preferences, and what are the under-pinning moral philosophies foundational to their implementation?  On the gun debate people are completely talking past each other.  You're talking about "reasonable levels of regulation", and yet I'm still back on what fundamental moral philosophy we should construct our system of laws upon.  We need to start there, because if we don't, again, there's no point in having the conversation because we're having different conversations.

 

As to what sorts of questions we should be asking in the wake of parkland, I'll add a few for you to consider:

 

 

 

I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you.

 

When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common.

 

I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans.  I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.

 

When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost.  How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****.  It’s hard for me to explicate.  It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic.

 

I’m more interested in the ideas themselves.  The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us).

 

Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position.  And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for.  I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground.

 

Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all.  Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you.

 

When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common.

 

I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans.  I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.

 

When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost.  How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****.  It’s hard for me to explicate.  It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic.

 

I’m more interested in the ideas themselves.  The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us).

 

Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position.  And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for.  I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground.

 

Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all.  Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.

 

You haven't gotten off track at all, but rather commented directly on the point I was getting at.

 

This is the single most important part of the conversation, and it's the part that always gets skipped. 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you.

 

When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common.

 

I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans.  I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.

 

When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost.  How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****.  It’s hard for me to explicate.  It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic.

 

I’m more interested in the ideas themselves.  The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us).

 

Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position.  And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for.  I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground.

 

Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all.  Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.

So how does immigrantion fit into our shared values? 

[Cugalabanza]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So how does immigrantion fit into our shared values? 

 

It's a big question, so it's hard to say where to begin.

 

My first thought is that immigration is unique in that it has the "border" (us/them) component.  That freedom vs. responsibility equation is in play, but also the question of whether and how much do we extend consideration to those outside of our [current] national identity.  And that's where it would be valuable for people to make clear where they're coming from.  For some people, the fundamental value is this nation and its Sovereignty.  Also, to what extent is that national identity a fluid thing.  Others view it more globally than nationalistically (sorry to invoke those loaded terms).

 

In other words, how the hell do I know?

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

It's a big question, so it's hard to say where to begin.

 

My first thought is that immigration is unique in that it has the "border" (us/them) component.  That freedom vs. responsibility equation is in play, but also the question of whether and how much do we extend consideration to those outside of our [current] national identity.  And that's where it would be valuable for people to make clear where they're coming from.  For some people, the fundamental value is this nation and its Sovereignty.  Also, to what extent is that national identity a fluid thing.  Others view it more globally than nationalistically (sorry to invoke those loaded terms).

 

In other words, how the hell do I know?

My initial thoughts are:  What is the purpose of a nation state?  Whose interests should a nation state serve? 

 

Secondary thoughts, built on the foundation the initial ones established:  Is culture important?  Are heritage and identity important?  Are they valuable enough to deserve protection?  How are they best protected?

Edited April 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Cugalabanza]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

My initial thoughts are:  What is the purpose of a nation state?  Whose interests should a nation state serve? 

 

Secondary thoughts, built on the foundation the initial ones established:  Is culture important?  Are heritage and identity important?  Are they valuable enough to deserve protection?  How are they best protected?

 

Yes.  That's a good beginning!

 

Following your questions:  Specifically with our nation's "melting pot" history, how does an evolving cultural identity increase or threaten our security?

 

[boyst]

Great conversation @Cugalabanza and @TakeYouToTasker

 

I will bring up one point. The right to citizenship being debated is far different than the inalienable rights provided by the Constitution which confronts immigration/census and more specifically cuga - gun rights (which it does not restrict).

 

Either way, wish more conversation like this occurred here like in the past 

[Tiberius]

45 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

It's a big question, so it's hard to say where to begin.

 

My first thought is that immigration is unique in that it has the "border" (us/them) component.  That freedom vs. responsibility equation is in play, but also the question of whether and how much do we extend consideration to those outside of our [current] national identity.  And that's where it would be valuable for people to make clear where they're coming from.  For some people, the fundamental value is this nation and its Sovereignty.  Also, to what extent is that national identity a fluid thing.  Others view it more globally than nationalistically (sorry to invoke those loaded terms).

 

In other words, how the hell do I know?

Lol, ok, fair enough. Though in the economics of immigration, politics of a changing demographic and the cultural change it creates and how the hell does anyone know? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Yes.  That's a good beginning!

 

Following your questions:  Specifically with our nation's "melting pot" history, how does an evolving cultural identity increase or threaten our security?

 

 

Also important questions which are certainly part and parcel to the culture and heritage portion of the discussion.

 

I'd ask anyone forwarding those concerns to define the idea of a melting pot, which requires cultural assimilation of immigrants; vs. that of a tapestry which does not, and instead serves to protect the immigrants pre-existing culture which they are importing.

 

I'd also ask anyone making that case to speak to differences in the cultures of those we have allowed to immigrate in the past, vs the culture of those we are examining today, as well as accounting for differences in volume, and how increased volumes may or may not lead to more cultural dilution than in the past.

 

I'd also ask about the difference in relative standard of living, educational levels, immunization levels between those immigrating in the past to Americans of those time periods to today's situation.

 

And finally I'd ask about any differences in economic impacts to the existing citizens both in the past and today dictated by differences in social safety nets.

 

Again, these are all important questions, and they all need to be examined honestly by all parties involved in the discussion.

[IDBillzFan]

13 hours ago, LA Grant said:

What should 21st century immigrants from Mexico or Syria learn from these previous integrations?

 

 

Step One.

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

  I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.

 

 

I couldn't agree with this more.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://t.co/lmyPsWVMxL