The "need" for comprehensive immigration reform is really a bunch of BS

It is also an excuse for Congress and the president to shift blame, point fingers, just play politics. Whenever anyone brings up the ■■■■■■■■ about “comprehensive immigration reform” all they are doing is using that as largely a red herring to the ignorant masses. When you hear those in power talk about immigration you would think that either we don’t have any legal means for people to come here and work or that we somehow owe it all the world’s unemployed labor a job! The fact is that the actually a variety of ways people can LEGALLY immigrate here, both permanently and temporarily. And if one wants to say that the programs have certain problems then simply fix them and it’s perfectly fine to do so one at a time. Finally to profess the need for comprehensive immigration reform to fix the border is complete ■■■■■■■■ as that is much more about dealing with how asylum should function. Here’s a good perspective on this:

From the link:

American laws already on the books are sufficient to end mass illegal immigration if merely enforced even roughly to their letter, with consistency over time across the entirety of border immigration systems. Because the system was otherwise never really “broken,” “comprehensive immigration reform” of quite sensible immigration enforcement laws was never necessary. The good news is that certain several fixes, combined with that normal enforcement practiced and a slight attitude adjustment, can end the vast numbers of foreign nationals from journeying—and dying on the way.

For starters, as I hope to have proven beyond all reasonable doubt by this point, Democrats and Republicans who do not want mass illegal immigration must run every proposal through this analytical litmus test: Will this or that elevate— or lower—the odds that an aspiring immigrant’s smuggling fee investment pays off with successful entry over the border and long-term legal or illegal stay inside America?

If the policy will increase an immigrant’s entry-and-stay odds high enough, it is the wrong one and should be rejected in any form. Conversely, if the policy will reduce the entry-and-stay odds, it is the right one and should become a candidate for acceptance. This simple calculus, though it may seem obvious, should no longer be allowed to defy broad absorption. If immigrants are telling us that they run this basic calculus through their skein when deciding to stay or go, so too should American leaders. Hear the immigrants.


“Immigration reform” is code for simply legalizing illegal aliens.


Exactly, the govt doesn’t follow the laws we have now. Refugees need to stay in the first country they enter that can provide them safety. That would be Mexico. The way to stop illegals is to send them back fast.


The saying itself means ■■■■ comprehensive immigration reform is as meaningful as build back better or make America great again, it’s a slogan nothing more.

I think the tax system needs reformed and made easier but in the meantime I still have to pay taxes because that’s the law as are the current immigration laws.

comprehensive equality

for every illegal we let in, we deport an elected democrat

I know, I know…

That’s just bureaucrat-speak, nothing meaningful is meant to come from it.

Here is Biden’s idea of immigration reform.

EXCLUSIVE — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has demanded two Biden Cabinet officials explain how an MS-13 gang member who was charged in the murder of an autistic Maryland woman was allowed into the United States after illegally crossing the border, according to a letter obtained exclusively by the Washington Examiner.

1 Like

As I understand the law, only Mexican Citizens can be immediately returned to Mexico. A individual from any country other than Mexico must go through our court process before they can be kicked out.

So-called “comprehensive immigration reform” that the Democrats want is essentially amnesty for EVERYONE already here and unlimited and unrestricted legal immigration for everyone who wants to come here


There’s not a single Democrat that gives two ■■■■■ about any American killed by an illegal immigrant, or about all the Americans being killed by the drugs coming across the border.


Sounds like we need to change the law…

1 Like

I have to laugh when people talk about laws regarding migrants and immigration. By LAW is not EVRYONE here illegally supposed to be deported? How many other laws related to immigration are not enforced as well? Any sovereign nation has absolute authority on who it lets into its country and how. Yes, there are international agreements related to things like asylum, but they do not trump any nations sovereignty.

1 Like

I can understand why it would be argued that we cannot impose non-Mexicans on Mexico. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it.

That’s why we have to stop them from crossing in the first place.


Which is exactly what Trump did. If Mexico continued to serve as a conduit for illegals from Central and South America, he was going to increase tariffs on Mexican goods.
It worked.
Biden ended the program and the flood ensued.


if they are Mexican citizens, send them back to Mexico

anyone else can be deported to Canada

This is from the link I posed in the OP:

The United States must withdraw from the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees treaty that President Lyndon Johnson signed in 1968 and rebuild the U.S. asylum system that treaty obliged after Congress incorporated its provisions in the Refugee Act of 1980.

As this book has amply demonstrated in my chapter “Insane Asylum,” no other enticement exerts a greater gravitational pull on illegal immigration than does the easy ability to defraud the American asylum law as it now stands to achieve long-term entry. The asylum system must be torn down and rebuilt because it directly nullifies most congressionally approved immigration statutes that should, if actually executed faithfully, staunch mass illegal immigration.

I’ve stated this before and I will do so again. The international agreements established on asylum by no means strip any nation of its absolute right to its sovereignty. That’s why I don’t like to even refer to them as laws. Laws are only as good as one’s ability to enforce them. Please list ANY nation willing to go to war with another nation whom they feel is not living up to laws on asylum?

No international laws or agreements on asylum trumps a nation’s sovereignty. We are under NO OBLIGATION to allow anyone into the country and have the right to detain them until their case can be fully adjudicated. There are other actions we could take as well to end this such as declaring Mexico a Safe Third Country.

1 Like

It’s a comprehensive cluster ■■■■ at the border, it’s been treated at best with kid gloves at worst the situation ridiculed.

Why doesn’t anyone ever mention that there already legal pathways for for those people who want to come and fill the Agricultural, temporary, and seasonal work?

What is the Difference Between H-2A and H-2B?.

Send them to Mexico anyway if they passed through Mexico on the way here.