As I have already pointed out, it is crystal clear that you are not here to have that “honest conversation” about immigration, because you refuse to include in the conversation rules and standards which must be met by those who we invite into our country, and characteristics under which rejections will be made.
JWK
Do they have any positive characteristics?
Wouldn’t that be determined during a vetting process?
JWK
So why focus on negatives? Making the assumption beforehand?
When vetting, focus is to be on unwanted characteristics, as well as desirable characteristics. A useful trade would be a desirable characteristic, while the likelihood of become a public charge would be an undesirable characteristic.
Can you think of other undesirable characteristics?
JWK
How does one determine that one will become a public charge? Can we see into the future?
As distinguished from the "likelihood’ of becoming public charge?
Common sense public charge laws date back to America’s Colonial period
.
Just for the record, as far back as our colonial period, public charge laws were enacted to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become a public charge. One such law forbid ”… the admission of indigent migrants. This law was followed in the 18th century by other laws prohibiting the landing of “Sick, Lame, or Otherwise Infirm Persons,” and calling for bonds that were forfeited if immigrants of questionable means became public charges.” See: Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background
JWK
1882 was a banner year for immigration law. There was the Public charge law along side with the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Taking a page from most people in the 1800’s is a really bad plan imo.
We are not talking about imposing a “Chinese Exclusion Act”. We are talking about adopting immigration policies which are in the best interests of the United States and her citizens. I see nothing wrong with having public charge provisions in America’s vetting process for immigrants.
JWK
And pointing back to people who did what you seem to like and ignoring the terrible things that they did the exact same year is not looking at the issue in an honest fashion.
They instituted those exclusions to bar Irish and Italians because they were seen as poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal.
So, you are back to deflecting, obfuscating, and misdirecting. What happened to that “honest conversation” you were talking about with regard to setting an immigration policy?
JWK
There are citizens of country “A”, and others, who are not citizens of country A and do not have the rights as the citizens of country A. They have the rights of citizens in their own country until such time as they are granted legally the rights of citizens A.
Until such time they are indeed quite appropriately “others”.
So is the plan to stop covid by the Democratic Party?
According to the Washington Examiner
“Last week, 7,000 migrants were released in downtown McAllen, Texas. More than 1,500 tested positive for COVID-19 over the past seven days, according to a city document issued Wednesday.”
Some of these could have been infected with the lambda variant coming from South America. How does this help decrease the spread of covid?
I am not sure why people can’t take their political blinders off for a second and see why people are skeptical of the government when ■■■■ like this is happening. Who dumps 1500 infected people in a town of 141,000 during a pandemic that doesn’t promote trust.
That sounds like something Japan did to towns in China during WW2.
I doubt you are responding to one who actually wants to have an “honest conversation” with regard to setting an immigration policy which advances the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [our MSM], and activist traitorous judges and Justices, the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Interesting what “failures”? Enlighten us.
From the man who wants to deny them a living.
It’s the cruelty for me.
And, if things were not bad enough for America’s taxpaying citizens when it comes to the swarm of foreigners flooding across the border, Biden is now proposing to tax American citizens to pay the legal costs to represent illegal entrants!
See: Biden looks to have federal government provide lawyers for migrants at border
August 01
”The Biden administration aims to spend millions of dollars to cover the cost of lawyers for migrants who have illegally entered the country, a prospect that has infuriated immigration restrictionists.
President Joe Biden proposed in his immigration plan released this week that Congress should make available $15 million to cover the costs of private lawyers for “families and vulnerable individuals,” with another $23 million to cover legal orientation programs administered by the Justice Department. The proposal, first outlined in Biden’s fiscal year 2022 budget, is the first time that an administration has proposed covering such an expense, and the White House has not shared additional information.”
While American citizens in our nation’s inner cities are in desperate need of help, and we have veterans sleeping in tent cities, the Biden Administration is more concerned with helping the flood of Central America’s poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal populations pouring across America’s border. Indeed, American citizens are being made second class citizens in their own country.
JWK
⁷
Because you won’t concede that many of the illegal immigrants are “poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and/or criminal” ?
Actually, they are all criminal if they entered illegally, right?
You want to limit vocabulary to make the expression of inconvenient truths impossible. How very 1984 of you.
But you are. You are saying that describing anyone as diseased is to dehmanise them. There cannot exist a diseased human. Any diseased entity is not human.
You are saying that describing someone as poverty-stricken is to dehumanize them. There cannot exist a poverty-stricken human. Poverty-stricken entities are not human.
You are saying that describing someone as criminal is to dehumanize them. There cannot exist a criminal human. Poverty-stricken entities are not human.
You are denying the humanity of diseased, poverty-stricken and criminal persons.
