My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise

[Dave70968]

For those saying "they should be in the process of becoming legal," how many know what that process is? Without marrying into legality, or certain criteria like asylum, how many people know that "becoming legal" means leaving? For anybody who's been here over a year, it means leaving for ten years.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law, but it's certainly not as easy as some seem to think; going "back" to a country that one has never known in his adult life, in which he may have minimal professional, familial, or social connections, is a helluva thing to do. Expats have a tough enough time as it is, and they generally have the benefit of some life experience and some resources; think of yourself at twenty-one, or twenty-five, moving to a foreign country that you've not seen since you were six. Now think of spending ten years there before you can even try to return to the place where you grew up.

It's easy to be glib when you don't understand what's actually involved. I can understand the sympathy for those who were brought here through no fault of their own, raised here, have only ever really understood "home" to be here.

Just something to ponder.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Ohhhh. Ok. So the kids mentioned a few post back should keep the stolen money they've grown accustomed to? @Dave70968

 

[rc508pir]

Stay here on a visa is fine with me, but zero chance at citizenship unless they go back and begin legally

 

[dennishoddy]

I don't agree with the 10 year deal.
They need to go back, and if we need them and their job skills, allow the citizenship process to start like tens of millions before them did.
If you have a history of interactions with LEO, your out. Period. Enjoy your new home.
I could embrace the guest worker program for those migrant workers that have worked the fields of agriculture since I was a kid. They came here, harvested, made their money and went home waiting for the next harvest season.

 

[Pokinfun]

For those saying "they should be in the process of becoming legal," how many know what that process is? Without marrying into legality, or certain criteria like asylum, how many people know that "becoming legal" means leaving? For anybody who's been here over a year, it means leaving for ten years.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law, but it's certainly not as easy as some seem to think; going "back" to a country that one has never known in his adult life, in which he may have minimal professional, familial, or social connections, is a helluva thing to do. Expats have a tough enough time as it is, and they generally have the benefit of some life experience and some resources; think of yourself at twenty-one, or twenty-five, moving to a foreign country that you've not seen since you were six. Now think of spending ten years there before you can even try to return to the place where you grew up.

It's easy to be glib when you don't understand what's actually involved. I can understand the sympathy for those who were brought here through no fault of their own, raised here, have only ever really understood "home" to be here.

Just something to ponder.

how is any of that my problem?

 

[Cowcatcher]

@Dave70968 ponder this: when illegal immigrants come here are they coming to a country they've known with all the family and other things you mention?

 

[Dave70968]

Ohhhh. Ok. So the kids mentioned a few post back should keep the stolen money they've grown accustomed to? @Dave70968

No, that's not what I said. Way to put words in my mouth, though. As an aside, you might find this article interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...aint-onjordan-peterson/550859/?utm_source=twb
It's about how a hostile interviewer completely misrepresented what her guest said, then argued with her own (erroneous) straw man instead of actually addressing the subtleties of the guest's careful, limited statements. You'll like it; the guest was a conservative, and the interviewer decidedly not, so you'll be able to hang your hat on the "evil librul media" angle.

As to Dr. HK's example, no, it is not the "exact same argument." In his example, you have a tangible asset that can easily be disgorged from the improper possessor and returned to the rightful owner. In the case of a person, though, where the "asset" is presence here in the country, a job, a place in society...how do you take those away? How do you give them to the "rightful" owner? How do you even know who the rightful owner is? Say José Doe is holding a job that "should" go to a citizen? Which citizen? Fred or Mike (or Mary, or Sue, or Bob, or Sheila)? Not so easy to "give it back" as it was with the money, is it? How do you distribute the social network, the professional connections, the personal capital José has amassed (some of which he will have created through his own effort)? Intangible assets don't work that way; you can't just take them away from the wrongful possessor and give them to the rightful owner to make the latter whole.

Even at that, there comes a point when we accept that the conversion is sufficiently remote in time as to be attenuated. If you want to talk about stolen opportunities, what about slaves? The assets they should have accrued during a free life would have passed as inheritance to their children, and we our forefathers' benefited unjustly from their slaves' labor, but we decry the idea of reparations as being too remote in time. What about the land grabs displacing the native peoples, the repeated repudiation of treaties, the mishandling of Indian trust assets? There's a heck of a lot of unjust enrichment, and land is something that can be returned. How far do you want to take that "give it back" philosophy? No, I'm not arguing in favor of reparations, but you should really think carefully about the precedents you propose to establish.

In any event, I did not say anything even remotely like "the kids mentioned a few post back should keep the stolen money they've grown accustomed to." In point of fact, I specifically disclaimed that. Here, for your benefit, is what I said: "I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law." See how those two are different? You put words in my mouth, "restat[ing] what purportedly said so as to make it seem as if [my] view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd." If I didn't know better, I'd think you were practicing for a career as a "librul media" anchor.

Again, just something to ponder.

 

[Cowcatcher]

@Dave70968 you say we should give them a pass because of their parents actions. You can insult me and spin this **** all you like with your typical long paragraphs and links if you like. At the end of the the day you will be incapable still of carrying on a decent conversation. You ever hear the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". That's what I'm saying and the way I say it is simple instead of all this Mumbo jumbo you usually seem to cobble together.

 

[Dave70968]

how is any of that my problem?

I didn't say it was; I merely pointed out a little bit of the other side of the coin. It's always beneficial to understand the other side's point of view when making an argument. Saying "they should become legal" is akin to telling a cancer patient he "should get better;" it's a whole lot easier said than done. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that we'd all do well to understand what the patient is going to have to bear to make it happen.

@Dave70968 ponder this: when illegal immigrants come here are they coming to a country they've known with all the family and other things you mention?

Well, since the illegal immigrants in this discussion were--by definition--children when they came here, they're probably not coming to a country with all the family, etc. they've known, but rather coming with all the family they've known in any significant, meaningful way, and the relationships are the ones they develop over the years. Or did you fail to consider that fact?

 

[Dave70968]

@Dave70968 you say we should give them a pass because of their parents actions. You can insult me and spin this **** all you like with your typical long paragraphs and links if you like. At the end of the the day you will be incapable still of carrying on a decent conversation. You ever hear the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". That's what I'm saying and the way I say it is simple instead of all this Mumbo jumbo you usually seem to cobble together.

No. No, I didn't say we should give them a pass. Go read. Move your lips if you have to. I'll repeat it again, in boldface this time (think of it as "speaking up," since you seem to be having trouble hearing): "I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law."

I'm not sure how I'm "incapable still of carrying on a decent conversation" when you're the one ascribing to me statements directly opposite what I actually said.