Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Kramania]

I guess if you want to disregard our immigration laws then there isn't.

Excellent then. We'll change the immigration law and then you will have no argument against Dreamers.

Oh I will. I'll just argue for changing the laws back to what they were.

[Ism]

Hope has long since died.

Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies. – Andy Dufresne

You've just quoted a convicted murderer who illegally immigrated from the US to Mexico in the context of the Trump administration. There's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it.

[Ism]

Excellent then. We'll change the immigration law and then you will have no argument against Dreamers.

Oh I will. I'll just argue for changing the laws back to what they were.

Why?

[New haven america]

1. Oh well
2. This is actually a viable argument
3. I'd be fine with that

There is no reasoning with supporters of open borders.

I'm sorry you hate logic and facts.

[AiliailiA]

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that they pay into them with their tax dollars.

Then we shall remedy that and remove them from the country so they no longer need to pay taxes to our government.

Also, they pay federal taxes?

Of course. It's one of the requirements to be eligible for DACA, and was in the DREAM act too.

Personally I'd ditch that. If they're ineligible for federal benefits (as in DACA and DREAM) and they can find some other way besides crime (also disqualifying) like depending on their family or on private charity, then I'd allow them to stay. But the idea that "idle hands do the devil's work" is deeply ingrained in the US welfare system: idleness is considered tantamount to criminality. See for instance how states can get away with drug testing welfare recipients: where is the probable cause to search them for that crime, but in the fact they are unemployed or earning so little they need welfare?

[AiliailiA]

Excellent then. We'll change the immigration law and then you will have no argument against Dreamers.

Oh I will. I'll just argue for changing the laws back to what they were.

Donald Trump just did that, but with a 6 month delay. DACA exempted certain people (brought to the US as children but not just that) from enforcement of immigration law. If Congress passes a bill to replace DACA, it will be very similar, hopefully a bit more permissive as the DACA restrictions were modelled on previous DREAM act restrictions.

When six months is up, I'm betting Trump will put DACA right back if Congress hasn't made a bill to the same effect. Poor you.

[AiliailiA]

Yes.

I seem to recall that "no taxation without representation" was one of the reasons that the US fought Britain for independence.

So it's a good enough reason for treason and war, but not illegal immigration? Care to square that circle?

You seem to be making a whole other argument. It's not that Dreamers should be allowed to stay, but that they should be allowed TO VOTE.

As if the American rebels would have given up all idea of rebellion or independence and gladly submitted to the Crown if only they could vote for the British Parliament. Obviously not: it was a slogan not a principle.

[Thyest]

We should have illegal immigrants work on building the wall. Make it big and beautiful. When it's finished and they are admiring their handiwork; they will realize that they are on the Mexican side.

[New haven america]

We should have illegal immigrants work on building the wall. Make it big and beautiful. When it's finished and they are admiring their handiwork; they will realize that they are on the Mexican side.

Hard dee har har, like that hasn't been repeated 9000 times or so, how truly original of you.

[Camicon]

I seem to recall that "no taxation without representation" was one of the reasons that the US fought Britain for independence.

So it's a good enough reason for treason and war, but not illegal immigration? Care to square that circle?

You seem to be making a whole other argument. It's not that Dreamers should be allowed to stay, but that they should be allowed TO VOTE.

As if the American rebels would have given up all idea of rebellion or independence and gladly submitted to the Crown if only they could vote for the British Parliament. Obviously not: it was a slogan not a principle.

That isn't the argument I'm making, clearly. I am comparing a more extreme situation (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying treason and war) to the one that the US finds itself in with regards to DACA (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying not being deported).

[Salandriagado]

Yes it fucking does.

It's not like you can provide tangible evidence to support a particular philosophy. It's all dependent on logical proofs and accepting the implicit assumptions they make.

If we could provide evidence the same way we can for the sciences there wouldn't be so many competing, and equally valid, philosophies.

Yes, you can. I don't know what you mean by "philosophy", but it has absolutely nothing to do with actual academic philosophy.

[AiliailiA]

You seem to be making a whole other argument. It's not that Dreamers should be allowed to stay, but that they should be allowed TO VOTE.

As if the American rebels would have given up all idea of rebellion or independence and gladly submitted to the Crown if only they could vote for the British Parliament. Obviously not: it was a slogan not a principle.

That isn't the argument I'm making, clearly. I am comparing a more extreme situation (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying treason and war) to the one that the US finds itself in with regards to DACA (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying not being deported).

The historical example you chose just doesn't fit the purpose very well, since it actually supports something else (right to vote) better than it supports an entitlement to welfare.

What you say, paying taxes means entitlement to welfare, may still be provable some other way. It doesn't seem very sound to me. Paying taxes where they're required doesn't entitle a citizen to anything which wasn't their right anyway: it's not a positive act, it only complying with the law. And why would you extend a new right to non-citizens which citizens do not have.

[AiliailiA]

We should have illegal immigrants work on building the wall. Make it big and beautiful. When it's finished and they are admiring their handiwork; they will realize that they are on the Mexican side.

"The Mexican side" is still US territory. Unlike some of the fence which was built with the consent of the Mexican government, it would be flagrantly illegal to build any part of the wall on Mexican land.

Oh, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans either, but you're only making a joke and logical consistency isn't necessary is it ...

[Camicon]

It's not like you can provide tangible evidence to support a particular philosophy. It's all dependent on logical proofs and accepting the implicit assumptions they make.

If we could provide evidence the same way we can for the sciences there wouldn't be so many competing, and equally valid, philosophies.

Yes, you can. I don't know what you mean by "philosophy", but it has absolutely nothing to do with actual academic philosophy.

Then go and find me some tangible evidence to prove a particular philosophy, and I'll go and find some tangible evidence to prove a particular scientific theory. Yeah?

That isn't the argument I'm making, clearly. I am comparing a more extreme situation (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying treason and war) to the one that the US finds itself in with regards to DACA (taxes without receiving benefits from them justifying not being deported).

The historical example you chose just doesn't fit the purpose very well, since it actually supports something else (right to vote) better than it supports an entitlement to welfare.

What you say, paying taxes means entitlement to welfare, may still be provable some other way. It doesn't seem very sound to me. Paying taxes where they're required doesn't entitle a citizen to anything which wasn't their right anyway: it's not a positive act, it only complying with the law. And why would you extend a new right to non-citizens which citizens do not have.

The historical example works just fine, because "no taxation without representation" was a protest slogan against what Americans saw as a tax burden that they received no benefit from. Similarly, DACA recipients have a tax burden that they see no benefit from. Whether the benefit in question is the right to vote or welfare is beside the point.

Taxes are paid for the purpose of supporting the state apparatus, enabling it to carry out the functions that it is obligated to. The obligations of the state to it's citizens are quite clear, but what is less clear are it's obligations to non-citizens that nonetheless pay taxes to it.

It's not a questions of extending rights to non-citizens that citizens don't have, but a question of whether or not to grant certain privileges that citizens already enjoy to non-citizen taxpayers.

[Telconi]

Yes, you can. I don't know what you mean by "philosophy", but it has absolutely nothing to do with actual academic philosophy.

Then go and find me some tangible evidence to prove a particular philosophy, and I'll go and find some tangible evidence to prove a particular scientific theory. Yeah?

The historical example you chose just doesn't fit the purpose very well, since it actually supports something else (right to vote) better than it supports an entitlement to welfare.

What you say, paying taxes means entitlement to welfare, may still be provable some other way. It doesn't seem very sound to me. Paying taxes where they're required doesn't entitle a citizen to anything which wasn't their right anyway: it's not a positive act, it only complying with the law. And why would you extend a new right to non-citizens which citizens do not have.

The historical example works just fine, because "no taxation without representation" was a protest slogan against what Americans saw as a tax burden that they received no benefit from. Similarly, DACA recipients have a tax burden that they see no benefit from. Whether the benefit in question is the right to vote or welfare is beside the point.

Taxes are paid for the purpose of supporting the state apparatus, enabling it to carry out the functions that it is obligated to. The obligations of the state to it's citizens are quite clear, but what is less clear are it's obligations to non-citizens that nonetheless pay taxes to it.

It's not a questions of extending rights to non-citizens that citizens don't have, but a question of whether or not to grant certain privileges that citizens already enjoy to non-citizen taxpayers.

Well the slogan specifies the benefit in question. And voting is not the same as receiving social benefits.

[Camicon]

Then go and find me some tangible evidence to prove a particular philosophy, and I'll go and find some tangible evidence to prove a particular scientific theory. Yeah?

The historical example works just fine, because "no taxation without representation" was a protest slogan against what Americans saw as a tax burden that they received no benefit from. Similarly, DACA recipients have a tax burden that they see no benefit from. Whether the benefit in question is the right to vote or welfare is beside the point.

Taxes are paid for the purpose of supporting the state apparatus, enabling it to carry out the functions that it is obligated to. The obligations of the state to it's citizens are quite clear, but what is less clear are it's obligations to non-citizens that nonetheless pay taxes to it.

It's not a questions of extending rights to non-citizens that citizens don't have, but a question of whether or not to grant certain privileges that citizens already enjoy to non-citizen taxpayers.

Well the slogan specifies the benefit in question. And voting is not the same as receiving social benefits.

It's good, then, that both of those things are irrelevant to my point.

[Thyest]

We should have illegal immigrants work on building the wall. Make it big and beautiful. When it's finished and they are admiring their handiwork; they will realize that they are on the Mexican side.

"The Mexican side" is still US territory. Unlike some of the fence which was built with the consent of the Mexican government, it would be flagrantly illegal to build any part of the wall on Mexican land.

Oh, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans either, but you're only making a joke and logical consistency isn't necessary is it ...

Illegals building illegally, on someone's legal property, an illegal wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Let the lawyers figure that one out buddy.

[Vassenor]

"The Mexican side" is still US territory. Unlike some of the fence which was built with the consent of the Mexican government, it would be flagrantly illegal to build any part of the wall on Mexican land.

Oh, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans either, but you're only making a joke and logical consistency isn't necessary is it ...

Illegals building illegally, on someone's legal property, an illegal wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Let the lawyers figure that one out buddy.

Or we could try not blowing billions on something that won't actually make a difference.

[New haven america]

"The Mexican side" is still US territory. Unlike some of the fence which was built with the consent of the Mexican government, it would be flagrantly illegal to build any part of the wall on Mexican land.

Oh, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans either, but you're only making a joke and logical consistency isn't necessary is it ...

Illegals building illegally, on someone's legal property, an illegal wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Let the lawyers figure that one out buddy.

So... Texas?

Bad joke, I'ma go sit in the corner.

[AiliailiA]

"The Mexican side" is still US territory. Unlike some of the fence which was built with the consent of the Mexican government, it would be flagrantly illegal to build any part of the wall on Mexican land.

Oh, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans either, but you're only making a joke and logical consistency isn't necessary is it ...

Illegals building illegally, on someone's legal property, an illegal wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Let the lawyers figure that one out buddy.

You've almost made the joke funny. Keep trying.

[Gauthier]

Trump Administration won't pull out of Paris Climate Agreement

What is happening.

When did Trump ever refuse to pull out of anyone anything?

---

Now that the joke is out of the system, something tells me this is someone taking notes from Pelosi and Schumer and playing a concerto with Trump like a whiny orange cello.

[Kramania]

There is no reasoning with supporters of open borders.

I'm sorry you hate logic and facts.

That's actually pretty funny because you presented no logic and facts.

That may actually be the funniest thing I've ever seen you say.

[Kramania]

Oh I will. I'll just argue for changing the laws back to what they were.

Why?

Because I see no justifiable reason not to have a thorough immigrant process that must be respected.

[Kramania]

Oh I will. I'll just argue for changing the laws back to what they were.

Donald Trump just did that, but with a 6 month delay. DACA exempted certain people (brought to the US as children but not just that) from enforcement of immigration law. If Congress passes a bill to replace DACA, it will be very similar, hopefully a bit more permissive as the DACA restrictions were modelled on previous DREAM act restrictions.

When six months is up, I'm betting Trump will put DACA right back if Congress hasn't made a bill to the same effect. Poor you.

That would be tantamount to political suicide for Trump.

I seriously, seriously doubt he'd do that.

[New haven america]

I'm sorry you hate logic and facts.

That's actually pretty funny because you presented no logic and facts.

That may actually be the funniest thing I've ever seen you say.

I was more talking about how people who support open borders tend to use actual logic and facts compared to those who don't (Who usually site nationalistic or tribalistic beliefs).

I wouldn't expect you to understand...