iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This seems like something that would happen in a s***hole country.

---

Haiti and Niger are only a plane flight away. They don't have a government to shut down, or running water, or a constitution protecting civil rights. But at least they don't have Trump or evil Republicans ruining their country.

---

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

sycasey said:

---

What cost or ramifications? DACA people are already productive members of American society. They have to be to qualify for DACA. You think they would behave differently after being granted citizenship? If so, why?

DACA probably was an overreach by Obama. He felt he had to do it because Congress couldn't come up with a solution. When Trump ended the DACA program, he stated that it was because Congress needed to deal with the issue. So that's what's happening now. Even if Obama made a mistake, so what? The current government has always had to deal with the situation left by the previous. That's what's being debated now.

I don't see why this is a "bleeding heart" thing. Yes, I do personally think it's the right and moral thing to allow DACA folks to stay in the country. But I also can't think of a practical reason why it's a bad thing to let them stay. This isn't about opening the borders to more immigrants, it's dealing with people who are already here and have been here a long time.

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders. An olympian may be the best in their field, but if they're found to be under 16, they're disqualified.

Also, we are granting immunity to illegal eligibility to someone who in theory may be taking jobs away from citizens. Again, I want LEGAL immigrants to get the jobs they're qualified for.

Immigrants know getting their kids into the system legally is not necessary. In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted? If illegal immigration isn't a disqualifier in your mind, what is the use of legal immigration, and isn't your issue with immigration law? And if so, what SHOULD constitute illegal immigration that isn't bendable by the whims of one's politics.

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This seems like something that would happen in a s***hole country.

---

Haiti and Niger are only a plane flight away. They don't have a government to shut down, or running water, or a constitution protecting civil rights. But at least they don't have Trump or evil Republicans ruining their country.

---

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

---

LOL my comment was in jest, as was yours. Who's NOT fun at parties?!?!

You must admit there is a double standard of conversation. It is politically correct to criticize America or anything 'white' or 'male' however absurd, but it is politically incorrect to do the same with others, no matter how justified or factually correct. I don't think it's the end of the world or renders anybody a 'victim' but i think it's prudent to plant a flag there.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This seems like something that would happen in a s***hole country.

---

Haiti and Niger are only a plane flight away. They don't have a government to shut down, or running water, or a constitution protecting civil rights. But at least they don't have Trump or evil Republicans ruining their country.

---

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

---

LOL my comment was in jest, as was yours. Who's NOT fun at parties?!?!

You must admit there is a double standard of conversation. It is politically correct to criticize America or anything 'white' or 'male' however absurd, but it is politically incorrect to do the same with others, no matter how justified or factually correct. I don't think it's the end of the world or renders anybody a 'victim' but i think it's prudent to plant a flag there.

---

Yes, comedy usually works better when you are making fun of the more powerful people, not the less powerful. That's why your "jest" sucked.

sycasey said:

---

.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Ooh can I play this game? How about politics and more specifically presidents? Or how about college football? How about police brutality? Recreational drug use? Alcohol usage by minors in many places?

Calling Dreamers illegal aliens and challenging their right to be here as if it were some sort of immoral offense is despicable and yes, deplorable. Dreamers are more American than millions of good for nothing multi-generation citizens who were born here. I'm proud to live in a country with the dreamers and wish I could says as much about many of the entitled, whiny losers who we are stuck with.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

---

I'm pretty sure DACA only applies to the kids, not the parents. It was not the kids' fault that they were brought to this country, and sending them back now would be cruel and unfair. I do not support continuing to allow all illegal immigration to continue apace, but my understanding is that after a big spike in the 1990s (when these Dreamers came over), illegal immigration has slowed a good deal, to the point where it has remained approximately level since the mid-00s. I'm not sure something like DACA is necessary for anyone coming over now; it's mostly to deal with the people from that 90s "spike" who have been living in limbo for a long time.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

My policy argument is that their education has essentially ALREADY been funded (some of these people have been here 20 years or more), and the requirements of DACA basically ensure that they will pay back that investment by being productive workers (and hopefully, eventually, citizens). This sounds to me like a good way to balance the moral issue of deporting people back to a country they have never known with the practical issue of making sure those immigrants bring value to our society.

I'm sure you're going to disagree. But I think this argument has been persuasive to most people, given how well DACA polls with the public.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Ooh can I play this game? How about politics and more specifically presidents? Or how about college football? How about police brutality? Recreational drug use? Alcohol usage by minors in many places?

Calling Dreamers illegal aliens and challenging their right to be here as if it were some sort of immoral offense is despicable and yes, deplorable. Dreamers are more American than millions of good for nothing multi-generation citizens who were born here. I'm proud to live in a country with the dreamers and wish I could says as much about many of the entitled, whiny losers who we are stuck with.

---

Careful now, you might be making a moral argument here. I've been told that's irrelevant to any political discussion. Hard numbers only!

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

---

This seems like hyperbole. How are things different from a year ago exactly? Unless it's a cloak for your ideological and party biases and double standards.

If you took the media and all these threads seriously, you'd think the U.S. went from peaches and cream a year ago to the brink of armageddon in one year. Remarkable. Republicans have done nothing outside of a budget plan and tax deal.

---

A year ago we didn't have a president afraid to visit England. Imagine how royally and so totally you have to screw up for this to be true. It's nearly incalculable, yet this stable genius managed it in less than a year. He's unprecedented.

The epitome of the ugly American - ignorant, arrogant, and incurious; who measures himself in the collection of golden toilets.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Ooh can I play this game? How about politics and more specifically presidents? Or how about college football? How about police brutality? Recreational drug use? Alcohol usage by minors in many places?

Calling Dreamers illegal aliens and challenging their right to be here as if it were some sort of immoral offense is despicable and yes, deplorable. Dreamers are more American than millions of good for nothing multi-generation citizens who were born here. I'm proud to live in a country with the dreamers and wish I could says as much about many of the entitled, whiny losers who we are stuck with.

---

Do you like the children of American criminals as a matter of reflexive protocol? Aren't you proud to live with them too? Or are you just fond of people based on race/ethnicity and their place of birth, and anti-everything American? Hispanic immigrants are some of the lowest skilled and educated residents in the country. They drive down labor not because of their skin color or place of origin, but because their skill set is so poor (including language).

Dreamers -- the offspring of illegal aliens outside America -- are not inherently virtuous on the basis of their immigration status. Being brown or white or a citizen or not does not make you virtuous. That would be identity politics. That would be prejudice, which I'm sure you're not. That would be like a double standard or something.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

---

I'm pretty sure DACA only applies to the kids, not the parents. It was not the kids' fault that they were brought to this country, and sending them back now would be cruel and unfair. I do not support continuing to allow all illegal immigration to continue apace, but my understanding is that after a big spike in the 1990s (when these Dreamers came over), illegal immigration has slowed a good deal, to the point where it has remained approximately level since the mid-00s. I'm not sure something like DACA is necessary for anyone coming over now; it's mostly to deal with the people from that 90s "spike" who have been living in limbo for a long time.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

My policy argument is that their education has essentially ALREADY been funded (some of these people have been here 20 years or more), and the requirements of DACA basically ensure that they will pay back that investment by being productive workers (and hopefully, eventually, citizens). This sounds to me like a good way to balance the moral issue of deporting people back to a country they have never known with the practical issue of making sure those immigrants bring value to our society.

I'm sure you're going to disagree. But I think this argument has been persuasive to most people, given how well DACA polls with the public.

---

I would prefer not to provide public service to them to begin with, as it's a crutch used in favor of amnesty. Also, non-citizens are not entitled to public services including education. I do not expect Italy to teach me Italian when I move there to work.

You're right it's not fair as the kid didn't choose to do it. I don't see how that's relevant to law and order. It's the parents fault no doubt, and they can take comfort in knowing they bucked the system and got their kid a free American education they were not entitled to. Sayonara.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

---

This seems like hyperbole. How are things different from a year ago exactly? Unless it's a cloak for your ideological and party biases and double standards.

If you took the media and all these threads seriously, you'd think the U.S. went from peaches and cream a year ago to the brink of armageddon in one year. Remarkable. Republicans have done nothing outside of a budget plan and tax deal.

---

A year ago we didn't have a president afraid to visit England. Imagine how royally and so totally you have to screw up for this to be true. It's nearly incalculable, yet this stable genius managed it in less than a year. He's unprecedented.

The epitome of the ugly American - ignorant, arrogant, and incurious; who measures himself in the collection of golden toilets.

---

You are describing a huge swath of legal and illegal immigrants. You are a walking double standard of hypocrisy

Just to add, if anyone is wondering why these Dreamers didn't just become American citizens "the right way," it's because the process is super-long, expensive, and involves a lot of luck. Personally, I'd rather focus on fixing this process than on deporting people.

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

---

This seems like hyperbole. How are things different from a year ago exactly? Unless it's a cloak for your ideological and party biases and double standards.

If you took the media and all these threads seriously, you'd think the U.S. went from peaches and cream a year ago to the brink of armageddon in one year. Remarkable. Republicans have done nothing outside of a budget plan and tax deal.

---

A year ago we didn't have a president afraid to visit England. Imagine how royally and so totally you have to screw up for this to be true. It's nearly incalculable, yet this stable genius managed it in less than a year. He's unprecedented.

The epitome of the ugly American - ignorant, arrogant, and incurious; who measures himself in the collection of golden toilets.

---

You are describing a huge swath of legal and illegal immigrants. You are a walking double standard of hypocrisy

---

Yeah, I'm not following you. Are you calling immigrants, both legal and illegal, ugly Americans?

sycasey said:

---

Just to add, if anyone is wondering why these Dreamers didn't just become American citizens "the right way," it's because the process is super-long, expensive, and involves a lot of luck. Personally, I'd rather focus on fixing this process than on deporting people.

---

The process should be more streamlined, but the admission standard much more selective.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Just to add, if anyone is wondering why these Dreamers didn't just become American citizens "the right way," it's because the process is super-long, expensive, and involves a lot of luck. Personally, I'd rather focus on fixing this process than on deporting people.

---

The process should be more streamlined, but the admission standard much more selective.

---

It's already pretty damn selective.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

---

I'm pretty sure DACA only applies to the kids, not the parents. It was not the kids' fault that they were brought to this country, and sending them back now would be cruel and unfair. I do not support continuing to allow all illegal immigration to continue apace, but my understanding is that after a big spike in the 1990s (when these Dreamers came over), illegal immigration has slowed a good deal, to the point where it has remained approximately level since the mid-00s. I'm not sure something like DACA is necessary for anyone coming over now; it's mostly to deal with the people from that 90s "spike" who have been living in limbo for a long time.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

My policy argument is that their education has essentially ALREADY been funded (some of these people have been here 20 years or more), and the requirements of DACA basically ensure that they will pay back that investment by being productive workers (and hopefully, eventually, citizens). This sounds to me like a good way to balance the moral issue of deporting people back to a country they have never known with the practical issue of making sure those immigrants bring value to our society.

I'm sure you're going to disagree. But I think this argument has been persuasive to most people, given how well DACA polls with the public.

---

I would prefer not to provide public service to them to begin with, as it's a crutch used in favor of amnesty. Also, non-citizens are not entitled to public services including education. I do not expect Italy to teach me Italian when I move there to work.

You're right it's not fair as the kid didn't choose to do it. I don't see how that's relevant to law and order. It's the parents fault no doubt, and they can take comfort in knowing they bucked the system and got their kid a free American education they were not entitled to. Sayonara.

---

Yeah, f*** those kids. They should have thought about that decision to move here when they were 7. Throw the book at 'em.

You've lost the plot, man. How about having some compassion for people?

---

Nothings says I can't make an argument for good policy or sound, consistent ethics than laying down the "compassionate" card.

Not that it isn't important, but when it comes to ethics and social and political public policy, compassion and empathy can be immoral and generate policies that do more harm than good:

Quote:

---

But Bloom said that empathy evangelists "miss how empathic pull can have all sorts of bad consequences." For example, he told me: "When you hear about thislittle girl stuck in a well, and you devote all your energies to fixing it, you're putting aside that there could be hundreds of thousands of people suffering much worse that could also use your help, but they don't trigger your empathy." And empathy can often mix with preexisting ethnic or racial biases. "Empathy is like a spotlight. It zooms in on people," said Bloom. "If I'm choosing who to help, I will be more concerned about the person who looks like me."

All identity politicswhether we're talking about gender, race, color, culture, or creedis influenced by empathic bias. We feel the pain of those in our in-groups and tend to blame anyone who isn't as sensible to that pain for lack of feeling.

According to Bloom: "The enthusiasm for empathy is grounded in the idea that, if everybody would be more empathic, everybody would have political views just like me. [Liberals] think that, 'Oh, if only Republicans would feel more empathy, then they would agree with me about healthcare and foreign aid and gay rights.'"

---

More insight into the failings of empathy and compassion, both morally and politically, derived from emotional bias.

Quote:

---

In 1995, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published a revealing study, which centered on a story about a dying child. A team led by the University of Kansas psychologist C. Daniel Batson told a group of study participants about a charity called the Quality Life Foundation, which worked to improve the quality of life of terminally ill kids, and explained that they, the subjects, were going to hear an interview with an applicant.

The subjects were prepared for the interview in one of two ways. Half were told, "While you are listening to this interview, try to take an objective perspective toward what is described. Try not to get caught up in how the child who is interviewed feels; just remain objective and detached." That was the so-called low-empathy condition. In the high-empathy condition, subjects were told, "Try to imagine how the child who is interviewed feels about what has happened and how it has affected this child's life. Try to feel the full impact of what this child has been through and how he or she feels as a result."

Then, everyone heard the same interview, which was from a (not real) "very brave, bright 10-year-old" named Sheri Summers. Her painful illness was explained in detail, and after they heard about it the subjects were asked whether they would move Sheri up the wait list, past the other terminally ill kids who were viewed as higher priority, who would have to wait longer to enjoy the Quality Life Foundation's offerings as a result. "The effect was strong," writes the Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom, describing the experiment in his new book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. "Three-quarters of the subjects in the high-empathy condition wanted to move her up, as compared to one-third in the low-empathy condition. Empathy's effects, then, weren't in the direction of increasing an interest in justice. Rather, they increased special concern for the target of the empathy, despite the cost to others."

It would be hard to find a single study that better explains the thesis of Bloom's book. We are told that there is no such thing as too much empathy, that politicians and policy makers and religious leaders and community activists and everyone else should feel more empathetic. Bloom doesn't buy it empathy has certain pernicious effects, he argues, and often leads to results like the one demonstrated by Baton's experiment: good-hearted people actively making the world worse. Empathy is not an accurate moral signpost, let alone a good basis for policy-making.

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

---

I'm pretty sure DACA only applies to the kids, not the parents. It was not the kids' fault that they were brought to this country, and sending them back now would be cruel and unfair. I do not support continuing to allow all illegal immigration to continue apace, but my understanding is that after a big spike in the 1990s (when these Dreamers came over), illegal immigration has slowed a good deal, to the point where it has remained approximately level since the mid-00s. I'm not sure something like DACA is necessary for anyone coming over now; it's mostly to deal with the people from that 90s "spike" who have been living in limbo for a long time.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

My policy argument is that their education has essentially ALREADY been funded (some of these people have been here 20 years or more), and the requirements of DACA basically ensure that they will pay back that investment by being productive workers (and hopefully, eventually, citizens). This sounds to me like a good way to balance the moral issue of deporting people back to a country they have never known with the practical issue of making sure those immigrants bring value to our society.

I'm sure you're going to disagree. But I think this argument has been persuasive to most people, given how well DACA polls with the public.

---

I would prefer not to provide public service to them to begin with, as it's a crutch used in favor of amnesty. Also, non-citizens are not entitled to public services including education. I do not expect Italy to teach me Italian when I move there to work.

You're right it's not fair as the kid didn't choose to do it. I don't see how that's relevant to law and order. It's the parents fault no doubt, and they can take comfort in knowing they bucked the system and got their kid a free American education they were not entitled to. Sayonara.

---

Yeah, f*** those kids. They should have thought about that decision to move here when they were 7. Throw the book at 'em.

You've lost the plot, man. How about having some compassion for people?

---

Nothings says I can't make an argument for good policy or sound, consistent ethics than laying down the "compassionate" card.

Not that it isn't important, but when it comes to ethics and social and political public policy, compassion and empathy can be immoral and generate policies that do more harm than good:

---

Yes, empathy can sometimes be taken too far and we should recognize where to pull back and see that we're letting it distract us from the end goal.

That's different from leaving it out of your thinking entirely, which is where your arguments seem to lead.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

It's illegal. If it's excusable, do away with illegal immigration. This is de facto open borders.

---

Ludicrous. Nothing about DACA opens the window for future illegal immigration. It was strictly limited to people who entered the country during a certain time frame. If Republicans want this codified into law in any deal on DACA recipients, I have no objection.

iwantwinners said:

---

In what other realm is illegal activity activity not just acquiesced and overlooked but promoted?

---

Wall Street.

---

Not by Americans. By government sure, but not by Americans.

My point is that you support conditional amnesty to a certain class of illegals. Parents know they're kids are free from recourse, and it can be their ticket to immunity from recourse.

What is the policy argument in favor of funding this illegal activity with resources (education etc) and incentives (amnesty). Not what you feel is right.

---

I'm pretty sure DACA only applies to the kids, not the parents. It was not the kids' fault that they were brought to this country, and sending them back now would be cruel and unfair. I do not support continuing to allow all illegal immigration to continue apace, but my understanding is that after a big spike in the 1990s (when these Dreamers came over), illegal immigration has slowed a good deal, to the point where it has remained approximately level since the mid-00s. I'm not sure something like DACA is necessary for anyone coming over now; it's mostly to deal with the people from that 90s "spike" who have been living in limbo for a long time.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

My policy argument is that their education has essentially ALREADY been funded (some of these people have been here 20 years or more), and the requirements of DACA basically ensure that they will pay back that investment by being productive workers (and hopefully, eventually, citizens). This sounds to me like a good way to balance the moral issue of deporting people back to a country they have never known with the practical issue of making sure those immigrants bring value to our society.

I'm sure you're going to disagree. But I think this argument has been persuasive to most people, given how well DACA polls with the public.

---

I would prefer not to provide public service to them to begin with, as it's a crutch used in favor of amnesty. Also, non-citizens are not entitled to public services including education. I do not expect Italy to teach me Italian when I move there to work.

You're right it's not fair as the kid didn't choose to do it. I don't see how that's relevant to law and order. It's the parents fault no doubt, and they can take comfort in knowing they bucked the system and got their kid a free American education they were not entitled to. Sayonara.

---

Yeah, f*** those kids. They should have thought about that decision to move here when they were 7. Throw the book at 'em.

You've lost the plot, man. How about having some compassion for people?

---

Nothings says I can't make an argument for good policy or sound, consistent ethics than laying down the "compassionate" card.

Not that it isn't important, but when it comes to ethics and social and political public policy, compassion and empathy can be immoral and generate policies that do more harm than good:

---

Yes, empathy can sometimes be taken too far and we should recognize where to pull back and see that we're letting it distract us from the end goal.

That's different from leaving it out of your thinking entirely, which is where your arguments seem to lead.

---

I don't agree with Dreamers getting amnesty in principle, but I don't think it's irrational to advocate for that for mainly practical policy and economic reasons NOT compassion or empathy, which is that we have sponsored partially or fully an investment into these people.

What's not rational OR ethical is the idea some are peddling on this board, which is that immigration is more or less a free for all. This, of course, isolates compassion towards a specific group at the expense of others, and they've made them claiming moral high ground.

I think it's funny that America is perplexed we have an immigration problem -- both legal and illegal -- when government policy incentivizes and subsidizes illegal immigration by forcing K-12 schools to educate them and providing other public resources such as driver's licenses and the ability to receive a documented paycheck

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

What people call Evangelicals are mostly Southern Protestants with their Scotch- Irish heritage of booze soaked blood feuds, rage, Saturday night whoring and Sunday morning on their knees. This is The Elmer Gantry, Jimmy Swaggart even Bill Clinton Protestantism that demands sin and retribution. Unfortunately they seem to be the model for "Christian" .

iwantwinners said:

---

What's not rational OR ethical is the idea some are peddling on this board, which is that immigration is more or less a free for all.

---

This is almost entirely your own invention. "Free for all" immigration has not been advocated at any real length here.

Sadly, for the anti-immigrant crowd, anything less than completely closed borders is a "free for all."

And now Hillary Clinton's "faith advisor" accused of sexual harassment. They transferred the victim but didn't fire him. Instead he was docked pay and had to undergo counseling. Meanwhile part of his duty was to provide her with scripture readings. Today' reading is about the temptations of nubile flesh.

You should change your handle to Nonsequiturbear.

Keep up, it all has to do with the White House settling in

bearister said:

---

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

---

The same people who decry snowflakes become instantly become victims when they are offended.

The same people who denounce poltical correctness are quick to be outraged when people do something politically incorrect that offends them.

The same people who vehemently denounce immorality are quick to quickly forgive immorality and request that we move on when it's somebody that holds their interests who's being immoral.

Blah..blah...blah.

bearister said:

---

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

---

The same way they deal with any other inconsistency between what they believe and what their religion says. Hypocrisy.

bearister said:

---

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

---

you can't be consistent with religious texts, as they are schizophrenic and contradictory. They all require cherry picking.

FWIW, Religous people donate more to charity than secular people. I'm not religious, but I don't see the contradictory nature of being a Christian who is generous in their private lives and supporting government policies that aim to curb illegal activity, particularly immigration, and reject giving more of their money to the government to disperse at their own discretion.

I denigrate theology and dogma a lot, but I don't deny Christians are far more generous than secularists generally. You can be generous and empathetic towards the immigrant next door while rejecting illegal immigration as a matter of policy.

okaydo said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

---

The same people who decry snowflakes become instantly become victims when they are offended.

The same people who denounce poltical correctness are quick to be outraged when people do something politically incorrect that offends them.

The same people who vehemently denounce immorality are quick to quickly forgive immorality and request that we move on when it's somebody that holds their interests who's being immoral.

Blah..blah...blah.

---

You seem to be describing humans generally, not a particular ideology's adherents.

iwantwinners said:

---

okaydo said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do Evangelicals reconcile the marginalization of empathy and compassion with their Bible thumping holier than thou alleged strict adherence to the teachings of Christ? Did they forget about that rich man, eye of the needle, getting into Heaven parable?

---

The same people who decry snowflakes become instantly become victims when they are offended.

The same people who denounce poltical correctness are quick to be outraged when people do something politically incorrect that offends them.

The same people who vehemently denounce immorality are quick to quickly forgive immorality and request that we move on when it's somebody that holds their interests who's being immoral.

Blah..blah...blah.

---

You seem to be describing humans generally, not a particular ideology's adherents.

---

Yes, humans in general are flawed, but humans who are publicly judgmental, always trying to control how others live their lives, always quoting Scripture, and always acting like they are holier than the next guy, well, that category of humans is much more flawed than us garden variety sinners, and Jesus Christ used to single them out for negative comment in His teachings.

Well at least Trump finally provide a nothingburger by releasing the Nunes memo. I'm not sure what he hoped to prove by releasing a memo that if taken at its word impugns the grant of a FISA warrant 2 weeks before the election to surveil a former volunteer advisor to Trump's campaign. Instead of distancing himself from Page (who the FBI notified in 2013 was a target of Russian intelligence operatives who were trying to cultivate him), Trump is essentially telling the world that Page was a meaningful contributor to his campaign and that the surveillance was designed to get at Trump's campaign.

Will be interesting to see how opinion of this memo changes over the next few months as Mueller begins to unveil more charges against Trump operatives and ultimately releases a report on (or indicts?) Trump.