B.A. Bearacus said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I sure as hell hope my wife looks like that at 78.
And some of you are wishing your wives looked like that NOW!

---

In 2019, there is probably at least one woman in your phone contacts who has had botox. I would think that Pelosi has had a little help in enhancing her natural beauty.

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There is no need for a wall; there is no need for a Democrat compromise of "securing our border". The border is secure. These people are walking into here. The crisis is a deranged, inefficient and heartless state.

---

The border is porous. As stated above, I know illegal people who've crossed many times.
But trump's proposal is a non-starter b/c it's more about emotion than closing the border.

I'm all good with discussing a plan to resolve the porous border. I am not okay with trump's lies, inability to discuss fact, and whipping up racist and xenophobic attitudes.

---

It's less porous than you think. The numbers of "classic" illegals- mostly singles- who crossed from Mexico seeking work has plummeted.going from 1.5 million in year 2000 to about 400.000 in 2018. Asylum seekers - mostly families not from Mexico- have gone from less than 10,000 to 120,000 per year in the same period. Currently there is a backlog of more than 750,000 people waiting for their cases to be heard making it by far the biggest burden on the system

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/border-asylum-claims/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5fab9fa2322

---

Where and what should these 750,000 people be doing while they are asking for asylum? Is poverty a valid reason for asylum? If they are from South of Mexico, why isn't Mexico offering asylum? Is there a certain amount of people that should be granted asylum per day? How many of those that used to cross individually now cross in a group claiming asylum? How does the USA verify or fact check an asylum claim as being worthy? Is it easier to verify an asylum claim of a Mexican national versus, say, a Guatemalan? Should non-Latinos be allowed to claim asylum from the Southern border? Do Middle Easterners, Asians, Africans, and Europeans do so?

---

oski003 said:

---

Also, I appreciate those who do admit that borders should be completely open because it is an honest answer.

---

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.

---

dajo9 said:

---

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.

---

Why this stance?

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.

---

Why this stance?

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/

---

Quote:

---

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work.

---

dajo9 said:

---

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).

---

dajo9 said:

---

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

---

By shutting the doors to people of color?

Asylum Granted by Country 2016

?itok=vRkXU63J

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

---

By shutting the doors to people of color?

Asylum Granted by Country 2016

?itok=vRkXU63J

---

This is why you can't discuss immigration in America. No matter the position you take somebody will accuse you of either pro or anti bias on racial grounds.

I stand by my positions on completely non-racial grounds.

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.

---

Why this stance?

---

It's a good question. I've only recently felt that way and I'm kind of lukewarm about it as I definitely see the moral failure in that position. But here's my thinking:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
- When I look at Europe and the recent surge of immigrants I feel that Europe can absolutely say, enough is enough.
- When I see that Europe is being manipulated by Putin, who bombs Syria, driving refugees into democratic Europe and then uses psyops to turn the populace against the refugees for his real goal of destabilizing western democracies, I think Europe can say enough is enough.
- As climate change worsens refugee surges are going to increase in frequency and their ability to travel will be better than in times past.
- It's always been political anyway. We've always welcomed refugees from communist Cuba and turned them away from fascist El Salvador.
- I think a country can say no. Maybe instead of no asylum seekers we put a hard cap on the number, but then turn away the rest without due process, but then you end up with a crowd at your border. I don't know, I don't really have a good solution but my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

---

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.

---

Why this stance?

---

It's a good question. I've only recently felt that way and I'm kind of lukewarm about it as I definitely see the moral failure in that position. But here's my thinking:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
- When I look at Europe and the recent surge of immigrants I feel that Europe can absolutely say, enough is enough.
- When I see that Europe is being manipulated by Putin, who bombs Syria, driving refugees into democratic Europe and then uses psyops to turn the populace against the refugees for his real goal of destabilizing western democracies, I think Europe can say enough is enough.
- As climate change worsens refugee surges are going to increase in frequency and their ability to travel will be better than in times past.
- It's always been political anyway. We've always welcomed refugees from communist Cuba and turned them away from fascist El Salvador.
- I think a country can say no. Maybe instead of no asylum seekers we put a hard cap on the number, but then turn away the rest without due process, but then you end up with a crowd at your border. I don't know, I don't really have a good solution but my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

---

It's a difficult question to answer. I like the theoretical notion that we accept all who want to come, but there's some practical issues that can't be denied.

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.

---

Thank you for laying out specifics. I think that if you actually questioned Americans on the specific immigration policies they would endorse, the above would be considered a moderate immigration platform.

I agree with the above platform but I might go further:
- Sanctuary city laws are ridiculous. If you catch an undocumented immigrant in some unrelated law enforcement action, they should be turned over to immigration enforcement officials after prosecution.
- with a guest worker program in place, permanent residency should be limited and citizenship should be encouraged.
- US citizenship should require a language test and renunciation of other citizenship. Otherwise, remain a guest worker.
- chain migration should be limited to spouses and dependent children.
- amnesty programs encourage more illegal immigration. Moreover, amnesty policies are racist in the sense that they favor those already here illegally, and those here illegally are overwhelmingly Latino. If we're going to have legal immigration, acknowledge that there are a billion people out there from Africa, Europe and Asia who would love to immigrate here. Why do our policies have the undeniable effect of favoring Latinos at the expense of peoples from other parts of the world? Just because a policy is not racist on its face does not mean it is not racist in effect.
- grants of asylum should be temporary where possible. If a war ends, asylum seekers should be sent home.
- Legal immigration should be increased, especially in ways that benefit the size and mix of our talent pool, labor pool, age/gender demographics, etc.

Many of these policies sound harsh, even heartless. But the truth is we have to have rules that are consistently applied. Again, there are a billion people overseas who would drop whatever they are doing to immigrate here in a heartbeat. We simply cannot take them all in. If we are going to take some of them, it should be done according to a set of rules that are fair.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

As long as we are playing the "how many people are like me game", how many people are like me and can't get that excited about immigration? For me it's just not a top issue facing our country.

It's not shy I'm for open borders, it's just thst I don't think the border should be a priority. For example, a few years ago the SF board of supes outlawed cat declawing. It's not that I'm pro cat declawing but don't we have other things for the city to focus on?

The reason Trump focuses so much attention on the border is because he can get people whipped up about a "simple" issue and frankly because he isn't knowledgeable or smart enough to talk about more complex and meaningful issues.

The border is less of a problem now than it was a decade ago and it wasn't one of our biggest problems back then. It's a distraction and a dog whistle and not one that we have to accept.

---

Another Bear said:

---

Soon the U.S. is going to run into a NOT enough immigrants problem. It's already happening. Since the get-go the U.S. had depended on immigration as a growth engine. Recently it's been the brain drain from Asia and ag workers from Mexico but now opportunities in their home countries are on a level playing field and they don't have to leave home. In 50-80 years, a generation or two...the U.S. is going to open its borders because there will be an economic need.

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Soon the U.S. is going to run into a NOT enough immigrants problem. It's already happening. Since the get-go the U.S. had depended on immigration as a growth engine. Recently it's been the brain drain from Asia and ag workers from Mexico but now opportunities in their home countries are on a level playing field and they don't have to leave home. In 50-80 years, a generation or two...the U.S. is going to open its borders because there will be an economic need.

---

This is correct. Birth rates in this country are not keeping up. We're going to need more immigrants soon.

I also agree that there is no real "crisis" at the border except what the Trump Administration has created itself.

---