Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
This is all pretty spot on, we'll see what happens. If the D's can coalesce around a coherent leadership, theyll be poised to win big, but have trouble finding that, as is tradition, and if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its them. The GOP on the other hand have trouble showing they can actually govern and rule even holding all branches of government and have a leader who appears to be busy making them all look like the stereotypes their opposition is pushing and undercutting their stances in playing to the worst excesses of their base.
One fine day we may have an alternative to these groups, but alas, today is not that day.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race. IME, calling someone a racist (or similar) is not a meaningful response in an ongoing conversation but rather a sign of frustration (and sometimes laziness) on behalf of the person making the accusation, which is part of what makes doing so rude in the first place. In general, keep criticism to the points rather than the people making the points. And keep in mind that just because someone calls you X doesn't mean you will be off the hook for calling them Y in response. Thanks!
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
Since Trump I've been doing my best to avoid referring to conservatives as Republicans and vice versa. Because those have become mutually exclusive and I see it as insulting to conservative viewpoints to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 18:00:30
godardc wrote: I can't believe you really think what you wrote ? Before I was born my parents wanted to go to Canada. They couldn't, it is not important why. But one of the conditions was to speak English. You see, if one day I came to live in the beautiful USA, I would speak English. I learnt it. When you come somewhere, you adapt. If you pretend to care for a country, you can, at least, try to speak its language. The State did not failed to teach them. They failed their new country. The integration should not be easy at all, it should be very difficult, in order to keep only loving and motivated people. Language is the BASE of the culture, and culture is what make us a united country. In French, we have a saying for the french people who kept their culture of origin: "français de papiers" (paper french / french only on the (identity) papers, meaning they aren't true French, even if, officialy, they are).
Far from everyone can just pick up a brand new language on their own, least of all if they're dealing with "everything else" of coming to a new country and never mind if they've had to flee there. The state offering comprehensive courses in the new language is a necessity for a functioning system of integration. Purposefully making integration difficult is cruel because you'll tear families apart based on how quickly they adopt a new language, according to you preferably without any outside help.
Language alone does not determine culture and culture does not make for a united country because class differences are inescapable.
Manchu wrote: Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
Glad we cleared this up. I would hate to hurt feelings over the matter.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
This is all pretty spot on, we'll see what happens. If the D's can coalesce around a coherent leadership, theyll be poised to win big, but have trouble finding that, as is tradition, and if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its them. The GOP on the other hand have trouble showing they can actually govern and rule even holding all branches of government and have a leader who appears to be busy making them all look like the stereotypes their opposition is pushing and undercutting their stances in playing to the worst excesses of their base.
One fine day we may have an alternative to these groups, but alas, today is not that day.
I think we're definitely in an era of rapid change with both parties' identities, especially the GOP. That's why I think all the obituaries for the Dems and GOP are premature. This isn't the GOP of the '90s and 00s, and definitely isn't the GOP of the '70s and '80s. So it's hard to argue that their brand has gotten stale.
Political parties are still just groups of people, and any shifts we see with those people's feelings and opinions will affect bottom-up change in the party. The 2016 election is recent and obvious proof that political parties can't tell their members how to vote in a top-down fashion.
Far from everyone can just pick up a brand new language on their own, least of all if they're dealing with "everything else" of coming to a new country and never mind if they've had to flee there. The state offering comprehensive courses in the new language is a necessity for a functioning system of integration. Purposefully making integration difficult is cruel because you'll tear families apart based on how quickly they adopt a new language, according to you preferably without any outside help.
Language alone does not determine culture and culture does not make for a united country because class differences are inescapable.
I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, you're not wrong, but communication facilitates the exchange of ideas. It's how elements of one culture are exchanged with another. It's probably the one single most basic requirement for that to happen now that the Internet has obviated the need for proximity.
In a world where polarization seems inevitable, lacking common language causes people to not integrate. There can be other reasons why that doesn't happen, and anytime anyone tells you there's a single reason for anything happening, they're probably wrong, but it's probably the biggest blocker for integration. That's a problem. I'm actually on board with comprehensive language courses. I would go one step further and make them mandatory. At this point, it seems like that's a much more practical solution than just "kick all the migrants out."
Thats a step back from my previous views. I still think that the rate and distribution of immigrants should be carefully handled in such a way that it encourages integration, though that also gets uncomfortably close to Platonism.
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
Manchu wrote: Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
Glad we cleared this up. I would hate to hurt feelings over the matter.
If you have questions about moderation feel free to PM me. In the meantime, please consider taking my advice: it's going to make the difference between being able to continue posting in this sub-forum or not.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that the republicans are going to want to impeach President Trump. And even if they wanted to, for what crime?
Ouze wrote: Ryan has said he wants to spend more time with his family, but I think it's pretty obvious a dude who ran for VP and hoped to one day be President, who then settled for Speaker of the House.... he can't be too stoked about his imminent downgrade to Minority Leader - with all the recriminations that are sure to accompany said downgrading. Why not get off the ship as soon as you see the leak?
He never wanted it in the first place... so this isn't surprising.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Because he's facing a very hostile election and he's been facilitating a lot of what this administration has been doing.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
I think Democrats are far less fractured than Republicans. . . The issue will be whether the DNC listens to the grassroots base or not (not holding breath here). The way I see it, Democrats have 2 main factions: neoliberals and the oftentimes called "Justice democrats". The latter group being Democrats running without PAC money, pushing for a return to the day of legislating for the average "Joe the Plummer" type as opposed to legislating for the corporations.
I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.
Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.
Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 18:57:21
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
What is this program (I could search it by myself, but I want to hear about it by a true American and get a more interesting answer) ?
It's worth searching. It's a program in which employers can bring foreign work over on a separate visa system for specialized work. It's pretty popular out here in California, but comes with a hefty (you have to pay the worker at least 100k a year in order to qualify) price tag and the number of slots are limited.
It was original used to import professors and doctors. Doctors in California aren't employees any more (they are now independent contractors by law), but they've been replaced by PHD level software architects.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
It's also now frequently, and probably accurately, used as a way to depress wages in IT by importing cheaper foreign workers - that $90k/yr salary was $60k/yr up until a year ago.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Gonna jump in on H1B, it's a means of importing talent from foreign countries for specialized work, and it's very popular in the tech sector. There have been criticisms that it's a means of lowering wages in IT, prompting that minimum bar, but at the same time, the issue is also that there's a bit of a shortage in IT for workers in the US, so companies like to import talent.
H1B contributes quite a bit to the economy by poaching other countries talent, though some feel that it's a means to get cheap labor. H1B visas are very limited and tightly controlled now, ever since the '08 crisis, so it's really difficult to justify one nowadays, especially given the min salary requirements.
A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.
Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.
Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...
I don't know that the fractures for both parties are as extreme as it's made out to be.
I think that there is more of a "hate established policies and/or the status quo" group that ended up splitting between Trump and Bernie, but that the fundamental core of both parties remains more-or-less intact.
I think that if there wouldn't have been such a damn clown car of a GOP primary, anyone of the establishment candidates might have beat Trump rather than pull the "not Trump" vote in 10 different directions. But the GOP primaries are such a clusterfeth and really function more as a job-interview opportunity for the folks running, that they ended up shooting the party in the foot. Heck, even everyone involved in the Trump campaign admits it was just a publicity stunt that backfired horribly . People still pull for Trump of course, and there is talk of the Trump vs anti-Trump wings of the party, but Trump backed candidates are also loosing. Trump just exacerbated the existing problem with the GOP primary process, extreme guys win primaries and then you do the Etch-A-Sketch thing and try to moderate (unless you are Trump).
The Democrat Split isn't as extreme, the actual voting wasn't as divisive, and (just like the final presidential vote) is was heavily influenced by an anti-Hillary movement than, IMO, an anti-Democratic Party policy movement.
Both Bernie, and more-so Trump, were boosted by having a "vote against them" candidate on the ticket. But now Trump (and by his associated role as speaker and leader of the GOP the Party at large) is the "vote against them" factor of the mid-term election. This is partly due to the normal mid-term effect, and exacerbated by him being Trump.
We'll see if the Democrats can get themselves together, or if their recent indications of success will fizzle out.
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
What is this program (I could search it by myself, but I want to hear about it by a true American and get a more interesting answer) ?
It's effectively a work visa program. Supposedly the purpose is to allow companies to bring in degree holding foreign workers who possess skills Americans don't have for jobs requiring those skills. It's a reasonable enough thing on paper and I'm sure there are some cases in which that it actually does perform that function.
In reality, the program runs rampant, particularly in the tech industry. There was an investigation about Disney actively using H1-B workers as a means of threatening employees. I think there were several other companies accused of doing this too. Things like Microsoft laying off a few thousand people while simultaneously crying about how the H1-B program needs expanded because there's not enough Americans in the tech industry happen, which is galling. In some industries, they wind up getting paid more, but in the tech industry, they're usually paid from much less to slightly less, depending on location and I'm sure a million other things. The way it's being used artificially lowers wages by reducing demand for employees. It also creates workers that have more dependence on their corporate benefactor, and while changing jobs is possible, it's difficult and requires additional effort on both the worker and the new employer.
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
Weird, the position I hear is that adult should be treated like adult immigrants, and that dreamers should be treated like any other resident of whatever state they are living in.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
So what does that make them? Do they get the opportunity to become a citizen? Are they in infinite limbo as a second class citizen? If they came with their parents and are still underage, do the parents stay or go? If the parents stay, what happens when the kid is of age? Ship the parents off as soon as the kid hits 18? Ship them all off?
Dreadwinter wrote: Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
When did I do any of that? I think I have been pretty responsive on any point or question made to me.
I don't a problem with immigrants. I never said a thing about immigrants. Re-read what I wrote. I am okay with immigrants coming from everywhere. What I have an issue with is sending over a bunch of refugees. Injecting a mass group of people into a local area without jobs, healthcare, housing, etc, all waiting and ready, which can buckle the economy of the area, and impact the culture and even things like home values, crime, and businesses. That's real. The vast majority of American's opposed to the resettlement of large groups of people in their area has more to do with the impact that it has to an area than the refugees themselves. And sure, differences in culture, language, all plays a part.
I referenced Miami, because it's changes began to take place overnight when 125,000 Cubans came over in the Mariel boatlift (google it). These were refugees fleeing communism. Miami did not have the means to take all of these people in, and for a long time they lived in tent cities. Guess what also happened as many couldn't find jobs? Crime went up. And it went from Little Havana to basically all of Miami-Dade country as the people who were living there prior left. When you see pictures of Miami of South Beach and Coconut Grove, its all gorgeous, out of sight expensive, and limited to a sliver of the coast. Parts of Miami-Dade look like a third world country. And because of the large group of spanish-speaking people there, Haitians, Venezuelans, and others have continued to immigrant there, completely changing the city. And I am not saying that it is all bad either, but it changed. Many have starting to move up the state as housing is really expensive in Miami (do a quick Zillow and you will see what I mean), so people are re-locating even as north as Coral Springs, where the Parkland Shooting took place. Given Global Warming and the rising tide in Miami, eventually the nicer parts of Miami will be underwater, forcing even more migrations. I spent a lot of time there, and the last time I was down, I said I would probably never go back. Its just changed and I do not have enough in common with it anymore. It doesn't have to do with the color of anyone's skin. That would be racist. But you can still find issue with cultural attitudes, language barriers, and diversity. And racism goes both ways. Don't think that just because I am white, that I haven't been on the receiving end of it there.
But that's not even the point. The point is the change. Not everyone wants it. A lot of people are happy with the way things are, and prefer they stay that way. Most people can handle small doses of diversity fine. A lot of people feel lost in a lot of it. The reality is, I prefer to be around people like me, who share similar values, speak the same language, religious beliefs, and all that. A lot of people do. That is not being superior or acting if one group or another is lesser than I am. I just prefer not to have to assimilate in an area I am already living in. Especially if I built a career there, bought my home there, and began raising a family.
And btw, Gentilization which is all the rage now, is the opposite of this really, and no one calls the people complaining about it racist, which amuses me. This is where developers and whites buy up older run-down properties in neighborhoods of other races, and replace them with new condos, Starbucks, and so on, and these groups protest because to takes away from the culture of the 'old neighborhood' (even though these neighborhoods usually belonged to another group before them). Its not protesting against white people necessarily, its the loss or change in the surrounding culture. The irony.
Its important that you understand that if you are going to discuss US Politics, because that fear of change is what helped put Trump in the White House. I don't think its fair to call all Trump supporters racists. People just don't want fast change. And for the record I didn't even vote for Trump. But most of my family did, and they are not racists.
Edit: and let me add this so everyone can understand where I come from. At the time of the elections, I was dating a girl from Iran who is here getting her phd. I knew what Trump's immigration polices would be, and how this would effect her parents visiting. In addition, she cannot return to Iran (which is a whole other story itself). I let her choose who I would vote for so she could be a part of the process. She was well informed and asked I vote for Hillary (even though I disliked her), so I did.
. . .
As far as Ryan is concerned, he's prob one of the last 'in the middle of the road' guys left to lead. And honestly, if Trump does get impeached, he probably would prefer to be out of politics when it happens. But his big fantasy was tax reform, which he did, and now wont have to be around if it turns out to be a bad plan to implement.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 19:50:20
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
So you seriously have not heard anyone anywhere advocate a middle-ground position? You have only heard "ship everyone back, even children without parents" or "make everyone a citizen, even drug dealers and rapists who came over at age 30"? There has been no politician that you have heard off that has advocated some sort of middle ground? No news outlet that reported on a middle ground? No friend in person, or on Facebook, that has suggested a middle ground?
You must have stumbled on a very original idea there, maybe you should publish it!
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
So what does that make them? Do they get the opportunity to become a citizen? Are they in infinite limbo as a second class citizen? If they came with their parents and are still underage, do the parents stay or go? If the parents stay, what happens when the kid is of age? Ship the parents off as soon as the kid hits 18? Ship them all off?
Oh, the whole "breaking up families" argument. Even if the child was born here, and thus a citizen, no one is breaking up the family. The children can go with the parents, or choose to stay. The parents knew the risks. That's on them. Being rewarded for illegal actions isn't something I'm down with. Now, if someone came here because of refugee status or some extreme circumstances I'd be more forgiving. That being said there are "refugees" from an El Salvadorian earthquake more than a decade ago that need to have that temporary refugee status revoked.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
So you seriously have not heard anyone anywhere advocate a middle-ground position? You have only heard "ship everyone back, even children without parents" or "make everyone a citizen, even drug dealers and rapists who came over at age 30"? There has been no politician that you have heard off that has advocated some sort of middle ground? No news outlet that reported on a middle ground? No friend in person, or on Facebook, that has suggested a middle ground?
You must have stumbled on a very original idea there, maybe you should publish it!
Maybe "no middle ground" was a bit of an exaggeration, but to an extent, yes. Almost every talking head on the pro-immigrant side states there needs to be a clear pathway to citizenship. Why?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 19:48:37
Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Maybe "no middle ground" was a bit of an exaggeration, but to an extent, yes. Almost every talking head on the pro-immigrant side states there needs to be a clear pathway to citizenship. Why?
Because there should be a middle ground?
To quote some random person on the internet:
cuda1179 wrote: They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
That is MALE Unregister Immigrants. Women (regardless of immigration status) still get a free pass. Kind of makes you wonder, since there is such a low rate for unregistered Immigrant males applying for the draft, could it be used as a back door to speed deportations? (Using Trump Admin logic here) Failing for register is a Federal offence. If you are in violation of that, you could loose your Dreamer status and be deported.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: [Because there should be a middle ground?
To quote some random person on the internet:
cuda1179 wrote: They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
]
I meant the current, legal way to become a citizen. Possibly with a redaction of requirement to leave the country first.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 19:58:46
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
That is MALE Unregister Immigrants. Women (regardless of immigration status) still get a free pass
To be fair, women citizens also get a free pass as well.
Failing for register is a Federal offence. If you are in violation of that, you could loose your Dreamer status and be deported.
It's already used to disqualify you from a variety of federal programs, as well as federal employment I think, so I don't think there should be a problem with it also disqualifying you from Dreamer status or other future regulations.
Well, yes still a pathway. Some of the other "pathways" I've heard proposed on the news are MUCH less involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as selective service goes, how would they choose you if you had no Social Security number? Even for a citizen there is no legal requirement to ever have a Social Security number. You don't need one to pay taxes (that's what ITIN's are for), you don't need one for education, not for medical care, and according to legal precedence you don't even need one to gain employment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 20:06:42
cuda1179 wrote: Well, yes still a pathway. Some of the other "pathways" I've heard proposed on the news are MUCH less involved.
So you HAVE heard of other options besides "come over as an adult, pillage and murder, and become a citizen" and "kick out every baby" .
There is a difference between "I don't like the compromises being proposed" and "I have not heard of any kind of compromise whatsoever". If we want to have an honest discussion, even on the off-topic section of a forum about toy soldiers, we should start with being honest about what is actually being talked about.
Its not exactly US related, but it ties in to the wider Facebook story. So today it came out medical insurance companies and even certain hospitals in the Netherlands actually broadcast the pages you visit to FB through the FB tracking pixel. So good luck if you ever tried to find if your insurer covers an STD or a mental illness treatment in the Netherlands, because now FB knows you have it too! They probably have the capability in the US too, but I haven't hear about it being the case (yet).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 20:09:10
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
3100+
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City