"Getting a Reprieve: Young Illegal Immigrants

[rocks 494]

Unfortunately, your accusations started yesterday, so whether I got out on the wrong side of the bed is irrelevant. You also need to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

There are no accusations, you should look up the definition. The facts are that the parents have lived in this country for 18 years. Facts are also that downtown Bristol isn't Gloucester road, get it?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There are no accusations, you should look up the definition. The facts are that the parents have lived in this country for 18 years. Facts are also that downtown Bristol isn't Gloucester road, get it?

You are parading your opinions as facts. I also seem to notice you keep bringing up other threads, do you have a grudge against me? That might explain your accusations.

[rocks 494]

You are parading your opinions as facts. I also seem to notice you keep bringing up other threads, do you have a grudge against me? That might explain your accusations.

What am I accusing you of exactly?

You are the one who is complaining I'm accusing you of things. I'm stating facts, why do you make me repeat myself over and over and over?

I used that example as a fact, it was something you "paraded" as fact, but actually you were very wrong about. I thought maybe this might help you understand what a "fact" was.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What am I accusing you of exactly?

You are the one who is complaining I'm accusing you of things. I'm stating facts, why do you make me repeat myself over and over and over?

I used that example as a fact, it was something you "paraded" as fact, but actually you were very wrong about. I thought maybe this might help you understand what a "fact" was.

Not thinking things though and then not following facts.

I have thought through the situation and supported it. You may disagree, but you have no right to accuse me of not thinking it through.

You also accused me of not following the facts, but I see no evidence of this - rather we seem to have a divergence of understanding each other, where you focused mostly on the family in the article and I was discussing policy in general. I believe you thought I was only discussing the family.

In no way have I disagreed with direct facts.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[rocks 494]

Not thinking things though and then not following facts.

I have thought through the situation and supported it. You may disagree, but you have no right to accuse me of not thinking it through.

You also accused me of not following the facts, but I see no evidence of this - rather we seem to have a divergence of understanding each other, where you focused mostly on the family in the article and I was discussing policy in general. I believe you thought I was only discussing the family.

In no way have I disagreed with direct facts.

I applied the situation of this family to your idea. It's really not complicated. Clearly you haven't thought about those involved, or don't care about the outcome. This is very similar to the Theresa May plan in the UK where they are intentionally trying to divide families. Dividing families is wrong, you would understand this if you were in that situation. This is a fact, not an opinion before you start crying wolf again.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I applied the situation of this family to your idea. It's really not complicated. Clearly you haven't thought about those involved, or don't care about the outcome. This is very similar to the Theresa May plan in the UK where they are intentionally trying to divide families. Dividing families is wrong, you would understand this if you were in that situation. This is a fact, not an opinion before you start crying wolf again.

The bold is another accusation, thats three now. Dividing families is generally wrong, but in the topic of this thread who's fault is that? Moreover, as I've stated there is an option that can be made by the family to not be divided.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[rocks 494]

The bold is another accusation, thats three now. Dividing families is generally wrong, but in the topic of this thread who's fault is that? Moreover, as I've stated there is an option that can be made by the family to not be divided.

You haven't thought this through.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You haven't thought this through.

Is that all you can say?

I'll add one comment. The notion that dividing a family is wrong is an idea of ethics. Ethics are a matter of opinion and therefore you are wrong.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[rocks 494]

Is that all you can say?

I'll add one comment. The notion that dividing a family is wrong is an idea of ethics. Ethics are a matter of opinion and therefore you are wrong.

It's all there is to say to your idea, yes.

Where would this family stay? Are you happy to send the parents and the underage children to a country the parents haven't lived in for 18 years with no where to live? What will they eat? Will the parents be able to find jobs to support their family? How will the children do in a new school with a different curriculum? How would taking a child, that might have been about to graduate HS, to another country with a different curriculum affect their education and future lives? I could go on and on but I can't be bothered. You haven't thought this through at all.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's all there is to say to your idea, yes.

Where would this family stay? Are you happy to send the parents and the underage children to a country the parents haven't lived in for 18 years with no where to live? What will they eat? Will the parents be able to find jobs to support their family? How will the children do in a new school with a different curriculum? How would taking a child, that might have been about to graduate HS, to another country with a different curriculum affect their education and future lives? I could go on and on but I can't be bothered. You haven't thought this through at all.

Actually, my understanding is that there are US school districts on the border that accept students from across the border. I'm sure they would accept a USC. As for the parents, lets hope they find a job and a home. Unfortunately, thats out of the USAs control (sort of) - we could have done more to protect Mexico's agriculture from our corporate farming.

Also you need to read back to my previous posts regarding children about to graduate.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually, my understanding is that there are US school districts on the border that accept students from across the border. I'm sure they would accept a USC. As for the parents, lets hope they find a job and a home. Unfortunately, thats out of the USAs control (sort of) - we could have done more to protect Mexico's agriculture from our corporate farming.

Also you need to read back to my previous posts regarding children about to graduate.

Actually we could have done more to protect America from corporate farming too, but thats off topic.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[james&olya 1,121]

i\1 million votes for the left just bought, on your tax dollars and your unemployment status.

1 million more consumers to buy the goods and services the 'job creators' produce!

1 million more workers to fill offices and factories!

1 million more tax-payers to pay the taxes that the ultra-rich have found ways to avoid!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's all there is to say to your idea, yes.

Where would this family stay? Are you happy to send the parents and the underage children to a country the parents haven't lived in for 18 years with no where to live? What will they eat? Will the parents be able to find jobs to support their family? How will the children do in a new school with a different curriculum? How would taking a child, that might have been about to graduate HS, to another country with a different curriculum affect their education and future lives? I could go on and on but I can't be bothered. You haven't thought this through at all.

I'm also looking back at a few things I wrote earlier which answer much of this. If the policy was to grant former minors a green card between the ages of 18-32 and we use the dream acts cut off of 16 for eligibility then if eldest were allowed to wait until 32 to apply, the minimum age of the youngest child would be 16. Therefore the 32 year old sibling could support the younger one through high school at minimum.

Thats one choice. As for the parents, well they violated an immigration law and should return to the country of their citizenship.

The only policy where you could guarantee minimum hardship is an open border. I don't support that, and I doubt the majority of Americans would.

[james&olya 1,121]

It can't be an act of god because they disagree.

Also because many of them think it was an act of the 'anti-Christ'!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

1 million more consumers to buy the goods and services the 'job creators' produce!

1 million more workers to fill offices and factories!

1 million more tax-payers to pay the taxes that the ultra-rich have found ways to avoid!

1 is true...except they are already buying good now.

2 .Would force wages down further....the US is already suffering from three decades of flat wages.

3. If there is only so much taxable wealth in the labor pool, passing that wealth to more workers with less wages doesn't boost tax income. Yes, the odd jobs that are under the radar would pick up local taxes maybe even state, probably not much federal.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Sousuke