Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans set to support 9/11 bill Updated2x (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so, you think it is acceptable to take a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, skohayes, SottoVoce

    35 year old who came to this country as a 2 year old and deport him/her to a country where he/she doesn't speak the language, doesn't have any contacts or survival skills, doesn't know the culture is an okay thing?

    the bill states plainly that children brought here who were 15 or younger are eligible for legal status after TEN F*CKING YEARS of no criminal record and completing two years of college or serving in the military.

    sheeeesh.

    nah, send 'em back to siberia - or what about the u.s.s.r. - oh, wait, that doesn't exist any more... well, nevermind - put 'em on a boat and let 'em float around for a decade or two.  that should do it!

    MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

    by edrie on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:13:33 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I did not say it was my standard... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, BoxNDox, foucaultspendulum

      but I do think that it is a reasonable point that is worth debating and voting on ammendments for...

      Immigration is a complicated subject that is highly fucked up right now...and well meaning measures like this need to be properly debated, compromised with and ammended according to all POVs

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 05:43:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  god, you sound like a republican! (0+ / 0-)

        it HAS been debated - did you see or read the damned bill?  

        so, your alternative is to do absolutely NOTHING?  let it sit?  fester? deport kids like the city college student in california who was picked up and held in detention to be deported to a country where he has no relatives and does not know the languae or culture? you remember him the one that congress passed a special law delaying his deportation until the dream act was considered?

        oops.  he's not mexican.  the ice crackdown was supposed to get rid of all those pesky mexicans crossing our borders illegally... and here we have this kid whose parents are chinese and asked for asylum and didn't get it.  oh, he was born in peru - so do we ship him off to peru or to china - or just maybe put him on that boat and let the currents figure it out.

        damnit, think THROUGH this before you spout ideological flippant answers.  the difference between you and i is that you talk theory - i talk real people.

        MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

        by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:25:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I heard several reasonable objections... (0+ / 0-)

          that should have been debated...

          1. Age should not be 35 but some lower number (35 year olds are not children and not helpless)
          1. People convicted of felonies lesser than deportation standard should be banned from the program.

          Sounds reasonable to me...lets have a debate about it or at least vote on those 2 ammendments...but no...the Democrats once again tried to go it alone with no margin for error...so be it...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 01:43:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The person in your example... (0+ / 0-)

          is 20 years old which was one of the objections...why do we need to go to 35...the survivability of a 20 year old is quite different than a 35 year old...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 01:46:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  survivability? (0+ / 0-)

            from where did your ancestors originate?  would you be able to survive in the country of THEIR origin if you had no contacts, didn't speak the language, had no family infrastructure to return to - especially if you knew absolutely NO one in that country?

            a 35 year old who came here without any option and who has contributed to this society should not be punished for the "sins" of the father (or mother).

            again, the age is 15 or younger when the child was brought here as a minor child.  why do you have a problem with not punishing young people for something over which they had no control.

            unless you think a two year old or a 14 year old should tell their parents they are NOT going to come with them.  brave kid, eh?  living alone without family and home?  

            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

            by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 02:09:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

              I do not necessarily agree...but it is a reasonable point to raise that a 35 year old person is not as vulnerable or innocent as a 21 year old...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 04:32:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  if you were brought here at age 10 or 12 and this (0+ / 0-)

                is the only nation you know as an adult... if you have a job and you are working with a family - you think it is reasonable to then have that adult who, through absolutely NO fault of his/her own be deported to a country where they have no contacts, no job, no housing, nothing?

                that is not reasonable by any standards.  it is dispossessing people of their lives when THEY did nothing wrong as an adult.

                i would hope you think a bit harder on the impact to those were brought here without a choice and are stuck in limboland.

                this is not what progressives, democrats, liberals are all about.

                again, punishing the child because of the sins of the parents - even though that child has now grown into a young adult without the capability or means to correct the situation that he/she did not create.

                really - please think about this.

                at 32, could YOU have survived being removed from family, friends, the only life you've ever known to be sent to a strange land with no infrastructure? no connectivity to the world around you?  if you answer yes, then please explain how you would do that.

                you wouldn't have a work permit, you wouldn't have papers to prove your "legitimacy" in the new country, you wouldn't have build that networking that allows people to  find jobs, build lives, find housing...

                so, please be specific - how would YOU survive at 32 or 35 being thrust into a foreign country to start a new life solely on your own and with no assistance?

                MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 04:58:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So why have any age limit with that... (0+ / 0-)

                  spin of reasoning...

                  Why is 35 a magical number...if it is a crime to send them back at 35 then it would be at 36 as well...

                  The point is we negotiate and determine reasonable cutoffs for every policy and it is a reasonable thing to debate and vote on ammendments...

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 05:47:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you miss my point... (0+ / 0-)

                    send "them" back WHERE?  to a place they have never known? to a land in which they have no familiarity in navigating?

                    and why?

                    because they were brought here as children?

                    don't you think it is more compassionate to look at the face of the individual instead of the anonymous statistic?

                    sheesh.

                    i'm outta here.

                    MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                    by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 06:37:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It has nothing to do with compassion... (0+ / 0-)

                      it has to do with the friggin attitude around here...all or nothing...no compromise...no debate...we Kossacks know all...whatever...nice non-debating with you....

                      Obama - Change I still believe in

                      by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:27:01 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  that you dismiss my points is telling. (0+ / 0-)

                        there are valid reasons not to send young people back to nations that they hold no ties.  it is a different perspective that we hold.

                        you look at statistics and data - i look at faces and people.

                        MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                        by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:48:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That is because... (0+ / 0-)

                          we always look at the greater good and not at individual cases when we consider public policy changes...you look at issues based on emotion...I look at issues based on rational debate...

                          Boy sometimes it seems like I am debating with my wife here...

                          Obama - Change I still believe in

                          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:42:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  and if you don't look at the people who (0+ / 0-)

                            COMPRISE the greater good, then who are you working for?

                            abstract is not sufficient alone - abstract is comprised of human beings (and the same goes for the environment, economy, etc.)

                            it is great to live in a "pure" world (NOT the meaning that is thrown around here, but the scientific one) without looking at the application in the real world:

                            example:

                            a bacteria culture grown in a petrie dish is a "pure" sample and can be done in a controlled environment.

                            take that bacteria and place it within/on a host and the results may vary greatly due to outside influence of other bacteria, the host's immune system, etc.

                            there is need for both in the real world - the pure study to determine what the results SHOULD be and the real world study to determine what the results actually are.

                            it is this blend of pure and real that gives rise to compassion in human emotion.  to say that if one has not paid the local fire dues, no firefighters will show up when there is a fire is one thing.  to have firefighters stand and watch a family's house destroyed and pets die is quite another (real world situation that happened a few months ago).

                            are you flexible enough to realize that true progressivism allows for flexibility to consider the real world consequence in an abstract world?

                            hope this helps clear up both my and your wife's position here.

                            btw, it is really a right/left brain argument you (and we) are having.  the real test is to engage both sides of the brain to find a workable and acceptable solution.

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:19:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  all right, one last point. (0+ / 0-)

                    why 35?  because these are the people NOT covered by reagan's last amnesty.  kids who were brought here AFTER the 1986 amnesty and the ones given a chance for eligibility for citizenship IF they meet certain requirements.

                    it is worth noting that for four years after the reagan amnesty, those children brought here as infants will not quality.

                    you asked WHY the age was set at 35.  

                    do the math.

                    2010 - 1986 = 24 years - add to that the 12 year old age limit and you have kids maxing out of eligibility at the 36th year.  why is this significant?  reagan's amnesty was in 1986 - this law covers the children brought here after that amnesty was enacted.

                    this bill does NOT apply to the parents.  

                    perhaps if you took a look at what the DREAM act will accomplish, you will change your opinion, as it appears from your comments that you have not done so.

                    here is the heart of the bill for your edification:

                    Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.

                    and here is a link to a full explanation of what DREAM does and how...
                    young people are not being handed anything for free - there is a price to pay... and a rigorous one.

                    it helps to have fact to back up opinions instead of assuming what is being done.  i think after you read this and consider why the time frame is where it is, then it will make better sense to you.

                    MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                    by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 06:53:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nobody is saying deport them... (0+ / 0-)

                      unless they are convicted of a crime...

                      Obama - Change I still believe in

                      by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:28:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  without legal status, that is what they face. (0+ / 0-)

                        deportation.  to a nation to which they have no connection.

                        did you not read the article on the student in california who spend weeks locked in an ice detention facility awaiting deportation to a country he has never known?

                        what do you THINK will happen to these kids?  this is a very serious problem and the ones facing the harshest punishment are those who were the innocents.

                        they can not get student loans, they are not admitted to universities in some states - they are a group without status, no papers, no ability to live their lives except in fear of being sent to a world that is truly alien: the nation of their parents.

                        look beyond the statistics and start looking at the faces of these kids and young adults.

                        on the senate floor, the pictures of 3.9 and 4.0 students who cannot get into college or get student loans, cannot serve in the military, are non-citizens and in limbo due to their parents' decision when they were children - these are the ones you want to punish?

                        on the floor of the senate i listened to the most sickening arguments comparing these outstanding youth to the illegal drug runners crossing the borders.  using these kids as political fodder is unconscionable.  we are a better nation than that - or we should be.

                        MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                        by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:52:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Right.... (0+ / 0-)

                          and you act as if I don't care just because I think it is reasonable to debate the age limits and whether the program should be extended to those who have lesser felonies on their record...some people just have no sense of allowing for reasonable debate and are just plain emotional about public policy...

                          Obama - Change I still believe in

                          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:45:08 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  i don't think you are a bad person at all... (0+ / 0-)

                            i think you are looking at ways to solve a difficult situation through more abstract thought.  theoretically, you are correct to ask - why the age group selected.

                            this isn't just emotional for me, it is also practical.  how does a government correct a bad situation and start clean?  by starting "clean"!

                            to create a system that gives a ten year window in which all those here could be deported or denied schooling, military service, etc., would be horrifc - how does one keep track and what about the child that misses the cutoff by one day?

                            starting from the reagan amnesty and moving forward sends a powerful message that THIS cutoff will be at the age of emancipation for 16yr olds - and they need to resolve this prior to adulthood.

                            there are still means to apply for amnesty case by case, but the grouping of a select range of young people now facing non-person status is one way to untangle the disastrous policies that have been uninforced and un-acted upon since 1986.  it gives us a chance to design real immigration reform while not creating a distraction over kids (AND we get to keep the brightest minds and good kids in the process!

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:25:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Assuming you are correct in this assertion... (0+ / 0-)

                            then I presume a debate for an ammendment making the age 26 instead would have failed or maybe would have passed then another incremental bill could have been brought up separately for the people left out...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:51:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  keeping the age at 26 would have brought up (0+ / 0-)

                            the issue of those not covered by the gap.  oh, i was in error earlier.  the cut off age is 15, not 12.

                            there is still a year gap that isn't covered according to my dyslexic math skills.

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:31:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Never said there would not be a gap... (0+ / 0-)

                            that does not mean it would not be better than no bill at all...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:55:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  And if you had reduced the age... (0+ / 0-)

                          to 25 the person in your horrific story would have been covered in the legislation...this might have gained enough Republican votes to pass...

                          Obama - Change I still believe in

                          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:46:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  that wouldn't cover the children brought in (0+ / 0-)

                            after the last amnesty - that is the reason for this age delineation.  it really isn't arbitrary at all - it just hasn't been correctly explained.

                            as a matter of fact, until YOU asked the question, i had not questioned why that age, either... and with some digging, i found the correlation.

                            that is the problem with legislation not being fully covered in the media - we don't have all the facts and unless we spend time digging, we miss salient points.

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:21:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not every piece of legislation... (0+ / 0-)

                            has to be perfect...to say the age has to cover since the last amnesty is a laudable goal but IMHO should not stop a negotiation to create a compromise that passes..

                            Again letting the perfect be the enemy of the good or helping at least some of the people caught up in this horrible situation...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:49:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  my take is that it didn't matter WHAT the (0+ / 0-)

                            age of the children would be - the bill was destined to fail due to the staunch anti-immigration (translate mexican prejudice) going on right now around the nation.

                            listening to the republicans equate honor students with the drug runners and coyotes had no basis in reality for what this act would be doing.  

                            instead, the republicans resorted to non-stop immigrant bashing instead of helping find a solution to a very unfair situation that impacts children who had no say in coming here.

                            this is part of the republican strategy to combat all attempts at immigration reform.

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:34:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes I understand... (0+ / 0-)

                            that every legilsative defeat must be because they wanted any version of the law defeated and not that they wanted some reasonable changes...NOT

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:54:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  unfortunately, with this congress (0+ / 0-)

                            that is exactly what is stated by the gop leadership.

                            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:32:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess we will never know... (0+ / 0-)

                            since no ammendments were offered to be voted on nor were alternative bills allowed on the floor...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 06:43:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site