Ask a question

Why Do Liberals Want Illegal Criminals To Become American Citizens Is Obama The Worst President

Why do so many Brits hate Libertarians and the American second amendment?

@geordie but you dont need guns to rape, kill, or to do a robbery. Also most of the ganstas in the USA are Mexican and Central American illegals. They came here illegally. I dont mind immigrants but atleast they should follow the laws.

also Geordie if you are a student of history you will realize that govt do go corrupt and kill people like in Chile, or in Argentina. The USA has a evil govt, that has killed over 1 million Iraqis, imprisoned millions for posesion of ganja. Know the US govt has legalized torture without warrant. That does violate the constitution but Obama does not care.

Guess what it will come to the UK as well. The UK will turn into a sadistic police state like the USA. But even worse cause UK is more densely populated than the USA.

What do you think of President Donald Trump’s plan to put migrants in sanctuary cities?

Copy paste of my answer to the same question elsewhere:Your question itself says you don’t understand the non-right (including independents like me as they tend towards data driven solutions) position on this topic.Sanctuary cities aren’t about allowing illegal immigration or not prosecuting such. This is intentional misinformation from the GOP in an attempt to create fear in their base.The truth of sanctuary cities is that they want two things:Cooperation from illegal immigrants with law enforcement to catch violent criminals (and deport if illegal)Non cooperation with ICE who has a really really bad human rights track record and just doesn’t operate in a moral way. i..e. I don’t want my tax money paying for human rights violations, that’s not the America I believe in.So… bottom line is most Sanctuary laws, and again they vary so take this as a broad stroke, only protect illegal immigrants DURING a police investigation. If they are found in any other context, i.e. trying to apply for benefits or vote, they are immediately deported. Well… used to be immediate, Trump is making it take a lot longer these days, but we’d want it immediate again ideally.These laws are proven to increase safety in the city as they allow police to get cooperation from witnesses and track down criminals.Remember, illegal immigration is a misdemeanor. It’s a minor crime. There is lots of precedent for letting people off on minor crimes to catch more dangerous criminals. It works.I want my family to be safe, thus I support laws that increase their safety.Those who are against these laws want my family to be more unsafe. It’s that simple.No Democrat, no independent is saying don’t deport illegal immigrants. There are lots of contexts, even in sanctuary cities, where they are caught and are deported. Just not in the context of a police investigation where they are a useful witness.What they do intend to do is protect citizens and make them safer. Republicans should want this too.Understand the difference? Once you get past the blatant lies of the GOP around this the answer to your question is pretty obvious :)

If Republicans get their way in regards to Trump’s border wall, what would liberals like to see changed about our current legal immigration system that Conservatives would have to compromise on for liberals to consider it fair?

The issue that I see is that you equate the wall with border security. They are not the same thing. Besides the physical wall, you can have sensors, drones, patrols , natural obstacles etc.As has been said below G.H.Bush AND Obama have been spending a lot of money on the tightening of southern border security. From what I see fences and barriers cover 30% of the entire continental border (2010 data). These were built in areas of high illegal trafficking, subject to terrain and land rights. Turns out you can’t just built the wall on the land owned by somebody else - hence there was a lot of legal fighting - much of it with bad outcome for the federal government.Mexico–United States barrier - WikipediaAs a result a lot of money was spent on electronic protection and personnel.The budget for Mexico border in 2015 alone was 3.8 billion.Trump's wall would add to billions the U.S. spends on border securityThe point of all this is that the opposition from democrats and centrist liberals (i.e. me) is not about the goal , but about the means to achieve it. Which is basically about money i.e. the Budget issue.Argument that Mexico or somebody else will pay for it is intellectually and economically absurd. If the US can legally generate more revenue in the long term from another country (via tariffs , duties an what not) , it should do that in any case regardless of how it intends to spend this money.As for what would I want in return for (what I consider is) a big waste of money is Congress to sign:Protection of DREAMers.Legal path to citizenship for the rest with common sense provisions (e.g. excluding recent arrivals, criminals and so on)I am happy that I repeat many of the answers below.Further the issues such as punishing employers for hiring illegals, reorganising H-1B system, deporting illegals who committed a felony seem so obvious that I cannot understand how both parties disagree with them (aside from the obvious answer - corruption).I am sure that even Trump agrees with most the reforms, but it seems that he is only interested in theatrics. Politics at its absolute worst!

What are the two sides/ the controversy in the immigration debate?

Both sides seem to agree that we need to secure the border first whether it be with a fence or by other means. They agree that we have a problem and need to stop it at the source.

The argument between the two sides is what to do with the 12+ million illegals that are already here. One side says that we should not give them any special privelages and they should go back to their home country and start the process of becoming a citizen from the beginning like everyone else. Of course they all agree it would have to be done in a humane way. The timeframe and ways of doing this vary but the thought is the same. This side of the argument is largely supported by conservatives and republicans.

The other side of the argument is to give the illegals some form of amnesty and let them stay in this country forever. Some people think they should just pay fines, others believe they should learn to read and write and speak english, and others believe they should just be allowed to stay. This side of the argument is largely supported by liberals and democrats.

The problem people have with this second argumnet is that if we give them amnesty then we are not setting a good example to others trying to get into this country. If they know that the worst that can happen to them if they enter this country illegally is a fine and then they could stay forever, why wouldn't they come here illegally instead of waiting like everyone else?

The sad thing is that our next President will support amnesty no matter what me or you think because Hillary and Obama are for amnesty and believe it or not so is McCain even though he is a republican.

I hope this helped a little.