Joe, I’ve been answering your question for months, but you don’t want to hear it. It’s easy for you to “stop being so stupid”.
1. Recognize that you have a mental illness, specifically Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Your opening paragraph illustrates this perfectly; an emotional rant without any specific cognitive challenges to anything President Trump has done. Sorry Joe you are mentally ill, ignorant of the circumstances and aren’t intelligent enough to recognize it. President Trump is the greatest President of our lifetime and is playing 5-dimensional chess that the lamestream media doesn’t understand and to which the Marxist/Woke Democrats oppose just because Trump does it.
Here is some therapy for you: If there is something specific that you think President Trump has done in the past month that is as you state “non-stop idiocy he has been uttering—ever since he shouldered his way, stupidly, thoughtlessly, into Iran will stand as a historic embarrassment”, then state what it is and why. I don’t think that you can.
2. Stop using historical “commentators’” writings to understand current circumstances or to predict the future. The vast majority of historical opinion writers’ “opinions” are incorrect. Only the actions and the results are significant, not opinions. Concerning President Trump’s military action in Iran we are “in medias res”, i.e. "in the middle of things". If you have a specific “action” that you think is “idiocy”, then state what it is and why. The fact is you don’t know enough to do that, do you?
Fundamentally President Trump and his incredible Cabinet are so far ahead of you and most of the rest of the world that you will not be able to recognize what happened until it’s over, if you even have the intelligence to recognize it at all.
3. Stop listening to diplomats. They are elite educated idiots who historically haven’t been right since our founding fathers. Beginning with Woodrow Wlson, the so-called expert diplomats have failed with every international strategy they’ve tried to implement.
From a “common sense” perspective it comes down to this; the Iranian IRG’s response to the US and Israelis bombing is an indication of what they would do if they achieved military superiority with nuclear weapons, ICBMs and if they could, chemical weapons. The do-nothing alternative was not acceptable and all the US President’s since 1979 didn’t have the kahunas to do the right thing until the best US President in our lifetime Donald J. Trump. And President Trump ignored conventional political wisdom and did the right thing even though it is a mid-term election year.
I see three possible outcomes but I’m not going to map them out because that isn’t my job. It’s the job of the mainstream media but I described in No. 1 above why they aren’t capable of doing it. So Joe, sit down, shut-up, watch history being made and let the master show you how it’s done.
Another fact free free, logically deficient comment. It's yet another example demonstrating that the political left is incapable of cognitive thinking and ideological discourse. Sorry that this is all too complicated for you to understand.
Good ‘ol Deplore, you can count on his trolling of Joe as he clearly has too much time on his hands and devotes it to demonstrating his cognitive challenges. Bless his heart.
Child, when you grow up you'll at least have a chance be able to recognize when someone is disagreeing with what someone is saying as compared to trolling. It all depends if you can form your own opinions based upon logic and reason or if you just accept the mindless group think of the progressive left.
Until then, just keep playing with your crayons. And you never answer my question; does your Mommy know that you play with the computer?
We lack a serious and affirmative alternative to the grand strategy1 Trump is pursuing, however thuggishly: (a) hegemony in the Western Hemisphere plus more allied self-defense in Europe and the Middle East, so the US can (b) pivot to assuring a China-dominated Indo-Pacific remains nonetheless open to our critical supply-chain and materials needs, and (c) invest in the continued preeminence of US and allied tech, e.g., AI, quantum computing, and biotech, essential to our security and prosperity.
Do we disagree that these are the core things America wants in - and from - the world or do we merely object to the way Trump is going about achieving them? What would we do differently?
Even from our clearest foreign policy voices, one hears little more than vague talk about a return to rules-based global order. And our progressive flank has a very different set of foreign policy goals, some seemingly disconnected from vital American interests. “Not Trump” may get us through 2026, but an affirmative view is sorely needed.
1 Anyone who doubts such a thing exists should read the National Security Strategy (2025) and National Defense Strategy (2026), links below.
While I don’t disagree with your assessment, until his term or his life as President is over, one has to let the future run, as Trump will manage it or disrupt it. I cannot really make a final judgement until his term or his life is over, whichever comes first.
Then again, it is my habit to wait for the game to be over before deciding for sure who won, sometimes amazing upsets happen in less than a minute.
Now circling around to where we began, I believe I have demonstrated in our other comments thread that President Trump has "disrupted" something that he promised to disrupt in his campaign and for which I voted for, specifically regarding illegal immigration.
Concerning your original comment that "Trump will manage it or disrupt it"; can you provide any other example of where President Trump has "disrupted" something that he didn't promise and I didn't vote for?
Michael, I agree with your analogy that the game must be played to conclusion to know the actual result.
But, concerning your comment that "Trump will manage it or disrupt it"; please provide an example of where President Trump has "disrupted" something that he didn't promise and I didn't vote for.
Pretty much ending illegal immigration and sending those who should never have been allowed in, in the first place, is fine with me. Kicking out people, who granted got in the back door way, but have built businesses, families, become good acting people in the community, that for me, perhaps not you, is a bit to far, and very disruptive. We may disagree on that point, but that is one example in my view.
Michael, Thanks for responding. However, you are oversimplifying a multifaceted issue. How are you going to determine which illegal immigrants assimilate, contribute and integreate to the US and which ones don’t?
You also shouldn’t suggest that you know what I, or anyone else, thinks. Because you don’t know what I, we think until I, we, tell you.
So I’ll tell you: Firstly, you should identify the objective(s) of the change(s) you propose. Secondly, you should identify the obstacles to the change. Addressing these you can formulate solutions.
I think the objective of all immigration should be for the benefit of the current citizens. It is good when immigrants benefit from immigration to the US, but only when it’s not to the detriment of current citizens or they don’t contribute to the benefit of US citizens. To accomplish this all immigrants should assimilate, contribute to, and integrate with US culture. This has been the melting pot of America.
There are some religious and cultural groups who will not assimilate to American culture, for instance radical Islamists who hold Sheria law over the US constitution and Somalians who rather than contribute, work to scam the system and thereby US taxpayers. The two ideologies are incompatible with American culture and cannot coexist. They gotta go. The progressive left wants America to become multi-cultural, a salad of culture rather than a melting pot. To that I disagree, the US has been incredibly blessed and successful because of our culture. There is no benefit to US citizens to dilute our culture. If people want to immigrate to the US, they should know up front they will be expected to assimilate, contribute to, and integrate with US culture. If not, they’ve got to go. Absolutely, bring your traditions and your food, but become Americans.
The problem with US immigration is obvious. It’s not the immigrants, it’s the democrat politicians who want to stay in power for their own benefit, but don’t offer what most US citizens want so they want to import millions of new potential constituents who will go on the government dole and block vote democrat.
My suggestion of change is this:
1. Close the border. (President Trump has accomplished this.)
2. Financially incentivize illegal aliens to self deport. (President Trump has accomplished this.)
3. Round up all the illegal immigrant criminals and send them home.
4. Cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities and states who refuse to release incarcerated criminals to ICE for deportation.
5. If in this process ICE encounters a non-criminal illegal immigrants, they gotta go and come back legally. This encourages them to self-deport and come back legally before they’re caught.
6. Illegal aliens should not be eligible to go on the public dole and whoever is their sponsor who vouched for them and committed to make sure they don’t go on the public dole (which is required for immigration) should be prosecuted and made to reimburse the benefits that taxpayers provided.
7. If illegal immigrants can’t support themselves, they gotta go. They worked hard enough to get here, they can work. They can come back legally.
8. English is the language of the US. You’ve got three years to learn it and pass a test or you gotta go.
9. There will be no mass amnesty. Your “people, who granted got in the back door way, but have built businesses, families, become good acting people in the community” aren’t granted citizenship. This is not their fault; it is the fault of the democrat politicians because if you grant them citizenship they could vote and that would incentivize the democrat politicians to continue their anti-citizen policies and practices. These people would be granted the right to live in the US and work, contribute and assimilate, but not to vote.
10. Birthright citizenship, which is based upon a false interpretation of the 14th amendment will be rescinded. (The SCOTUS will be ruling on this, I believe in June).
11. “Dreamers” will not be granted automatic citizenship. To allow them to would be to acquiesce to the democrat’s anti-American policies and practices, wouldn’t it? They can live in the US but they can’t vote until they go through the regular immigration process. They have five years to do it because otherwise they’ll procreate and exponentially expand this unmanageable problem. Dreamers have to get on board and learn that US citizenship is worth the effort to achieve, something the democrats don’t understand.
12. Teddy Kennedy’s quota system favoring immigration from third world countries and eliminating immigration from first world countries should be eliminated and replaced with a meritocratic test of immigration policy.
There of a number of other nuances but I think my basic proposal meets the major objectives and overcomes the major obstacles. Do you object to any of these and if so, why? Do you have any of your own proposals?
On numbers 1,2, and 4, we are in agreement. Number 3, I make an exception for those who are law abiding, tax paying, workers or business people, including wives or husbands as the case may be. We do not allow ex post facto laws, and so long as they have a history of being honest and good citizens, they are an additional good to our country.
Number 5, is pretty much a repeat of number 3.
Number 6 and 7 we agree with. Number 8 was never involved in our history, can remember any number of movies from the thirties and forties, that showed a child teaching their parent English, not so much the grandparent, have a friend who is in his eighties, and his grandmother, when he was a small child only spoke a foreign language. If it was allowed then, under certain circumstances it should be allowed now.
Numbers 9, 11 and 12 we agree on.
We will have to wait till the Supreme Court rules as to what constitutes birthright citizenship.
Finally thank you for giving me the exercise of thinking through this matter in writing. It has been clarifying.
Thanks for thinking this through and responding. I offer a couple of comments:
a. My No. 3 and 5 are not the same. No. 3 is strictly about deporting known criminals. No. 5 is about finding collateral illegal immigrants who are not criminals in the process of No. 3 and how we deal with those circumstances. The current law is that ICE deports them. I proposed the exception in my No. 9 to which you agreed. This is the most difficult part of the entire issue. How do you determine if someone is assimilating, contributing and integrating to American culture? I propose that the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to become an American because it is a privilege to be earned. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
b. Concerning your objection to my No. 8 requirement of requiring all citizens to learn our national language of English, I’d be Okay if we granted your grandparent an age exemption. But I think there must be encouragement with both a carrot and a stick for younger immigrants to commit to becoming Americans. I think that learning the English language is the most measurable and beneficial measurement to their commitment to assimilate. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
Michael, Thank you again for your ideological discourse. Perhaps you and I should run for Congress and demonstrate to the current occupants of those offices how it’s done.
We agree about deporting known criminals. If number 5 means someone in the act or involved in criminal acts, then we agree, if it means someone leading an honest life, self-supporting, maybe a business owner, then we disagree. They have integrated and assimilated. Why they have not sought naturalization may be any number of things, including someone who finally went straight and became honest. That used to be an accepted route in the past. Children should definitely learn the language, as should their parents. English, for what it is worth, is one of the hardest languages to learn. Words can have a multiple of meanins, some forthright, some slang, some worse.
I may simply be more leniert, so long as the road they are traveling is one that is honest, worthwhile, and leads towards the good and the peaceful life.
Thank you for your spirited and well thought out reply.
Will have to start at the beginning and move on from there. The immigrants who assimilate are those who actually get honest jobs, marry,have children, pay taxes, support local charities, to the extent they can, and perhaps run a going business that employees people and pays taxes, both as an individual and as a business. Isn’t that the basic American dream?
We both agree that immigrants should assimilate. Prior to 1892, there was no requirement necessary to enter America. At both Ellis Island and Angel Island, on the two east and west coasts, a system was set up. That required the would be immigrant to be healthy, neither a prostitute or a gambler, have enough money to support themselves, till they had a job, or a letter guaranteeing such. Those with tuberculosis or other dangerous diseases as the time were sent back.
I am sure that there are those who follow Islam who have no desire for Sharia Law in their lives, just as there are Somalis who are honest and hard working. You make them sound like the Irish in our earlier history. Are there those in both camps that would like to have things under their control, YES. The bulk of Americans are not for that, which is why, more than anything else it has not happened.
Michael, Thank you for your reply. I agree with what I think is your intent, but I disagree on a couple of your factual examples, specifically:
A. I stated that I agree with the American dream of immigration with the caveat that "all immigration should be for the benefit of the current citizens. It is good when immigrants benefit from immigration to the US, but only when it’s not to the detriment of current citizens or they don’t contribute to the benefit of US citizens." Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
B. You are correct that before Ted Kennedy's law immigrants must "have enough money to support themselves, till they had a job, or a letter guaranteeing such". Now they don't. The problem that has resulted is that you can't have open immigration (assuming vetting for criminals) and a free welfare state. It extorts the current contributing, taxpaying citizens and their children and grandchildren. This is why I stated in my No. 6 above that "Illegal aliens should not be eligible to go on the public dole and whoever is their sponsor who vouched for them and committed to make sure they don’t go on the public dole (which is required for immigration) should be prosecuted and made to reimburse the benefits that taxpayers provided." Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
C. I know several Muslims who eschew Sharia law and assimilate and contribute to our culture. I personally don't know any Somalis. But, I've read numerous accounts where in Europe and the US there are "radical Islamists who hold Sheria law over the National Law voted for by the current citizens and Somalians who rather than contribute, work to scam the system and thereby the extort the current citizens. AND THIS HAS HAPPENED AND IS HAPPENING. Those who do this are not trying to assimilate, contribute and integrate into American society and they they gotta go. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
4. This immigration issue is in no way analogous to the Irish immigration in the 18th century. If there is something I said that is analogous then tell me what exactly it is and why.
Thank you for writing this. Sanity Clause indeed. This from you is a gem:
"Our two lovely oceans protected us from invasion, but they also quarantined us from detailed knowledge about the rest of the world.
You've just added to my reading list. And now I'm seeking one more. Donald Trump is a history making President. What is the best book written to date that explains his rise?
Elsie, I think it is poor etiquette and and example of lazy cognitive thinking to post a link to a 329 page study, or a hearsay link to anyone else's opinion for that matter, as the only contribution to a comments section:
1. Are you not able to explain your own opinion based upon cognitive reasoning and providing facts to support your reasoning and opinion?
2. Do you really expect anyone to read this 329 page study and research it's author just because you post a lame comment stating the author is "a brilliant statesman"?
3. Are you not able to point to any specific findings in this 329 page study that are relevant to this matter and discussion and then weave them into a narrative with your own thoughts?
4. Why do you expect anyone to believe the author is a "brilliant statesman" just because you say so?
Joe, I’ve been answering your question for months, but you don’t want to hear it. It’s easy for you to “stop being so stupid”.
1. Recognize that you have a mental illness, specifically Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Your opening paragraph illustrates this perfectly; an emotional rant without any specific cognitive challenges to anything President Trump has done. Sorry Joe you are mentally ill, ignorant of the circumstances and aren’t intelligent enough to recognize it. President Trump is the greatest President of our lifetime and is playing 5-dimensional chess that the lamestream media doesn’t understand and to which the Marxist/Woke Democrats oppose just because Trump does it.
Here is some therapy for you: If there is something specific that you think President Trump has done in the past month that is as you state “non-stop idiocy he has been uttering—ever since he shouldered his way, stupidly, thoughtlessly, into Iran will stand as a historic embarrassment”, then state what it is and why. I don’t think that you can.
2. Stop using historical “commentators’” writings to understand current circumstances or to predict the future. The vast majority of historical opinion writers’ “opinions” are incorrect. Only the actions and the results are significant, not opinions. Concerning President Trump’s military action in Iran we are “in medias res”, i.e. "in the middle of things". If you have a specific “action” that you think is “idiocy”, then state what it is and why. The fact is you don’t know enough to do that, do you?
Fundamentally President Trump and his incredible Cabinet are so far ahead of you and most of the rest of the world that you will not be able to recognize what happened until it’s over, if you even have the intelligence to recognize it at all.
3. Stop listening to diplomats. They are elite educated idiots who historically haven’t been right since our founding fathers. Beginning with Woodrow Wlson, the so-called expert diplomats have failed with every international strategy they’ve tried to implement.
From a “common sense” perspective it comes down to this; the Iranian IRG’s response to the US and Israelis bombing is an indication of what they would do if they achieved military superiority with nuclear weapons, ICBMs and if they could, chemical weapons. The do-nothing alternative was not acceptable and all the US President’s since 1979 didn’t have the kahunas to do the right thing until the best US President in our lifetime Donald J. Trump. And President Trump ignored conventional political wisdom and did the right thing even though it is a mid-term election year.
I see three possible outcomes but I’m not going to map them out because that isn’t my job. It’s the job of the mainstream media but I described in No. 1 above why they aren’t capable of doing it. So Joe, sit down, shut-up, watch history being made and let the master show you how it’s done.
“Thank you for your attention to this matter”.
What a sad post. Misguided and unkind too.
Another fact free free, logically deficient comment. It's yet another example demonstrating that the political left is incapable of cognitive thinking and ideological discourse. Sorry that this is all too complicated for you to understand.
Good ‘ol Deplore, you can count on his trolling of Joe as he clearly has too much time on his hands and devotes it to demonstrating his cognitive challenges. Bless his heart.
Child, when you grow up you'll at least have a chance be able to recognize when someone is disagreeing with what someone is saying as compared to trolling. It all depends if you can form your own opinions based upon logic and reason or if you just accept the mindless group think of the progressive left.
Until then, just keep playing with your crayons. And you never answer my question; does your Mommy know that you play with the computer?
We lack a serious and affirmative alternative to the grand strategy1 Trump is pursuing, however thuggishly: (a) hegemony in the Western Hemisphere plus more allied self-defense in Europe and the Middle East, so the US can (b) pivot to assuring a China-dominated Indo-Pacific remains nonetheless open to our critical supply-chain and materials needs, and (c) invest in the continued preeminence of US and allied tech, e.g., AI, quantum computing, and biotech, essential to our security and prosperity.
Do we disagree that these are the core things America wants in - and from - the world or do we merely object to the way Trump is going about achieving them? What would we do differently?
Even from our clearest foreign policy voices, one hears little more than vague talk about a return to rules-based global order. And our progressive flank has a very different set of foreign policy goals, some seemingly disconnected from vital American interests. “Not Trump” may get us through 2026, but an affirmative view is sorely needed.
1 Anyone who doubts such a thing exists should read the National Security Strategy (2025) and National Defense Strategy (2026), links below.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF
Thanks for the comment, especially the links.
While I don’t disagree with your assessment, until his term or his life as President is over, one has to let the future run, as Trump will manage it or disrupt it. I cannot really make a final judgement until his term or his life is over, whichever comes first.
Then again, it is my habit to wait for the game to be over before deciding for sure who won, sometimes amazing upsets happen in less than a minute.
Michael, Thank you again for the discourse.
Now circling around to where we began, I believe I have demonstrated in our other comments thread that President Trump has "disrupted" something that he promised to disrupt in his campaign and for which I voted for, specifically regarding illegal immigration.
Concerning your original comment that "Trump will manage it or disrupt it"; can you provide any other example of where President Trump has "disrupted" something that he didn't promise and I didn't vote for?
Just saw your response. I think I will leave things here for the meantime. Enjoy and be well.
Be well Michael.
Michael, I agree with your analogy that the game must be played to conclusion to know the actual result.
But, concerning your comment that "Trump will manage it or disrupt it"; please provide an example of where President Trump has "disrupted" something that he didn't promise and I didn't vote for.
Pretty much ending illegal immigration and sending those who should never have been allowed in, in the first place, is fine with me. Kicking out people, who granted got in the back door way, but have built businesses, families, become good acting people in the community, that for me, perhaps not you, is a bit to far, and very disruptive. We may disagree on that point, but that is one example in my view.
Michael, Thanks for responding. However, you are oversimplifying a multifaceted issue. How are you going to determine which illegal immigrants assimilate, contribute and integreate to the US and which ones don’t?
You also shouldn’t suggest that you know what I, or anyone else, thinks. Because you don’t know what I, we think until I, we, tell you.
So I’ll tell you: Firstly, you should identify the objective(s) of the change(s) you propose. Secondly, you should identify the obstacles to the change. Addressing these you can formulate solutions.
I think the objective of all immigration should be for the benefit of the current citizens. It is good when immigrants benefit from immigration to the US, but only when it’s not to the detriment of current citizens or they don’t contribute to the benefit of US citizens. To accomplish this all immigrants should assimilate, contribute to, and integrate with US culture. This has been the melting pot of America.
There are some religious and cultural groups who will not assimilate to American culture, for instance radical Islamists who hold Sheria law over the US constitution and Somalians who rather than contribute, work to scam the system and thereby US taxpayers. The two ideologies are incompatible with American culture and cannot coexist. They gotta go. The progressive left wants America to become multi-cultural, a salad of culture rather than a melting pot. To that I disagree, the US has been incredibly blessed and successful because of our culture. There is no benefit to US citizens to dilute our culture. If people want to immigrate to the US, they should know up front they will be expected to assimilate, contribute to, and integrate with US culture. If not, they’ve got to go. Absolutely, bring your traditions and your food, but become Americans.
The problem with US immigration is obvious. It’s not the immigrants, it’s the democrat politicians who want to stay in power for their own benefit, but don’t offer what most US citizens want so they want to import millions of new potential constituents who will go on the government dole and block vote democrat.
My suggestion of change is this:
1. Close the border. (President Trump has accomplished this.)
2. Financially incentivize illegal aliens to self deport. (President Trump has accomplished this.)
3. Round up all the illegal immigrant criminals and send them home.
4. Cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities and states who refuse to release incarcerated criminals to ICE for deportation.
5. If in this process ICE encounters a non-criminal illegal immigrants, they gotta go and come back legally. This encourages them to self-deport and come back legally before they’re caught.
6. Illegal aliens should not be eligible to go on the public dole and whoever is their sponsor who vouched for them and committed to make sure they don’t go on the public dole (which is required for immigration) should be prosecuted and made to reimburse the benefits that taxpayers provided.
7. If illegal immigrants can’t support themselves, they gotta go. They worked hard enough to get here, they can work. They can come back legally.
8. English is the language of the US. You’ve got three years to learn it and pass a test or you gotta go.
9. There will be no mass amnesty. Your “people, who granted got in the back door way, but have built businesses, families, become good acting people in the community” aren’t granted citizenship. This is not their fault; it is the fault of the democrat politicians because if you grant them citizenship they could vote and that would incentivize the democrat politicians to continue their anti-citizen policies and practices. These people would be granted the right to live in the US and work, contribute and assimilate, but not to vote.
10. Birthright citizenship, which is based upon a false interpretation of the 14th amendment will be rescinded. (The SCOTUS will be ruling on this, I believe in June).
11. “Dreamers” will not be granted automatic citizenship. To allow them to would be to acquiesce to the democrat’s anti-American policies and practices, wouldn’t it? They can live in the US but they can’t vote until they go through the regular immigration process. They have five years to do it because otherwise they’ll procreate and exponentially expand this unmanageable problem. Dreamers have to get on board and learn that US citizenship is worth the effort to achieve, something the democrats don’t understand.
12. Teddy Kennedy’s quota system favoring immigration from third world countries and eliminating immigration from first world countries should be eliminated and replaced with a meritocratic test of immigration policy.
There of a number of other nuances but I think my basic proposal meets the major objectives and overcomes the major obstacles. Do you object to any of these and if so, why? Do you have any of your own proposals?
Part 2
On numbers 1,2, and 4, we are in agreement. Number 3, I make an exception for those who are law abiding, tax paying, workers or business people, including wives or husbands as the case may be. We do not allow ex post facto laws, and so long as they have a history of being honest and good citizens, they are an additional good to our country.
Number 5, is pretty much a repeat of number 3.
Number 6 and 7 we agree with. Number 8 was never involved in our history, can remember any number of movies from the thirties and forties, that showed a child teaching their parent English, not so much the grandparent, have a friend who is in his eighties, and his grandmother, when he was a small child only spoke a foreign language. If it was allowed then, under certain circumstances it should be allowed now.
Numbers 9, 11 and 12 we agree on.
We will have to wait till the Supreme Court rules as to what constitutes birthright citizenship.
Finally thank you for giving me the exercise of thinking through this matter in writing. It has been clarifying.
Thanks for thinking this through and responding. I offer a couple of comments:
a. My No. 3 and 5 are not the same. No. 3 is strictly about deporting known criminals. No. 5 is about finding collateral illegal immigrants who are not criminals in the process of No. 3 and how we deal with those circumstances. The current law is that ICE deports them. I proposed the exception in my No. 9 to which you agreed. This is the most difficult part of the entire issue. How do you determine if someone is assimilating, contributing and integrating to American culture? I propose that the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to become an American because it is a privilege to be earned. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
b. Concerning your objection to my No. 8 requirement of requiring all citizens to learn our national language of English, I’d be Okay if we granted your grandparent an age exemption. But I think there must be encouragement with both a carrot and a stick for younger immigrants to commit to becoming Americans. I think that learning the English language is the most measurable and beneficial measurement to their commitment to assimilate. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
Michael, Thank you again for your ideological discourse. Perhaps you and I should run for Congress and demonstrate to the current occupants of those offices how it’s done.
If we did run for office, you would be a formidable opponent!
We agree about deporting known criminals. If number 5 means someone in the act or involved in criminal acts, then we agree, if it means someone leading an honest life, self-supporting, maybe a business owner, then we disagree. They have integrated and assimilated. Why they have not sought naturalization may be any number of things, including someone who finally went straight and became honest. That used to be an accepted route in the past. Children should definitely learn the language, as should their parents. English, for what it is worth, is one of the hardest languages to learn. Words can have a multiple of meanins, some forthright, some slang, some worse.
I may simply be more leniert, so long as the road they are traveling is one that is honest, worthwhile, and leads towards the good and the peaceful life.
Thank you for your spirited and well thought out reply.
Will have to start at the beginning and move on from there. The immigrants who assimilate are those who actually get honest jobs, marry,have children, pay taxes, support local charities, to the extent they can, and perhaps run a going business that employees people and pays taxes, both as an individual and as a business. Isn’t that the basic American dream?
We both agree that immigrants should assimilate. Prior to 1892, there was no requirement necessary to enter America. At both Ellis Island and Angel Island, on the two east and west coasts, a system was set up. That required the would be immigrant to be healthy, neither a prostitute or a gambler, have enough money to support themselves, till they had a job, or a letter guaranteeing such. Those with tuberculosis or other dangerous diseases as the time were sent back.
I am sure that there are those who follow Islam who have no desire for Sharia Law in their lives, just as there are Somalis who are honest and hard working. You make them sound like the Irish in our earlier history. Are there those in both camps that would like to have things under their control, YES. The bulk of Americans are not for that, which is why, more than anything else it has not happened.
Michael, I don't think you have seen my previous post to this comment of yours because you have not responded.
Thanks for your continued discourse.
Michael, Thank you for your reply. I agree with what I think is your intent, but I disagree on a couple of your factual examples, specifically:
A. I stated that I agree with the American dream of immigration with the caveat that "all immigration should be for the benefit of the current citizens. It is good when immigrants benefit from immigration to the US, but only when it’s not to the detriment of current citizens or they don’t contribute to the benefit of US citizens." Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
B. You are correct that before Ted Kennedy's law immigrants must "have enough money to support themselves, till they had a job, or a letter guaranteeing such". Now they don't. The problem that has resulted is that you can't have open immigration (assuming vetting for criminals) and a free welfare state. It extorts the current contributing, taxpaying citizens and their children and grandchildren. This is why I stated in my No. 6 above that "Illegal aliens should not be eligible to go on the public dole and whoever is their sponsor who vouched for them and committed to make sure they don’t go on the public dole (which is required for immigration) should be prosecuted and made to reimburse the benefits that taxpayers provided." Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
C. I know several Muslims who eschew Sharia law and assimilate and contribute to our culture. I personally don't know any Somalis. But, I've read numerous accounts where in Europe and the US there are "radical Islamists who hold Sheria law over the National Law voted for by the current citizens and Somalians who rather than contribute, work to scam the system and thereby the extort the current citizens. AND THIS HAS HAPPENED AND IS HAPPENING. Those who do this are not trying to assimilate, contribute and integrate into American society and they they gotta go. Do you agree with this or not, and if not why?
4. This immigration issue is in no way analogous to the Irish immigration in the 18th century. If there is something I said that is analogous then tell me what exactly it is and why.
Thanks again for the ideological discourse.
“Stupid is as stupid does” is true . . . but there’s been a long line of “stupid” these last 47 years imho.
Thank you!
Until we write to each other again.
I think you are going a bit overboard.
Thank you for writing this. Sanity Clause indeed. This from you is a gem:
"Our two lovely oceans protected us from invasion, but they also quarantined us from detailed knowledge about the rest of the world.
You've just added to my reading list. And now I'm seeking one more. Donald Trump is a history making President. What is the best book written to date that explains his rise?
The Case For Trump By Victor Davis Hanson
Victor has also finished a follow on book that hasn't yet been printed.
You're welcome.
Elsie, I think it is poor etiquette and and example of lazy cognitive thinking to post a link to a 329 page study, or a hearsay link to anyone else's opinion for that matter, as the only contribution to a comments section:
1. Are you not able to explain your own opinion based upon cognitive reasoning and providing facts to support your reasoning and opinion?
2. Do you really expect anyone to read this 329 page study and research it's author just because you post a lame comment stating the author is "a brilliant statesman"?
3. Are you not able to point to any specific findings in this 329 page study that are relevant to this matter and discussion and then weave them into a narrative with your own thoughts?
4. Why do you expect anyone to believe the author is a "brilliant statesman" just because you say so?
I look forward to your response.