If...

[FakeAndyStuart]

Heard this question posed on one of the podcasts I listen to. Albeit somewhat rhetorical, I thought it was something to ponder.

If the left is in favor of removing LEGAL guns from the population because it might save lives, why are they against removing ILLEGAL immigrant criminals from the population for the same reason?

Let's have a little lesson in US history, shall we Mr/Mrs/Ms/Him/Her/They Bryce.

According to the Cato Institute, over 86 million LEGALLY immigrated into the US between 1793 and 2019. But the quote in their Executive Summary does fit today's situation. "Conflicting visions and piecemeal legislation have left the United States with an archaic and barely coherent immigration system" * Over the last number of years, Congress and the Executive Branch have used immigration as a cudgel, talking point, scare tactic and sometimes dog whistle. But every attempt to actually work to solve the problem ends up with no progress and lots of partisan chatter.

This country needs people to fill jobs. The lack of labor is a major cause of the economic woes we suffer today. (Please don't bother to dispute this... without some sort of backup. I have plenty, but you won't read it anyway.) Many of those people are already living here, hiding from authorities because they entered "illegally". They are only "criminals" because of their method of getting here. Your Jose Ibarra story is one that can be told of thousands of "LEGAL" US citizens who ended up committing bigger crimes after authorities released them after petty ones. This argument is meant to inflame and scare people and doesn't address the real problem.

And what's the real problem - politics. Specifically primary election politics. Just look at Ohio. Bernie Moreno IS an immigrant (legal, for sure) who spent the campaign parroting the border fanaticism of the Trump faction of the party to squeeze out a primary victory. This problems bleeds into Congress, where the threat of being "primaried" keeps spoiling the chance of any real legislation passing.

We need sane, level headed people from both sides who can at least spend the time, energy and resources to figure out how to solve this problem rather than keep kicking the can down the street that allows more people to attempt to enter the country any which way because there is no actual practical "legal" way to get in. We need to change the primary system to stop a VERY small minority of voters from choosing the candidates. And we need to cool down the inflammatory rhetoric that does NOTHING to solve the problem.

But let's address your original question -

If the left is in favor of removing LEGAL guns from the population because it might save lives, why are they against removing ILLEGAL immigrant criminals from the population for the same reason?

The Constitution does provide the "legal" basis for guns, and as a die hard Leftie I would agree that guns, per se, are legal and I am not in favor of "removing" them. But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

* https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/br ... troduction

[Rate This]

Heard this question posed on one of the podcasts I listen to. Albeit somewhat rhetorical, I thought it was something to ponder.

If the left is in favor of removing LEGAL guns from the population because it might save lives, why are they against removing ILLEGAL immigrant criminals from the population for the same reason?

Let's have a little lesson in US history, shall we Mr/Mrs/Ms/Him/Her/They Bryce.

According to the Cato Institute, over 86 million LEGALLY immigrated into the US between 1793 and 2019. But the quote in their Executive Summary does fit today's situation. "Conflicting visions and piecemeal legislation have left the United States with an archaic and barely coherent immigration system" * Over the last number of years, Congress and the Executive Branch have used immigration as a cudgel, talking point, scare tactic and sometimes dog whistle. But every attempt to actually work to solve the problem ends up with no progress and lots of partisan chatter.

This country needs people to fill jobs. The lack of labor is a major cause of the economic woes we suffer today. (Please don't bother to dispute this... without some sort of backup. I have plenty, but you won't read it anyway.) Many of those people are already living here, hiding from authorities because they entered "illegally". They are only "criminals" because of their method of getting here. Your Jose Ibarra story is one that can be told of thousands of "LEGAL" US citizens who ended up committing bigger crimes after authorities released them after petty ones. This argument is meant to inflame and scare people and doesn't address the real problem.

And what's the real problem - politics. Specifically primary election politics. Just look at Ohio. Bernie Moreno IS an immigrant (legal, for sure) who spent the campaign parroting the border fanaticism of the Trump faction of the party to squeeze out a primary victory. This problems bleeds into Congress, where the threat of being "primaried" keeps spoiling the chance of any real legislation passing.

We need sane, level headed people from both sides who can at least spend the time, energy and resources to figure out how to solve this problem rather than keep kicking the can down the street that allows more people to attempt to enter the country any which way because there is no actual practical "legal" way to get in. We need to change the primary system to stop a VERY small minority of voters from choosing the candidates. And we need to cool down the inflammatory rhetoric that does NOTHING to solve the problem.

But let's address your original question -

If the left is in favor of removing LEGAL guns from the population because it might save lives, why are they against removing ILLEGAL immigrant criminals from the population for the same reason?

The Constitution does provide the "legal" basis for guns, and as a die hard Leftie I would agree that guns, per se, are legal and I am not in favor of "removing" them. But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

* https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/br ... troduction

I might add that prior to 1860 or so, certainly before 1880 and especially before 1924 NOBODY GAVE A RATS ASS who came in here. Then the Chinese became a problem, then the Irish and Italians then anybody who wasn’t northwestern European. It’s rather funny that we have seen this movie before and rather ironic that our friend Bryce very likely has some component of these previously discriminated against and marginalized groups in his background that had the same arguments he uses now used against them. I mean they LYNCHED these people and called them N****rs. They were not even considered white for god sakes.

The passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was partly responsible for a rising focus of women's rights activists on the right to vote. Asian, Irish and other immigrant Americans were also restricted from public life, isolated in segregated schools, and discriminated against in regard to employment and housing. They also suffered under bans on racial intermarriage and limitations on real property ownership. Unlike blacks, the Chinese were excluded from immigration after 1882, while many other Asians were limited in the numbers that could legally immigrate, and none were allowed to become citizens. Americans Indians fought the tide of frontier and westward expansion and broken treaty obligations.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilright ... 0ownership.

Most immigrants in 1907 came from Europe, and many white, Protestant Americans feared these immigrants couldn’t “assimilate.” Catholic immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were supposedly too culturally different. And German immigrants, then America’s largest non-English-speaking group, were establishing German-language schools and newspapers across the U.S. instead of integrating themselves into English-speaking institutions.

But lack of English or work skills weren’t the only reasons immigrants faced discrimination. There was also a general feeling that immigrants were too culturally foreign to live in the U.S. German-speaking immigrants who came over in 1907 faced a lot of backlash a decade later, when the U.S. entered World War I. Germany was an adversary in the war, and immigrants from there suddenly became “hyphenated Americans” for practicing their own cultural traditions. President Woodrow Wilson declared that “Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready.”

In addition, Catholic immigrants from southern and eastern Europe became associated with drinking and crime. White Protestant men in the Anti-Saloon League—many of whom would go on to join the new Ku Klux Klan after 1915—argued that the U.S. needed to pass a Prohibition amendment before these new immigrants acquired more voting power. During the 1920s, the KKK gained millions of members by advertising itself as a vigilante police force that would keep Catholic immigrants from countries like Italy in line.

The U.S. tried to reduce this type of immigration with the 1924 Immigration Act, which introduced numerical caps or quotas based on country of origin. These quotas gave enormous preference to people from northern and western Europe over those from southern and eastern parts of the continent. But despite intense fears that the latter type of immigrants could never really be American, they and their descendants became an important part of the country.

https://www.history.com/news/ellis-isla ... oday-study

The fact that we don’t do that anymore to these people and they eventually integrated after a generation or two gives me hope that this will pass but the road there may be bumpy. Trump is nothing more than a modern day version of the same bullshit we defeated once and put to bed. We need to do so again.

[Bryce]

But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

But in those footsteps, people coming into our country, legal or otherwise, would not have been taken care of, given housing, telephones, etc. by federal or state government. Plus, I have a feeling that our founders footsteps didn't involve cartels involved in human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling which killed over 100,000 of our citizens last year.

We are spending trillions of dollars a year we don't have. According to feedingamerica.org, one in five children in this country goes without enough food. Spending recourses on people entering our county illegally while our own citizens don't have enough to eat is just plain wrong.

[Rate This]

But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

But in those footsteps, people coming into our country, legal or otherwise, would not have been taken care of, given housing, telephones, etc. by federal or state government. Plus, I have a feeling that our founders footsteps didn't involve cartels involved in human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling which killed over 100,000 of our citizens last year.

We are spending trillions of dollars a year we don't have. According to feedingamerica.org, one in five children in this country goes without enough food. Spending recourses on people entering our county illegally while our own citizens don't have enough to eat is just plain wrong.

Giving them assistance fixes the issues we had the first time when we had a vast influx of people from southern and Eastern Europe and Germany. The conditions they endured were not good. We learned. Imagine that. The fact that any of this is illegal has predictably resulted in a black market for drugs and human smuggling. They wouldn’t need to do all of that stuff if people didn’t want drugs and have to get them illicitly and had to sneak in here because immigration wasn’t organized and welcomed but rather was made illegal. You’re never going to stop people from wanting to come to the greatest nation on earth economically and you aren’t gonna enforce your way out of people wanting a fix. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

As for hungry children…. Republicans want to gut WIC and reduce other forms of assistance that HELP FEED HUNGRY CHILDREN. If you want to help hungry children you’re in the wrong party.

[teetoppz28]

But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

But in those footsteps, people coming into our country, legal or otherwise, would not have been taken care of, given housing, telephones, etc. by federal or state government. Plus, I have a feeling that our founders footsteps didn't involve cartels involved in human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling which killed over 100,000 of our citizens last year.

We are spending trillions of dollars a year we don't have. According to feedingamerica.org, one in five children in this country goes without enough food. Spending recourses on people entering our county illegally while our own citizens don't have enough to eat is just plain wrong.

Aren't we all just human beings in the end? Who cares where someone was born? Why should they have to starve as well?

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

[Bryce]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

[Rate This]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Well other than some law that nobody found to be necessary until 148 years later what is the legitimate reason to deny ANYONE those basic things? If an illegal immigrant wandered to your door starving or in need of medical attention exactly what would you do?

We should be welcoming these people to the country, celebrating the economic vitality they provably bring to the table, registering and vetting them appropriately and moving forward. Instead we have a throwback to the gilded age talking to people whose ancestors were accused of being criminals and poisoning the blood and being “animals” and on and on telling them the exact same things while they cheer. Then we have a large undocumented population living in the shadows and not paying taxes.

[teetoppz28]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Your racist / xenophobic "schtick" is getting realLY (<-- note the correct adverb usage) old. Notice how you dodged my questions...

Aren't we all just human beings in the end?
Who cares where someone was born?
Why should they have to starve as well?

[teetoppz28]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Well other than some law that nobody found to be necessary until 148 years later what is the legitimate reason to deny ANYONE those basic things? If an illegal immigrant wandered to your door starving or in need of medical attention exactly what would you do?

We should be welcoming these people to the country, celebrating the economic vitality they provably bring to the table, registering and getting them appropriately and moving forward. Instead we have a throwback to the gilded age talking to people whose ancestors were accused of being criminals and poisoning the blood and on and on telling them the exact same things while they cheer.

Well, Bryce (and a few other forum MAGAts) would love nothing more than to return to the pre-civil rights era. It's sad that they refuse to want to move humankind forward.

[Bryce]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Your racist / xenophobic "schtick" is getting realLY (<-- note the correct adverb usage) old. Notice how you dodged my questions...

Aren't we all just human beings in the end?
Who cares where someone was born?
Why should they have to starve as well?

Would you feed your neighbors if you didn't have enough food to feed your own family?

[Bryce]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Well other than some law that nobody found to be necessary until 148 years later what is the legitimate reason to deny ANYONE those basic things? If an illegal immigrant wandered to your door starving or in need of medical attention exactly what would you do?

We should be welcoming these people to the country, celebrating the economic vitality they provably bring to the table, registering and getting them appropriately and moving forward. Instead we have a throwback to the gilded age talking to people whose ancestors were accused of being criminals and poisoning the blood and on and on telling them the exact same things while they cheer.

Well, Bryce (and a few other forum MAGAts) would love nothing more than to return to the pre-civil rights era. It's sad that they refuse to want to move humankind forward.

May I remind you that 74% of Democrats voted against the 1964 civil rights act.

[FakeAndyStuart]

But on the other side, the Constitution says NOTHING about immigration. In fact, the borders of this country would be wide open if we followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.

Thanks for actually reading this all the way thru.

But in those footsteps, people coming into our country, legal or otherwise, would not have been taken care of, given housing, telephones, etc. by federal or state government. Plus, I have a feeling that our founders footsteps didn't involve cartels involved in human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling which killed over 100,000 of our citizens last year.

We are spending trillions of dollars a year we don't have. According to feedingamerica.org, one in five children in this country goes without enough food. Spending recourses on people entering our county illegally while our own citizens don't have enough to eat is just plain wrong.

Interesting and fair argument. Let’s look at it from another side…. In those footsteps, we only had muskets, single load rifles - people weren’t armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers. We weren’t taking care of large numbers of wounded or dead. I have a feeling our founding fathers didn’t consider the thousands of citizens killed every year by angry disturbed people with firearms.

We are spending trillions of dollars we don’t have … paying off lawsuits from governments to people killed in mass shootings. Spending resources on situations that might be solved with just a little rational compromise thinking.

Can’t have it both ways, kemosabe.

[Rate This]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Well other than some law that nobody found to be necessary until 148 years later what is the legitimate reason to deny ANYONE those basic things? If an illegal immigrant wandered to your door starving or in need of medical attention exactly what would you do?

We should be welcoming these people to the country, celebrating the economic vitality they provably bring to the table, registering and getting them appropriately and moving forward. Instead we have a throwback to the gilded age talking to people whose ancestors were accused of being criminals and poisoning the blood and on and on telling them the exact same things while they cheer.

Well, Bryce (and a few other forum MAGAts) would love nothing more than to return to the pre-civil rights era. It's sad that they refuse to want to move humankind forward.

May I remind you that 74% of Democrats voted against the 1964 civil rights act.

As we have been over a hundred times… LBJ’s support of the 1964 civil rights act caused a realignment that saw most Democrats become Republicans and most Republicans become Democrats. Kind of like gravity it really isn’t in dispute that this took place. We are in the midst of another realignment right now that is seeing suburban Republicans become Democrats and working class Democrats become Republicans.

[Rate This]

I know the answer in your head already: because they are ScArY brown-skinned people.

That schtick is getting real old. Knock it off or have the balls to say it in person.

Your racist / xenophobic "schtick" is getting realLY (<-- note the correct adverb usage) old. Notice how you dodged my questions...

Aren't we all just human beings in the end?
Who cares where someone was born?
Why should they have to starve as well?

Would you feed your neighbors if you didn't have enough food to feed your own family?

The problem with that is that we DO have enough food to feed everybody and then some. We don’t have a food shortage. We have a lack of even distribution so some folks have lots of it and others don’t have enough of it. Not to mention the astronomical food waste in this country.

[Bryce]

First machine guns and rocket launchers aren't lawful to own by ordinary citizens.

Second, please describe what you mean by the term "assault rifle." Do you mean a rifle used to assault people or are you referring to a rifle that is semi authentic? Or possibly a rifle that looks scary?

I find it hard to believe the US or State government has skilled out trillions of dollars in lawsuits over private citizen mass shootings. Do you have numbers to back that up?

And if you are in fact in favor of saving lives, I would submit that keeping criminals that aren't already here from entering the country would be a good idea.

Finally, I am all in favor of removing guns from the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Stop and Frisk brought about a major drop in the murder rate in the City of New York when implemented. Maybe it should be revisited.