Port Authority Bombing

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:01 pm

Squishy wrote:

Chain migration is ripe with fruad. It is a stupid policy. 70% of are immigrants come here because of family ties. Instead of low skilled workers who take jobs from American low skilled workers, we should match our immigrants to the county's needs.

https://www.google.com/amp/www......html

Apparently it isn't all the same. The Mexicans who pick crops and migrate and only make $10K a year are not taking jobs from anyone who wants them because few are willing to do that. They can make more money panhandling at traffic lights. We can't afford to pay even minimum wage to have our peppers picked.

I think that migration needs to be used as a bargaining chip because we can't just wring our hands at this and say "oh well" because it soon won't be safe to travel on anything.

SixOfWands

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:06 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Bangladesh is not currently a banned country but it might be an incentive to keep immigrants from becoming terrorists the knowledge that their country of origin could be banned due to their actions.

If chain migration is ended due to his actions, then his own people can blame him.

Chain immigration. You mean sort of like Chassidim, who migrated to the US as a group? Or, frankly, a whole lot of other Jews who got into the US because of family.

It amazes me that our president is willing to politicize an attack involving an immigrant (who -- BH, didn't kill a soul) within hours. But when it involves a white person murdering hundreds, "Today is a day for consoling the survivors and mourning those we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of those individuals. There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country."

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:13 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Yeah but six, if it used as a bargaining chip, then it is up to those people who are here with green cards to live as a peaceful citizen. Are we supposed to sit here and let them blow us up? This guy was mad at Israel. So if the US were to say that because of him, there would be no further Bangladeshi immigrants for the next 12 months, maybe the next would be suicide bomber would think twice. It was lucky that there were no deaths but his intention was mass destruction. It wasn't exactly a firecracker.

And when a crazy person gets a hold of a gun and kills 59 people, the only thing that we can really do is to say that the powerful gun lobby will no longer have any say over gun laws but that is harder to legislate than immigration.

SixOfWands

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:14 pm

Squishy wrote:

Great idea.

You know, whenever anyone here posts about needing a job, you should definitely recommend that she and her husband take one of those jobs that are now vacant because of the lack of migrant workers.
https://www.independent.com/ne.....elds/
I'm sure it will be well-taken. Because American workers like the women here are banging down the doors for those jobs.

Its just too bad that our country didn't adopt that notion when Soviet Jews were immigrating to the US. Did they have the skills the country needed? Probably not. Who needs them! Oh wait. The US did shut a lot of them out. Good job!

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:21 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But what is wrong with tailoring immigration to the needs of the country? When Soviet Jews were coming, ISIS didn't exist. Many Soviet Jews did have skills that they needed to Americanize but look at how many of them are now very successful like Marina. America needs people like Marina and not like this dude that bombed Port Authority.

Last year, on New Year's Eve, around 2 million! people came to Time's Square. Just imagine the danger that exists with something like that now, partially because of gun crazed lunatics and partially because of immigrants who have a cause other than living peacefully in America.

SixOfWands

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:22 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Based on the American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau, there were approximately 161,000 people of Bangladeshi origin living in the United States by the end of 2013. In 2014, the total number of first and or second generation Bangladeshi immigrants is 277,000 people. One did a very bad thing. You want to punish all of them? Or you want to cancel all family immigration, which allowed countless Jews into the US?

SixOfWands

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:27 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Yes, look at Marina. And Sequoia. And countless others. But why do you think that we should have applied different rules to their families than to anyone else?

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Times have changed and prior to 20 years ago, terrorism was rare in America. I am sure that most from Bangladesh are great folks but what are we Americans supposed to do, tell everyone to stay home on New Year's Eve? Can we protect ourselves at all? Should we live in fear of every bus and train ride or should we see if this guy was just an aberration, the likes of which will not be seen again?
I do see where people should be able to immigrate if they marry an American but the immigration authorities need to authenticate the marriage. My daughter married an Israeli eleven years ago and they had to provide wedding pictures and when the went to immigration, she was expecting, so it was easy to authenticate.
I could also see bringing parents over but should people be automatically allowed to immigrate over siblings or aunts and uncles?

tigerwife

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:32 pm

SouthernBubby,

Somehow I don't think that a man whose object is to kill as many people as possible, redardless of race or identity (like the mix of people on a subway) will care much about how his actions will impact immigration for his countrymen.

Six, you don't see a difference in the motives of the two incidents you are comparing? Yes, they were both madmen and fortunately one was a failure, but he didn't have to be. His referencing to ISIS is a huge concern IMO.

youngishbear

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:33 pm

southernbubby wrote:

There may be some rational thoughts swirling around the head of a suicide bomber, but I doubt that much brainpower is wasted on worrying about the consequence of his actions on immigration policy.

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:33 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Yes, look at Marina. And Sequoia. And countless others. But why do you think that we should have applied different rules to their families than to anyone else?

Because when they came, terrorism was almost unheard of in America. Now we need to be careful. What could those commuters have done to protect themselves? Absolutely nothing.
The evil monster who shot up the concert and the one who shot up the church were dangerous and evil and were worse than terrorists but they worked alone.

Terrorists have an agenda and a terrorist identity and a group who are dancing in the streets if they succeed in carnage and destruction.

So how would you protect our country, or would you do anything to protect it? Or just figure if people are meant to die, so let the terrorists kill them?

What is the answer? Sometimes innocent people have to suffer for the guilty in order to punish the guilty.

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:35 pm

tigerwife wrote:

If he was working alone and was crazy, then true, he wouldn't care but if a group was working and realized that grandma wouldn't be coming anytime soon if they blew up the train station, wouldn't they feel the consequences?

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:36 pm

youngishbear wrote:

There may be some rational thoughts swirling around the head of a suicide bomber, but I doubt that much brainpower is wasted on worrying about the consequence of his actions on immigration policy.

What would happen if it was widely publicized that it would affect immigration?

youngishbear

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:38 pm

Southernbubby, in the 1920s America responded to the first Red Scare, union agitation, and anarchist violence with isolationism, including quotas on immigration.

How is today different? The boogeyman has a new name, of course.

youngishbear

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:41 pm

southernbubby wrote:

What would happen if it was widely publicized that it would affect immigration?

I think a person in the grip of that holy zeal cares only about that. If the consequence directly affected their cause, perhaps they would care.

33055

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:43 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Yes, look at Marina. And Sequoia. And countless others. But why do you think that we should have applied different rules to their families than to anyone else?

This is false reasoning. Because two people are good immigrants, they all are. This is the bill of goods that liberals tried to sell with the Dream Act. They had a few educated folks be the face of the immigrants and hid the bad demographics and the cost for them and the resulting chain migration.

You need to look at pubic policies comprehensively. Youy need to look at what Americans lose. When the survey of Americans want the Dream Act is asked a different way, Americans don't want to displace Americans for the so called Dreamers and their families.

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:43 pm

youngishbear wrote:

So if the housing authorities want to open a section 8 housing project or a homeless shelter in your neighborhood and you know that it is likely to bring in crime and drugs, are you going to say NIMBY or are you going to welcome it with open arms? You want to help the homeless don't you? So are you going to offer one of them your couch tonight or does that feel a bit scary?

Are quotas always a bad thing?

Look at it this way, the Democrats want gun control and the Republicans don't and the Republicans want immigration control and the Democrats don't. Both guns and terrorists are dangers to the way we live so how to we make our world safer? What is the solution?

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:46 pm

Squishy wrote:

Some of the better proposals, however, were not one size fits all. Dreamers who are accomplishing something would not be put in the category as Dreamers with criminal convictions.

33055

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:53 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Some of the better proposals, however, were not one size fits all. Dreamers who are accomplishing something would not be put in the category as Dreamers with criminal convictions.

That is a good thing, but then the liberals will be crying that their grandmother didn't have college and some activist judge will block the whole thing.

The bill needs to give up chain migration. Giving them rights to stay shouldn't not give their parents the right to stay. The parents came here illegally. They should not gain rights on the backs of their children. Their parents put them in this position.

southernbubby

Mon, Dec 11 2017, 6:56 pm

Squishy wrote:

I do agree that if someone broke the law, they pay the consequences. Would Canada let us abuse their immigration laws?