quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

By managing to get in front of one of the lower cost immigrants who were awarded that fancy work permit.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

By managing to get in front of one of the lower cost immigrants who were awarded that fancy work permit.

---

I was questioning YOUR proposed requirements. Was it said tongue-in-cheek and I missed it? I didn't ask how citizen gets a job but how do they prove their right to work? It's your statement.

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

By managing to get in front of one of the lower cost immigrants who were awarded that fancy work permit.

---

I was questioning YOUR proposed requirements. Was it said tongue-in-cheek and I missed it? I didn't ask how citizen gets a job but how do they prove their right to work? It's your statement.

---

I think you were responding to DC Bear. I was being a smart aleck because I think work permits are vehicles for abuse and hurt U.S. citizens and green card holders.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

Notarized birth certificate or a passport come to mind.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

As I've said many times I favor work permits.

---

So should we close the border and built the wall only to allow those to enter that have obtained a work permit?

What's your work permit policy?

---

If we set up a good work permit program, we may not need a wall, but controlling the border is essential. No one gets a job without proving they have the right to work in the United States either as a citizen or as someone with a valid work permit. If that rule is violated, the employer and the employee are criminally liable.

---

how does a citizen prove "their right to work", by breathing?

---

Notarized birth certificate or a passport come to mind.

---

so the current i9 forms?

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

My definition of "thrive" includes more than relative safety.

---

That's what I thought. But immigrants also ought to be able to define it for themselves, on their own terms. A lot of the Hispanic immigrants I've met either came here because their economic opportunities, however modest, were much better than at home, enabling them even to send money back to their extended families. Or they came here to escape violence; to them, cleaning hotel rooms or working for a landscaping crew is "thriving" compared to living in constant fear of murderous gangs in Juarez or San Pedro Sula. And some of them are happy to come here, however hard their life may be in the US, just so their children can have an opportunity to "thrive" by American standards. That has been the US immigrant story for many generations.

These people tend to become the most passionate, patriotic Americans of all because they are grateful for the opportunity. They get misty-eyed the way Merrick Garland did when talking about his gratitude to the country that took in his persecuted Jewish grandparents.

Find a smart way to make the borders more secure and find a way to create legal pathways for the people who want to be Americans and are wiling to work for it.

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

We have a legal way to immigrate...let's start with that.

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

We have a legal way to immigrate...let's start with that.

---

Why can't you answer the question?

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

We have a legal way to immigrate...let's start with that.

---

Why can't you answer the question?

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

We have a legal way to immigrate...let's start with that.

---

Why can't you answer the question?

---

Why don't you set them. You seem to have all the answers

---

Waco1947 said:

---

One libertarian understanding. It may not be quash position
Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States.

Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life. The vast majority of immigrants are very peaceful and highly productive.

Indeed, the United States is a country of immigrants, of all backgrounds and walks of lifesome families have just been here for more generations than others. Newcomers bring great vitality to our society.

A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.
@ https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

You anti strong border people who love to vilify America for our "horrible" immigrations policies do realize we literally accept more permanent immigrants than any other developed country in the world, don't ya'? Nah, probably not.

If Republican were smart, they'd pretend to be all for open borders, maybe then the liberal idiots would all of a sudden be pro border security and tougher immigration laws.

---

I am aware. And yet we can do better.

---

So what would make you happy? Perhaps roll out the red carpet, throw open the gates and provide free transportation from the border to the city of their choosing.... payed for by the American payer, of course

---

Not sure if serious....

---

What's your ideal immigration and border control policy?

We already have one of the most liberal immigrant policies on the planet. So, how much farther do we need to go?

If you hate America's immigration stances, surely you'd have to despise Italy, Germany, New Zealand, UK, etc.... right?

In your eyes, what should we do, huh?

---

Path to citizenship must include becoming proficient in the English language.

---

The current evaluation of an applicant's ability to read, speak, and write English leaves a lot to be desired.

---

...and the ability to thrive in the United States is largely dependent on the ability to speak, read and write English.

---

I think it depends on your definition of "thrive." I agree with the language proficiency requirement for citizenship -- and we already do have that.

For some immigrants, "thriving" simply means escaping violence and/or persecution in their home countries and having a chance to live in relative safety. Or it means a chance to have a steady if low-paying job in the US because that's a lot better than what they had in Honduras or China. They won't climb to higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder without English proficiency, but that's not always how they measure success, either.

Going back 100 years and more, such immigrants have "thrived" here in the US without ever becoming proficient in English. Typically, it took 3 generations to achieve proficiency in the language. As one high-profile example, King George I ruled Great Britain without ever learning English. His son, George II, ruled for 20-30 years and learned enough English to manage, but his first language was always German. Not until George III was there a king from the Hanoverian line who was English-proficient. In this country, that was the typical pattern for Italians, Greeks, Poles, Yiddish-speaking Russian Jews, and more. I went to HS with kids in Central Texas whose grandparents still spoke Czech at home.

What I've noticed about today's Hispanic immigrants is that the pace of language acquisition is accelerated. The parents may still struggle to learn English, but the kids all become proficient just like other Americans.

And of course, our immigration policy under the previous administration disfavored immigrants from "**** hole" countries, many of which (such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) already had English as their official language.

---

Exactly why do we want poor people coming from other countries? Don't we have our own poor to think of?

And why do we take immigrants from crappy countries? I don't think anyone can argue that when Trump made the comment comparing countries like Norway, etc to several African nations, he wasn't wrong...people just wanted to see racism....however, I could argue that Scandanavian countries are significantly better than African countries...South American countires...and possibly even our own country.

---

a lot of people come to the US to escape things like poverty and corruption. Those two things are major descriptors for "crappy countries". Many people will describe India as a crappy country but look at the medical professionals they send us.

Crappy people don't always come from crappy countries.

---

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be more selective of who we allow into our country.

I am investigating retiring to another country to live cheaper. Ecuador will not allow you to live there without a job or proof of income. My desire is to no longer take those escaping from poverty and corrutpion until we use our resources to help those in poverty that are already here.

Everyone screamed racism when Trump compared Norway to African countries but it doesn't take a genius to see why he did...

Would I take a Nigerian Doctor over a homeless Norweigan...absolutely....but then again, there's not alot of homeless in Norway.

---

More selective, and it sounds you leave the government to do the selecting. Is that what you are saying?

---

Just saying that we needs standards...

---

And I'm just asking who is going to set those standards.

---

We have a legal way to immigrate...let's start with that.

---

Why can't you answer the question?

---

Why don't you set them. You seem to have all the answers

---

he's great at smelling rotten eggs, not so much on laying good, fresh ones.

---