How Much Time/Effort Should be Spent Attempting to Find Compromise on Immigration?

Here is on thing that is not vague to me:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both

When that code it strictly and fully enforced, and when the border is a secure as possible, I will be willing to compromise in other areas.

 

Not a bad idea.

 

That depends entirely on the offer.

 

I don't have a lot of time to waste, so not much.
If whatever someone offers is/is not worth it to me, I will let them know nearly immediately.

 

If it doesn't happen in 10 minutes, it won't.

 

It's our election laws which favor the two major parties. They receive automatic ballot access, everyone else must jump through the hoops of petitions, signatures, different state laws regarding the number of signatures, time periods for the signatures and even who's signature counts or don't. As some states require registered voters only signatures. Finance also, with lobbyist, corporations, wall street firms, special interest groups, mega money donors giving their millions, tens of millions to the two major parties and their candidates, that is impossible to fight. At least almost impossible.

You also have the propaganda machines of the media which follow the two major parties candidates up the hilt to let know if one even farted, then how long and how it smelled. Independents and third parties, no coverage at all. Unless one happened to be Ross Perot who was willing to spend 40 million of his own money back in 1992. If he wasn't, no one would have heard of him either. 40 million was quite a lot back then.

My ballot for 2016 had Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein on it. I voted Johnson. Your ranked voting would mean I had to give Johnson a number 1, Stein 2, Trump 3, Clinton 4. Stein finished fourth, so her votes would be divided up between Johnson, Trump and Clinton based on whom was 2, 3, 4 on her ballots. Then Johnson's would be divided up again based on who was 2 or 3 or minus Stein. So who gets Johnson's and Stein's votes in the end. Trump and Clinton. It's like we never voted at all. Worst even is that eventually our votes against Trump and Clinton would become votes for Trump or Clinton. Why bother? With ranked voting we're forced to voted for one or the other.

That's not why we voted third party. Not to have our votes counted for one or the other as the process moves along. Or have our votes made null and void, thrown out, not counted if we refused to rank Trump or Clinton. Better to just stay home if we don't want our votes to eventually go to someone we're totally against and refused to vote for.

 

Faced with Solomon's choice, there isn't a doubt in my mind you'd split the baby.

 

Obviously not. What I'm suggesting is that you haven't got a clue as to when compromise is appropriate and when it isn't.

 

The controversy here is between people who think those who think federal immigration statutes should be enforced and those who think they shouldn't. Said statutes being just, in both principle and effect, flouting them is unjust, wherefore compromise with those who flout them is inappropriate.

You're welcome.

 

most of these so called 'fellow citizens' are immigrants because of open borders by democrats, they've only become legal through loopholes in the immigration laws.

the compromise must be tilted in favor of Americans who have ancestral roots in America, because they have earned their right to be called citizens with the hard work and sacrifices of themselves and their forefathers

 

Who the hell do you think you're kidding? Moonbeam and his ilk aren't flouting the law because it's vague or ineffective, but for precisely the opposite reason.

No, the conflict is between those who understand and value the rule of law and those for whom it poses an obstacle; so any compromise by the former is detrimental to America.

You're welcome.

 

certain American citizens have not earned their keep in America as those who've had ancestors here for generations.

they may be hard workers and contribute to building America, but the fruits of their labors are not comparable to hard workers today who also have ancestors who built this country.

 

there is no such thing as illegal immigration, in my opinion if someone comes to the US illegally, you should let them stay, give them a fair chance in society, and if they can't handle it, make them pay taxes.