The Democrats suck and they aren't an opposition party (they play the same role that the late Alan Combs played when he was on the Sean Hannity show, just useful fodder for those promoting the Republican line).
Immigration policy is too important to just simply give an incomplete and (at best)abbreviated debate. The American people deserve to have all possible policies engrained in (our heads)the national debate.
The Republican position is coherent, but racist. The Democrats need a forceful pro-immigration rebuttal to beat it
Open borders yes, but also a path to citizenship. I would propose a work crew program for immigrants like what was used during the depression to create jobs, but with the work crews available for farmers, factories, etc, AND with night school in english and american politics/history. When you pass the citizenship test you can leave the work crew program.
... What is this big push for having no standards at all? ... when sensible nations have always had immigration standards?
The US originally had no standards. The Statue of Liberty does not qualify it's open door statement with standards. We are (supposedly) "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and we pledge allegiance to "one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" and finally, there is no mention of standards in the constitution for new immigrants (having been written by recent immigrants who came with standards applied). This is (or was) our national persona.
... but even if illegal uncontrolled immigration has some positive effects why support such a chaotic nonsystem ...
So make it simple.
A simple standard is: if you get arrested and then convicted of a crime you get deported.
A simple standard for citizenship is: if you earn a GED (high school -- including english language and american history) then you can take the test.
And of course I object to this kneejerk PC leftist accusation of racism of anyone who supports such standards. The standards usually have to do with level of education and shared cultural values, NOT racism. ...
That depends a lot on what "shared cultural values" means. Maybe not racism per se but certainly open to bias and bigotry (anti-muslim for instance).
We know. Just don't call it racist, even though it is just as bad ... kind of the litmus test for bias and bigotry in the US these days.
But that's your "shared cultural values" ...
if it means excluding criminals, ...
Anyone with a criminal record gets deported, unless they can show they qualify for amnesty.
... jihadists ...
Who always identify themselves at the border ... isolating them is no different than isolating "home grown" terrorists and hate group members.
... and leftists ...
That's you with your bias and bigotry again, laughable this one, and again there are "home grown" Americans that are leftist (which is no crime last time I looked ... it's just political leaning, the kind of politics that brought you 8 hour days, weekends and vacations ...).
... communists ...
Again, politics, and lots of Americans are members already ... home grown ... and it too is not a crime ...
... and people who poop on sidewalks.
Now you're just being facetious ...
The point I would make is that if there are immigrants that are essentially no different than current Americans, by what "standard" are they to be excluded?
The standards are still there and that was the norm for most of my life; you arrived at a border and when leaving they waved at you and when entering they asked you a few questions. The same process in reverse happened when you returned. No passports were needed in either direction and the system worked.
Similar for us crossing the border to Canada. We even used Canadian coins at par value. I was amused when I went to North Carolina and was buying some food, and the cashier stopped, looked down, picked up the Canadian penny I had put down and said "I'm sorry sir, we do not take foreign currency here" ... a penny.
Re: No Faith, Universal Education was a concept of Mohammad.
The Muslims were the great educators and their universities far outstripped anything seen in the world before or really since. The pinnacle was Muslim Spain from around 700 until 1492 when barbaric Christianity invaded Spain.
Indeed, and that educated muslim world is where the scientific method was first developed:
Known in the West as Alhazen, Alhacen, or Alhazeni, Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al- Hasan ibn al-Haytham was the first person to test hypotheses with verifiable experiments, developing the scientific method more than 200 years before European scholars learned of it—by reading his books.
Born in Basra in 965, Ibn al-Haitham first studied theology, trying unsuccessfully to resolve the differences between the Shi'ah and Sunnah sects. Ibn al-Haitham then turned his attention to the works of the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians, including Euclid and Archimedes. He completed the fragmentary Conics by Apollonius of Perga. Ibn al-Haitham was the first person to apply algebra to geometry, founding the branch of mathematics known as analytic geometry.
A devout Muslim, Ibn al-Haitham believed that human beings are flawed and only God is perfect. To discover the truth about nature, Ibn a- Haitham reasoned, one had to eliminate human opinion and allow the universe to speak for itself through physical experiments. "The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them," the first scientist wrote, "but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration."