Protesters Remove U.S. Flag, Replace It With Mexican Flag Outside ICE Facility


Yet it already happens. We already put people through a system where their background is checked this way.

And we know it works, because the vast majority turn out to just be tourists. So I’m saying you apply the same system, the same approach to temporary workers.

I’m not seeing a reason why we shouldn’t.

Tourists can be around just as long as guest workers, Tourists do come from South America, of no different class or character than the people showing up at the border, and Tourists have more chances to disappear, as there’s less people they have to check in with.

This is a counter-factual FC. Guest workers put us at no more danger than tourists do, so the double standard doesn’t make sense.

They don’t have to. Just like with me, you can sign off on a form saying you allow them to perform a background check independently.

That was conditional for my employment, you can make that conditional for entry.


It’s utterly INSANE to believe that we can EVER expect to receive ACCURATE information on anyone wanting to come here from 90% of these 3rd-world countries…FEW (if any) of whom are ACTUALLY coming here to “tour” or “sightsee.” They are coming here to find a way to STAY…which is why 40% of illegals are visa overstays and only 60% represent people who’ve snuck across our borders. That’s not just an opinion. It’s based on data that’s readily available to anyone interested enough to look for it.


And yet we’re already doing it. You keep skipping this part.

Equally, digital information; phone use is ubiquitous. Use of digital services is ubiquitous. Even in South America. I don’t think you’re considering that Dave.

I think you’re acting as if that doesn’t exist.


No we’re NOT “already doing it.” I’m “skipping” nothing. YOU are. We have no way of insuring that the “data” from ANY 3rd-world country is in any way accurate or true. The communists in Vietnam were past masters of diversions like this. They’d change unit designations on a whim and even allow their leadership staff change their very NAMES in order to confuse the intelligence gatherers of the U.S. and South Vietnamese trying to get a handle on who we faced in any given battle. The Chicoms in Korea did the same things. Developing accurate order of battle data was next to impossible without someone embedded IN those units reporting the changes to the allies. Those intent on invading us and changing us into yet another 3rd-world country have caught on to this technique YEARS ago. I personally know of a Mexican illegal who worked on a farm in SW Kansas, who never worried about being caught or punished for coming here illegally. He told me if he was ever caught, he’d just change his name the next time he wanted to come into the U.S.


Yet we already do this for Tourists. Everything i just described is done for Tourists. You can’t deny that Dave, the source I posted points out that this is the process.

And we know this process works, because most of them are not committing crimes, nor are they overstaying.

Thus, we should do the same for Guest Workers. I have not seen one reason why not. I can’t even imagine what that reason would be, considering we’re talking about largely the same people, across the same span of time.

The only difference is whether they’re working.

I don’t need to speak to edge cases Dave. I just need to know what most we let in this way are doing.

Most are following the law. So that’s a policy success.


Tourists, as a general rule, are not particularly intent breaking or circumventing the law.


And if you ran a guest worker program that cost less to use than the black market, they wouldn’t either.

A high trust system, generally works.


Oh, Horsehockey! You simply CAN’T be this obtuse, AS. That leaves ONLY willfully ignorant. Your “guest worker” fantasy won’t work at stopping illegal immigration and you HAVE to know it. It didn’t work when it was invented and it won’t work today. We tried “guest workers” for a while in the 50’s and we STILL had illegal immigration and it only INCREASED over time to the level we’re seeing now. We’re seeing a population the size of a moderately large American CITY sneak across our southern border virtually every MONTH and those that YOU seem to support don’t have any interest in STOPPING it. Now THAT’S real treason in my opinion.


What a lame argument. Because the vast majority pass the background check, this means that the background check is comprehensive? In what cartoon does this “logic” work? A background check could “pass” a prison full of duly convicted felons if the record keeping were flawed or corrupt.


Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see where anybody was talking about whether or not it was being done, but whether or not it was working.

Because it’s digital, that somehow means it’s complete and uncorrupted?


Guess where the trouble comes from. The “edge cases” (which I suspect aren’t as rare as you’re trying to paint them).



In a world where we are already doing this.

Tourists are already being passed along in just this way, so what is your objection, exactly?

To stop taking Tourists, even though this has been proven to work?


You don’t regulate guns on the premise of edge cases, so why the hell would I suggest regulating immigration that way?

If 99% immigrants are just tourists or workers, just like 99% of gun owners aren’t mass shooters, why does everyone else have to answer for that 1%?

Eisenhower did it, so, fact.

And Canada is doing it right now.


It didn’t increase until the 1960s when bracero was dismantled:

The guest worker program worked. Then we messed it up by putting in a policy that didn’t work.

Cause & effect.


I can create a “chart” that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim, AS. MORE BS.


Using border patrol figures, which this is?

You can’t argue the facts Dave; the CBP itself testified in the 1950s and again in the 1980s that the law was responsible for the massive decrease in illegal activity.

Without the law, it would grow again. The CBP said this, and they were proven right.


Then they aren’t “immigrants”. They are not “immigrating”. They don’t stay. That’s kind of part of the definition of immigrant, isn’t it, that they come to stay? Counting visitors as immigrants is, to say the least, a manipulation of immigration statistics.


Sure, I’ll cop to that. Visa holders, migrants, whichever term fits.

But there still hasn’t been an answer to the question.

Why would we create a policy pretending most are edge cases, when most are not?

When most people are the sort who do follow rules, so long as they’re fair?

And I’m still not seeing an answer to my original question, if it’s working for tourists, why not use it with workers?


I don’t know what you call “edge cases.” If someone comes here illegally, they are INVADING the United States…whatever their intentions may be. The aren’t “tourists,” “migrants” or “visitors.” NONE of the current crop of invaders are ANY of those things.


Most tourists are no danger to the Average American, and they go through the very background check we’ve talked about here.

We hand out 20 million tourist visas before we hand out one to a terrorist.

Meanwhile, we sell a gun to a mass shooter every 2-300,000th sale.


Are there not a significant portion of illegals who are visa overstays? That does not fit my definition of “it’s working”.

Tell ya what, you get a “guest worker” program passed where the guest workers live and work under the same laws and regulations as me, i wont have a particle of objection to that. And the border will still need securing