(08-10-2018, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-10-2018, 06:09 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: The only version of that that I've considered is one where the immigrants (and their children) can't receive benefits, have to pay taxes, and neither them nor their children will be citizens unless through application. 

I'm still not a fan but that's the only way I'd considered it personally.

I think that a lot of the voices wanting  punish illegal immigrants are the same voices that hire them and don't want to do e-Verify.  Obviously e-Verify is an imposition on the liberty of employers to hire whomever they want. It's not a purely libertarian idea.  Ideally, in my opinion, we would make it easier for people with skills that employers want to come and stay permanently if things work out.  But they should be doing it above board so that everyone knows the right amount of taxes was collected.  And no one gets benefits until they become a citizen.  
I think a lot of the reason we don't want surges of immigrants is because increasing the supply of labor depresses wages, but I think that effect is stronger for temporary immigrants and weaker for ones that want to stay.  The temporary stuff is what I'd like to see them do less of.  There are a lot of H1-B people working with computers on Jacksonville's southside and I don't think them coming and going without laying down roots, getting married, and buying houses does anyone any good.
I'd also want the children of immigrants to not be citizens unless they specifically apply to be citizens, but that might require amending the constitution.  Maybe it'd be as simple as saying, citizenship alone isn't enough for a kid to qualify for welfare; one parent has to be a citizen too.  But that sounds mean.

Quote:1. She said conservatives wont debate her about issues
2. A conservative asked to debate her about issues
3. She deflected and said a virgin-until-marriage orthodox Jew was catcalling and felt entitled

She's absurd and I'm not even sure how you can defend the hypocrisy here. Shapiro merely asked for a debate, and people like you are saying that he's acting entitled her attention. Let's be real here... she's too scared to debate him. She can barely get through friendly interviews. Shapiro is a neocon, and I don't agree with many of the things he says, but he'd take her to the shed and she knows it. You can pretend it's about something else but it isn't.

I'll take your word for it that "she said conservatives won't debate her about issues".  I hadn't heard that.  I don't know if she meant pundits or other candidates.  I don't know if she meant that she specifically should be in the debate or that someone should debate in her place.  But suppose she meant pundits and that she would personally debate them.  Fine.  It was a stupid thing for her to say in that case, because there's no way that she ever intended to stage a debate between herself and any pundit.  No candidate would.  It's equally stupid for them to call her out on it, and her replying with the sexual harassment angle was well-deserved.  Worst case, her mouth wrote a check she had no intent of cashing.  She might be guilty of braggadocio, but not cowardice or stupidity, not for this anyways.