First migrant facility for children opens under Biden

[burntorangebongos 10681]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

We need more maturity from our elected Democratic representatives when their twitter team decides to "poke and speak up."  AOC should never be parroting the same talking points as Fox News, fakebusiness, and Steve Miller.  I get that folks want to find vague excuses for it but it shouldn't be acceptable.  

She has her agenda and they are disingenuous trolls gaslighting dumb people. She should advocate for what she believes in. That is acceptable. If the Biden admin wants to silence her on this matter on Twitter, they need to contact her and get her input, along with her like minded colleagues. The tweet got us talking, some are even thinking up policy, so imagine what is happening in Washington. I believe that is what she was after. She isn't a troll like Steve Miller. 

Also, her argument was easily answered by the administration and handled well. Maybe by design? 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

9 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

She has her agenda and they are disingenuous trolls gaslighting dumb people. She should advocate for what she believes in. That is acceptable. If the Biden admin wants to silence her on this matter on Twitter, they need to contact her and get her input, along with her like minded colleagues. The tweet got us talking, some are even thinking up policy, so imagine what is happening in Washington. I believe that is what she was after. She isn't a troll like Steve Miller. 

Also, her argument was easily answered by the administration and handled well. Maybe by design? 

Misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from Fox News and Steve Miller, just like misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from AOC. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

I feel the best solution is to identify which three or four fields of employment has the highest percentage of trump supporters. Then invest resources to train and educate these kids to do those jobs and once ready ship the Trump supporters out to the border of Russia and make them Putin's problem. 

From what I've seen.....we're gonna need to train a shitload of "realtors."

[BrickHorn 18194]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

We need more maturity from our elected Democratic representatives when their twitter team decides to "poke and speak up."  AOC should never be parroting the same talking points as Fox News, fakebusiness, and Steve Miller.

Agreed. Our elected leaders should not be jokers, smokers, or midnight tokers.

[Js1 85110]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

From what I've seen.....we're gonna need to train a shitload of "realtors."

Realtors and Insurance

[Bama Chick 28596]

Realtors and Insurance

And cops and military.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

16 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

The best compromise on immigration policy IMO is to have a liberal permanent guest worker program that does not offer a path to citizenship. If you are not a felon and can find gainful employment come on over. If you want to be a citizen file the paperwork and get in line irrespective of your status as a guest worker. Current undocumented workers would get amnesty for the guest worker program but would go to the back of the line for citizenship. Minor children of undocumenteds or unaccompanied minors could take advantage of the guest worker program as well when they are 15 or so, and get in line for citizenship, but I would also offer them a 4 year shortcut to citizenship either through military or civil service. 

This just doesn’t make much sense at all in the context of current U.S. immigration law.  Applying for citizenship or permanent residency isn’t waiting in some sort of line or paperwork question, you have to have a legal basis to apply, which is tied to the legal basis for getting permanent residency in the first place.  Many people who want to immigrate and will try to immigrate do not and will never have that legal basis. 
 

Germany is the closest country that tried something similar to this and it’s just kicking the can down the road. Calling people guests doesn’t make them guests when they have no reason to ever leave. Sooner or later you either admit the facts and naturalize people or try to untangle the skein of having what amounts to a de jure second tier population and all the social and moral questions that comes with it. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This just doesn’t make much sense at all in the context of current U.S. immigration law.  Applying for citizenship or permanent residency isn’t waiting in some sort of line or paperwork question, you have to have a legal basis to apply, which is tied to the legal basis for getting permanent residency in the first place.  Many people who want to immigrate and will try to immigrate do not and will never have that legal basis. 
 

Germany is the closest country that tried something similar to this and it’s just kicking the can down the road. Calling people guests doesn’t make them guests when they have no reason to ever leave. Sooner or later you either admit the facts and naturalize people or try to untangle the skein of having what amounts to a de jure second tier population and all the social and moral questions that comes with it. 

Um isn’t the point of immigration reform to change “current law?” 
 

Most people do not want open borders or a loose citizenship policy. I don’t really care how much you may want that, most people don’t. So if you want to get something done, you are going to have to do less than what you want. Most people do realize we need immigrants however and do want those who come here to have a path to citizenship.  I’m pretty sure polls support that and my proposal helps get us there without continuing the “get here and stay however you can and wait for blanket amnesty when it comes around again” policy we have now. I don’t think that my idea is kicking the can down the road unless your idea of the ultimate fix is to take all comers and give them citizenship on arrival 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Sawbonz, yes! 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Um isn’t the point of immigration reform to change “current law?” 
 

Most people do not want open borders or a loose citizenship policy. I don’t really care how much you may want that, most people don’t. So if you want to get something done, you are going to have to do less than what you want. Most people do realize we need immigrants however and do want those who come here to have a path to citizenship.  I’m pretty sure polls support that and my proposal helps get us there without continuing the “get here and stay however you can and wait for blanket amnesty when it comes around again” policy we have now. I don’t think that my idea is kicking the can down the road unless your idea of the ultimate fix is to take all comers and give them citizenship on arrival 

It doesn’t make sense as a stand-alone proposal without a serious overhaul of the rest of the system, which is a-# political hot potato to say it mildly? And it would be just kicking the can down the road. You say several times that people can “get in line” for citizenship— which is something that doesn’t exist. There’s no line for citizenship. There’s a “line” of sorts for certain immigrant visa categories, which wouldn’t apply to guest workers. 

Right now, there are two legal ways to be in the United States as a non-citizen except for odd cases like political asylees and others stuck in special carved out forms of bureaucratic limbo:

Immigrant visa/Permanent Resident:  After a certain number of years in this status, you can apply to be a citizen (different wait times depending on your category, but not a “line”) and if you haven’t been doing crimes or terrorism, you get after you pass your test and take the oath.  There’s no line to stand in to get one of these visas unless you already have some underlying basis for immigration, whether family or employment based. 

Nonimmigrant visa: You come for a while, and then you either leave or (if your visa allows it) you can adjust status or then apply for residency. Some of these visas already are de facto guest worker visas. 

You want to introduce a third category , which is “Permanent/Indefinite Guest Worker with no path to apply for citizenship.” And that is absolutely kicking the can down the road. Just like Germans found out when they tried to pretend they could invite 4 million Turkish workers to stay indefinitely as “guests” and they‘d all just agree to leave when the Germans decided they didn’t need them anymore. Which they did in the 70s and they still haven’t figured out what to do with all the Turks who didn’t want to leave, as well as their kids. 

And of course, we have the issue that all kids of your guest workers born here would be U.S. citizens, unless you amended the Constitution. They’d ordinarily be able to petition for regular residence status for their parents at 18, but it seems like you don’t want that since your program is “no path to citizenship.”

So TL;DR all a stand alone guest worker program as described it does is kick the can down the road and construct an elaborate fiction that immigrants aren’t really immigrants, but “guests.” 
 

Nice feint on the “if you don’t  agree with my idea you must want totally open borders, though.” 

[Sawbonz 27436]

41 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It doesn’t make sense as a stand-alone proposal without a serious overhaul of the rest of the system, which is a-# political hot potato to say it mildly? And it would be just kicking the can down the road. You say several times that people can “get in line” for citizenship— which is something that doesn’t exist. There’s no line for citizenship. There’s a “line” of sorts for certain immigrant visa categories, which wouldn’t apply to guest workers. 

Right now, there are two legal ways to be in the United States as a non-citizen except for odd cases like political asylees and others stuck in special carved out forms of bureaucratic limbo:

Immigrant visa/Permanent Resident:  After a certain number of years in this status, you can apply to be a citizen (different wait times depending on your category, but not a “line”) and if you haven’t been doing crimes or terrorism, you get after you pass your test and take the oath.  There’s no line to stand in to get one of these visas unless you already have some underlying basis for immigration, whether family or employment based. 

Nonimmigrant visa: You come for a while, and then you either leave or (if your visa allows it) you can adjust status or then apply for residency. Some of these visas already are de facto guest worker visas. 

You want to introduce a third category , which is “Permanent/Indefinite Guest Worker with no path to apply for citizenship.” And that is absolutely kicking the can down the road. Just like Germans found out when they tried to pretend they could invite 4 million Turkish workers to stay indefinitely as “guests” and they‘d all just agree to leave when the Germans decided they didn’t need them anymore. Which they did in the 70s and they still haven’t figured out what to do with all the Turks who didn’t want to leave, as well as their kids. 

And of course, we have the issue that all kids of your guest workers born here would be U.S. citizens, unless you amended the Constitution. They’d ordinarily be able to petition for regular residence status for their parents at 18, but it seems like you don’t want that since your program is “no path to citizenship.”

So TL;DR all a stand alone guest worker program as described it does is kick the can down the road and construct an elaborate fiction that immigrants aren’t really immigrants, but “guests.” 
 

Nice feint on the “if you don’t  agree with my idea you must want totally open borders, though.” 

Definitely tl dr and I am not going to get into a point by point rebuttal with you, but there is definitely a place for a guest worker program. I am not the first person to mention it. It would solve a lot of the problems of the underground workforce. Also when people can come and go at will, you would find that many don’t even want to be citizens. I really don’t care what your individual opinion on open borders is, but that is a huge reason for the pushback from the center hence why I mentioned it. The absolute quickest way for Dems to lose the house in 2022 is to ram through an overly progressive immigration bill coupled with gun control legislation. 
 

eta the guest workers would still have the option of applying for permanent resident status with traditional path to citizenship via the normal channels, but if they came here illegally they would go to the back of the line

 

also strange quibble to make wrt line vs “wait time” of course their is no physical line. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Bullneck 18987]

6 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from Fox News and Steve Miller, just like misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from AOC. 

What misinformation did AOC generate?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

57 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

What misinformation did AOC generate?

 

On 2/24/2021 at 1:17 AM, fakebusiness said:

Good on AOC:

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

 

 

I don't see it on here twitter.  Was it deleted?

[Dahobbs 17447]

35 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I don't see it on here twitter.  Was it deleted?

It is still there. She followed it up with the below, which I believe provides some important context to her opinions:

 

[PRONG HORN 3104]

Everywhere in the world when someone goes to jail or gets locked up in some fashion, they don’t get to take their kids with them.  The kids go somewhere else.  That’s pretty much it.  

What do the people like AOC suggest we do with them?

 

[hobbes2702 12846]

18 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

Everywhere in the world when someone goes to jail or gets locked up in some fashion, they don’t get to take their kids with them.  The kids go somewhere else.  That’s pretty much it.  

What do the people like AOC suggest we do with them?

 

Treat them humanely. Seems pretty straightforward 

[Willfully Horn 7915]

57 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

Everywhere in the world when someone goes to jail or gets locked up in some fashion, they don’t get to take their kids with them.  The kids go somewhere else.  That’s pretty much it.  

What do the people like AOC suggest we do with them?

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/children-residing-with-parents-in-prison/foreign.php

 

Not “it.”

Example: “Belgian law allows inmates (détenus) to have their child live with them in prison until the child is three years old.[36] “

Edited February 26, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Addendum

[PRONG HORN 3104]

17 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/children-residing-with-parents-in-prison/foreign.php

 

Not “it.”

Example: “Belgian law allows inmates (détenus) to have their child live with them in prison until the child is three years old.[36] “

That’s  one.  I think that qualifies for “it” status.  

[Willfully Horn 7915]

1 minute ago, PRONG HORN said:

That’s  one.  I think that qualifies for “it” status.  

 

1 minute ago, PRONG HORN said:

That’s  one.  I think that qualifies for “it” status.  

Wut?

Okay: “Argentinian Law 24660 on the Execution of Penitentiary Penalties[2] provides that an imprisoned mother may keep her children younger than four years of age with her in prison.”

That’s 66% of the entries I read. Algeria provides for postponing the sentence of one parent if the other parent is in jail. 
 

I was curious. I checked. I’m satisfied your assumption was alimentary in origin.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

5 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

also strange quibble to make wrt line vs “wait time” of course their is no physical line. 

It’s not a little difference at all, especially for stuff that’s super important.

A line forms at Aaron Franklin’s and people at the back wait a lot longer for their brisket. How long is dependent on how early you get there and how many other people get there. 
 

A wait time is “the this track is closed to joggers before 7 AM.”  Access is predictable and based on a rule, not on what other people do or some sort of scarcity in what you want. 
 

People who are waiting “in line” for citizenship are for the most part waiting a statutory 5 years, 3 years depending on their residency etc and once that passes you submit paperwork and will be approved no matter how many other people are also doing that. Of course bureaucratic backlogs build up to process that paperwork but that’s not the primary reason people are waiting and it’s far less impactful that the statutory waiting time. Which is why “if you came illegally you go to the back of the line” is mostly meaningless.”

[elfenix 34171]

2 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Everywhere in the world when someone goes to jail or gets locked up in some fashion, they don’t get to take their kids with them.  The kids go somewhere else.  That’s pretty much it.  

What do the people like AOC suggest we do with them?

 

maybe not lock up the parents for the act of crossing the border to begin with

[PRONG HORN 3104]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

maybe not lock up the parents for the act of crossing the border to begin with

Just let them stay because it’s the nice thing to do?  We can’t take them all.  

 

[PRONG HORN 3104]

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

Wut?

Okay: “Argentinian Law 24660 on the Execution of Penitentiary Penalties[2] provides that an imprisoned mother may keep her children younger than four years of age with her in prison.”

That’s 66% of the entries I read. Algeria provides for postponing the sentence of one parent if the other parent is in jail. 
 

I was curious. I checked. I’m satisfied your assumption was alimentary in origin.

So.  Those are dumb countries.  Show a smart country that does it.

[Willfully Horn 7915]

22 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

So.  Those are dumb countries.  Show a smart country that does 

 

Switzerland 

The Swiss Penal Code provides for special forms of imprisonment for pregnant women giving birth and for the immediate time after giving birth.[407]  Likewise, the Code provides for special forms of imprisonment for mothers and their small children as long as these forms are in the interest of the child.[408]  

Denmark

Danish law provides that “an inmate has the right to have [his/her] child under the age of one accompany [him/her] to prison, provided that he or she is capable of looking after the child.”[98]  Thus, the Danish provision does not limit the right to care for a child to only the mother but all inmates are given the same right, provided they can care for the child

 

Because you made me laugh:

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Willfully Horn
The Danes

[Willfully Horn 7915]

32 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

We can’t take them all.  

 

You might be right. I honestly don’t know.

Link?

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 hours ago, elfenix said:

maybe not lock up the parents for the act of crossing the border to begin with

This.

6 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Just let them stay because it’s the nice thing to do?  We can’t take them all.  

 

Same thing we do with 99% of people accused of a crime, set a hearing date and release them until then. Incarceration prior to conviction is the exception, not the rule.  But also, I have never heard any compelling reason why we couldn't just readily offer citizenship to anyone that wants it. The bottle neck at the border is a nightmare of our own creation. And it is counterproductive; without immigration, our population would be declining. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/census-finds-us-population-will-decline-without-immigration

Quote

The U.S. Census Bureau released a report today that concludes that population of the United States will fall by 2060 if the government stops immigration. The report—which projects the future American population under different immigration scenarios—also finds that “higher international immigration over the next four decades would produce a faster growing, more diverse, and younger population for the United States.

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

54 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This.

Same thing we do with 99% of people accused of a crime, set a hearing date and release them until then. Incarceration prior to conviction is the exception, not the rule.  But also, I have never heard any compelling reason why we couldn't just readily offer citizenship to anyone that wants it. The bottle neck at the border is a nightmare of our own creation. And it is counterproductive; without immigration, our population would be declining. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/census-finds-us-population-will-decline-without-immigration

 

Who's saying stop immigration ?  The issue is folks who have no skill sets who only add to welfare rolls, or criminals, traffickers coming in, and we have no idea who they are or where they are.  Knowing who's coming into the country is a basic responsibility of gov't.

You can't simply let everyone just come in.  That is not a good way for a country to maintain a healthy socio economic state.  The cost of raising a family coupled with higher, and higher costs/ taxes/ fees/etc. is also a contributing factor to a decreased population.

We don't take care of our impoverished citizens now, and to just let more, and more (uneducated, unskilled) folks cross the border only makes that task more difficult if not impossible.

How is an ever increasing cost of an increased welfare roll, increased costs for housing, social programs, medical services, schools, to an already poorly run system now not a compelling reason to limit how many folks (who often have no economic self support) come here ?

Releasing citizens before a trial who have SS numbers, drivers licenses, home addresses that can be verified is in no way shape or form similar to releasing a non citizen with no way to keep track of them.  Couple  that with the fact they fear being kicked out of the country makes for a huge number of those folks  simply not showing up for their court dates.  There's no way to track them.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Neonmoon 38127]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but why can’t we 

1. build a wall, fully funded, with more security, more technology, on southern and northern border.

2. Create a website that is accessible anywhere. you sign up and are put in a virtual line. Fill out all the forms and exemptions and whatever. You can know your spot, what number you are, and can prepare when it’s your turn to enter the US to be processed. Yes, you put terminals up in every consulate so people without the interwebs can walk in and sign up for free. When it’s your turn, you will be contacted, by phone, email, or mail, of if you don’t have any of these, you could be given a date to show up at the border to be processed. 
 

3. The Queue is for anyone, not just southern immigrants. Europe, Africa, etc. All forms, numbers, tests, IDs, can be processed online, and you can also check and see what your place in line, and your expected date of entry, if applicable. Therefore you can prepare, and also not show up at the border until it’s your time. 
 

4. For illegals already here, full citizenship, if they pass a background check, I mean we want to screen for Hannibal Lector. You have a time period to come forward, collect your SS number, get fingerprinted, etc, if you don’t do it within so many years, afterwards, it is deportation. 
 

5. There are always going to be people who don’t follow the rules, but you don’t need to put them in prison, if you find an illegal in this country that needs to be deported, then. Maybe put a leg monitor on them while they wait for their court date. It works for other crimes, why not illegals? 
 

This will never happen because the Wall is a non starter for Democrats. I don’t know why really. We have security walls at Airports to check everyone from other counties, we are just extending that to borders. It’s just one big security check at the airport. 
 

This is a non starter for Republicans because full citizenship for people here illegally hurts their Murcia genes, and they will not like the high price tag required for this, even if it will solve the problem, because their obstructionists dickbags 

 

[ndawg 1242]

50 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Who's saying stop immigration ?  The issue is folks who have no skill sets who only add to welfare rolls, or criminals, traffickers coming in, and we have no idea who they are or where they are.  Knowing who's coming into the country is a basic responsibility of gov't.

You can't simply let everyone just come in.  That is not a good way for a country to maintain a healthy socio economic state.  The cost of raising a family coupled with higher, and higher costs/ taxes/ fees/etc. is also a contributing factor to a decreased population.

We don't take care of our impoverished citizens now, and to just let more, and more (uneducated, unskilled) folks cross the border only makes that task more difficult if not impossible.

How is an ever increasing cost of an increased welfare roll, increased costs for housing, social programs, medical services, schools, to an already poorly run system now not a compelling reason to limit how many folks (who often have no economic self support) come here ?

Releasing citizens before a trial who have SS numbers, drivers licenses, home addresses that can be verified is in no way shape or form similar to releasing a non citizen with no way to keep track of them.  Couple  that with the fact they fear being kicked out of the country makes for a huge number of those folks  simply not showing up for their court dates.  There's no way to track them.

How much productivity do illegal immigrants contribute to our economy, and how much do they cost in social services?

[wildcat09 29258]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

This.

Same thing we do with 99% of people accused of a crime, set a hearing date and release them until then. Incarceration prior to conviction is the exception, not the rule.  But also, I have never heard any compelling reason why we couldn't just readily offer citizenship to anyone that wants it. The bottle neck at the border is a nightmare of our own creation. And it is counterproductive; without immigration, our population would be declining. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/census-finds-us-population-will-decline-without-immigration

 

This, and that nightmare is only ever going to get worse and dumber to try to maintain as time goes on. We're only just now seeing the very beginnings of the mass migrations that climate change will cause. Parts of central and south America will become essentially uninhabitable, while most of the United States will suffer much less harm (and obviously we're in a much better position to adapt as necessary). 

We've got racist dipshits pretending that we can make sure only the few "good" immigrants are allowed in, when we're going to be dealing with a massive flood of people desperate for survival. We need to be thinking about how we're going to integrate those people into our society. 

[Foosters 17734]

58 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Who's saying stop immigration ?  The issue is folks who have no skill sets who only add to welfare rolls, or criminals, traffickers coming in, and we have no idea who they are or where they are.  Knowing who's coming into the country is a basic responsibility of gov't.

You can't simply let everyone just come in.  That is not a good way for a country to maintain a healthy socio economic state.  The cost of raising a family coupled with higher, and higher costs/ taxes/ fees/etc. is also a contributing factor to a decreased population.

We don't take care of our impoverished citizens now, and to just let more, and more (uneducated, unskilled) folks cross the border only makes that task more difficult if not impossible.

How is an ever increasing cost of an increased welfare roll, increased costs for housing, social programs, medical services, schools, to an already poorly run system now not a compelling reason to limit how many folks (who often have no economic self support) come here ?

Releasing citizens before a trial who have SS numbers, drivers licenses, home addresses that can be verified is in no way shape or form similar to releasing a non citizen with no way to keep track of them.  Couple  that with the fact they fear being kicked out of the country makes for a huge number of those folks  simply not showing up for their court dates.  There's no way to track them.

Hey, look who's concerned about the budget again.

[Brisketexan 104628]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but why can’t we 

1. build a wall, fully funded, with more security, more technology, on southern and northern border.

2. Create a website that is accessible anywhere. you sign up and are put in a virtual line. Fill out all the forms and exemptions and whatever. You can know your spot, what number you are, and can prepare when it’s your turn to enter the US to be processed. Yes, you put terminals up in every consulate so people without the interwebs can walk in and sign up for free. When it’s your turn, you will be contacted, by phone, email, or mail, of if you don’t have any of these, you could be given a date to show up at the border to be processed. 
 

3. The Queue is for anyone, not just southern immigrants. Europe, Africa, etc. All forms, numbers, tests, IDs, can be processed online, and you can also check and see what your place in line, and your expected date of entry, if applicable. Therefore you can prepare, and also not show up at the border until it’s your time. 
 

4. For illegals already here, full citizenship, if they pass a background check, I mean we want to screen for Hannibal Lector. You have a time period to come forward, collect your SS number, get fingerprinted, etc, if you don’t do it within so many years, afterwards, it is deportation. 
 

5. There are always going to be people who don’t follow the rules, but you don’t need to put them in prison, if you find an illegal in this country that needs to be deported, then. Maybe put a leg monitor on them while they wait for their court date. It works for other crimes, why not illegals? 
 

This will never happen because the Wall is a non starter for Democrats. I don’t know why really. We have security walls at Airports to check everyone from other counties, we are just extending that to borders. It’s just one big security check at the airport. 
 

This is a non starter for Republicans because full citizenship for people here illegally hurts their Murcia genes, and they will not like the high price tag required for this, even if it will solve the problem, because their obstructionists dickbags 

 

Dump the two proposals at the extreme, because they are bad and wasteful policy.

A wall from sea to shining sea is an incredible waste of money and manpower for eternity (no matter how much tech you have, you have to man a wall).  Seriously, it sound nifty with no in-depth thinking....but then when you look at the land from sea to shining sea, it's horribly wasteful and destructive, and man, is it expensive.  And, if you take many of the other measures you talk about, a wall is unnecessary.  Why risk your life crossing if you can cross LEGALLY, pursuant to a process?

And direct to citizenship for all undocumented folks already here is a bridge too far.  Legal residency, maybe.  And a path to citizenship with certain requirements (much like we already have for legal residents), that's a great path.

Ditch those extremes, and the middle path makes sense.  Everyone who crosses the border should do so in an orderly, documented way.  There should be a guest worker system.  There should be a system to match up people against records in their home country, to the extent feasible.  We should have a system for asylum that allows people to be safe, and earn their keep here, while they wait for their claim of asylum to be processed.  All of those things, and more.  

Oh, and legalize drugs.  Do that, and not only does the border calm down, but it helps stabilize the countries to our south.  Win-win-win.

The cold truth is that functionally nobody is for "open borders," yet that's the battle cry that has destroyed any meaningful dialogue for years.

[Biff Tannen 45497]

An actual wall is a child's solution to immigration.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Hey, look who's concerned about the budget again.

Always have been.  It's also not just about the budget. It's the safety, and welfare of our citizens, but hey you pick your little fights where you think you need to to validate yourself.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but why can’t we 

1. build a wall, fully funded, with more security, more technology, on southern and northern border.

2. Create a website that is accessible anywhere. you sign up and are put in a virtual line. Fill out all the forms and exemptions and whatever. You can know your spot, what number you are, and can prepare when it’s your turn to enter the US to be processed. Yes, you put terminals up in every consulate so people without the interwebs can walk in and sign up for free. When it’s your turn, you will be contacted, by phone, email, or mail, of if you don’t have any of these, you could be given a date to show up at the border to be processed. 
 

3. The Queue is for anyone, not just southern immigrants. Europe, Africa, etc. All forms, numbers, tests, IDs, can be processed online, and you can also check and see what your place in line, and your expected date of entry, if applicable. Therefore you can prepare, and also not show up at the border until it’s your time. 
 

4. For illegals already here, full citizenship, if they pass a background check, I mean we want to screen for Hannibal Lector. You have a time period to come forward, collect your SS number, get fingerprinted, etc, if you don’t do it within so many years, afterwards, it is deportation. 
 

5. There are always going to be people who don’t follow the rules, but you don’t need to put them in prison, if you find an illegal in this country that needs to be deported, then. Maybe put a leg monitor on them while they wait for their court date. It works for other crimes, why not illegals? 
 

This will never happen because the Wall is a non starter for Democrats. I don’t know why really. We have security walls at Airports to check everyone from other counties, we are just extending that to borders. It’s just one big security check at the airport. 
 

This is a non starter for Republicans because full citizenship for people here illegally hurts their Murcia genes, and they will not like the high price tag required for this, even if it will solve the problem, because their obstructionists dickbags 

 

A wall is both an eyesore and ineffective. A virtual line only works if the wait time isn't years.

People will come illegally as long as there are employers willing to hire them. If one truly wants to curb illegal immigration then coming down very hard on employers is the only way to do that. You have to take away the reason that people come, and take away the opportunity that exists for them on the other side of whatever barrier you try to put up. 

You can kind of tell that all the "they're breaking the law!" folks have never known what its like to not have food on the table. I had several months during my childhood where my mom struggled, and we would eat what my sister and I used to call bread sandwiches.  But we did have bread.  And we had opportunity. Without those things, I would go over, under, or through a wall if I had to. It simply would not matter.  Some of yall should take a walk through the border city squatter neighborhoods and see what "waiting in line" actually looks like. In high school, we had a church mission trip where we went to Reynosa and built cinder block houses in one of those neighborhoods. Just a desert patch subdivided into small lots with rope.  While we were there, one of the families we were helping had their baby die. The whole place was mostly women, children, and old people.  The men crossed to work. To this day, I think we didn't do enough. But it also shows you that the people who say they "come to collect welfare" are also wrong.  Crossing the border illegally is pretty much a fit person's game. Non able bodied people simply cannot do it. 

Also, more people overstay visas than enter illegally.  Its more effective to let everyone in that wants to come in, excluding those that fail a criminal background check.  That way you can get them on the books, collect taxes from them, and integrate them into society better. But unlike other "libs", I dont believe that everyone should be a citizen. I think everyone should be a LPR, and that citizenship should require a desire to be loyal to this country over the country of their birth. If you are just here to work and make money, then you shouldn't be a citizen. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Who's saying stop immigration ?  The issue is folks who have no skill sets who only add to welfare rolls, or criminals, traffickers coming in, and we have no idea who they are or where they are.  Knowing who's coming into the country is a basic responsibility of gov't.

What evidence is there that is actually a significant issue? I have never seen any data consistent with this sort of fear mongering. At any rate, I'm not saying let people in with no processing. I'm just saying for the most part pretty much everyone that wants to come here and actually apply to be a citizen should be granted that opportunity with few exceptions. And, there is very little reason why that process should take months, much less years. 

Quote

You can't simply let everyone just come in.  That is not a good way for a country to maintain a healthy socio economic state.  The cost of raising a family coupled with higher, and higher costs/ taxes/ fees/etc. is also a contributing factor to a decreased population.

We don't take care of our impoverished citizens now, and to just let more, and more (uneducated, unskilled) folks cross the border only makes that task more difficult if not impossible.

How is an ever increasing cost of an increased welfare roll, increased costs for housing, social programs, medical services, schools, to an already poorly run system now not a compelling reason to limit how many folks (who often have no economic self support) come here ?

Evidence? Decreased birth rate seems largely a result of development and has been observed in pretty much every developed country. If anything, the US is in a better economic position because we have active population growth via immigration, keeping a steady supply of new labor and an expanding tax base to pay for social services. Allowing a population to decrease and to age as a result is a great way to run into a labor shortage and strain any social safety nets. 

Quote

Releasing citizens before a trial who have SS numbers, drivers licenses, home addresses that can be verified is in no way shape or form similar to releasing a non citizen with no way to keep track of them.  Couple  that with the fact they fear being kicked out of the country makes for a huge number of those folks  simply not showing up for their court dates.  There's no way to track them.

Folks seeking asylum have a 92%+ appearance rate after being released. I don't have solid data on non-asylum seekers, I assume the appearance rate is less. But there are plenty of ways available to enforce hearing appearances. Again, where is your data that this is actually a problem? 

[Js1 85110]

Oh yes the ever popular argument that "immigrants coming in have no skillsets and just live off welfare!" 

Whereas our uneducated unskilled people just run for Congress as Republicans and live off the public dole and put in 1/100th of the amount of work an immigrant will put in to feed their family.

[Michael Knight 12898]

8 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Just let them stay because it’s the nice thing to do?  We can’t take them all.  

 

maybe for every one that comes in we swap them with a white person from oklahoma

[wildcat09 29258]

34 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

A wall is both an eyesore and ineffective. A virtual line only works if the wait time isn't years.

People will come illegally as long as there are employers willing to hire them. If one truly wants to curb illegal immigration then coming down very hard on employers is the only way to do that. You have to take away the reason that people come, and take away the opportunity that exists for them on the other side of whatever barrier you try to put up. 

You can kind of tell that all the "they're breaking the law!" folks have never known what its like to not have food on the table. I had several months during my childhood where my mom struggled, and we would eat what my sister and I used to call bread sandwiches.  But we did have bread.  And we had opportunity. Without those things, I would go over, under, or through a wall if I had to. It simply would not matter.  Some of yall should take a walk through the border city squatter neighborhoods and see what "waiting in line" actually looks like. In high school, we had a church mission trip where we went to Reynosa and built cinder block houses in one of those neighborhoods. Just a desert patch subdivided into small lots with rope.  While we were there, one of the families we were helping had their baby die. The whole place was mostly women, children, and old people.  The men crossed to work. To this day, I think we didn't do enough. But it also shows you that the people who say they "come to collect welfare" are also wrong.  Crossing the border illegally is pretty much a fit person's game. Non able bodied people simply cannot do it. 

Also, more people overstay visas than enter illegally.  Its more effective to let everyone in that wants to come in, excluding those that fail a criminal background check.  That way you can get them on the books, collect taxes from them, and integrate them into society better. But unlike other "libs", I dont believe that everyone should be a citizen. I think everyone should be a LPR, and that citizenship should require a desire to be loyal to this country over the country of their birth. If you are just here to work and make money, then you shouldn't be a citizen. 

I'd love to see the fuckers who say immigrants are just coming here to collect welfare try to cross the Sonoran Desert in August.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Same thing we do with 99% of people accused of a crime, set a hearing date and release them until then.

Accused?  People get arrested while being caught in the act of committing crimes. It’s what happens. The folks crossing that are not seeking asylum, for example. 

[wildcat09 29258]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What evidence is there that is actually a significant issue? I have never seen any data consistent with this sort of fear mongering. At any rate, I'm not saying let people in with no processing. I'm just saying for the most part pretty much everyone that wants to come here and actually apply to be a citizen should be granted that opportunity with few exceptions. And, there is very little reason why that process should take months, much less years. 

Evidence? Decreased birth rate seems largely a result of development and has been observed in pretty much every developed country. If anything, the US is in a better economic position because we have active population growth via immigration, keeping a steady supply of new labor and an expanding tax base to pay for social services. Allowing a population to decrease and to age as a result is a great way to run into a labor shortage and strain any social safety nets. 

Folks seeking asylum have a 92%+ appearance rate after being released. I don't have solid data on non-asylum seekers, I assume the appearance rate is less. But there are plenty of ways available to enforce hearing appearances. Again, where is your data that this is actually a problem? 

Look man, if you think onboard is basing anything he says on data and not his own feelings, you're dumber than he is.

[Biff Tannen 45497]

14 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

maybe for every one that comes in we swap them with a white person from oklahoma Florida

fixed

[Nivek 16860]

8 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Just let them stay because it’s the nice thing to do?  We can’t take them all.  

 

Deport 2 Republicans for every migrant that comes over.    Net win.  

[elfenix 34171]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Accused?  People get arrested while being caught in the act of committing crimes. It’s what happens. The folks crossing that are not seeking asylum, for example. 

most people overstay their visas.  which isn't a crime, btw.  they come in through ports of entry.  make it easier to come in a fair manner through ports of entry and even fewer will cross anywhere else. 

 

[Ojo Rojo 1906]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

How much productivity do illegal immigrants contribute to our economy, and how much do they cost in social services?

This has always been the biggest question for me.  I spent a few hours one day researching on the web.  I tried to find reliable sources and those with juxtaposed policy positions.  What I discovered is that undocumented immigration either has a small benefit, net zero or small cost.  It's not huge one way or the other.

I haven't read anything about it, but I do worry about what the long-term effects would be of flooding the country with new poor people via some new guest worker or open borders policy. I'm reliably left of center on social issues, but I also would like to preserve our high standard of living. I would think at some point immigration would reach critical mass and would start overtaxing social services, schools, hospitals, etc. I would also think it would greatly increase the supply of cheap labor, which would lower wages among the poorest people and drive them further into poverty. I worry now about public schools.  I have seen in my own neighborhood public school that more than 50% of the kids are Hispanic (and I live in a white-ass neighborhood). I don't know for sure, but I think it's the presence of multifamily housing.  I see that doing nothing but increasing here. I'm guessing, but wouldn't a higher ratio of multifamily to single family tend to decrease the property tax base and the source of school funding? 

[Bullneck 18987]

12 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Everywhere in the world when someone goes to jail or gets locked up in some fashion, they don’t get to take their kids with them.  The kids go somewhere else.  That’s pretty much it.  

What do the people like AOC suggest we do with them?

 

Why should we imprison people seeking asylum?  

Seems like a weird idea.  Or weird to think that's a good idea.

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

This has always been the biggest question for me.  I spent a few hours one day researching on the web.  I tried to find reliable sources and those with juxtaposed policy positions.  What I discovered is that undocumented immigration either has a small benefit, net zero or small cost.  It's not huge one way or the other.

I haven't read anything about it, but I do worry about what the long-term effects would be of flooding the country with new poor people via some new guest worker or open borders policy. I'm reliably left of center on social issues, but I also would like to preserve our high standard of living. I would think at some point immigration would reach critical mass and would start overtaxing social services, schools, hospitals, etc. I would also think it would greatly increase the supply of cheap labor, which would lower wages among the poorest people and drive them further into poverty. I worry now about public schools.  I have seen in my own neighborhood public school that more than 50% of the kids are Hispanic (and I live in a white-ass neighborhood). I don't know for sure, but I think it's the presence of multifamily housing.  I see that doing nothing but increasing here. I'm guessing, but wouldn't a higher ratio of multifamily to single family tend to decrease the property tax base and the source of school funding? 

Various think tanks and policy groups have had reports on it that I never seem to be able to locate a second time. The basic findings tend to be that undocumented immigration is, economically speaking, a net benefit nationwide but can be a temporary detriment to impacted local communities (by further straining already strained budgets). If we had adults implementing state and federal policy to mitigate the problems that do pop up we could probably handle them fairly easily, but that's clearly a fairy tale.

[Bullneck 18987]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Always have been.  It's also not just about the budget. It's the safety, and welfare of our citizens, but hey you pick your little fights where you think you need to to validate yourself.

If you're concerned about the budget why not raise taxes on rich people and corporations?

 

[Foosters 17734]

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

This has always been the biggest question for me.  I spent a few hours one day researching on the web.  I tried to find reliable sources and those with juxtaposed policy positions.  What I discovered is that undocumented immigration either has a small benefit, net zero or small cost.  It's not huge one way or the other.

I haven't read anything about it, but I do worry about what the long-term effects would be of flooding the country with new poor people via some new guest worker or open borders policy. I'm reliably left of center on social issues, but I also would like to preserve our high standard of living. I would think at some point immigration would reach critical mass and would start overtaxing social services, schools, hospitals, etc. I would also think it would greatly increase the supply of cheap labor, which would lower wages among the poorest people and drive them further into poverty. I worry now about public schools.  I have seen in my own neighborhood public school that more than 50% of the kids are Hispanic (and I live in a white-ass neighborhood). I don't know for sure, but I think it's the presence of multifamily housing.  I see that doing nothing but increasing here. I'm guessing, but wouldn't a higher ratio of multifamily to single family tend to decrease the property tax base and the source of school funding? 

 

 

 

 

 

Same as it ever was.

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Foosters