DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Brisketexan 105096]

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Thanks, his assertion seemed wildly inaccurate. 

Only because you're bad at math.  Of the CURRENT inflow of illegal immigration (that is, not all illegal immigrants already here, but rather, recent inflow), the majority are visa overstays.  And the majority of THAT group is non-Latin American.  In other words, if you're worried about the MOST COMMON type of illegal immigration, you aren't worried about folks who wade the river, you're worried about visa overstays.  And if you're worried about that group, you're more worried about folks who are from places OTHER than south of the border.

But, you know, that doesn't fit the scary narrative.

Facts rarely do.

[InkaUtexas 25911]

so e-Verify does not work. Vetting for Visas does not work. Border does not work. Now what? 

[Brisketexan 105096]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

so e-Verify does not work. Vetting for Visas does not work. Border does not work. Now what? 

OR....you could reach the conclusion that makes sense: no human-created system, of ANYTHING, has a 0% error rate.  That doesn't mean "it doesn't work, so let's get rid of the thing it allows altogether."

Folks have bribed examiners, or cheated on tests, etc., to get a driver's license.  But we don't say "well, the driver's license process doesn't work -- let's shut down letting people drive."

Although, you raise an interesting point -- do you apply that reasoning across the board?  If we have a system for X, and that system has failed in at least one instance, should we stop doing X?  Do you feel that way about capital punishment?  About the FAA-mandated inspection and maintenance processes for aircraft?  About the FDA process for approving drugs?  I'd be quite interested to know about your logical consistency.

[UncleCharlie 334]

You want to end illegal immigration.....punish the people who hire them.

[Incredulity 11666]

5 minutes ago, UncleCharlie said:

You want to end illegal immigration.....punish the people who hire them.

Problem being that there are actually legal issues for an employer who goes beyond the tools avaliable (anything but foolproof) to verify an employees status.

It's a fucked game that no one really wants to fix.  The politics are too rewarding.

[Chrispy 132]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Only because you're bad at math.  Of the CURRENT inflow of illegal immigration (that is, not all illegal immigrants already here, but rather, recent inflow), the majority are visa overstays.  And the majority of THAT group is non-Latin American.  In other words, if you're worried about the MOST COMMON type of illegal immigration, you aren't worried about folks who wade the river, you're worried about visa overstays.  And if you're worried about that group, you're more worried about folks who are from places OTHER than south of the border.

But, you know, that doesn't fit the scary narrative.

Facts rarely do.

Math is certainly not my strong suit. The current number here is still largely Latin, so focusing on the southern border is logical. I don’t think people are scared, I think they’re annoyed that pointing out an obvious flaw in our immigration system brings out the mouthbreathing race baiters. 

[UncleCharlie 334]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Problem being that there are actually legal issues for an employer who goes beyond the tools avaliable (anything but foolproof) to verify an employees status.

It's a fucked game that no one really wants to fix.  The politics are too rewarding.

Really?  I have to show a drivers license and give a SSN if I apply for a job.  It's not rocket science.  

Everyone knows that slave labor is better for the bottom line.  It's just disingenuous to back "BUILD THAT WALL" when the companies that win the contracts to build it will use contractors that use an illegal immigrant workforce to build it.

[Captainant 27655]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

pointing out an obvious flaw in our immigration system brings out the mouthbreathing race baiters. 

That's surprisingly self-aware of you

[Brisketexan 105096]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The current number here is still largely Latin, so focusing on the southern border is logical.

I mean, other than "it's not logical," sure.

If your goal is to prevent further illegal ENTRY (as your mention of the southern border would specifically indicate), then we should focus on, oh, I dunno, the most favored means of illegal ENTRY?  I thought that's what the whole WALL thing was all about?

[Incredulity 11666]

Just now, UncleCharlie said:

Really?  I have to show a drivers license and give a SSN if I apply for a job.  It's not rocket science.  

Everyone knows that slave labor is better for the bottom line.  It's just disingenuous to back "BUILD THAT WALL" when the companies that win the contracts to build it will use contractors that use an illegal immigrant workforce to build it.

Dude,  several states will issue a DL to an illegal immigrant.  A SS card is a blue piece of paper.

 

[UncleCharlie 334]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Dude,  several states will issue a DL to an illegal immigrant.  A SS card is a blue piece of paper.

 

Dude...do you think the contractors picking up illegals in front of Home Depot do any background checking for citizenship?

Like I said...it's not a hard problem to fix, it's just too profitable TO fix.  

[Born to Run 6569]

I share your bleak outlook reagrding the options at hand. Much like a cancer patient whose tumor had metastasized, simply cutting out the problem is no longer feasible. Even if you could locate the millions of illegal aliens, the mere logistics of deporting them seems insurmountable. Unfortunately, one has to understand when they’re fighting a losing battle, and I think the Republicans may be at that point. Some form of amnesty may be the only route if any hope of bipartisan reform is to be realized. 

Surprisingly I agree with you. Get them on the tax roles. It’s been a necessary shadow economy forever. We looked the other way. Are we to now deport someone whose spent there entire adult life in our community back to a country they don’t know at all? Leave their kids without parents so they burden our society?
You can increase border security and reduce the strain on our system and not be a complete shithead.

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, other than "it's not logical," sure.

If your goal is to prevent further illegal ENTRY (as your mention of the southern border would specifically indicate), then we should focus on, oh, I dunno, the most favored means of illegal ENTRY?  I thought that's what the whole WALL thing was all about?

The southern border is a mess, from people piling up at checkpoints to drugs pouring through the ports at will. It’s not going to solve the entire problem for sure, but it needs to be addressed. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

23 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The southern border is a mess, from people piling up at checkpoints to drugs pouring through the ports at will. It’s not going to solve the entire problem for sure, but it needs to be addressed. 

FEAR! SCARY THINGS! LOUD NOISES!

Evidence? Oh yeah, I guess the Trump Administration did detain a bunch of people at the border and generally refused to even attempt to process asylum requests, so I guess the self-created problems count? 

[Chrispy 132]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

FEAR! SCARY THINGS! LOUD NOISES!

Evidence? Oh yeah, I guess the Trump Administration did detain a bunch of people at the border and generally refused to even attempt to process asylum requests, so I guess the self-created problems count? 

Again, I don’t encounter many people that are fearful, and I live in a very red county. Most of them have resigned themselves to the fact that immigration reform is a pipe dream. The backlog in immigration courts surged well before Trump took office, so I’m not quite sure of the point you’re making. 

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Problem being that there are actually legal issues for an employer who goes beyond the tools avaliable (anything but foolproof) to verify an employees status.

It's a fucked game that no one really wants to fix.  The politics are too rewarding.

 

DING, DING, DING. 

Like everything else the easy peasy answer to a question is never the actual solution to what always is a hell of a lot more complex question/situation. But in today's twitter world of gotcha one liners nobody gives a shit they just want the retweets and likes. 

For the record-

Employer A- who collects, copies, verifies all of the proper documentation, W4, Social, status, applications, unemployment, etc of a potential employee 

and 

Employer B- who doesn't check anything and just pays cash for one job, multiple jobs, or forever

 

are two COMPLETELY different things. Absolutely you punish the ever loving shit out of Employer B but a little difficult to do with Employer A. (By the way in the Tibbetts case all signs point to his employer being Employer A not B) 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

The southern border is a mess, from people piling up at checkpoints to drugs pouring through the ports at will. It’s not going to solve the entire problem for sure, but it needs to be addressed. 

Nothing can stop drugs coming over the border. Demand in this country is too great. It's a complete and utter waste of money to even try to prevent drug trafficking. 

[HenryJames 66043]

Wow.

[Chrispy 132]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Nothing can stop drugs coming over the border. Demand in this country is too great. It's a complete and utter waste of money to even try to prevent drug trafficking. 

I don’t believe it to be a waste of time. 

[David Dennison 18854]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe it to be a waste of time. 

I have no idea how someone can be so naive.

[David Dennison 18854]

22 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Wow.

Yeah, the tastelessness of this will backfire, especially considering they are doing it in the shadow of massive corruption and criminality.

[ndawg 1242]

8 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe it to be a waste of time. 

Republicans are totally cool with massive government waste as long as they personally don't believe there is any waste.

[atomheartbevo 89652]

2 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

so e-Verify does not work. Vetting for Visas does not work. Border does not work. Now what? 

There's a way to start, but it's a very complex solution.

Ready?

Have the Social Security Administration and the IRS query their databases for SSN's that are used by multiple names in multiple locations.

Fucking impossible you say?

Apparently so!  When my SSN was stolen and being used, the IRS and SSA didn't want to talk to me about who was using my SSN, even though they fully acknowledged that I was who I said I was.

The real reason they won't do anything: The SSA and IRS don't want the dip in revenue, and it would hurt a lot of employers.

Edited August 22, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Chrispy 132]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I have no idea how someone can be so naive.

If caring about the opioid epidemic is naive, so be it. 

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

There's a way to start, but it's a very complex solution.

Ready?

Have the Social Security Administration and the IRS query their databases for SSN's that are used by multiple names in multiple locations.

Fucking impossible you say?

Apparently so!  When my SSN was stolen and being used, the IRS and SSA didn't want to talk to me about who was using my SSN, even though they fully acknowledged that I was who I said I was.

The real reason they won't do anything: The SSA and IRS don't want the dip in revenue, and it would hurt a lot of employers.

Yep. That's why the IRS will issue taxpayer IDs to undocumented workers upon request. They don't care if they are undocumented. They just want the revenue and are happy to take it if the undocumented worker is willing to pay it.

[Chrispy 132]

12 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Republicans are totally cool with massive government waste as long as they personally don't believe there is any waste.

I don’t believe getting Fentanyl off the streets is waste of time. 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

If caring about the opioid epidemic is naive, so be it. 

You really think that pissing away money on the war on drugs making a noticeable impact on the opioid epidemic?

 

 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe getting Fentanyl off the streets is waste of time. 

You are never going to get Fentanyl off the streets as long as there is a demand for Fentanyl.

[Lurch 5930]

Oops.

[David Dennison 18854]

So what? He's still brown, isn't he?

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You really think that pissing away money on the war on drugs making a noticeable impact on the opioid epidemic?

 

 

Yes, I don’t view it as pissing it away. The DEA is siezing drugs as we speak. 

[Chrispy 132]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You are never going to get Fentanyl off the streets as long as there is a demand for Fentanyl.

Of course you can. 

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Chrispy said:

Yes, I don’t view it as pissing it away. The DEA is siezing drugs as we speak. 

And they aren't seizing a whole lot more.

I imagine you're one of those parents who's going to be shocked when one or all of his children start using drugs.

 

[ndawg 1242]

14 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe getting Fentanyl off the streets is waste of time. 

If I attempt to deadlift a two ton truck, 100% of the energy I've expended is waste. Zero actual work was accomplished. Our war on drugs has been huge and expensive. How much has it actually moved the needle? Is drug use less of a problem in the US than other countries that don't spend enormous gobs of money on a war on drugs?

Your response seems to indicate that you're under one of two impressions: 1. our war on drugs is actually effective, or 2. wasted effort applied towards a noble goal is justified because the cause itself is just. The first would be ignorant, the second would be the GOP's primary criticism of the left.

Edited August 22, 2018 by ndawg

[Captainant 27655]

10 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Of course you can. 

I'd bet you'd love a war on drugs 2.0. Lots of non-white people get subjugated in those things.

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And they aren't seizing a whole lot more.

I imagine you're one of those parents who's going to be shocked when one or all of his children start using drugs.

 

Of course they could. 

No, I’ve lost loved ones to drugs, so I understand the appeal. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

57 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe it to be a waste of time. 

The cool thing about data and facts is that they don't give a shit what you believe.

You can believe that jumping into Barton Springs won't get you wet.  But for the rest of us -- the folks who have watched people jump in, over and over, for decades -- we base OUR conclusion on data: jumping into Barton Springs is going to get you wet.  Because we've been watching the results, see below:

20 minutes ago, ndawg said:

If I attempt to deadlift a two ton truck, 100% of the energy I've expended is waste. Zero actual work was accomplished. Our war on drugs has been huge and expensive. How much has it actually moved the needle? Is drug use less of a problem in the US than other countries that don't spend enormous gobs of money on a war on drugs?

Your response seems to indicate that you're under one of two impressions: 1. our war on drugs is actually effective, or 2. wasted effort applied towards a noble goal is justified because the cause itself is just. The first would be ignorant, the second would be the GOP's primary criticism of the left.

We've been fighting the shit out of the drug war for the last 20 years.  Here's the results it's been getting us:

No fucking change.  Billions of dollars spent.  Countless lives ended here and in other countries (yay, proxy drug war).  Entire governments destabilized.

And after all the battles of your precious drug war....drugs are just as easy to find.  The same percentage of the population is using them as before.  We've been fighting for decades, and captured ZERO GROUND.  This is the dumbest war ever.

Fitting that you would favor it.  Fits perfectly with your analytical approach.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Dahobbs 17534]

34 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

If caring about the opioid epidemic is naive, so be it. 

How is building a wall on the southern border going to address the opioid epidemic? Where do you think those drugs come from?

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

34 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Oops.
 

 

I'm no lawyer but I didn't see any proof that he was in the country legally by his lawyer in the quest for a gag order filed.  

[Chrispy 132]

7 minutes ago, ndawg said:

If I attempt to deadlift a two ton truck, 100% of the energy I've expended is waste. Zero actual work was accomplished. Our war on drugs has been huge and expensive. How much has it actually moved the needle? Is drug use less of a problem in the US than other countries that don't spend enormous gobs of money on a war on drugs?

Your response seems to indicate that you're under one of two impressions: 1. our war on drugs is actually effective, or 2. wasted effort applied towards a noble goal is justified because the cause itself is just. The first would be ignorant, the second would be the GOP's primary criticism of the left.

So, the fentanyl they siezed didn’t save lives? I think that’s a rather poor position to entrench oneself. I certainly think the war on drugs could be far more effective if they stopped focusing on drugs such as marijuana, but that’s another discussion I suppose. 

I’ve already explained that I don’t view the war on drugs as wasted effort, so I’m not sure why you insist on going backwards. 

[Chrispy 132]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How is building a wall on the southern border going to address the opioid epidemic? Where do you think those drugs come from?

I didn’t say build a wall, you must be confusing me with someone else. A lot of heroin comes from Mexico, are you serious? 

[pacman 7355]

Quote

Earlier this year, the White House released a proposal for merit-based immigration, which floundered in Congress amid tepid support from within the president's own party. 

I noticed Trump is trying to pin this failure on the Democrats. Has he actually made any progress in his own party on immigration reform? It's not like the White House should need Democrats to pass anything.

[David Dennison 18854]

16 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

So, the fentanyl they siezed didn’t save lives? I think that’s a rather poor position to entrench oneself. I certainly think the war on drugs could be far more effective if they stopped focusing on drugs such as marijuana, but that’s another discussion I suppose. 

I’ve already explained that I don’t view the war on drugs as wasted effort, so I’m not sure why you insist on going backwards. 

No, the fentanyl seized didn't save lives. People who want what they want will get it somewhere else. Your way of thinking is actually counterproductive and leads to more death.

Edited August 22, 2018 by David Dennison

[ndawg 1242]

18 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

So, the fentanyl they siezed didn’t save lives? I think that’s a rather poor position to entrench oneself. I certainly think the war on drugs could be far more effective if they stopped focusing on drugs such as marijuana, but that’s another discussion I suppose. 

I’ve already explained that I don’t view the war on drugs as wasted effort, so I’m not sure why you insist on going backwards. 

It pains me to say this, but if it feels like I'm insisting on going backwards to you, it's because you aren't comprehending me. If we spent $1 trillion on the war on drugs, and saved just, say, 10 lives from fentanyl overdoses, was our drug policy effective or wasteful?

But I get why you feel this way. It sounds like drugs have affected you or people close to you, as they've affected too many of us. It really is shitty, and I'll say that we have that in common. However, you are choosing to allow your personal emotions to override analysis that would demonstrate that your position, well-intentioned as it may be, is utterly impractical in the real world. This really isn't a whole lot different that commies concluding that we can just end poverty by letting the state control wealth.

So, you've shown us you've got a bleeding heart, just like us libs, so now own it!

Edited August 22, 2018 by ndawg

[Chrispy 132]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The cool thing about data and facts is that they don't give a shit what you believe.

You can believe that jumping into Barton Springs won't get you wet.  But for the rest of us -- the folks who have watched people jump in, over and over, for decades -- we base OUR conclusion on data: jumping into Barton Springs is going to get you wet.  Because we've been watching the results, see below:

We've been fighting the shit out of the drug war for the last 20 years.  Here's the results it's been getting us:

No fucking change.  Billions of dollars spent.  Countless lives ended here and in other countries (yay, proxy drug war).  Entire governments destabilized.

And after all the battles of your precious drug war....drugs are just as easy to find.  The same percentage of the population is using them as before.  We've been fighting for decades, and captured ZERO GROUND.  This is the dumbest war ever.

Fitting that you would favor it.  Fits perfectly with your analytical approach.

I suppose you’re pushing through an open door in some respects, as I agree many tactics they chose to implement resulted in minimal success. I still believe it’s a worthwhile endeavor and that particular chart will not be able to provide all of the lives saved in the process. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

27 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

So, the fentanyl they siezed didn’t save lives?

No, it didn't.

The same way that you taking a 1,000 gallon tank full of water out of the flowing river didn't stop the next person stepping off the bank from getting wet.  You removed a tiny percentage of product from the stream.  But the stream is still there, still flowing strong.  You accomplished NOTHING.

The person down the street who wanted Fentanyl (or simply heroin, which is cut with Fentanyl) at 10:00 a.m. today.  Was it any harder for them to get it?  Nope.  Consumers are still able to get the goods.  When they step off the riverbank, they still get wet.  

Your stupid drug war has accomplished nothing.  Some of us used to think as you do (because hey, we see what drugs do to people -- they're bad news, and we should fight against things that are bad).  But we're smart enough to look back at the track record of what we've been doing....and see that it's not making a damned bit of difference.  Only a fool would keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, the fentanyl seized didn't save lives. People who want what they want will get it somewhere else. Your way of thinking is actually counterproductive and leads to more death.

These individuals have no clue that the heroin they are using contains fentanyl. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

and that particular chart will not be able to provide all of the lives saved in the process.

You're right.  That chart doesn't speak to lives saved/lost.

But this one does:

The harder we fight the "drug war"....the more we lose.

There is no logical way to conclude that the drug war is worth our time, treasure, and the lives sacrificed in fighting it (I'm not kidding -- it's in the millions).  By any reasonable metric, we either have failed to gain ground, or have actually lost ground.  What we have done has not worked.  At all.  We should stop doing things that are proven failures.  I don't give a fuck how you feel, or what you believe.  I look to real-world results and data.  And they scream "FAILURE" at 10,000 decibels.

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, it didn't.

The same way that you taking a 1,000 gallon tank full of water out of the flowing river didn't stop the next person stepping off the bank from getting wet.  You removed a tiny percentage of product from the stream.  But the stream is still there, still flowing strong.  You accomplished NOTHING.

The person down the street who wanted Fentanyl at 10:00 a.m. today.  Was it any harder for them to get it?  Nope.  Consumers are still able to get the goods.  When they step off the riverbank, they still get wet.  

Your stupid drug war has accomplished nothing.  Some of us used to think as you do (because hey, we see what drugs do to people -- they're bad news, and we should fight against things that are bad).  But we're smart enough to look back at the track record of what we've been doing....and see that it's not making a damned bit of difference.  Only a fool would keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

Well, to be clear, these individuals don’t want to use fentanyl. It’s a trick that dealers use because it’s cheaper and has a similar high to heroin. I have no issue with them changing tactics, in fact I would prefer that outcome. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Well, to be clear, these individuals don’t want to use fentanyl. It’s a trick that dealers use because it’s cheaper and has a similar high to heroin. I have no issue with them changing tactics, in fact I would prefer that outcome. 

If by "change tactics" you mean "treat it as a health problem, not a criminal problem," then you'd finally be on to something.

If by "change tactics" you mean "go after drug dealers even HARDER!", then you're wasting everyone's damned time.  We've been attacking drugs on the supply side for decades.  It has completely failed.  Just stop.