Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Let's pull at that for a moment.  Let's say you get enough contingency asylum hearings set up to process the current backlog in a year, and retain enough capacity beyond that to process every asylum claim in some arbitrarily short period of time, say a month?    What happens then?  How has that addressed the flow of people who enter illegally and *then* try to claim asylum?    How does that address the problem of those who have come in legally on visas/as tourists, and then illegally overstayed?  How do you propose handling that situation? 

Ahh, the old "enemy of progress is perfection" canard. Sweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be all in for spending $5.7 billion on building a wall in the US...   between church and state.    That would do a helluva lot more to keep us safe than the Trump Maginot L

It's troubling that you support Milo being able to go where ever he wants but don't want hard working immigrants looking for a better life into our country. If these folks were trying to get into

Posted Images

Just now, Raz'r said:

Ahh, the old "enemy of progress is perfection" canard. Sweet.

SO you got nuttin?   That's what I thought.   Perfection's got nothing to do with it - increased processing will reduce the backlog of asylum cases.  Here's another question:  what if that increased processing capacity results in the denial of the majority of asylum requests?    Do the grounds that warrant asylum matter to you, or is that just a means around the clogged immigration process?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Full detention centers might justify new detention center walls, not stupid ones on remote sections of private property.

I

Let all the nonviolent drug offenders out and you have 750,000 new beds for illegals.  Problem solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

not how it works

I'm not going to spend as much time as I previously did to dig up all the quotes again, but here are a few that indeed establish the intention that I mentioned: 
 

How doe we interpret calls to "Abolish ICE"?   
 

From an article in The Atlantic:   https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
"Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all." 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/22/trump-immigrants-ineligible-visas-food-stamps/1400917002/

https://www.nilc.org/exec-authority-to-support-protect-immigrants/ - this one is guide to help "Governors and Attorneys General Use Their Authority to Support and Protect Immigrants"   - in other words, to thwart federal immigration enforcement. 

 

So taken collectively - it certainly seems to me that there are indeed many in the country who are much more interested in "welcoming everyone and giving them what they want"  than in reworking our immigration system so that it provides the open movement, access to employment, access to labor/intellectual capital, and yes protections that our citizens and our immigrating neighbors deserve.    I've shared my thoughts on how things ought to change many times before - they're in the archive.  none of those negates my slightly exaggerated observation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:
22 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Let all the nonviolent drug offenders out and you have 750,000 new beds for illegals.  Problem solved.

I'll bet Tom has a quote for that already.

CLEAN cut it out of my post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

 So taken collectively - it certainly seems to me that there are indeed many in the country who are much more interested in "welcoming everyone and giving them what they want"  than in reworking our immigration system so that it provides the open movement, access to employment, access to labor/intellectual capital, and yes protections that our citizens and our immigrating neighbors deserve.   

 

The Atlantic piece doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you've espoused and yes I just read the whole shitty redundant piece.

USA Today is more factual but doesn't cite a single person who believes in 'open borders' or anything like it.  

The NILC memo is a much more enjoyable read for a lawyer.  And in no case does it do anything to 'thwart federal immigration enforcement.'  What it DOES do is require federal immigration enforcement to follow rules.

If those are the pieces that you have found to support your point, you have no point.  Stop it.

I have literally never met anyone who believes in even a less exaggerated version of your exaggeration.  Surely they are out there, but you ain't found a one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not going to spend as much time as I previously did to dig up all the quotes again, but here are a few that indeed establish the intention that I mentioned: 
 

How doe we interpret calls to "Abolish ICE"?   
 

From an article in The Atlantic:   https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
"Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all." 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/22/trump-immigrants-ineligible-visas-food-stamps/1400917002/

https://www.nilc.org/exec-authority-to-support-protect-immigrants/ - this one is guide to help "Governors and Attorneys General Use Their Authority to Support and Protect Immigrants"   - in other words, to thwart federal immigration enforcement. 

 

So taken collectively - it certainly seems to me that there are indeed many in the country who are much more interested in "welcoming everyone and giving them what they want"  than in reworking our immigration system so that it provides the open movement, access to employment, access to labor/intellectual capital, and yes protections that our citizens and our immigrating neighbors deserve.    I've shared my thoughts on how things ought to change many times before - they're in the archive.  none of those negates my slightly exaggerated observation. 

I quoted this in it's entirety so as to not give you ammunition to claim I am editing your posts.

It seems this way TO YOU because you live in the stream of hate-spew deluge. You've said that it's liberals' fault you hate them. You can't see that the Earth is rotating when you're dizzy from the spinning. What you claim is "the opposition" is actually straight outta Fox News saying "those darn libby-rulls wanna welcome EVERYONE and give them ANYTHING they want!"

Looking further up, you're pulling the same kind of semantic this-equals-that (when it doesn't) as AG Barr: Supporting and protecting immigrants is not the same thing -at- -all- ans "thwarting federal immigration enforcement."

Unless of course you believe that all immigrants really are criminals.......... hmmm, maybe you should get that mote out of your eye...................

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

SO you got nuttin?   That's what I thought.   Perfection's got nothing to do with it - increased processing will reduce the backlog of asylum cases.  Here's another question:  what if that increased processing capacity results in the denial of the majority of asylum requests?    Do the grounds that warrant asylum matter to you, or is that just a means around the clogged immigration process?  

Not sure what you're trying to pick at here.  I'm guessing we both dislike the treatment of asylum seekers, separation of families, wait times so long they border patrol must release seekers into the population, etc.

But you just can't STAND agreeing with a Lib.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Not sure what you're trying to pick at here.  I'm guessing we both dislike the treatment of asylum seekers, separation of families, wait times so long they border patrol must release seekers into the population, etc.

But you just can't STAND agreeing with a Lib.

I don't mind agreeing with anyone in principle - though if it's You and I?  It makes me wonder whether or not one of us is missin' somehtin' the other's saying.  

To your point?  I think you're right - I think we're in almost complete agreement w/r/t how legal asylum seekers should be treated.  I think we have some differences in our approach to the problem, and probably some similarities too.   I suspect that one of the biggest differences is that I don't think that we ought to allow the "claim asylum, get released" play to be available to those who cross into the country illegally.   I also think that the improvements requested by the CBP oughta be considered on their own merit, and not conflated w/Trumps "wall".   

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't mind agreeing with anyone in principle - though if it's You and I?  It makes me wonder whether or not one of us is missin' somehtin' the other's saying.  

To your point?  I think you're right - I think we're in almost complete agreement w/r/t how legal asylum seekers should be treated.  I think we have some differences in our approach to the problem, and probably some similarities too.   I suspect that one of the biggest differences is that I don't think that we ought to allow the "claim asylum, get released" play to be available to those who cross into the country illegally.   I also think that the improvements requested by the CBP oughta be considered on their own merit, and not conflated w/Trumps "wall".   

There is no "entered country illegally" and "claimed asylum" - it's a mutually exclusive set. If you mean they crossed at somewhere other than a regulated border crossing, ok, but the moment they claim asylum, they're "legal"

At least until their case is heard.

 

Seems to me the R congress last fall had a good increase in funding on the plate, and Nancy has also passed it. I wonder why Mitch hasn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There is no "entered country illegally" and "claimed asylum" - it's a mutually exclusive set. If you mean they crossed at somewhere other than a regulated border crossing, ok, but the moment they claim asylum, they're "legal"

At least until their case is heard.

 

Seems to me the R congress last fall had a good increase in funding on the plate, and Nancy has also passed it. I wonder why Mitch hasn't?

Bullshit... crossing the border illegally is illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

THe forum search sucks.   That is all. 

Try Google. Enter search term, end with site:forumssailinganarchy.com

So searching for Vegemite = vegemite site:forums.sailinganarchy.com

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, that's a  lot more important than border security.

 

Do you truly think the wall is the answer to our immigration problem?

And, do you think our petulant President is correct in issuing threats?  

Given his history of dishonesty and refusal to honor agreements, why would anyone believe a single thing he says or make a deal with him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Do you truly think the wall is the answer to our immigration problem?

And, do you think our petulant President is correct in issuing threats?  

Given his history of dishonesty and refusal to honor agreements, why would anyone believe a single thing he says or make a deal with him?

Not by itself.

Nothing is being done in regard to border security from the Democrat side except to focus the one point they can mock even though they had voted for it previously.

The job of congress is to act in the best interest of the people. 

What has the 116th done in that regard or anything else for that matter?  Continue or create more investigations?  The Green New Deal?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

What has the 116th done in that regard or anything else for that matter?  

 

Only a few months in and they are on the way to accomplishing more than the 115th.  Of course, that group set a low bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Not by itself.

Nothing is being done in regard to border security from the Democrat side except to focus the one point they can mock even though they had voted for it previously.

The job of congress is to act in the best interest of the people. 

What has the 116th done in that regard or anything else for that matter?  Continue or create more investigations?  The Green New Deal?

 

$5B in incremental funding over existing historically high spend numbers, is a whole lot more than "nothing"

idiot

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2017 at 9:59 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Will we end up paying for The Wall?

I already did.  Twice.  Once back as an LP and then later as a CD cuz my turntable wasn't working.  Still a great album!  Oh, and I got my turntable working again.  It's a Dual 1229, worth reviving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn’t have a clue what a clusterfuck it would be -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-threatens-closure-of-u-s-mexico-border-next-week-to-stem-asylum-surge-idUSKCN1RA1WR

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON/PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico next week, potentially disrupting millions of legal border crossings and billions of dollars in trade if Mexico does not stop immigrants from reaching the United States.

“There’s a very good likelihood that I’ll be closing the border next week, and that will be just fine with me,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sean said:

He doesn’t have a clue what a clusterfuck it would be -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-threatens-closure-of-u-s-mexico-border-next-week-to-stem-asylum-surge-idUSKCN1RA1WR

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON/PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico next week, potentially disrupting millions of legal border crossings and billions of dollars in trade if Mexico does not stop immigrants from reaching the United States.

“There’s a very good likelihood that I’ll be closing the border next week, and that will be just fine with me,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Some times one must painfully scrub the wound in order for it to heal properly 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sean said:

He doesn’t have a clue what a clusterfuck it would be -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-threatens-closure-of-u-s-mexico-border-next-week-to-stem-asylum-surge-idUSKCN1RA1WR

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON/PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico next week, potentially disrupting millions of legal border crossings and billions of dollars in trade if Mexico does not stop immigrants from reaching the United States.

“There’s a very good likelihood that I’ll be closing the border next week, and that will be just fine with me,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

He's experimenting to see how badly he can fuck up the USA in the shortest possible time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trump’s latest comments about the border indicate he doesn’t understand how trade works

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/29/18287491/trump-closing-border-mexico-trade-not-how-it-works

Excerpt -

During a brief news conference he held at Mar-a-Lago on Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump claimed that closing the border with Mexico would be a “profit-making operation” because of the United States’ trade deficit with its southern neighbor.

“I’ll just close the border, and with a deficit like we have with Mexico and have had for many years, closing the border will be a profit-making operation,” Trump said

 

the term “fucking idiot” comes to mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Bullshit... crossing the border illegally is illegal.

Lying to the people of the USA when you've sworn to uphold the US constitution, and to protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic, and to tell the truth so help me god....... Is also illegal....

 But that doesn't even give Trump a pause. It's like that scar on the parking lot where their used to be a speed bump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

It's not just your location that's irrelavent...."You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor 

And yet there is no decision to be made in this context proving, once again, you still don't get the point.

Oh, and it's irrelevant. If you're going to attempt an intelligent deflection, at least spell it right. Moron. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"U.S. Border Patrol officials in Arizona said they have started releasing migrant families from their custody into the streets of Yuma because processing centers can't cope with the large numbers of arriving families and minors".

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2019/03/28/border-patrol-begins-releasing-migrants-yuma/3301641002/

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Trump’s latest comments about the border indicate he doesn’t understand how trade works

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/29/18287491/trump-closing-border-mexico-trade-not-how-it-works

Excerpt -

During a brief news conference he held at Mar-a-Lago on Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump claimed that closing the border with Mexico would be a “profit-making operation” because of the United States’ trade deficit with its southern neighbor.

“I’ll just close the border, and with a deficit like we have with Mexico and have had for many years, closing the border will be a profit-making operation,” Trump said

 

the term “fucking idiot” comes to mind. 

He's far from the only person who doesn't understand that having a trade deficit means you're wealthy enough to be buying stuff from the other country and beats heck out of the alternative where you're not wealthy enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Trump’s latest comments about the border indicate he doesn’t understand how trade works

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/29/18287491/trump-closing-border-mexico-trade-not-how-it-works

Excerpt -

During a brief news conference he held at Mar-a-Lago on Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump claimed that closing the border with Mexico would be a “profit-making operation” because of the United States’ trade deficit with its southern neighbor.

“I’ll just close the border, and with a deficit like we have with Mexico and have had for many years, closing the border will be a profit-making operation,” Trump said

 

the term “fucking idiot” comes to mind. 

Yeah...That is pretty stupid. I have a trade deficit with my grocrey store too but that doesn't mean I don't benefit from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

But what about our immigration policy and reform of those laws?

We have a problem, folks sticking their fingers in their ears and declaring it isn't such a big deal are living in la-la land. This is a crisis on a number of fronts......none smaller than the humanitarian crisis WE have created by bad policy and bickering over same.

I agree that bad policy has made things worse.

I'd suggest ending our stupid drug war as a good way to make central and south American countries better places to live, less dominated by wealthy drug gangs and their violence and corruption. We have violence and corruption associated with the black market here but nothing like they have it. Those asylum seekers really are fleeing dangerous circumstances and they're generated in part by our prohibition programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Yeah...That is pretty stupid. I have a trade deficit with my grocrey store too but that doesn't mean I don't benefit from it.

Yeah, using the relationship between you and your grocery store is a perfect metaphor when discussing international trade and deficits.

Do I need to use the purple font?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Yeah, using the relationship between you and your grocery store is a perfect metaphor when discussing international trade and deficits.

Do I need to use the purple font?

Not a perfect metaphor but pretty good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:
9 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Do I need to use the purple font?

Not a perfect metaphor but pretty good

Clearly you do. The gutless idiot actually thinks the metaphor is apt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog lives close enough to go to DC and see a section of the actual Berlin Wall at the Newsuem.  Why doesn't he visit and tell folks how he yearns for the same sort of thing in our country?

Screenshot-2017-10-02-at-12.23.55.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Dog lives close enough to go to DC and see a section of the actual Berlin Wall at the Newsuem.  Why doesn't he visit and tell folks how he yearns for the same sort of thing in our country?

Screenshot-2017-10-02-at-12.23.55.png

Oh yes...The walls are inherently immoral bullshit. Can we assume that you want to demolish the border walls we already have?

BTW....The Berlin wall was erected to keep people in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 4:05 AM, Dog said:

"U.S. Border Patrol officials in Arizona said they have started releasing migrant families from their custody into the streets of Yuma because processing centers can't cope with the large numbers of arriving families and minors".

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2019/03/28/border-patrol-begins-releasing-migrants-yuma/3301641002/

Walls don’t help Dog. Why not more resources for legal processing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

It is.  And it's more an analogy than a metaphor.

It isn't, regardless of what you call it. It actually reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of economics on your part, but you go with that if that's all you're trying to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

It isn't, regardless of what you call it. It actually reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of economics on your part, but you go with that if that's all you're trying to prove.

It is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

It is.

Just now, Bent Sailor said:

It isn't, regardless of what you call it. It actually reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of economics on your part, but you go with that if that's all you're trying to prove.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Well I am not expert on walls, but one would think migration patterns follow the laws of path of least resistance.

And a wall filled with E Germans with machine guns provides a bit more resistance than an unattended wall stretching through miles of remote (and often privately owned) desert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It isn't, regardless of what you call it. It actually reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of economics on your part, but you go with that if that's all you're trying to prove.

It is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 12:51 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

not how it works, but would love to see pic of your project

 

 

Sorry Clean - just saw the pic request.   The foam inside is waterlogged - got the deck cut off and hulls separated this weekend.  Going to cut out the foam, make a storage cubby, replace the foam, glass the deck back on and try to smooth out 40 years of use and abuse before I repaint it the original "sunfish blue".    I'll get pics this weekend and start a thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why the focus on processing symptoms and not addressing the real problem? 

I’m sorry, are we nation building again?

that might take years if we can even be successful, in the meantime we are locking up families.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I’m sorry, are we nation building again?

that might take years if we can even be successful, in the meantime we are locking up families.

Or sending people back to deal with gangs.  

How much of this is the beginning, a tiny taste, of the beginning of migration away from the effects of global warming, overpopulation and poverty?  If this border thing is Trump’s way of setting us up to deal with that, he could at least be up front about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

I’m sorry, are we nation building again?

that might take years if we can even be successful, in the meantime we are locking up families.

Nation building?   I think you misunderstood my intent.  We need to address immigration - to inclulde establishing rational, objective criteria for residence, and immigration quotas.  THAT is the fix I was talking about.  Short of the military takeover/occupation you alluded to?  -I don't think we *can* fix the countries these people are fleeing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So, you agree cutting money to the "3 Mexican Countries" was stupid?

The governments of these countries encourage illegal immigration into the US because remittances become a source of income. These governments need to be discouraged and tying aid to their cooperation is one way to do that. How else do you suggest it could be done?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

Or sending people back to deal with gangs.  

How much of this is the beginning, a tiny taste, of the beginning of migration away from the effects of global warming, overpopulation and poverty?  If this border thing is Trump’s way of setting us up to deal with that, he could at least be up front about it.

you give him too much credit. The man doesn't have a strategic bone in his body. He found something that resonated with the base. Period.

I'm surprised you don't think we should address the gaping wound of abuse of migrants while someone figures out how to cure cancer(why they migrate).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

The governments of these countries encourage illegal immigration into the US because remittances become a source of income. These governments need to be discouraged and tying aid to their cooperation is one way to do that. How else do you suggest it could be done?

Ahh, so you ARE in favor of a berlin wall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

New New Mexico? Super New Mexico? Ultra New Mexico? The mind races to come up with names for these new shitholes!

South Mexico, East Mexico, and West Mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And here's "I love the crisis" Dog chiming in with the talking points. I get it - you are a bullshitter Dog - and Trumps bullshitting gives you new conflict every fucking day, and new stuff to bullshit about everyday. And you need that.

Bullshit's antithical to getting shit done. Your DHS sec is down their getting agreements signed and you kneecap her? That doesn't get shit done Dog. That makes theater for morons like you. The amount of bullshitting you do proves the point. You've been yammering about the wall for years - why the fuck can't Donnie fix the problem?

Fix what problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Ahh, so you ARE in favor of a berlin wall. 

Two entirely different wall concepts and purposes....

it is not the gun

it is not the plastic bag

it is not the plastic straw

it is not the wall

we would not need a wall if our borders were respected

our borders are being overrun with mass migration 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Indeed so - I can't see that doing anything but  exacerbating the conditions that people are fleeing.  

Dr. Sooper Genius thinks those who are corrupt will take it in the pants and make things better for the poor citizens.

Of course, today is April 1.  He may just be funning us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It matters to you, it matters to me.

Do you think it matters to Dog? I don't. This is just all bullshit so he can argue. There is nothing Trump  can do now that will cost him the support of @Dog or the elk.

It matters down to a point- Dog won’t seed our borders with radioactive waste, so he’s not a psychopath like MacArthur.  At least.  

Progress!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think we oughta build the wall on the east side of California - and then tear down the current border wall @ TJ -  hell, most of CA used to belong to MX anyway, didn't it? 

Who pissed in YOUR wheaties?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think we oughta build the wall on the east side of California - and then tear down the current border wall @ TJ -  hell, most of CA used to belong to MX anyway, didn't it? 

Now that’s an idea I can support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nobody - I woke up too late to get breakfast this morning..... :-(     

missing breakfast and a 90-minute commute? I'd be testy too...  Almost as bad as the Giants rolling over to the Padres, and about to get hammered by the Dodgers...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

 It is.

22 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It isn't, regardless of what you call it. It actually reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of economics on your part, but you go with that if that's all you're trying to prove.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

But not as bad as the Giants turning out that shit with a $167 million payroll.

Cost of 3 world series rings, but yeah, their $/win rate is the worst in the majors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So @Dog the barrier and border patrol are working really well. So well, we don't know how to deal with all the folks we stop. Are you ready to increase funding for legal processing yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So @Dog the barrier and border patrol are working really well. So well, we don't know how to deal with all the folks we stop. Are you ready to increase funding for legal processing yet?

They are...4000 getting through per day is working well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So @Dog the barrier and border patrol are working really well. So well, we don't know how to deal with all the folks we stop. Are you ready to increase funding for legal processing yet?

I'd like someone w/the knowledge to do so to figure out how much it would cost in time & $$ to help the problem at its source - assisting the governments to our south in eradicating the violence and economic dispair that seems to be the cause of the migratory influx.   We do that?  There's likely an economic win for everyone - as we'd have new markets, labor, and increased trade, reduced enforcement costs, reduced social program dependency costs, etc.   Hard to tell where to appropriately focus and spend $$ if we haven't done some of background analysis first. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd like someone w/the knowledge to do so to figure out how much it would cost in time & $$ to help the problem at its source - assisting the governments to our south in eradicating the violence and economic dispair that seems to be the cause of the migratory influx.   We do that?  There's likely an economic win for everyone - as we'd have new markets, labor, and increased trade, reduced enforcement costs, reduced social program dependency costs, etc.   Hard to tell where to appropriately focus and spend $$ if we haven't done some of background analysis first. 

I think that instead of looking for SOMETHING to DO, we should think about UNDOING SOMETHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I think that instead of looking for SOMETHING to DO, we should think about UNDOING SOMETHING.

That would be a valid consideration, Tom.    At the time?  The violence associated w/the crack cocaine epidemic warranted immediate and drastic action.  it's probably time to reconsider circumstances and act on any necessary adjustments.   Complete legalization of recreational drug use?  Not sure I'm down with that - Heroin's bad news, and I don't think that legalization/increased access is the right approach to dealing with that problem.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That would be a valid consideration, Tom.    At the time?  The violence associated w/the crack cocaine epidemic warranted immediate and drastic action.  it's probably time to reconsider circumstances and act on any necessary adjustments.   Complete legalization of recreational drug use?  Not sure I'm down with that - Heroin's bad news, and I don't think that legalization/increased access is the right approach to dealing with that problem.  

At this time we're helping to corrupt governments by maintaining the black market.

Legalization (actually decriminalization)/ increased treatment is working better in Portugal today than increased incarceration is working here. But we should probably start with cannabis, not heroin.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealing with the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salavador is a long-term problem.  Right now we have a crisis on the border and it’s going to get worse.  Short term we need Mexico to stop facilitating the caravan’s journey north, and threatening to close the border is putting pressure on Mexico to do that.  Also short term we need to get control of the border now by  using wall/barriers/fences, technology, and manpower.  We don’t have the manpower or facilities to deal with the daily influx of 4000+.  Longer term we to revise our asylum laws, our visa overstay problem, and legal immigration.

The left better be aware this issue could turn against them very quickly based on events at the border.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

They are...4000 getting through per day is working well?

Asylum seekers would get "through" regardless of a wall. 

How're you going to handle these legal-until-processed immigrants?