Rick 67 #51 November 28, 2018 Not at you Mark but a general question. If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Please don't beat me up this is a sincere question.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timski 80 #52 November 28, 2018 RickNot at you Mark but a general question. If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Please don't beat me up this is a sincere question. Have you REALLY considered what it would take to "secure" the borders??? Basically it's impossible. True security to cover ALL of the water ways alone is impossible, let alone every square mile of land both North and South. Just putting up a wall doesn't secure shit. TK FOR PRESIDENT!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #53 November 28, 2018 >If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large >groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Let them apply for asylum, as provided for by law. The law is a good guide here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #54 November 29, 2018 timski***Not at you Mark but a general question. If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Please don't beat me up this is a sincere question. Have you REALLY considered what it would take to "secure" the borders??? Basically it's impossible. True security to cover ALL of the water ways alone is impossible, let alone every square mile of land both North and South. Just putting up a wall doesn't secure shit. TK FOR PRESIDENT!!! I get that and I am not in favor of "The wall". So do you think we should not try to stop anyone from entering illegally?You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #55 November 29, 2018 billvon>If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large >groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Let them apply for asylum, as provided for by law. The law is a good guide here. I agree they should be allowed to apply for asylum. I get the circumstances they are fleeing. But are the ones rushing the wall going to apply for asylum or just disappear into the countryside? Maybe we should have sent 1000 state dept. workers instead of troops so they could handle all the refugees.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,912 #56 November 29, 2018 QuoteMaybe we should have sent 1000 state dept. workers instead of troops so they could handle all the refugees. Yes, exactly. Uncontrolled immigration is something no country can allow. But the size of the problem at the US southern border is not nearly as large as it has been made to appear. If you compare it to what the EU is facing it is minuscule. America has the resources to just let them apply for asylum and then process them sending most of them back. This is a manufactured crisis, not a real one. It's all about riling up the population for political reasons. People are being played. Large groups (actually, not that large) did not rush the border before. This group is just another set of actors in the play.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #57 November 29, 2018 Rick***>If you don't think we should secure the border then what is the alternative when large >groups rush the border? Just let them through to scatter into the U.S.? Let them apply for asylum, as provided for by law. The law is a good guide here. I agree they should be allowed to apply for asylum. I get the circumstances they are fleeing. But are the ones rushing the wall going to apply for asylum or just disappear into the countryside? Maybe we should have sent 1000 state dept. workers instead of troops so they could handle all the refugees. I have not heard that they will not be allowed to apply. They have to wait their turn. However, 90%+ are going to be sent back. The requirements for asylum are rather specific, and just being poor in an area that has gang activity doesn't necessarily qualify.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,912 #58 November 29, 2018 QuoteI have not heard that they will not be allowed to apply. They have to wait their turn. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand that is just a ploy? "Wait your turn" means we will slow walk this till you give up and you know it.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #59 November 29, 2018 gowlerkQuoteI have not heard that they will not be allowed to apply. They have to wait their turn. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand that is just a ploy? "Wait your turn" means we will slow walk this till you give up and you know it. Well, lets see. Last time around the system was overwhelmed and everyone ended up crowded into detention centers waiting to be processed. Doesn't appear like a good option here. Spend time crammed into a detention area or spend time on the South side of the border working in Mexico waiting for your slot in the system.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #60 November 29, 2018 Referencing one manufactured crisis (no tolerance detentions) to justify another manufactured crisis (closing the border to asylum seekers) is disingenuous. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #61 November 29, 2018 DanGReferencing one manufactured crisis (no tolerance detentions) to justify another manufactured crisis (closing the border to asylum seekers) is disingenuous. The outcome is going to be the same. Process the deluge quicker so they can be sent back quicker or take longer and not have to deal with as many bodies. And, some of them will decide to take Mexico up on their offer to stay. Won't change the end result- 90%+ are going back after they are processed.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #62 November 29, 2018 gowlerk Quote I have not heard that they will not be allowed to apply. They have to wait their turn. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand that is just a ploy? "Wait your turn" means we will slow walk this till you give up and you know it. A ploy?Don't you understand this deluge is at an all-time high!!!Oh, wait; U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade http://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/27/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-total-dips-to-lowest-level-in-a-decade/ Never mind."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #63 November 29, 2018 Iago***Referencing one manufactured crisis (no tolerance detentions) to justify another manufactured crisis (closing the border to asylum seekers) is disingenuous. The outcome is going to be the same. Process the deluge quicker so they can be sent back quicker or take longer and not have to deal with as many bodies. And, some of them will decide to take Mexico up on their offer to stay. Won't change the end result- 90%+ are going back after they are processed. I can see why you chose that sig line :)You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #64 November 29, 2018 QuoteDoesn't appear like a good option here. Spend time crammed into a detention area or spend time on the South side of the border working in Mexico waiting for your slot in the system. Or spend time in the US working at all the jobs Americans won't do. That way they have a place to wait AND we get the tax income (could pay for all Trump's tax cuts.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #65 November 29, 2018 >But are the ones rushing the wall going to apply for asylum or just disappear into the >countryside? From their perspective, right now 'disappearing into the countryside' seems like the better option. They do that - or they try to be legal about it and see their children torn away from them and put in cages, while they wait months for a hearing. >Maybe we should have sent 1000 state dept. workers instead of troops so they could handle >all the refugees. That would make a lot more sense. Process them all as quickly as possible. That way they have an incentive to do the right thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #66 November 29, 2018 billvonQuoteDoesn't appear like a good option here. Spend time crammed into a detention area or spend time on the South side of the border working in Mexico waiting for your slot in the system. Or spend time in the US working at all the jobs Americans won't do. That way they have a place to wait AND we get the tax income (could pay for all Trump's tax cuts.) Well, yes that would suit some people quite well. Then there can be another round of wailing and gnashing of teeth on CNN by sending them back after the anchors drop.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #67 November 29, 2018 >Well, yes that would suit some people quite well. Then there can be another round of >wailing and gnashing of teeth on CNN by sending them back after the anchors drop. And we've have more people working and paying taxes, ready to support this generation when it retires. How is that bad? (I don't really care about whether CNN gnashes their teeth or not, do you?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #68 November 29, 2018 billvon>Well, yes that would suit some people quite well. Then there can be another round of >wailing and gnashing of teeth on CNN by sending them back after the anchors drop. And we've have more people working and paying taxes, ready to support this generation when it retires. How is that bad? (I don't really care about whether CNN gnashes their teeth or not, do you?) I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying this is what is going to happen. 1- quick process claim. Get hearing date many months down the road. 2- ok, have a nice time in the US. See you at the hearing. 3- 4- fast forward nine months 5- anchors away! Plop! (Much cooing and cuddling with the brand new citizen in the family) 6- fast forward to the hearing 7- sorry, your claim has been denied. Pack your things please, you have to go back hope you enjoyed your stay. 8- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THEY CANT BE SENT BACK! Aaaaaaaa right back where we are now. . Up to you if you're OK with that. I'm not particularly fond of the idea.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #69 November 29, 2018 Quote1- quick process claim. Get hearing date many months down the road. 2- ok, have a nice time in the US. See you at the hearing. 3- 4- fast forward nine months 5- anchors away! Plop! (Much cooing and cuddling with the brand new citizen in the family) 6- fast forward to the hearing 7- sorry, your claim has been denied. Pack your things please, you have to go back hope you enjoyed your stay. 8- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THEY CANT BE SENT BACK! Ways to solve that: 1) Get a hearing date days down the road, so there's less likelihood of the "plop." 2) Accept more claims. Reject the criminals (which make up a small percentage) and accept the rest. 3) Spend five minutes with each person/family explaining what will happen. And record it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,912 #70 November 29, 2018 Given the current birth rate in western countries this is not necessarily a bad thing. I know, many would prefer Norwegians, but they aren't really interested anymore. Immigration has always been dominated by those motivated by repression and especially hunger in their homelands. This mini-wave may not be the correct colour or linguistic group, but at least they are hard working and mostly of the correct religion. "Anchor babies" are one of Trump's favourite boogeymen. But they have only led to the babies having citizenship. The parents are deported and almost always the children leave with them. Of course, they may very well return when they are old enough. The real abuse of birthright citizenship occurs when rich people from around the world come as pregnant tourists. Some countries jealously guard their citizen rights, but allow vast numbers of outsiders to come and be labourers. Like the oil rich middle eastern regimes we all admire so little. That is the Mara-Largo method. The absolute numbers of this problem are not so large. Yes, a stronger physical barrier backed by armed guards could stop it. But the price in dollars and morality looks to be pretty high. The current system in place of hearings down the road is not perfect, but it does cope. It's really a matter of who you want to be.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #71 November 29, 2018 Iago***>Well, yes that would suit some people quite well. Then there can be another round of >wailing and gnashing of teeth on CNN by sending them back after the anchors drop. And we've have more people working and paying taxes, ready to support this generation when it retires. How is that bad? (I don't really care about whether CNN gnashes their teeth or not, do you?) I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying this is what is going to happen. 1- quick process claim. Get hearing date many months down the road. 2- ok, have a nice time in the US. See you at the hearing. 3- 4- fast forward nine months 5- anchors away! Plop! (Much cooing and cuddling with the brand new citizen in the family) 6- fast forward to the hearing 7- sorry, your claim has been denied. Pack your things please, you have to go back hope you enjoyed your stay. 8- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THEY CANT BE SENT BACK! Aaaaaaaa right back where we are now. . Up to you if you're OK with that. I'm not particularly fond of the idea. People going to the US and fucking is exactly how the US grew historically. How is that now a bad thing? Employment at a historic low. massive spending on your prized guns and military equipment. Supposedly a great country, the best in the world. Why are you now so against what got you to where you are? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #72 November 29, 2018 Quote Why are you now so against what got you to where you are? I'm sure we already know this but the US doesn't want to become a predominantly latin country."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iago 8 #73 November 29, 2018 SkyDekker******>Well, yes that would suit some people quite well. Then there can be another round of >wailing and gnashing of teeth on CNN by sending them back after the anchors drop. And we've have more people working and paying taxes, ready to support this generation when it retires. How is that bad? (I don't really care about whether CNN gnashes their teeth or not, do you?) I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying this is what is going to happen. 1- quick process claim. Get hearing date many months down the road. 2- ok, have a nice time in the US. See you at the hearing. 3- 4- fast forward nine months 5- anchors away! Plop! (Much cooing and cuddling with the brand new citizen in the family) 6- fast forward to the hearing 7- sorry, your claim has been denied. Pack your things please, you have to go back hope you enjoyed your stay. 8- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THEY CANT BE SENT BACK! Aaaaaaaa right back where we are now. . Up to you if you're OK with that. I'm not particularly fond of the idea. People going to the US and fucking is exactly how the US grew historically. How is that now a bad thing? Employment at a historic low. massive spending on your prized guns and military equipment. Supposedly a great country, the best in the world. Why are you now so against what got you to where you are? Never said I was, no am I against immigration. There is a process to be followed and requirements to be met. Go through that, welcome to America and all it has to offer. Loophole and circumvent the system (such as outlined above) sorry not Ok with that.Confirmed cynical sarcastic bastard since 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,912 #74 November 29, 2018 DJLQuote Why are you now so against what got you to where you are? I'm sure we already know this but the US doesn't want to become a predominantly latin country. Well, unless the traditional white European population gets busy all of a sudden the nation is going to become more Latin. The alternatives include more Oriental or more Mulsim. Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choyce.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #75 November 29, 2018 QuoteThere is a process to be followed and requirements to be met. Go through that, welcome to America and all it has to offer. And what exactly is that process for non-wealthy brown people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites