Shipping Migrants

[Phil1111 943]

48 minutes ago, ryoder said:

That's different. Sometimes we need immigrants to do the jobs no Americans will do, e.g. sleeping with Trump.

 

47 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Texas wanted to be on the border with Mexico and made no mention of a wall at the time. And now it's supposed to be my problem?

 

30 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It's like buying a house beside an airport and then complaining about the noise. Those Texans just want to be able to visit Boy's Town in Nuevo Laredo for a good time, or whenever the power fails, and then shower the filth off when they get home. 

This thread has degenerated into humor. A typical liberal reaction to conservative heartlessness. Otherwise we'd have to cry.

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Exactly. That's the issue. I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle here doesn't think we should take a more methodical approach to the problem. The states, the federal government, both sides of the aisle, should work together and implement a new "Ellis Island" approach rather than the playing of hot potato for years.  

IMO:

We should convert a BRAC base to a port of entry.

Ship everyone there for vetting, skills assessment, legal assistance, etc.  

Compile a list of states and the numbers they can accept,

Transfer them to those states with a hand-off to HHS for long-term pathways.

But, that's just one man's opinion.      

Hi Keith,

IMO you have presented an excellent suggestion.  So, how would you overcome this problem:  The states, the federal government, both sides of the aisle, should work together

IMO that is too big of a mountain to climb in today's environment.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Fact is, the immigration laws are badly broken and don't serve either immigrants or employers well.  Even GWB recognized this.  However, every attempt to fix the problem is torpedoed by the far right for purely political advantage.  The far right wants to have a problem to crow about.

Hi John,

Since they no longer have Roe v Wade, they have to look elsewhere.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,106]

25 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

So, how would you overcome this problem:  The states, the federal government, both sides of the aisle, should work together

The President walks into congress (while on camera) and says, "The division is over. We are done arguing against each other and we're going to begin working for America again, so let's do this:

1. Kamala Harris is going to head up a bipartisan committee to review and reform the immigration laws.

2. We're going to have an all-governors conference and ask that all the governors bring an assessment of how many refugees they can take and what skillsets they;re looking for. 

3. We're going to Re-open the Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio (BRAC bases) as refugee staging areas.

4. We're going to mobilize the National Guard that have Civil Affairs units to assist with HHS and State HHS', DHS, FEMA and border patrol to facilitate the refugees migration to other states. In addition, we're going to mobilize those JAG units to help with the paperwork. 

5. Each state will mobilize their National Guard to act as a receiving station for the orderly and humane processing of these refugees.

6. Any refugees found to be criminals in their own country or found carrying illicit drugs will be deported back to their countries' immediately.

This takes effect tomorrow. 

OK. Maybe the Kamala was a stretch (or she would have done it already).         

[BIGUN 1,106]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Exactly. That's the issue. I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle here doesn't think we should take a more methodical approach to the problem. The states, the federal government, both sides of the aisle, should work together and implement a new "Ellis Island" approach rather than the playing of hot potato for years.  

IMO:

We should convert a BRAC base to a port of entry.

Ship everyone there for vetting, skills assessment, legal assistance, etc.  

Compile a list of states and the numbers they can accept,

Transfer them to those states with a hand-off to HHS for long-term pathways.

But, that's just one man's opinion.      

You think shipping them all to a camp and holding them there is the solution? Treating those who present themselves as refugees at the border (as they should according to your laws) and those caught crossing the border illegally exactly the same? Are you suggesting this is done at the northern border as well? What about those who are nude models and are flown here on "genius visas" and then use chain migration to bring the entire family over?

Sky, nothing in what I wrote above indicated "holding them" as a solution. It was all about creating assistance pathways to a new life somewhere.  

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

55 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The President walks into congress (while on camera) and says, "The division is over. We are done arguing against each other and we're going to begin working for America again, so let's do this:

1. Kamala Harris is going to head up a bipartisan committee to review and reform the immigration laws.

2. We're going to have an all-governors conference and ask that all the governors bring an assessment of how many refugees they can take and what skillsets they;re looking for. 

3. We're going to Re-open the Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio (BRAC bases) as refugee staging areas.

4. We're going to mobilize the National Guard that have Civil Affairs units to assist with HHS and State HHS', DHS, FEMA and border patrol to facilitate the refugees migration to other states. In addition, we're going to mobilize those JAG units to help with the paperwork. 

5. Each state will mobilize their National Guard to act as a receiving station for the orderly and humane processing of these refugees.

6. Any refugees found to be criminals in their own country or found carrying illicit drugs will be deported back to their countries' immediately.

This takes effect tomorrow. 

OK. Maybe the Kamala was a stretch (or she would have done it already).         

Hi Keith,

So, how would you overcome this problem:  We are done arguing against each other and we're going to begin working for America again

Or this:  Harris is going to head up a bipartisan committee

Do you actually think Kevin McCarthy would participate/assist in this?

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,412]

Attorneys working with migrants file federal lawsuit against Gov. DeSantis

A civil case in MA, to complement the criminal case in TX. Nice!

Edited September 20, 2022 by ryoder

[JoeWeber 2,351]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The President walks into congress (while on camera) and says, "The division is over. We are done arguing against each other and we're going to begin working for America again, so let's do this:

1. Kamala Harris is going to head up a bipartisan committee to review and reform the immigration laws.

2. We're going to have an all-governors conference and ask that all the governors bring an assessment of how many refugees they can take and what skillsets they;re looking for. 

3. We're going to Re-open the Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio (BRAC bases) as refugee staging areas.

4. We're going to mobilize the National Guard that have Civil Affairs units to assist with HHS and State HHS', DHS, FEMA and border patrol to facilitate the refugees migration to other states. In addition, we're going to mobilize those JAG units to help with the paperwork. 

5. Each state will mobilize their National Guard to act as a receiving station for the orderly and humane processing of these refugees.

6. Any refugees found to be criminals in their own country or found carrying illicit drugs will be deported back to their countries' immediately.

This takes effect tomorrow. 

OK. Maybe the Kamala was a stretch (or she would have done it already).         

What the holy hell have you been smoking?

[wmw999 2,174]

Bigun, that'd be wonderful if anyone were to go along with him. Which Republicans do you think would if it were initiated by a Democrat? Given that there weren't enough to go along with its being initiated by a Republican? How do we get past that first big step?

I understand this is a crucial issue for a large swath of Americans (more so than for me); that makes it important for America. Kind of like how eliminating as much abortion as possible was a crucial issue for a large (but minority) swath of Americans. And there's no answer that will make everyone happy. So how do people shut up the likes of Tucker Carlson (who seems like he'll hate anything that doesn't include mass deportation, preferably at gunpoint), who has a huge audience?

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,956]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

This takes effect tomorrow. 

I think you have vastly over estimated the power of the office of POTUS. 

[jakee 1,280]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

6. Any refugees found to be criminals in their own country or found carrying illicit drugs will be deported back to their countries' immediately.

Countries that people want to flee from will often use their justice system as a weapon against anyone they don’t like. Lots of asylum seekers and refugees may be ‘criminals’ who aren’t actually criminals.

[jakee 1,280]

20 hours ago, BIGUN said:

If a conservative does it = bad. 

If a liberal does it = he did it the right way,

Well, yes. In this case what you have written above is the literal truth. The liberal told the migrants where they were going, only sent volunteers, and coordinated things in advance with the host city. The conservative didn't.

Interesting that your response to this imbalance isn't to blame the conservative for being a shower of shit, but to blame the liberal for not sinking to his level.

[BIGUN 1,106]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I think you have vastly over estimated the power of the office of POTUS. 

The primary mission of FEMA is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. The FEMA Administrator therefore is assigned responsibility to:

Lead the Nation’s efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, including catastrophic incidents;

Partner with State, local, and tribal governments and emergency response providers, other Federal agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency management that can effectively and efficiently utilize the full measure of the Nation’s resources to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, including catastrophic incidents;

Develop a Federal response capability that, when necessary and appropriate, can act effectively and rapidly to deliver assistance essential to saving lives or protecting or preserving property or public health and safety in a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster;

Integrate the Agency’s emergency preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation responsibilities to confront effectively the challenges of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster;

Develop and maintain robust regional offices that will work with State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, and other appropriate entities to identify and address regional priorities;

Under the leadership of the Secretary, coordinate with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the National Operations Center, and other agencies and offices in the Department to take full advantage of the substantial range of resources in the Department;

Provide funding, training, exercises, technical assistance, planning, and other assistance to build local, tribal, State, regional, and national capabilities (including communications capabilities) necessary to respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster; and

Develop and coordinate the implementation of a risk-based, all-hazards strategy for preparedness that builds those common capabilities necessary to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters while also building the unique capabilities necessary to respond to specific types of incidents that pose the greatest risk to our Nation.

*The President may direct emergency assistance without a Governor’s request if an incident occurs that involves a subject area that is exclusively or preeminently the responsibility of the United States. The President will consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable.

**The Director of FEMA reports to the Secretary of DHS. The Secretary of DHS reports to the President. 

Final note: I was asked how I would go about it. I made a suggestion. What's your action plan. Anyone?  

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The primary mission of FEMA is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. The FEMA Administrator therefore is assigned responsibility to:

Lead the Nation’s efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, including catastrophic incidents;

Partner with State, local, and tribal governments and emergency response providers, other Federal agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency management that can effectively and efficiently utilize the full measure of the Nation’s resources to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, including catastrophic incidents;

Develop a Federal response capability that, when necessary and appropriate, can act effectively and rapidly to deliver assistance essential to saving lives or protecting or preserving property or public health and safety in a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster;

Integrate the Agency’s emergency preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation responsibilities to confront effectively the challenges of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster;

Develop and maintain robust regional offices that will work with State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, and other appropriate entities to identify and address regional priorities;

Under the leadership of the Secretary, coordinate with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the National Operations Center, and other agencies and offices in the Department to take full advantage of the substantial range of resources in the Department;

Provide funding, training, exercises, technical assistance, planning, and other assistance to build local, tribal, State, regional, and national capabilities (including communications capabilities) necessary to respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster; and

Develop and coordinate the implementation of a risk-based, all-hazards strategy for preparedness that builds those common capabilities necessary to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters while also building the unique capabilities necessary to respond to specific types of incidents that pose the greatest risk to our Nation.

*The President may direct emergency assistance without a Governor’s request if an incident occurs that involves a subject area that is exclusively or preeminently the responsibility of the United States. The President will consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable.

**The Director of FEMA reports to the Secretary of DHS. The Secretary of DHS reports to the President. 

Final note: I was asked how I would go about it. I made a suggestion. What's your action plan. Anyone?  

Hi Keith,

Your suggesting an action plan that is nothing more than Pie in the Sky does not require me to present a plan.

Jerry Baumchen

[DougH 270]

34 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

Your suggesting an action plan that is nothing more than Pie in the Sky does not require me to present a plan.

Jerry Baumchen

The El Paso mayor already appears to have a workable and humane solution figured out.

I wouldn't call it migrant shipping though, sounds more like providing help with transportation for people interested in leaving American Taliban territory. 

Edited September 21, 2022 by DougH
Wrong city referenced

[billvon 2,475]

On 9/20/2022 at 12:55 PM, BIGUN said:

The President walks into congress (while on camera) and says, "The division is over. We are done arguing against each other and we're going to begin working for America again, so let's do this:

1. Kamala Harris is going to head up a bipartisan committee to review and reform the immigration laws.

2. We're going to have an all-governors conference and ask that all the governors bring an assessment of how many refugees they can take and what skillsets they;re looking for. 

3. We're going to Re-open the Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio (BRAC bases) as refugee staging areas.

4. We're going to mobilize the National Guard that have Civil Affairs units to assist with HHS and State HHS', DHS, FEMA and border patrol to facilitate the refugees migration to other states. In addition, we're going to mobilize those JAG units to help with the paperwork. 

5. Each state will mobilize their National Guard to act as a receiving station for the orderly and humane processing of these refugees.

6. Any refugees found to be criminals in their own country or found carrying illicit drugs will be deported back to their countries' immediately.

This takes effect tomorrow. 

OK. Maybe the Kamala was a stretch (or she would have done it already).         

Bravo for suggesting a concrete plan.  Some practical issues:

Using FEMA for a problem like this would radically change their mission,  And if the threat of illegal immigration is enough to justify activating FEMA, much more deadly and immediate threats (like the 11,000 Americans killed by speeding every year, or the 7500 Amerians killed by coal power plants every year) have much stronger justification.  However, I don't think that's what FEMA is intended for, and they wouldn't be the best traffic cops or EPA enforcers.  (Or bus services.)  There are much better ways to accomplish all that.

You'd have to open far more than those two military bases.  Lots of bases in California would have to reopen, for example, to handle the California aliens who want to move to Texas.

I don't think you'd want to rely too much on the justice system in their own country to decide what to do with them.  Imagine, for example, finding a Ukrainian family who escaped Russia after they were labeled traitors.  I don't think we'd want to send them back to Russia.  Likewise a Colombian family who crossed a warlord and was wanted for being an informant.

That being said, I'd support anyone found guilty of drug smuggling being deported.  And the bipartisan review / governor's concept are a good idea in theory; the practical implementation would be difficult (i.e. all governors say "we have zero room period") but might result in some movement in the right direction.

[Phil1111 943]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Bravo for suggesting a concrete plan.  Some practical issues:

...

Be it guns or other issues BIGUN is the only republican to make logical sound suggestions. Which brings up the thought why is he still a republican? He is like a salmon trying to climb Brooks Falls in Alaska with no chance of success.

[wmw999 2,174]

In part because he’s an independent thinker who identifies as a Republican, and with what he sees as the traditionally Republican platform items. It’s like anything else; what he identifies as is part of him, and he’s the only one who can change how he identifies.

We don’t get to define “Republican” any more than Brent (for example) gets to define “Democrat.”

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 943]

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

In part because he’s an independent thinker who identifies as a Republican, and with what he sees as the traditionally Republican platform items. It’s like anything else; what he identifies as is part of him, and he’s the only one who can change how he identifies.

We don’t get to define “Republican” any more than Brent (for example) gets to define “Democrat.”

Wendy P. 

True. But the image comes to mind of him attending a republican national convention as a guest thinker...er speaker. Say in 2030. He is introduced with his distinguished service record read by the moderator. Followed by a round of applause.

Then he speaks about his ideas for gun control an immigration reform. The house comes down. With boos, laughter and hissing.

Doesn't he deserve better?

[wmw999 2,174]

He gets to decide that. He also signed up to go up against difficult opponents when in the military. Just as he gets to decide, now, when it’s not worth engaging.

I personally think that losing voices like his is a real shame. No one wins the internet by shouting down opponents who actually address points with thought, rather than with diatribes and memes

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,351]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

True. But the image comes to mind of him attending a republican national convention as a guest thinker...er speaker. Say in 2030. He is introduced with his distinguished service record read by the moderator. Followed by a round of applause.

Then he speaks about his ideas for gun control an immigration reform. The house comes down. With boos, laughter and hissing.

Doesn't he deserve better?

Could be. He's a thinker and deserves the credit and an ear for the effort. After reading his gun issue solutions my take is that they are too complicated, parsed, nuanced, hopeful, and, well, unworkable. Sort of like what you'd expect from a silly democrat like me. So, yes, A for effort but it's an A paper destined for a Republican Representatives garbage can; the D rep's don't need the advice. As stated, I think a more sensible solution is to change parties and then proudly fly that flag when next with your compatriots. But that won't happen because of things like the fetal heartbeat when is a cell cluster a baby confusion that is more important than, apparently, everything else. I just don't think it's a question of deserving better; we all stay or go from here, for the most part, of our own volition. I personally don't want to think I live in a world where BIGUN wasn't there keeping track of my fajita credits. But when one comes to have fun at the festival of ideas you ought not to be offended when not everyone likes your party hat.

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

He gets to decide that. He also signed up to go up against difficult opponents when in the military. Just as he gets to decide, now, when it’s not worth engaging.

I personally think that losing voices like his is a real shame. No one wins the internet by shouting down opponents who actually address points with thought, rather than with diatribes and memes

Wendy P. 

Hi Wendy,

I do not and will not [ hopefully ] ever post what another person thinks/is thinking.  That is up to them.

Re:  I personally think that losing voices like his is a real shame.

Absolutely.  While I might not agree with everything in his posts, IMO they are well thought out & on topic.  That, to me, is what a debate is all about.

I consider BIGUN [ Keith ] to be one of the most valuable posters on this site.

Re:  Which brings up the thought why is he still a republican? 

Well, as I have posted many times; I was a Republican for 40 yrs.  Eventually, I simply could no longer take it.

Re:  I think a more sensible solution is to change parties 

Ultimately this is what I did.  I first became a Democrat.  Eventually, I did not really agree with most of what the D's stood for; so I became an independent.

Each one of us has a personal value system.  It is what we are.  Hopefully, we are by choice.

As an example, I am a hard-core atheist.  I would never [ I hope ] ask a religious person to give up their religious beliefs.  I might disagree with them, I might challenge them, but I would never ask them to believe in what I believe in.

Jerry Baumchen

A not-so-perfect person

[gowlerk 1,956]

14 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Ultimately this is what I did.  I first became a Democrat.  Eventually, I did not really agree with most of what the D's stood for; so I became an independent.

Out of curiosity, what are some of the things the Ds stand for that you don't care for? My biggest problem with the left in Canada is their tendency to go too far in spending programs. Although I consider myself a liberal I worry about the level of debt the nation is taking on. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,081]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Out of curiosity, what are some of the things the Ds stand for that you don't care for? My biggest problem with the left in Canada is their tendency to go too far in spending programs. Although I consider myself a liberal I worry about the level of debt the nation is taking on. 

Hi Ken,

That is about how I feel.

1.  I support a 0.5% increase in federal taxes [ across the board ] that cannot be used for anything other than reducing the national debt.  Yes, I know it is a Pie in the Sky thought.  I know it will never work.  But, I still support it.

I do not support the continual passing of legislation in which they ( congress ) knows that the funding will not be there in 5-7 yrs.  It is feel-good legislation to get them re-elected, and nothing more than that.

2.  I want all federal programs funded as is necessary.  This would get rid of a lot of programs that are [ IMO ] not needed.  'Not needed' based upon a proprietary evaluation of federal programs.

For example, Social Security [ in this country ] was never intended to provide money to so many categories of people as it does now.  Actually, I would get rid of Social Security & come up with an all-encompassing federal retirement system similar to SS but with proper funding.

I agreed with a fair amount of the proposals of the Reagan administration.  His problem was that he wanted to change 40+ yrs of legislation within 8 yrs.  IMO it simply cannot be done.

Some of the things that I disagreed with the Dems on, I do now support,  Just not at the level that they do.  One example is that I support free community college for anyone who keeps their grades up.  Both for those who want to learn a trade & go out into the work-force; and, for those that will eventually go on to a 4-yr college.  I do not support the public paying for a college education at a 4-yr institution. *

Jerry Baumchen

* If one wants a free college education, just change your parents so that you have the genes that allow you to throw a football or to do a slam dunk.  

 

[JoeWeber 2,351]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

I do not and will not [ hopefully ] ever post what another person thinks/is thinking.  That is up to them.

Re:  I personally think that losing voices like his is a real shame.

Absolutely.  While I might not agree with everything in his posts, IMO they are well thought out & on topic.  That, to me, is what a debate is all about.

I consider BIGUN [ Keith ] to be one of the most valuable posters on this site.

Re:  Which brings up the thought why is he still a republican? 

Well, as I have posted many times; I was a Republican for 40 yrs.  Eventually, I simply could no longer take it.

Re:  I think a more sensible solution is to change parties 

Ultimately this is what I did.  I first became a Democrat.  Eventually, I did not really agree with most of what the D's stood for; so I became an independent.

Each one of us has a personal value system.  It is what we are.  Hopefully, we are by choice.

As an example, I am a hard-core atheist.  I would never [ I hope ] ask a religious person to give up their religious beliefs.  I might disagree with them, I might challenge them, but I would never ask them to believe in what I believe in.

Jerry Baumchen

A not-so-perfect person

Jerry,

To be clear I only say change to D because it’s all just a numbers and perceptions game. R’s and D’s see each other as hard and fast but Independents are considered always in play. I consider myself a crappy Democrat and see the party as a party of indecision and many bad ideas. It’s just that Democrats have fewer bad ideas than Republicans at the moment.