Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:41:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 9:45:01 GMT -5
I'd like to see them enforce the law that puts employERS in jail when they hire illegals. That would put a stop to a lot of it right there. And we can start with DT & his family company. He knew, don't care what he says, he knew and so did his entire family and his whole business! Instead of making US employers into second step criminals when they hire illegals who more often than not, show up with excellent paper. We need to stop the original crime of being here, when they're not supposed to be. Sanctuary cities would be a good start.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 16, 2019 10:03:05 GMT -5
I'd like to see them enforce the law that puts employERS in jail when they hire illegals. That would put a stop to a lot of it right there. And we can start with DT & his family company. He knew, don't care what he says, he knew and so did his entire family and his whole business! Instead of making US employers into second step criminals when they hire illegals who more often than not, show up with excellent paper. We need to stop the original crime of being here, when they're not supposed to be. Sanctuary cities would be a good start. No jobs = few to no illegal immigrants.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:41:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 10:27:21 GMT -5
Instead of making US employers into second step criminals when they hire illegals who more often than not, show up with excellent paper. We need to stop the original crime of being here, when they're not supposed to be. Sanctuary cities would be a good start. No jobs = few to no illegal immigrants. Then what is the reasoning for sanctuary cities ?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 16, 2019 11:33:27 GMT -5
No jobs = few to no illegal immigrants. Then what is the reasoning for sanctuary cities ? Are you really that uninformed? I guess so. Sanctuary cities: (in North America) a city whose municipal laws tend to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution, despite federal immigration law.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Feb 16, 2019 11:42:43 GMT -5
Sanctuary cities would be a good start.
I hope you mean getting rid of these. Yes, if sanctuary were closed then a lot of the jobs would not be there.
The small company I work for has several people from other countries in employment, but all are here legally. A couple from Mexico, one Korean, two from China. It's a good mix …… and a very interesting one.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 16, 2019 11:43:19 GMT -5
I absolutely think Trump is using xenophobia as a way to push the wall. People want simple solutions to complex messy problems. Giving people a scapegoat makes people feel better and gives them the ability to ignore the rest of the problem because if we just had a wall it'd all go away. I am against it because it is security theater just like the TSA. It does nothing to solve illegal immigration because the majority of people do not come here on foot across the border. Plus there is this body of water they could cross instead called the Gulf of Mexico if they are really intent on getting here, that's how Cuban illegals get here.
Then there is the money involved. It will not only cost money to build but to keep in shape. This is something that would cross our entire southern border that involves very different climates in requiring different levels of care. I refuse to have my child and grandchildren saddled with those costs. The money would be better spent in investing in current technology that requires less care and manpower to operate. We need to hire more case workers so the legal process can be sped up and people who are here on visas can be tracked and sent home.
My German boss told me how easy it would be for him to drop off the grid if he wanted to. The system is so overloaded they rely on people self reporting. All he'd have to do is not report to the office at his new address and as long as he doesn't break the law could stay here illegally forever. How does a wall fix that? We also need to hire more judges and lawyers so cases can get processed quickly and fairly. If someone comes back we can quickly funnel them right back out. As it stands now the courts are ridiculously backlogged. We also need massive prison reform. Prisons need t o be non-profit. As it stands they make massive amounts of money off these camps they are running for Trump and keeping people incarcerated for drug use. The prison system stands on the bac f illegal immigration and has a vested interest in keeping it the same.
We also need to reform how we approach drugs. Drug lords are not Cheech and Chong coming across the boarder in their pot van. They are Gus Fring with their hands in legitimate business all over the world. We need to be looking into our trade practices and how we're funding the very things we claim we want to stop with a wall. No money, no drugs.
Right now according to the CDC Fentanyl is the biggest problem we have in this country, the majority of that is coming across the sea from China. How is a wall going to stop that? We should be investing in better cyber technology and other tools to catch drugs coming in from legal ports and the internet.
I'm also for the legalization of all drugs and this is despite my husband being an addict. That money that goes towards a wall could go towards public health programs. Human beings are going to engage in self destructive behavior, period. Instead of creating a massive black market why not legalize and tax it all. Less money, less drugs coming across illegally (though you'll never stop it all and we need to accept this). Another side benefit is legalizing drugs takes away a main source of profits for prisons which lessens the incentive they have to keep the system the way it is.
Employment reform needs to happen too. Personally I'd like to see money that would go to a wall be funneled into restarting the work visa programs of the 50's and 60's. If you can create a program where people can freely come and go between countries legally for harvest or tourist season the less likely you will have people coming and staying illegally. I'd also not be opposed to having a streamlined immigration process for peopel who use this program and want to become citizens. Farmers/tourist traps get their cheap labor, labor gets their money, labor goes home after the season. Everybody wins.
We don't need a wall. We need massive social reform and need to come to terms with our history regarding Mexico. None of the current sentiment or the wall debate is anything new, it's a discussion that goes back 200+ years. Hell some of those people coming illegally probably have more rights to that land than we do if you read your history. You see the whole debate about keeping Mexicans off "our" land and the justification for the current solution to keeping them out in a whole new light.
If we can't come to terms with our attitude towards these issues a wall is going to solve nothing. We'll eventually find a new group to scapegoat and blame for all the world's ills. We can keep trying to isolate ourselves and it may work for awhile, but as history shows eventually the world comes a-knocking and it doesn't tend to be the isolationists who win.
that doesn't fit on a bumpersticker, and doesn't make a nice chant, so it won't go anywhere. Don't reject - inspect! Look for the Crooke! Peek in, so they don't sneak in!
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 16, 2019 12:29:29 GMT -5
My German boss told me how easy it would be for him to drop off the grid if he wanted to. The system is so overloaded they rely on people self reporting. All he'd have to do is not report to the office at his new address and as long as he doesn't break the law could stay here illegally forever.
How does a wall fix that?
Not sure that it needs fixing - 'boss' with no criminal record indicates a successful contributor to our society, ie, one that we want to keep. The problem statement could be changed to 'we need to know the identity/status of the people that we are admitting' - rather than 'stop all immigrants'.
And to do that we need a series of many international border gates staffed by many inspectors. And they should be connected by a wall/fence to guide people to the border crossings. I've passed thru the USA/Canada border crossings 40 to 50 times - my passport is always checked and I always get a series of questions, sometimes a physical inspection of the car. The Euro crossings are similar - passports, fences, and border crossings.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 16, 2019 12:38:42 GMT -5
I have read too many comments about the wall being immoral to say that it was not the main argument against it. It wasn't the only reason but it was a big one. And I read too many arguments now talking about better ways to keep illegals out to ignore that no one is really upset by the idea of keeping people out. I stand by my premises. Just a question. I consider Mexican a nationality, not a race. I would consider a Hispanic, the majority race in Mexico. Is that what you are meaning ? There are a lot of Hispanics in Central America. I was going by what Trump said. When he was promoting the wall on the campaign trail he usually said Mexicans. I actually never hear him describe it any other way.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 16, 2019 12:49:50 GMT -5
There is a certain irony in gun extremists not wanting any restrictions because ... government tyranny... groveling in the dirt to kiss the ass of government tyranny.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 16, 2019 12:51:53 GMT -5
My German boss told me how easy it would be for him to drop off the grid if he wanted to. The system is so overloaded they rely on people self reporting. All he'd have to do is not report to the office at his new address and as long as he doesn't break the law could stay here illegally forever.
How does a wall fix that?
Not sure that it needs fixing - 'boss' with no criminal record indicates a successful contributor to our society, ie, one that we want to keep. The problem statement could be changed to 'we need to know the identity/status of the people that we are admitting' - rather than 'stop all immigrants'.
And to do that we need a series of many international border gates staffed by many inspectors. And they should be connected by a wall/fence to guide people to the border crossings. I've passed thru the USA/Canada border crossings 40 to 50 times - my passport is always checked and I always get a series of questions, sometimes a physical inspection of the car. The Euro crossings are similar - passports, fences, and border crossings.
We have those. And they work. If we need more, they should be based on real life defined issues and well thought out decision making. Where you traveling that all the borders are pronounced by walls exactly? Canada? Don't think so.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 16, 2019 13:12:04 GMT -5
There is a certain irony in gun extremists not wanting any restrictions because ... government tyranny... groveling in the dirt to kiss the ass of government tyranny. Yep, it happens a lot. I just don't want the people on my side of the argument doing it. In my dream world people are very clear that there are a whole lot of separate issues going on here that require different solutions. Part of it needs more resources put into processing folks emigrating and asking for asylum. Criminal drug trafficking is a whole separate thing that is a law enforcement issue. Surveillance for illegal crossings is a different thing again...and Trumps racist BS is a totally different issue that involves him not getting elected in 2020.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 16, 2019 16:08:30 GMT -5
I think your initial premise is wrong. I didn't like the wall from the beginning because I thought it was a stupid way to address the issue of illegal immigration. I think both your assertion and AS's are just beliefs with no actual basis in reality. And I don't believe either that there is one monolithic "liberal" argument either. Some people want to increase immigration, some people want to forgive illegals who came as children and yes there are lots of non conservatives, i.e. centrists and those who are liberal leaning who want to decrease illegal immigration. To think all these non conservatives fit in one idea is simplistic at best and grossly wrong at the worst. I can't answer your question, but the issue really is where are the politicians going to find hopefully common ground on US immigration enforcement. I have read too many comments about the wall being immoral to say that it was not the main argument against it. It wasn't the only reason but it was a big one. And I read too many arguments now talking about better ways to keep illegals out to ignore that no one is really upset by the idea of keeping people out. I stand by my premises. I agree with you on the latter comment, but that was true even before the election. "The wall" was Trump's advertising slogan if you will for the idea of lessening illegal immigration. There was widespread support of that idea by all political stripes then, now, and in between. I was unable to find any poll on reasons against the wall except for effectiveness or cost. And I think Pew research might have been one of the few that did a couple polls I did find. You may have read many of those comments, I have not, but at best its a small unscientific sample. This board for example has a self selecting amount of people who even post and it varies depending on the topic. I forgot what the numbers were once a upon a time when Moon went through our members, but it was something like 70% of our members do not even post. So even if you got 100% agreement by the people who did post, you are sampling a minority, so its impossible to know for certain what the majority thinks. To me it feels even worse if you read comments to news articles or various websites. There tends to be a small group of regular posters and not much else ... a micro sample of sentiment at best.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,041
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Feb 16, 2019 16:45:42 GMT -5
If Obama had made a political statement Saying We need a wall,, All of us on Right would have been against it! All on the Left would be for it!
Please have the courtesy *not* to speak for me. I don't care who claims we need a wall. We don't. What we need is a clear and simple way to become a legal citizen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 16, 2019 18:24:39 GMT -5
I'd like to see them enforce the law that puts employERS in jail when they hire illegals. That would put a stop to a lot of it right there. And we can start with DT & his family company. He knew, don't care what he says, he knew and so did his entire family and his whole business! Instead of making US employers into second step criminals when they hire illegals who more often than not, show up with excellent paper. all most companies need to do is use "e-verify". why this is not a federal REQUIREMENT for hiring is a really good question.
i would like Trump to answer it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 16, 2019 18:28:21 GMT -5
No jobs = few to no illegal immigrants. Then what is the reasoning for sanctuary cities ? it allows "illegals" protection against deportation in cases where crimes are perpetrated against them. this is particularly important in the prosecution of gang related crimes. Trump makes a big deal about going after MS-13. MS-13 primarily works through intermediaries that are family or nationals of Guatemala. if they are to gather enough evidence to bring them down, that is NOT going to happen if the witnesses are threatened with deportation. which is precisely WHY the gang continues to grow in the US.
it has absolutely NOTHING to do with jobs.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 16, 2019 18:29:02 GMT -5
Instead of making US employers into second step criminals when they hire illegals who more often than not, show up with excellent paper. all most companies need to do is use "e-verify". why this is not a federal REQUIREMENT for hiring is a really good question.
i would like Trump to answer it.
Because he needs to be able to hire cheap staff for his golf courses and resorts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 16, 2019 18:29:41 GMT -5
Sanctuary cities would be a good start.
I hope you mean getting rid of these. Yes, if sanctuary were closed then a lot of the jobs would not be there. um....just no.
these things are totally unrelated.
why do at least TWO posters on this board think otherwise?
i really am curious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 16, 2019 18:30:20 GMT -5
all most companies need to do is use "e-verify". why this is not a federal REQUIREMENT for hiring is a really good question.
i would like Trump to answer it.
Because he needs to be able to hire cheap staff for his golf courses and resorts.
it would be lovely to see that level of honesty in the debate.
instead, all we hear is hollering about walls.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 16, 2019 18:34:13 GMT -5
Then what is the reasoning for sanctuary cities ? it allows "illegals" protection against deportation in cases where crimes are perpetrated against them. this is particularly important in the prosecution of gang related crimes. Trump makes a big deal about going after MS-13. MS-13 primarily works through intermediaries that are family or nationals of Guatemala. if they are to gather enough evidence to bring them down, that is NOT going to happen if the witnesses are threatened with deportation. which is precisely WHY the gang continues to grow in the US.
it has absolutely NOTHING to do with jobs.
Or when they are witnesses to crimes against citizens...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 16, 2019 19:22:40 GMT -5
No jobs = few to no illegal immigrants. Then what is the reasoning for sanctuary cities ? As a disclaimer, I am on record here as saying that all persons here illegally should be deported. I still support sanctuary city legislation. A couple of months ago I copied a post from the previous December to make the argument anew. I will do so again here: There are competing priorities at play, and going after otherwise law-abiding illegals in such ways is a poor use of limited resources. For those who are against sanctuary cities, at least educate yourselves as to what sanctuary cities even are. You cannot depend on right-wing sources to explain it to you.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 16, 2019 19:42:36 GMT -5
Sanctuary cities would be a good start.
I hope you mean getting rid of these. Yes, if sanctuary were closed then a lot of the jobs would not be there. um....just no.
these things are totally unrelated.
why do at least TWO posters on this board think otherwise?
i really am curious.
Because most people don't know what it really means. I didn't. I thought sanctuary cities would not deport illegals, period. I had no idea it had anything to do with criminal investigations etc.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 16, 2019 20:05:12 GMT -5
um....just no.
these things are totally unrelated.
why do at least TWO posters on this board think otherwise?
i really am curious.
Because most people don't know what it really means. I didn't. I thought sanctuary cities would not deport illegals, period. I had no idea it had anything to do with criminal investigations etc. Actually, what it really means is that the federal government cannot conscript local law enforcement agencies or personnel to do their work for them. Some localities may add another level of language and meaning to it, but that is essentially it.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 16, 2019 20:35:55 GMT -5
Because most people don't know what it really means. I didn't. I thought sanctuary cities would not deport illegals, period. I had no idea it had anything to do with criminal investigations etc. Actually, what it really means is that the federal government cannot conscript local law enforcement agencies or personnel to do their work for them. Some localities may add another level of language and meaning to it, but that is essentially it. That's the kind of explanation that leads to a misunderstanding of what it is. And leads to arguments about if it's a good idea. Because local law enforcement conscripts all kinds of people to do their jobs ie teachers, counsellors, doctors etc that are all obligated to report child abuse. We all think that is a good idea.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 16, 2019 21:17:40 GMT -5
Actually, what it really means is that the federal government cannot conscript local law enforcement agencies or personnel to do their work for them. Some localities may add another level of language and meaning to it, but that is essentially it. That's the kind of explanation that leads to a misunderstanding of what it is. And leads to arguments about if it's a good idea. Because local law enforcement conscripts all kinds of people to do their jobs ie teachers, counsellors, doctors etc that are all obligated to report child abuse. We all think that is a good idea. Was it local law enforcement officials who passed mandatory reporting laws? No, it was legislative bodies. Law enforcement takes over if there is some crime to be investigated or charged.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 16, 2019 21:24:47 GMT -5
That's the kind of explanation that leads to a misunderstanding of what it is. And leads to arguments about if it's a good idea. Because local law enforcement conscripts all kinds of people to do their jobs ie teachers, counsellors, doctors etc that are all obligated to report child abuse. We all think that is a good idea. Was it local law enforcement officials who passed mandatory reporting laws? No, it was legislative bodies. Law enforcement takes over if there is some crime to be investigated or charged. Legislative bodies pass all the laws so ICE wouldn't conscript people either under that argument. And law enforcement refusing to report on illegal immigrants is the whole point. If they reported ICE would take over. You are comparing apples to apples but don't seem to realise it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 16, 2019 21:34:59 GMT -5
No, because they do not have jurisdiction over local authorities. It is arguable whether local law enforcement participating in immigration activities is even constitutional.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,893
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 16, 2019 22:35:32 GMT -5
I agree with the e verify, I keep telling our crazy locals that's all they have to do. There are also monetary penalties on the books as is jail time, I assume its still on the books. But likely just a slap on the hand.
They can fix this if they will. Texas did, the welfare rolls were overflowing. I don't remember the year, 10, or so years ago, they were allowed to start checking SS numbers with e verify. When they started finding 3 and 4 attached to a SS card word got around quick. So many quit coming they were able to close a bunch of offices. If it worked for them, it would work for the feds. We have the way to do this, it is asinine for this to continue.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 17, 2019 0:13:17 GMT -5
Sanctuary cities would be a good start.
I hope you mean getting rid of these. Yes, if sanctuary were closed then a lot of the jobs would not be there. um....just no.
these things are totally unrelated.
why do at least TWO posters on this board think otherwise?
i really am curious.
Because some news outlets pretend that sanctuary cities are something they aren't to get people wound up?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 17, 2019 8:01:41 GMT -5
If Obama had made a political statement Saying We need a wall,, All of us on Right would have been against it! All on the Left would be for it!
Please have the courtesy *not* to speak for me. I don't care who claims we need a wall. We don't. What we need is a clear and simple way to become a legal citizen. Some people like to remain in denial that there are many viewpoints and it would be rare for all the "Left" to agree on anything. I think its true of the "Right" as well, although less so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:41:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 8:41:31 GMT -5
There is a certain irony in gun extremists not wanting any restrictions because ... government tyranny... groveling in the dirt to kiss the ass of government tyranny. Could be they don't want any restriction because it's number 2 in the Bill of Rights. Right after free speech. Irony indeed.
|
|