Your opinions on the U.S. border wall

[Subduction Zone]

Those are good points. Requiring employers to validate employees and holding them liable for purposeful, knowing, reckless violations would go a long way im reducing incentives to enter the U.S. illegally.

While I agree that more shpuld be done to ameliorate living and qorking conditions in foreign countries, (especially our neighboring countries), the current move toward isolationism amd nationalism is preventing progress. In the meantime we can focus on domestic policy that works toward the root of the problem. Thus we shpuld be more preoccupied with addressing the businesses and employers that hire illegal immigrants.

That could be done, but there are too many businesses that rely on illegals to make it practical. Before 1964 we had a guest worker policy for agricultural workers. When that was eliminated there was no increase in wages for agricultural workers, instead farmers switched to other crops and mechanized those that kept going. I don't think that eliminating illegals would solve any problems. It would be wiser to work for reform in the countries that supply us with those workers.

 

[Curious George]

That could be done, but there are too many businesses that rely on illegals to make it practical. Before 1964 we had a guest worker policy for agricultural workers. When that was eliminated there was no increase in wages for agricultural workers, instead farmers switched to other crops and mechanized those that kept going. I don't think that eliminating illegals would solve any problems. It would be wiser to work for reform in the countries that supply us with those workers.

So if many businesses do not want the illegals gone, and we are unwilling to enact policies which significantly diminish the number of illegals or disincentivizes illegally coming to the U.S., what does that tell you.

Perhaps we don't want change. We want a boogeyman at whom we can point our fingers. Illegals and immigrants in general work wonders, it is a tried and true method used throughout our nations history.

The question is, why? Do illegals really pose that great of a risk to our economy? It seems the answer is no. But the beware of boogiemen rhetoric certainly does gather votes. Those votes carry elections, those elections grant power, that power brings money and more power. Whether the wall gets built or not, whether there is immigration reform or not... the rich will get richer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if many businesses do not want the illegals gone, and we are unwilling to enact policies which significantly diminish the number of illegals or disincentivizes illegally coming to the U.S., what does that tell you.

Perhaps we don't want change. We want a boogeyman at whom we can point our fingers. Illegals and immigrants in general work wonders, it is a tried and true method used throughout our nations history.

The question is, why? Do illegals really pose that great of a risk to our economy? It seems the answer is no. But the beware of boogiemen rhetoric certainly does gather votes. Those votes carry elections, those elections grant power, that power brings money and more power. Whether the wall gets built or not, whether there is immigration reform or not... the rich will get richer.

It is much easier to distract those being taken advantage of with a non-problem rather than offering real solutions.

 

[Shad]

It pleases me to see that you acknowledge the current violation of rights occurring.

I posted about this before earlier this year and last year well before this whole caravan issue. I have major issues with DHS and how it has been used.

I don'tsee the relevance to chipping.

As chipping is a bar to free entry via sponsorship and harm clause.

It could. There is actual a substantial history of branding in the U.S. that said, chipping distinguishes itself from branding based on both utility and barbarity.

Slave masters could claim utility. Lack of barbarity does not make it less of an abuse just more palatable.

Also to a point chipping and deportation is punishment. The chip would need to be removed as part of deportation not remain in the body.

Considered. But not applicable.

Disagreed. And I have SCOTUS rulings in favor and established precedent of my point regarding family and citizens.

 

[Salvador]

I don't need to worry about that, as unless they can get the full cost of the entire wall they will be forced to make the most effective decisions due to budget restraints. That's the beauty of the Republicans having to compromise, which they will because the Dems now control the House.

The POTUS has already compromised his position from having a solid border wall to having just as an effective border security steel slated barrier; our border security should not be any further compromised ....

Imo, there's nothing good gonna come out of a Dem controlled house with Nancy Pelosi as House Majority Speaker. ....

 

[wandering peacefully]

What we actually don't need, are southern crop farmers who break laws. I'm for having these farmers prosecuted.

"The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to them" but "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." Unauthorized immigrants demand goods and services while an estimated 50 to 75 percent pay taxes. Due to cheaper labor, they contribute to lower prices in the industries where they work, such as agriculture, restaurants, and construction
Studies have shown that overall in the long run illegal immigration benefits the country in terms of its general production, but introducing many people in the labor market can lead to income distribution that can tend towards domestic workers and immigrant workers on other occasions. The net short-term impacts of some aspects of illegal immigration can be inconclusive. Though this net effect changes, the number of immigrants crossing the border illegally is less unclear. Aviva Chomsky, a professor at Salem State College, states that "Early studies in California and in the Southwest and in the Southeast...have come to the same conclusions. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of."Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance." programs."Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

I'm not saying that illegal immigration is necessarily good, but it is also not the great tragedy talking heads try to make it. Certainly not enough to build a wall which will be damaging to wildlife and absolutely won't stop people from crossing. They will go over, under, and around it. Human and drug traffickers will just find another way to do their business. You can't cover the entire country in an impenetrable bubble.
Then there are the actual numbers on crime. How many illegal immigrants commit crimes compared to the legal population?

 

[Curious George]

I posted about this before earlier this year and last year well before this whole caravan issue. I have major issues with DHS and how it has been used.

That is good.

As chipping is a bar to free entry via sponsorship and harm clause.

No it is not.

Slave masters could claim utility. Lack of barbarity does not make it less of an abuse just more palatable.

I suppose you need to establish that it is an abuse. It is a little hard to say that it is cruel, and we can't really say that it is unusual if it is a form of branding that lacks the barbarity.

Also to a point chipping and deportation is punishment. The chip would need to be removed as part of deportation not remain in the body.

Absolutely it is a punishment. But if one is going to argue that illegal aliens are criminal, then we would jave jurisdiction to enact punishment.

Disagreed. And I have SCOTUS rulings in favor and established precedent of my point regarding family and citizens.

How does that relate to chipping and state power. You were pushing a slippery slope argument.

 

[metis]

Do you feel the same way about the tobacco industry? It's the smokers at fault, and not big tobacco at all?

...Just curious, because I was under the impression that profiting off of highly addictive substances, on purpose, kind of puts the supplier at fault.

Nowadays, smokers pretty much know the risk their taking, so they deserve the lion's share of the blame. However, I don't give big tobacco a free pass as they could easily make tobacco less addictive.

 

[Earthling]

What?

Example: An old man lay dead in his apartment. (Fact)
Chief: So, what's your theory?
Detective: Given the fact that he has a knife sticking out his back on the left side, I'd say he was stabbed in the back by a left handed person. Probably never even saw it coming, since there are no signs of a struggle. (Hypothesis)
Chief: Okay, so let's send the evidence to forensics. (Testing/Experimentation)
Results come back the next day. Fingerprints on the knife match the man's nephew, a left handed guy. (Proof)
Chief: Great work, detective. Your theory explains all the facts. (Unless of course, new evidence pops up later)

Theories do explain facts. That's why they are called theories.

Excellent demonstration. I misspoke, though, I meant to say theories aren't facts, not that they don't explain them.

 

[youknowme]

The POTUS has already compromised his position from having a solid border wall to having just as an effective border security steel slated barrier; our border security should not be any further compromised ....

Imo, there's nothing good gonna come out of a Dem controlled house with Nancy Pelosi as House Majority Speaker. ....

I am aware that you hate all things "Dem", but we get much better results out of Congress when both sides are forced to work together, and Trump is already compromising a lot more than just giving up a solid wall. Estimations for the cost of wall range between 12 - 70 billion, the Department of Homeland Security puts it at 21.6 billion, and Trump is scrabbling just to get 5 billion. This is not just because of the Dems, but the Reps think Trump's vision is stupid as well. Congress controls the budget, not Trump and if Trump wants to get the full funds for his wall then he is going to have to give a lot to the Dems, and the Reps will not like that, so it is unlikely he'll be able to strong arm the full funds out of Congress without making serious compromises. Also regardless of what you think, this will result in better and more reasonable border security than Trump's silly wall; Trump has no clue what he is talking about, and there is no reason for us to listen to him when it comes to border security.

 

[Father Heathen]

Aah, but isn't it true that the wall will benefit the middle class in the long run? Less kids dying of fentanyl and opioid overdoses. Less cocaine. Less poverty. Less prison population... These things benefit Americans.

Except there are more direct and cost effective ways to address these issues. Not to mention that a lot of the right's policies would offset these supposed benefits, anyway.

 

[Salvador]

I am aware that you hate all things "Dem", but we get much better results out of Congress when both sides are forced to work together, and Trump is already compromising a lot more than just giving up a solid wall. Estimations for the cost of wall range between 12 - 70 billion, the Department of Homeland Security puts it at 21.6 billion, and Trump is scrabbling just to get 5 billion. This is not just because of the Dems, but the Reps think Trump's vision is stupid as well. Congress controls the budget, not Trump and if Trump wants to get the full funds for his wall then he is going to have to give a lot to the Dems, and the Reps will not like that, so it is unlikely he'll be able to strong arm the full funds out of Congress without making serious compromises. Also regardless of what you think, this will result in better and more reasonable border security than Trump's silly wall; Trump has no clue what he is talking about, and there is no reason for us to listen to him when it comes to border security.

According to the POTUS, if there's no funding for an effective border security barrier, then the border will get closed down until an effective border security barrier is approved. Do you really want to see our border secured in such dramatic fashion? I think not. Therefore, please write your Senator and Congressman to vote for an effective border security barrier. ...

 

[Shad]

No it is not.

Yes it is as tracking is the alternative to detention which is still a bar to free entry. Bars are covered by the INA

I suppose you need to establish that it is an abuse.

It was be abuse against refugees as they are being treat with suspension and labelled a flight risk. It was violate settlement laws for refugees. For immigrant it violates due process making it an abuse of power.

It is a little hard to say that it is cruel, and we can't really say that it is unusual if it is a form of branding that lacks the barbarity.

Cruelty nor barbarity are require to be branding. Chips are considered branding in general.

Absolutely it is a punishment.

Which is branding used as a punishment

But if one is going to argue that illegal aliens are criminal, then we would jave jurisdiction to enact punishment.

This would make chipping an criminal code matter and no immigration

How does that relate to chipping and state power.

I was talking about the "and deportation" part. This would be spying once deported.

You were pushing a slippery slope argument.

When it comes to abuse of and granting government power you bet.

 

[youknowme]

According to the POTUS, if there's no funding for an effective border security barrier, then the border will get closed down until an effective border security barrier is approved. Do you really want to see our border secured in such dramatic fashion? I think not. Therefore, please write your Senator and Congressman to vote for an effective border security barrier. ...

The Reps and Trump are going to be the ones who take the most heat over this shutdown, and considering the Dems now have the House, Trump just gave them more leverage. He may get his 5 billion, but it will likely cost the Reps.

 

[fantome profane]

According to the POTUS,

Anything that follows this phrase should probably be dismissed. I do not believe the border will or could be “shutdown” in any significant way for more than a few hours at most.

The infant in the Oval Office can hold his breath and pout for as long as he wants, it simply won’t happen.

 

[Salvador]

Yes it is as tracking is the alternative to detention which is still a bar to free entry. Bars are covered by the INA

The location of Illegal immigrants needs to be known by immigration officials, so none of these illegals would be able to evade their deportation hearings; giving illegals the option to be either legally detained or traceable with a tracking device is an available elective humane alternative to imprisonment of non-violent criminals in an overcrowded detainment facility.

It was be abuse against refugees as they are being treat with suspension and labelled a flight risk. It was violate settlement laws for refugees. For immigrant it violates due process making it an abuse of power.

Refugees can get due process at a legal port of entry where they can lawfully claim refugee status. However, non-violent border trespassers should be given the choice of being lawfully detained or being tracked with an RFID chip implant that makes their whereabouts known; consequently, these monitored illegal aliens would be unable to evade their deportation hearing. ...[/QUOTE]

Cruelty nor barbarity are require to be branding. Chips are considered branding in general.

Branding should not be forced upon anybody against his will. Imo, the choice between branding by way of having an RFID chip surgically implanted or imprisonment should be offered to all captured illegal aliens.

IWhich is branding used as a punishment

Imo, branding should not be used as a punishment, but should be used as a tool to track the location of illegal immigrants who would then neither be able to elude their deportation hearing nor overstay their welcome in our great nation where many immigrants desire to legally migrate.

 

[Salvador]

The Reps and Trump are going to be the ones who take the most heat over this shutdown, and considering the Dems now have the House, Trump just gave them more leverage. He may get his 5 billion, but it will likely cost the Reps.

Trump doesn't really care much about political fallout, he mostly cares about what's in the best interest of our national security.

 

[Shad]

The location of Illegal immigrants needs to be known to immigration officials, so none of these illegals would be able to skip out on their deportation hearings; giving illegals the option to be either legally detained or traceable with a tracking device is an available elective humane alternative to imprisonment of non-violent criminals in an overcrowded detainment facility.

If they are such a risk detain or deport them. Why waste more money just to track people you suspect, based on little evidence, are a flight risk. I favour deportation when it comes to costs.

Branding should not be forced upon anybody against his will. Imo, the choice between branding by way of having an RFID chip surgically implanted or imprisonment should be offered to all captured illegal aliens.

Coercion. Do X or Y will happen.

Imo, branding should not be used as a punishment, but should be used as a tool to track the location of illegal immigrants who would then neither be able to elude their deportation hearing nor overstay their welcome in our great nation where many immigrants desire to legally migrate.

This point was about chipping and deport them. If the chip is not removed prior to being deported this becomes the government is spying on a foreign national in a foreign nation for little cause. The US is not removing it's property from a person. The agreement being used is no longer valid as a foreign national in a non-US nation can not be a flight risk in the USA.

 

[Shad]

Anything that follows this phrase should probably be dismissed. I do not believe the border will or could be “shutdown” in any significant way for more than a few hours at most.

The infant in the Oval Office can hold his breath and pout for as long as he wants, it simply won’t happen.

POTUS has direct control over immigration as it is part of executive branch. Trump is talking about the shutting down the immigration system. No applications are processed, reviewed nor see a hearing. All entry is denied. Do not pass go, do not collect 100 dollars. If he could order the actual shut down the border itself he wouldn't need a wall.

 

[Salvador]

This point was about chipping and deport them. If the chip is not removed prior to being deported this becomes the government is spying on a foreign national in a foreign nation for little cause. The US is not removing it's property from a person. The agreement being used is no longer valid as a foreign national in a non-US nation can not be a flight risk in the USA.

Imo, Mexico would have to pay for removing RDIF chip implants from those whom they fail to stop trespassing across the border; that'd encourage a crackdown from Mexico against illegal immigration.