Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hst2

Is Trump going to shut down government over his useless wall?

175 posts in this topic

54 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

I don't support open borders.  Not that you care as I've stated that multiple times and you just ignore it.  

As far as "chain migration", I don't care for the derogatory term.  I don't have a problem with people being able to immigrate here because they have family here to sponsor them.  I think having an existing support network in place makes it far more likely that an immigrant will succeed here in America.  And it's not like vetting ceases to exist if you attempt to immigrate here and you're sponsored by a family member.  Quite frankly I don't think trump understands anything about the process and is making far too big a deal out of family immigration.

Everything is not about you.  If you don't support open borders than you aren't included in those who support open borders, but some do whether you do or not.  Trust me, I ignore you far more than you think. 

There's nothing offensive about the term "chain migration". 

Being opposed to any limits on immigration is de facto open borders.  Sovereign nations have borders and an inherent right to control them.  People who disagree with that probably don't agree that "temporary" really means temporary too, and not permanent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saticon3 said:

my MIL got laid off for like 8 weeks, then re-instated with back pay- so she got an extra, extended paid vacation out of it, along with a nice lump sum, but I was not affected in any way as I recall.

I was a federal full time employee during a couple shutdowns.  Never received any back pay.  Could not even use accrued leave to cover the off time.  So, curious as to which department offers that.  Doesn't matter now, retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

That's no different than opposing a project because "Fred" said so.  The wall doesn't have to be continuous and completely brick and mortar or steel, etc.  A wall will be more effective than the catch and release program that the previous administration used to pretend that it was deporting more people than ever by turning them away at the border IF caught on one single occasion.

 

Illegal crossings went down under Obama. Bush started investing more in border security and Obama continued with more agents etc.

The big factor IMO has been an improving Mexican economy. One of the underlying reasons for that is a steep decline in the Median birth rate, more women working, greater productivity.

Helps to look at the whole issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

U.S. immigration agents raided dozens of 7-Eleven stores before dawn Wednesday and arrested 21 people in the biggest crackdown on a company suspected of hiring undocumented workers since President Donald Trump took office.

“Today’s actions send a strong message to U.S. businesses that hire and employ an illegal workforce,” ICE's Acting Director Thomas D. Homan said in a statement. “ICE will enforce the law, and if you are found to be breaking the law, you will be held accountable.”  “Businesses that hire illegal workers are a pull factor for illegal immigration, and we are working hard to remove this magnet,” Homan said. “ICE will continue its efforts to protect jobs for American workers by eliminating unfair competitive advantages for companies that exploit illegal immigration.”

Derek N. Benner, another top ICE official, warned that Wednesday's raids were “a harbinger of what’s to come.”  “This is what we’re gearing up for this year and what you’re going to see more and more of is these large-scale compliance inspections, just for starters,” Benner, acting head of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations, told The Associated Press. “From there, we will look at whether these cases warrant an administrative posture or criminal investigation.”  Benner said they’re not just targeting big companies. “It’s going to be inclusive of everything that we see out there,” he said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/immigration-agents-raid-7-eleven-stores-nationwide-arrest-21-people-n836531

 

Personally, I think enforcement like this, along with strong penalties for the businesses breaking the law, will do more to dry up illegal immigration than any wall.  Drying up the work incentives and going after people who are here illegally will be a stronger deterrent than a wall.    As noted before, the use of drones and sensors can effectively patrol the border better than a barrier that can be breached.   The government can use the money saved on the wall to increase our border security forces.  

Share this post


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

 

Personally, I think enforcement like this, along with strong penalties for the businesses breaking the law, will do more to dry up illegal immigration than any wall.  Drying up the work incentives and going after people who are here illegally will be a stronger deterrent than a wall.    As noted before, the use of drones and sensors can effectively patrol the border better than a barrier that can be breached.   The government can use the money saved on the wall to increase our border security forces.  

AMEN!

I like to use this analogy: if you're at a picnic and there is a big open jar of honey on the table, and lots of ants, what do you do? Chase all the ants? Try to "wall off" their entry points? Or do you close the damn jar?

Start prosecuting employers. Not penny ante fines, but start throwing these business owners in jail, seize their assets. Otherwise it's all talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

 

Personally, I think enforcement like this, along with strong penalties for the businesses breaking the law, will do more to dry up illegal immigration than any wall.  Drying up the work incentives and going after people who are here illegally will be a stronger deterrent than a wall.    As noted before, the use of drones and sensors can effectively patrol the border better than a barrier that can be breached.   The government can use the money saved on the wall to increase our border security forces.  

With Trump ending the TPS programs, they're going to have quite a few more undocumented immigrants to chase after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

 

Personally, I think enforcement like this, along with strong penalties for the businesses breaking the law, will do more to dry up illegal immigration than any wall.  Drying up the work incentives and going after people who are here illegally will be a stronger deterrent than a wall.    As noted before, the use of drones and sensors can effectively patrol the border better than a barrier that can be breached.   The government can use the money saved on the wall to increase our border security forces.  

 

24 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

AMEN!

I like to use this analogy: if you're at a picnic and there is a big open jar of honey on the table, and lots of ants, what do you do? Chase all the ants? Try to "wall off" their entry points? Or do you close the damn jar?

Start prosecuting employers. Not penny ante fines, but start throwing these business owners in jail, seize their assets. Otherwise it's all talk.

Excellent posts!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ode2Joy said:

That's no different than opposing a project because "Fred" said so.  The wall doesn't have to be continuous and completely brick and mortar or steel, etc.  A wall will be more effective than the catch and release program that the previous administration used to pretend that it was deporting more people than ever by turning them away at the border IF caught on one single occasion.

 

No, it is in fact quite different. The gain, no matter how low balled of a price estimate you use, seems to me to not be worth the the price. That is why I am against wasting tax dollars for it. That is a fiscally conservative position. Your position, that it will be worth the cost, no matter the cost, seems like a big government, big spending liberal position to take. 

Edited by Rael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rael said:

So you blindly support a project no matter the budget or time line? Sorry, that doesn't sound like sound conservative ideology. 

It doesn't? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ms maggie said:

AMEN!

I like to use this analogy: if you're at a picnic and there is a big open jar of honey on the table, and lots of ants, what do you do? Chase all the ants? Try to "wall off" their entry points? Or do you close the damn jar?

Start prosecuting employers. Not penny ante fines, but start throwing these business owners in jail, seize their assets. Otherwise it's all talk.

I agree 100%, but I don't think the power brokers from either sides of the aisle really want to stop it. Both sides want the "issue", and the rich fat cats from both sides want the cheap labor. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think I am.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but then there's this:

Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it. - USA Today

Aug 22, 2017 - A bipartisan effort resulted in a wall that has cut the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions to a 10th of what it was in 2006. ... Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing. Undoubtedly ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

but then there's this:

Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it. - USA Today

Aug 22, 2017 - A bipartisan effort resulted in a wall that has cut the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions to a 10th of what it was in 2006. ... Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing. Undoubtedly ...

I don't think the issue is will it help. It's more about how much bang you get for your buck.

Share this post


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

I don't think the issue is will it help. It's more about how much bang you get for your buck.

Always comes down to the bottom line. Maybe they could agree to make it a long term project, not just the wall, but personnel, drones, surveillance, etc, and spread it out over 8-10 years, allocating just enough resources each year so we don't sabotage other needs. Combine that with DACA path to citizenship, limit chain migration to immediate family.......oh , I feel like I'm repeating myself. But you get the idea. And hash it out live on TV! I know I'm dreaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mrdeltoid said:

Always comes down to the bottom line. Maybe they could agree to make it a long term project, not just the wall, but personnel, drones, surveillance, etc, and spread it out over 8-10 years, allocating just enough resources each year so we don't sabotage other needs. Combine that with DACA path to citizenship, limit chain migration to immediate family.......oh , I feel like I'm repeating myself. But you get the idea. And hash it out live on TV! I know I'm dreaming. 

Why limit chain migration to immediate family? 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


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

No, it is in fact quite different. The gain, no matter how low balled of a price estimate you use, seems to me to not be worth the the price. That is why I am against wasting tax dollars for it. That is a fiscally conservative position. Your position, that it will be worth the cost, no matter the cost, seems like a big government, big spending liberal position to take. 

I think it'd be money well spent.  Sorry if my disagreeing with you has caused you any distress. 

And as hst2's comment above demonstrates, open borders supporters' goal is to first get the people in here, temporarily or not, and then work to remove any limits to chain migration to well beyond immediate family for those who are already here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

I think it'd be money well spent.  Sorry if my disagreeing with you has caused you any distress. 

And as hst2's comment above demonstrates, open borders supporters' goal is to first get the people in here, temporarily or not, and then work to remove any limits to chain migration to well beyond immediate family for those who are already here.

Then by all means send some of your own money to build the wall.  I am sure that Trump will take donations.  Maybe Trump will do a matching fund, the remainder will be paid for by Mexico, right?  Trump did day that Mexico would pay for the wall or was that a lie?  

Edited by EGoldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, overtaxed said:

I was a federal full time employee during a couple shutdowns.  Never received any back pay.  Could not even use accrued leave to cover the off time.  So, curious as to which department offers that.  Doesn't matter now, retired.

search "feds get backpay for government shutdowns"   and list those times when feds didn't get paid when sent home for shutdowns.  There aren't any.  I worked for them for more than 30 years.

Edited by Boobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EGoldstein said:

Then by all means send some of your own money to build the wall.  I am sure that Trump will take donations.  Maybe Trump will do a matching fund, the remainder will be paid for by Mexico, right?  Trump did day that Mexico would pay for the wall or was that a lie?  

I pay taxes and I'd like to see it spent on the wall.  mrdeltoid just dispelled the myth that a wall won't work, and then the narrative suddenly changed to it not providing a "big enough bang for the bucks".

I don't care if Mexico pays for the wall or not.  It says a lot about a country that does everything it can to allow as many of its citizens to leave and sees that as a good thing for their country. 

You'd also think that they'd want to keep their citizens so they can make the same valuable contributions to Mexico that many claim they contribute to this country by becoming illegal immigrants.

Mexico should set an example by doing away with its own restrictive immigration laws against those south of its own border. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

I pay taxes and I'd like to see it spent on the wall.  mrdeltoid just dispelled the myth that a wall won't work, and then the narrative suddenly changed to it not providing a "big enough bang for the bucks".

I don't care if Mexico pays for the wall or not.  It says a lot about a country that does everything it can to allow as many of its citizens to leave and sees that as a good thing for their country. 

You'd also think that they'd want to keep their citizens so they can make the same valuable contributions to Mexico that many claim they contribute to this country by becoming illegal immigrants.

Mexico should set an example by doing away with its own restrictive immigration laws against those south of its own border. 

 

 

So you are basically saying that Trump did indeed lie about the wall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

I think it'd be money well spent.  Sorry if my disagreeing with you has caused you any distress. 

And as hst2's comment above demonstrates, open borders supporters' goal is to first get the people in here, temporarily or not, and then work to remove any limits to chain migration to well beyond immediate family for those who are already here.

How can you say it will be money well spent without knowing what is to be spent? You aren't causing me distress, just confusion since you say you are a conservative. 

Is there any figure at which it would cost too much for the perceived benefit? $10 trillion? $1 trillion? $100 billion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rael said:

How can you say it will be money well spent without knowing what is to be spent? You aren't causing me distress, just confusion since you say you are a conservative. 

Is there any figure at which it would cost too much for the perceived benefit? $10 trillion? $1 trillion? $100 billion?

I'll pick an arbitrary figure and say that I think that $10 trillion is too much if that means calming you down a little over my disagreement with you over building a wall.

$10 trillion is too much to spend on that wall!!!!  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rael said:

How can you say it will be money well spent without knowing what is to be spent? You aren't causing me distress, just confusion since you say you are a conservative. 

Is there any figure at which it would cost too much for the perceived benefit? $10 trillion? $1 trillion? $100 billion?

Unfortunately some people don't care how much money gets spent on the wall, to them if Trump says it is worth it, it is worth it regardless of costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

I'll pick an arbitrary figure and say that I think that $10 trillion is too much if that means calming you down a little over my disagreement with you over building a wall.

$10 trillion is too much to spend on that wall!!!!  :) 

Trump said "I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall." 

Ten trillion dollars is not inexpensively.  So by way of your estimate, are you admitting that Trump lied yet again about the wall?  And of equal importantance, that his lies to you do not seem to bother you.    

Edited by EGoldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ode2Joy said:

I'll pick an arbitrary figure and say that I think that $10 trillion is too much if that means calming you down a little over my disagreement with you over building a wall.

$10 trillion is too much to spend on that wall!!!!  :) 

Is 100 billion too much or is anything under 10 trillion cool with you?

It isn't that I'm getting upset. It is just that everything has a cost benefit analysis. I'll grant you that there would be some benefit, but unless you know the cost then whether you ar for it or against it, if you have made a decision it is nothing more than an emotional decision rather than a reasoned one.

I prefer my decisions based on reason. To my mind, even if I believed the government estimates for time and budget (which I truly don't), even at those prices I do not believe the benefit exceeds the cost.  

Edited by Rael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0