Shutdown Over Border Security?

[Bill the Cat]

I have no idea how you think the high cost of deportation in any way means we're owning our part of the situation. We're still ignoring that the presence of these people here is partylu our fault, but making them pay by uprooting them and shipping them to another country.

Making someone pay is an excellent punitive measure. If the US government pays to deport, they are receiving punishment for complicity in the illegal immigration transaction. That isn't ignoring anything.

It can be. My impression is that your hatred for illegal immigrants trumps (pun intended) any empathy for the situation in which they find themselves. It doesn't matter why they came - it doesn't matter what role they currently play - it doesn't matter what life they've lived since arriving - or how they contribute to their communities - your answer is the same for all situations: ship them out! So yes - you appear to lack any degree of empathy or charity. You have one response for illegal immigration that is to be applied to all situations: get them out.

In which they FIND THEMSELVES IN??? No. They PLACED THEMSELVES in the situation, and continue to be in it every day. It's a situation of their own making, which they hold the power to remedy. No amount of empathy is necessary for self-inflicted situations.

So you just jump over some significant words like "often" and "in some states" and so forth. I have a business. I have no business license. There is no requirement for one for what I do. That is the case for many kinds of business - and varies widely state-to-state. I'm not operating illegally - according to my lawyer.

I asked a question. You ran around it. I found it myself.

People without legal residency can obtain an individual taxpayer identification number and an employer identification number, enabling them to open bank accounts and operate businesses among other things.

That needs to stop.

I've not suggested favoring one group over another. Those coming legally have an easy path. Those already here illegally have an arduous path that will provide something to the country (e.g., extensive community service, etc.), and those who come illegally in the future are summarily deported unless they applied for asylum. And it doesn't matter to me if you use liberal or conservative terms, so I'm not sure what that part is all about.

And again, those who refuse to identify just keep slipping under the radar, thanks to sanctuary cities and defiant mayors.

They are predictors of future behavior in the absence of change. That is what is being suggested: change.

Which requires the DESIRE to change. Neither side wants to. Neither side has shown a capacity to. And it's getting worse.

No - I did not. I said nothing about "propping up economies." That is a tactic that has been tried and has failed repeatedly.

Then how do you propose making it less attractive?

[carpedm9587]

Making someone pay is an excellent punitive measure. If the US government pays to deport, they are receiving punishment for complicity in the illegal immigration transaction. That isn't ignoring anything.

and it does nothing for the people being ejected, so we disagree. We can save the expense and take responsibility a different way that WILL be beneficial to them.

In which they FIND THEMSELVES IN??? No. They PLACED THEMSELVES in the situation, and continue to be in it every day. It's a situation of their own making, which they hold the power to remedy. No amount of empathy is necessary for self-inflicted situations.

The only path to remedy is "leave." Sorry. I don't find it an acceptable path, for the reasons I have cited.

I asked a question. You ran around it. I found it myself.

People without legal residency can obtain an individual taxpayer identification number and an employer identification number, enabling them to open bank accounts and operate businesses among other things.

That needs to stop.

No - it doesn't.

And again, those who refuse to identify just keep slipping under the radar, thanks to sanctuary cities and defiant mayors.

That's what they are doing now - so apparently deporting them is not an option either because they'll "just evade." You're not making a lot of sense, Bill. The strategy I propose is:

1) Provide an arduous path to citizenship (some will, and the arduous nature deals with your "unfair" complaint)
2) Deport those who hide as they are fond (that's what we're doing now - and they have no other option)
3) Anyone that is illegally in the country after date (insert date here) that has not registered for the path is immediately deported (includes any new illegal immigrants)

Simple - and a proposal with a little bit of a heart because it gives the people already here an option.

Which requires the DESIRE to change. Neither side wants to. Neither side has shown a capacity to.

You are certainly proving THAT is true - for you anyway.

And it's getting worse.

Actually, it's not. We've seen a spike recently, but overall illegal immigration is down 82% from its peak in the mid 1980s and around 2000.

Then how do you propose making it less attractive?

I've spoken to this. I think we need to:

1) enact laws that END the corporate pilfering of resources in other countries
2) cease giving open hand-outs to the governments of developing countries
3) create a grant/loan structure to be administered by local embassies in target countries. Grants/loans are to be given/tracked for individuals/organizations that use the funds for in-country development initiatives that a) use local, sustainable resources wherever possible, b) use U.S. resources when local resources are not available, c) use other resources when a) and b) ar enot possible. Each grant/loan would be assigned to a loan/grant office that would track progress and approve/disapprove additional future funds. All activities to be independently audited. Loans are to be preferred over grants whenever/wherever possible.
4) in parallel, support micro-loan programs that are driven by the general public. These have been shown to be highly successful in a variety of venues.


The bottom line for me is this: there are at least 11M illegal immigrants in country. Given the current population of the country, that's about 3%. That means one out of every 30 people you know is, on average, here illegally. So look around yourself at the people you think you know and know well. If you know more than 30 people, there's a fair chance one of them is here illegally. Imagine discovering that the person in question is your pastor, your immediate neighbor, one of your best friends, or even the spouse of a loved one. They've been in the country 15 years. They run a small business, have two teenage children in the local school, help out at the annual church chicken dinner. They brought your family a home cooked dinner when you were dealing with the death of a loved one. They chose to come to the U.S. because their home was violent and there were few options for work. Their children would be condemned to live in the same sort of poverty. They applied for legal immigration, and were put on a 15-year waiting list (it's over 2 decades for some countries).

Tell me that you're going to turn that person into ICE and have them deported - rather than give them an option for gaining citizenship and continuing to live their life as they have for the last 15 years.

[Bill the Cat]

and it does nothing for the people being ejected, so we disagree. We can save the expense and take responsibility a different way that WILL be beneficial to them.

Sorry, but we do not owe them anything.

The only path to remedy is "leave." Sorry. I don't find it an acceptable path, for the reasons I have cited.

And I find it perfectly acceptable.

No - it doesn't.

Sure it does. People here illegally should NOT receive ANY benefit from this country - least of all legitimacy in things like business.

That's what they are doing now - so apparently deporting them is not an option either because they'll "just evade." You're not making a lot of sense, Bill. The strategy I propose is:

1) Provide an arduous path to citizenship (some will, and the arduous nature deals with your "unfair" complaint)
2) Deport those who hide as they are fond (that's what we're doing now - and they have no other option)
3) Anyone that is illegally in the country after date (insert date here) that has not registered for the path is immediately deported (includes any new illegal immigrants)

Simple - and a proposal with a little bit of a heart because it gives the people already here an option.

It rewards the guilty. No thanks. My "arduous path" would include deportation and offering them the same opportunity to immigrate legally as anyone else.

You are certainly proving THAT is true - for you anyway.

On this subject, yes. I'm pretty inflexible when it comes to criminal behavior.

Actually, it's not. We've seen a spike recently, but overall illegal immigration is down 82% from its peak in the mid 1980s and around 2000.

I meant the problem of hyper-partisanship.

I've spoken to this. I think we need to:

1) enact laws that END the corporate pilfering of resources in other countries
2) cease giving open hand-outs to the governments of developing countries
3) create a grant/loan structure to be administered by local embassies in target countries. Grants/loans are to be given/tracked for individuals/organizations that use the funds for in-country development initiatives that a) use local, sustainable resources wherever possible, b) use U.S. resources when local resources are not available, c) use other resources when a) and b) ar enot possible. Each grant/loan would be assigned to a loan/grant office that would track progress and approve/disapprove additional future funds. All activities to be independently audited. Loans are to be preferred over grants whenever/wherever possible.
4) in parallel, support micro-loan programs that are driven by the general public. These have been shown to be highly successful in a variety of venues.


The bottom line for me is this: there are at least 11M illegal immigrants in country. Given the current population of the country, that's about 3%. That means one out of every 30 people you know is, on average, here illegally. So look around yourself at the people you think you know and know well. If you know more than 30 people, there's a fair chance one of them is here illegally. Imagine discovering that the person in question is your pastor, your immediate neighbor, one of your best friends, or even the spouse of a loved one. They've been in the country 15 years. They run a small business, have two teenage children in the local school, help out at the annual church chicken dinner. They brought your family a home cooked dinner when you were dealing with the death of a loved one. They chose to come to the U.S. because their home was violent and there were few options for work. Their children would be condemned to live in the same sort of poverty. They applied for legal immigration, and were put on a 15-year waiting list (it's over 2 decades for some countries).

Tell me that you're going to turn that person into ICE and have them deported - rather than give them an option for gaining citizenship and continuing to live their life as they have for the last 15 years.

I would first approach them about 1) Why they are here illegally, and 2) Why they didn't think that obeying the law was important. Then I'd give them the first option to turn themselves in. Then I'd make the call if they refused. "I got tired of waiting" isn't a valid response. There are literally dozens of other first-world countries that would take them and their children in, so no, they wouldn't have to live in that poverty.

I think I'm done on this topic. Last word is yours.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, but we do not owe them anything.

I don't believe I ever said we did. I don't know about you, but I don't do things for people only if I "owe" them or if they "deserve" it.

And I find it perfectly acceptable.

I'm aware.

Sure it does. People here illegally should NOT receive ANY benefit from this country - least of all legitimacy in things like business.

We disagree. Anyone who contributes is a contributor. At the end of the day, their citizenship status doesn't matter a great deal to me.

It rewards the guilty. No thanks. My "arduous path" would include deportation and offering them the same opportunity to immigrate legally as anyone else.

I'm aware.

On this subject, yes. I'm pretty inflexible when it comes to criminal behavior.

Then you are as much part of the problem as "they" are.

I meant the problem of hyper-partisanship.

Yes - that is getting worse. And so long as people remain as intransigent as you are - it won't get better.

I would first approach them about 1) Why they are here illegally,

Given your position on this issue, that would appear to be a useless question.

and 2) Why they didn't think that obeying the law was important. Then I'd give them the first option to turn themselves in. Then I'd make the call if they refused. "I got tired of waiting" isn't a valid response. There are literally dozens of other first-world countries that would take them and their children in, so no, they wouldn't have to live in that poverty.

Then I would not consider you a "good" person with respect to this topic. You have little/no heart. I'm sure that breaks you all up.

And I suspect, if you discovered that illegal person was actually your own spouse, or your child's fiance, your answer would probably be different. Or if you faced the situation I outlined in reality, rather than in the abstract. But not to worry, if people like you actually end up getting your way, you probably will. The odds are very high that someone you like/love is here illegally.

I think I'm done on this topic. Last word is yours.

Thanks for the chat.

[Sparko]

It seems the republicans see the criminals coming across the border and the democrats only see innocent families coming across the border. The truth is in the middle. All types are coming across the border and we can't tell them apart. There ARE criminals coming across and there are desperate families coming across. But we need to stop all of them because we can't tell the difference. And our country can't handle an unlimited number of refugees pouring across our border year after year. We need to make sure that the criminals are kept out and the refugees have a way to apply for asylum that doesn't have them sneaking across the border and then applying for asylum only if caught.

So we do need a wall or a barrier. One that is effective.

[carpedm9587]

It seems the republicans see the criminals coming across the border and the democrats only see innocent families coming across the border. The truth is in the middle.

I'll go with you as far as "between the two." I don't think the data supports the belief that it is anywhere near "the middle." The data seems to suggest that the vast majority of people coming to the border are families, children, and individuals seeking a better place to live/be. There are some very unscrupulous people taking advantage of this (i.e., so-called coyotes) and there are certainly some bad people also trying to get across as well. So I applaud the position that "it's not all one or the other."

All types are coming across the border and we can't tell them apart. There ARE criminals coming across and there are desperate families coming across. But we need to stop all of them because we can't tell the difference.

Well... I don't think that necessarily follows. Yes, I think we should be dubious of the lone male (or female) wandering across the border with a nebulous story. I also think that the incidence rate of family groups being "nefarious" is fairly low. Yes, there is always a risk. But then there is a risk in giving visas to people looking to visit the U.S. And it is informative to note that we don't know of a single terrorist who entered our country by crossing the southern border - but the ones that truly did horrible things (9/11, etc.) came over on one visa or another. If we use the data, it would appear our own visa system is a greater threat to us than the southern border.

And our country can't handle an unlimited number of refugees pouring across our border year after year.

With this I agree - and is the primary reason I think our immigration laws should be adjusted to reflect need. The numbers should climb when we have low unemployment, and drop when we have high unemployment. They should include streamlined mechanisms for seasonal workers. And we should indeed be firming up our borders so we can control the tide.

But we also need to take steps to address the quality of life issue - or we are simply raging against the tide.

We need to make sure that the criminals are kept out and the refugees have a way to apply for asylum that doesn't have them sneaking across the border and then applying for asylum only if caught.

So we do need a wall or a barrier. One that is effective.

We need a wall selectively - not absolutely. Before I accept that we need to put up ANY form of wall, I need to see (or know that someone I trust has seen) the data that shows where the wall(s) should be placed, and verifies that it is the best alternative for the cost. I have not seen any of that at this point - and I do not trust Trump or his cronies.

[Tassman]

Yep a media tourist. You really don't have a clue Tassman. You watch TV and read blogs and think you understand our country and our problems. You trying to tell us how to handle our business is as bad as a white person going into a black neighborhood and telling them how they should fix things. Not only are you ignorant, but you are insulting.

https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/el-pas...on-border-wall

[Bill the Cat]

Argumentum ad populum.

https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/el-pas...on-border-wall

[Sparko]

And despite the El Paso Sheriff claiming El Paso is and always has been one of the safest cities, that is BS. I lived in El Paso back in the 1970s. There where large areas of town even back then you didn't dare go into. There were entire neighborhoods controlled by Mexican gangs. And watching LivePD, which has a unit in El Paso, it has gotten only worse. The walls might keep people from crossing in El Paso, but it doesn't stop illegals from migrating there because it is the nearest big city. They cross elsewhere and then move to El Paso.

[Tassman]

Argumentum ad populum.

In a sense, that's just what democracy is.

But [politicians should] defer to the Border Patrol experts,

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol...all-wont-work/systemhttps://qz.com/1525881/customs-and-b...-boring-truth/

In short, what is being advocated is that which is supported by the Dems, i.e. a mix of strategic fencing and smart technology.

[JimL]

And despite the El Paso Sheriff claiming El Paso is and always has been one of the safest cities, that is BS. I lived in El Paso back in the 1970s. There where large areas of town even back then you didn't dare go into. There were entire neighborhoods controlled by Mexican gangs. And watching LivePD, which has a unit in El Paso, it has gotten only worse. The walls might keep people from crossing in El Paso, but it doesn't stop illegals from migrating there because it is the nearest big city. They cross elsewhere and then move to El Paso.

Got to love it when Joe Schmoe thinks he knows the city better than the actual data and the Republican Mayor and elected officials of the city.

[Bill the Cat]

In a sense, that's just what democracy is.

True. But popularity if a position doesn't make it correct.

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol...all-wont-work/systemhttps://qz.com/1525881/customs-and-b...-boring-truth/

In short, what is being advocated is that which is supported by the Dems, i.e. a mix of strategic fencing and smart technology.

And the lies from the media continue. Trump did not propose a "coast to coast" wall, and has only proposed strategic barriers. So, no. The PRESIDENT'S plan is "a mix of strategic fencing and smart technology" and more personnel.

[rogue06]

True. But popularity if a position doesn't make it correct.




And the lies from the media continue. Trump did not propose a "coast to coast" wall, and has only proposed strategic barriers. So, no. The PRESIDENT'S plan is "a mix of strategic fencing and smart technology" and more personnel.

Even carpe had to finally admit that the coast to coast wall was a myth, but elements of the MSM continue to push this Fake News.

[carpedm9587]

Even carpe had to finally admit that the coast to coast wall was a myth, but elements of the MSM continue to push this Fake News.

Umm... not so fast. What I ultimately came to was that Trump has changed his language/mind so often, nobody can say with any certainty what Trump actually wants. It's steel - it's concrete. It's 700-900 miles - it's 550 miles - it's strategic - and then there are the problematic "big beautiful wall on out southern border" - which can mean anything from "the entire border" to "in Joe's backyard." Trump has been all over the map on this issue - and people could pick out almost anything he said at any point and make a case for it. As you folks like to say about me, "like nailing jello to a wall."

So the best I can do is "Trump want to put up some amount of wall along the southern border made of some material."

[Sparko]

Got to love it when Joe Schmoe thinks he knows the city better than the actual data and the Republican Mayor and elected officials of the city.

Says the Joe Schmoe who keeps telling us what he thinks without any experience on the matter whatsoever.

Please JimL, enlighten us with your experience with the border or illegal aliens crossing the border or crime in El Paso.

You are such a twit.