|
Post by matt on Jun 20, 2017 21:26:57 GMT -5
Also, the wall isn't just a physical barrier...its part of a new mindset. Its a statement...
It says...
"this is our yard, and we're in charge... and if you expect to come hang out on our lawn, you gotta follow the rules, and behave yourself."
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 20, 2017 23:30:52 GMT -5
Also, the wall isn't just a physical barrier...its part of a new mindset. Its a statement... It says... "this is our yard, and we're in charge... and if you expect to come hang out on our lawn, you gotta follow the rules, and behave yourself." If we were actually in charge, there wouldn't be single Democrat or Republican in office.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 21, 2017 1:13:07 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil? Aren't we lacking enough panels for the size the wall needs to be? I always though one of the things that kept mass-solar panel projects from going through was we can't make the panels fast enough, and don't have anywhere near enough to get started. Pretty sure Obumba gave tens of millions in subsidies to Solyndra and all our solar worries are over now, buddy. God, I miss having a smart President.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 21, 2017 1:25:14 GMT -5
This design...I think it's brilliant. Because all joking aside, you really have to be able to stop a truck with an extension ladder off the bed from being able to scale over the wall or its fucking worthless imo. That's pretty much the most simple and practical option for people to scale over a wall now. Throw some solar powered panels on that bitch and shoot that power south. I like it. Now just have to figure out how to not entirely fragment that ecosystem. Someone explain this to me: is this wall big enough that someone wouldn't be able to put a ladder together to make it over the top? Does the wall extend significantly far enough down that you can't realistically tunnel under it? If the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding 'yes', then you essentially have to monitor the entire length of the wall, which is something that can't be adequately done now (without the cost of the wall). And if you decide that the local ecosystem is something worth protecting, and that a healthy ecosystem requires animals to pass through the territory, how does that happen without it also being open to people? What am I missing? These are valid questions and I do not have the answers. I know there are solutions that will greatly inhibit the ability to cross the border but completely preventing it is likely impossible. Make legal immigration easier, more appealing, remove some of the temptation to border jump. Make hiring illegals much harder, again taking away a lot of the appeal of border jumping. Actually deport those who get caught, same principle as above. Erect a double wall that makes driving up to the primary wall, or carrying a very long, 30' - 40' ladder up to the primary wall, very difficult. Motion sensors, drone patrols, and a slight beef-up in agents takes care of the rest. And you contain the problem, get it down to a manageable trickle. Now if someone is going to dig a 150' tunnel and sneak in and live off the grid for 20 years . . . welp, they win, I guess. That level of commitment and dedication at least tells us something about the tenacity of character we're getting. The only real solution for that is for Mexico to get its shit together to the point that people aren't willing to risk prison/arrest/death to get out.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 21, 2017 9:41:20 GMT -5
Mexico by most economic predictions will be between the 6th-10th largest economy in the world by 2030. Both the USA and Mexico will benefit from mutually beneficial trade agreements AND intelligent, strategic immigration. But I don't see how us being tougher on their blind eye to illegal immigration hurts our relationship. The reality is we are still the economic super-power for consumption and their economic growth requires the USA far more then we need Mexico. We have the leverage from a practical, logical perspective, so why would we NOT do everything we can to ask them to assist with patrolling their own border? That is where Trump can really use his negotiation acumen. Penalize them by head counts of people entering illegally and tie it to our trade agreements. They can either play ball or shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 21, 2017 10:26:56 GMT -5
Also, the wall isn't just a physical barrier...its part of a new mindset. Its a statement... It says... "this is our yard, and we're in charge... and if you expect to come hang out on our lawn, you gotta follow the rules, and behave yourself." If we were actually in charge, there wouldn't be single Democrat or Republican in office. Are you referring to the deep state?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 21, 2017 10:42:44 GMT -5
If we were actually in charge, there wouldn't be single Democrat or Republican in office. Pop quiz, hot shot... What's the difference between immigration now, and immigration in the early 1900's??
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 21, 2017 10:53:44 GMT -5
We used to import the best people from all over the world . . . now we almost exclusively import dirt poor mexicans.
Personally, I like the strategy and see it's value . . . because . . . fuck whitey, right?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 21, 2017 10:57:07 GMT -5
We used to import the best people from all over the world . . . now we almost exclusively import dirt poor mexicans. Personally, I like the strategy and see it's value . . . because . . . fuck whitey, right? Welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 21, 2017 13:53:35 GMT -5
Pop quiz, hot shot... What's the difference between immigration now, and immigration in the early 1900's?? The single biggest difference is who we let in, and the process to be let in. If you made it here, weren't at risk of starting an epidemic, and wasn't already some renowned criminal, we let you in. We'd forgive the latter if you gave us information on the Anarchists.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 21, 2017 15:34:50 GMT -5
Yes but we used to have merit based immigration which came largely from Europe: Germany, Poland, France, England, Italy, Asia, etc. Now, immigration is almost entirely Mexican. You can see time-lapse immigration maps and it goes from a mosaic of nationalities to a Latino mass invasion and now they're not even immigrating anymore, but just coming in wherever the fuck they feel like it.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 21, 2017 15:59:47 GMT -5
Yes but we used to have merit based immigration which came largely from Europe: Germany, Poland, France, England, Italy, Asia, etc. Now, immigration is almost entirely Mexican. You can see time-lapse immigration maps and it goes from a mosaic of nationalities to a Latino mass invasion and now they're not even immigrating anymore, but just coming in wherever the fuck they feel like it. There was nothing merit based about our immigration for most of our history. Merit was literacy tests, non-infectious health, and not being caught killing someone (usually). The start of our merit-based immigration was Operation Paperclip, and even then merit was just being used as an exemption for renowned criminals, rather than the gate to entry.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 21, 2017 16:46:54 GMT -5
Yes but we used to have merit based immigration which came largely from Europe: Germany, Poland, France, England, Italy, Asia, etc. Now, immigration is almost entirely Mexican. You can see time-lapse immigration maps and it goes from a mosaic of nationalities to a Latino mass invasion and now they're not even immigrating anymore, but just coming in wherever the fuck they feel like it. There was nothing merit based about our immigration for most of our history. Merit was literacy tests, non-infectious health, and not being caught killing someone (usually). Uhm, do you realize that your second sentence completely blows your first sentence to kingdom come?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 21, 2017 16:49:47 GMT -5
There was nothing merit based about our immigration for most of our history. Merit was literacy tests, non-infectious health, and not being caught killing someone (usually). Uhm, do you realize that your second sentence completely blows your first sentence to kingdom come? Compared to the shit now, it hugely different. Now you need all sorts extra shit instead of just being a normal person.
|
|
|
Post by johncfc on Jun 21, 2017 18:36:28 GMT -5
There was nothing merit based about our immigration for most of our history. Merit was literacy tests, non-infectious health, and not being caught killing someone (usually). Uhm, do you realize that your second sentence completely blows your first sentence to kingdom come? No, no he doesn't. Read his reply to you.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 21, 2017 19:17:37 GMT -5
Uhm, do you realize that your second sentence completely blows your first sentence to kingdom come? Compared to the shit now, it hugely different. Now you need all sorts extra shit instead of just being a normal person. Yeah we're way more selective now, my bad
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 21, 2017 19:22:14 GMT -5
Pop quiz, hot shot... What's the difference between immigration now, and immigration in the early 1900's?? The single biggest difference is who we let in, and the process to be let in. If you made it here, weren't at risk of starting an epidemic, and wasn't already some renowned criminal, we let you in. We'd forgive the latter if you gave us information on the Anarchists. The biggest difference between immigration now, and then...is welfare In the early 1900's there was none. Immigrants coming to the US in the early 1900's were coming here with the expectation of finding a job. And with booming industries in the US, there was plenty of demand to meet the supply... Today's immigrants come to the US to enjoy the welfare state that the immigrants who came before them built.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 21, 2017 20:03:59 GMT -5
The single biggest difference is who we let in, and the process to be let in. If you made it here, weren't at risk of starting an epidemic, and wasn't already some renowned criminal, we let you in. We'd forgive the latter if you gave us information on the Anarchists. The biggest difference between immigration now, and then...is welfare In the early 1900's there was none. Immigrants coming to the US in the early 1900's were coming here with the expectation of finding a job. And with booming industries in the US, there was plenty of demand to meet the supply... Today's immigrants come to the US to enjoy the welfare state that the immigrants who came before them built. The best counter to the welfare state is to crash the welfare system. Both sides have shown (one albeit reluctantly) that illegal immigrants pay much "bigly" more into welfare than they receive. You wanna fix the welfare state, document all these people and let them stay here and give them a chance to legit have the option to live off the welfare state. If they really would then like you think, the system wouldn't be able to support it and would die out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 20:16:07 GMT -5
You give all the people here amnesty, quite a few are going to jump right into full welfare benefits. Especially the single mothers.
The problem we have here is that if you don't have shit to your name, it's better to be poor here than it is over there. You may figure a way to grab a handout, some housing assistance and some public schooling for your kid.
Drop the welfare to only the elderly and disabled, get mandatory work programs to those that are on assistance now, including drug testing. You will see a crazy rate drop out from the program. I deal with these fucks everyday. Kicking a section 8 recipient out of one of our buildings at the end of the month. Lady is getting 1747 paid by housing for her. She only pays 53 a month. She's late and not returning phone calls. She will not only be out of my building but will be forced out of the housing system in los angeles for basically $106 that she is late with. And it's not that she's starving and can't pay the rent. She hit Vegas and spent it. House smells like booze day and night. She drives an Escalade.
I can't handle the abusers. I get them out and away from me. You won't abuse the system and live in any unit I manage.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 22, 2017 3:47:58 GMT -5
The biggest difference between immigration now, and then...is welfare In the early 1900's there was none. Immigrants coming to the US in the early 1900's were coming here with the expectation of finding a job. And with booming industries in the US, there was plenty of demand to meet the supply... Today's immigrants come to the US to enjoy the welfare state that the immigrants who came before them built. Both sides have shown (one albeit reluctantly) that illegal immigrants pay much "bigly" more into welfare than they receive. This is 100%, absolute diarrhea shit with flies all over it. Absolutely false, made up statistics. Go ahead and continue down this embarrassing path. You're the human strawman
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 22, 2017 5:12:50 GMT -5
Both sides have shown (one albeit reluctantly) that illegal immigrants pay much "bigly" more into welfare than they receive. This is 100%, absolute diarrhea shit with flies all over it. Absolutely false, made up statistics. Go ahead and continue down this embarrassing path. You're the human strawman Here is a the low-ball estimate from the Heritage Foundation for social security taxes alone from illegals www.fairus.org/docserver/uscoststudy_2010.pdf though most put it almost double. The estimates are also based off of under-reported immigration #s meaning that the amounts are probably at least 15%+ higher. All the while without having the valid SSN, they can't receive the benefits from the taxes they are paying. They can pay them, they have to pay them, you don't need a valid SSN to pay taxes, they just don't get to get any of it back. And common sense that a majority of the illegal immigrants do not have the resources to get their hands on a valid SSN to receive welfare. Then there is the income taxes, the other withholding, etc...
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 22, 2017 9:37:42 GMT -5
Both sides have shown (one albeit reluctantly) that illegal immigrants pay much "bigly" more into welfare than they receive. This is 100%, absolute diarrhea shit with flies all over it. Absolutely false, made up statistics. Go ahead and continue down this embarrassing path. You're the human strawman There is zero chance we are anywhere near break-even. Zero chance. A HUGE tax burden unrecorded in the false statistics is also the millions of children born to illegal alien mothers that are 100% funded by the states. The USC medical center has had babies born on the waiting room floor since the 90s because of how overflowing they are with undocumented mothers. They pay zero for the medical care. They pay zero for the prenatal and postnatal. You do not need a SSN to receive WIC, SNAP, AFDC or if you do, they sure don't make you prove it or that it's a verifiable number. Every single wet mother I have encountered in my life was their WIC card with their ID, they have their EBT card so they can get their SNAP benefits. It's as common as a cell phone. These programs are not considered" welfare" by definition so they escape the understanding of a low IQ feeb like lazy jackel. 25% of WIC in the US is spent in California and Texas. Must be a mere coincidence these are border states. About 90% of those naturalizing list SSI as their income source. SSI costs about 80-90 BILLION per year. Medicaid is another 100 billion. Coincidentally, SSI has spiked through the roof since the 1990s right at the same time we had mass amnesty and a huge influx of immigrants. Every one of the amnesty millions entered this country illegally and we waved the magic wand to give them a pass, and a lifetime annuity. The hungry, the tired and the poor? Yeah, we continue to feed them and they do not contribute to the overall system. It's a clear economic loss and burden. Plus, any statistic provided by the government is almost guaranteed to be false and skewed to present a more favorable view of the alien. The state of california lies on every possible statistic and doesn't even recognize the terms "undocumented" or "illegal" when referring to immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 22, 2017 10:36:09 GMT -5
The biggest difference between immigration now, and then...is welfare In the early 1900's there was none. Immigrants coming to the US in the early 1900's were coming here with the expectation of finding a job. And with booming industries in the US, there was plenty of demand to meet the supply... Today's immigrants come to the US to enjoy the welfare state that the immigrants who came before them built. The best counter to the welfare state is to crash the welfare system. Both sides have shown (one albeit reluctantly) that illegal immigrants pay much "bigly" more into welfare than they receive. You wanna fix the welfare state, document all these people and let them stay here and give them a chance to legit have the option to live off the welfare state. If they really would then like you think, the system wouldn't be able to support it and would die out. I guess the concept of welfare creating immigrants with entitlement rather than accountability was lost on you. So I'll just skip to the numbers... Recent data shows that US citizens living in California pay upwards of 25 billion dollars a year in taxes to house, feed, educate and medically treat illegal immigrants. With an inevitable loss on tax dollar-investment, because the immigrants come here to collect welfare, not to put labor back into the workforce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 10:49:59 GMT -5
Apparently, our Federal court system is riddled with activist, liberal judges who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of our immigration laws. More evidence emerged this week and last, as Federal Judge Mark Goldsmith decided to ignore the fact that these Detroit detainees (and likely, the rest of them as well, I assume) have received full and fair hearings and were found to be ineligible for relief by an immigration court judge, and ordered to be removed.
Remember, their criminal convictions -- rendering them ineligible for citizenship and subject to deportation -- are for such crimes as homicide, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual assault, burglary and robbery.
But apparently, all these criminals have to do is holler "discrimination, torture and death" loudly enough for some Federal judge to hear, and our laws -- and the safety that accompanies them -- go right out the window!
From Today's Detroit Free Press:
JUDGE ISSUES HALT TO IRAQIS' DEPORTATIONS
by Tresa Baldas
"To the chagrin of the government, a Detroit federal judge today protected 1,444 Iraqi immigrants nationwide from being immediately deported, including some who faced possible eviction from the U.S. as early as Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith issued his emergency order just moments ago, concluding the Iraqi nationals -- most of them Christians -- could face persecution if sent back home and deserve more time to seek legal intervention. He said the case presents "extreme circumstances" and gave all Iraqi nationals who face potential deportation another two weeks to legally challenge their removals.
"The substantial allegations made here are the detainees face extreme, grave consequences: death, persecution and torture," Goldsmith wrote in his seven-page order. "Such harm far outweighs any government interest the government may have in proceeding with the removals immediately."
Goldsmith issued his written order after hearing arguments this morning from civil rights attorneys who asked him to extend a previous ruling to cover all Iraqi nationals who face the threat of deportation.
Last Thursday, Goldsmith granted temporary protection to 114 Iraqi immigrants from metro Detroit, giving them two more weeks to remain here to pursue their cases. Over the weekend, a team of civil rights attorneys sought an emergency order, asking Goldsmith to extend that ruling to cover all potential Iraqi deportees nationwide.
The government argued that the Iraqi nationals on the deportation list have criminal backgrounds, have lost the right to be here and will likely lose any appeals in immigration court. The U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency, however, has not disclosed what exact crimes all the Iraqi nationals have been convicted of, or the names of all those on the list. ICE has only stated they have criminal convictions of all sorts, without elaborating.
Attorneys for the government also have argued that Goldsmith lacks jurisdiction in the immigration case.
Goldsmith -- who noted he has yet to decide on the jurisdiction issue -- concluded too much is at stake not to intervene on behalf of the Iraqis nationwide who could be deported. His ruling drew praise from many lawyers who have intervened on behalf of the Iraqis and are fighting to keep them here.
"The court recognized the extraordinary circumstances in this case and the immediate risk to all of the people affected by the government action," said attorney Bill Swor, one of several local lawyers who are working to help the Iraqis. "It recognized that this is an emergency and that people nationwide have the same interest in access, due process and the opportunity for a fair hearing."
Acting U.S. Attorney Daniel Lemisch said he respects the court's ruling, stressing it's a difficult case.
"This is an extraordinary case and these are extraordinary times. And we appreciate the thoughtful analysis the court gave this matter," Lemisch said, adding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has a tough task at hand.
"The people at ICE have a difficult job to do and they strive mightily to do it professionally and fairly. And we appreciate all their efforts," Lemisch said.
In court Monday, immigrant advocates, along with the ACLU, argued the immigrants deserve more time to argue their cases and claimed the government was moving too fast.
"It’s the government that’s hurrying these people toward deportation," attorney Margo Schlanger, a lawyer for the Iraqi detainees, argued in court today, claiming the government isn't giving the immigrants enough time to find lawyers and seek legal relief.
At issue are the June 11 arrests of numerous Iraqi nationals by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to ICE, all but two of the 114 arrested in Michigan had criminal convictions; the other two have pending criminal charges. Nationwide, ICE has said, 1,444 Iraqi nationals are on a list for deportation, though the vast majority have not yet been arrested.
So far, ICE has taken into custody about 200 Iraqis, including 114 from metro Detroit and an additional 85 from other parts of the country.
Following the June 11 arrests in Michigan, a lawsuit was filed against ICE by immigration and civil rights advocates who are hoping to block the deportation efforts.
In court today, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Newby argued against granting protection to the entire group of potential Iraqi deportees, saying they all have criminal backgrounds of some sort and don't have a legal right to be in the U.S., anyway. Moreover, she argued that Goldsmith doesn't have jurisdiction to decide immigration matters that belong in immigration court, and that this case shouldn't be granted class action status.
Specifically, Newby said that not all of the Iraqi immigrants are similarly situated, noting some have been convicted of crimes more serious than others and that the immigration courts should decide these cases on an individualized bases. She also argues that the detainees likely won't win their arguments before immigration courts.
Immigration advocates disagreed and last week convinced Goldsmith that all potential Iraqi deportees deserve more time to state their cases.
"Irreparable harm is made out by the significant chance of loss of life and lesser forms of persecution that petitioners have substantiated," Goldsmith wrote in his ruling last week. "The public interest is also better served by an orderly court process that assures that petitioners' invocation of federal court relief is considered before the removal process continues."
ICE has previously said it will comply with the judge's order and has maintained that its actions to deport Iraqi immigrants are warranted and legal.
As Rebecca Adducci, field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detroit, stated:
"The operation in this region was specifically conducted to address the very real public safety threat represented by the criminal aliens arrested. The vast majority of those arrested in the Detroit metropolitan area have very serious felony convictions, multiple felony convictions in many cases. I applaud the efforts of the law enforcement personnel who, day in and day out, put their lives on the line to protect this community."
ICE has defended the arrests, saying the Iraqis arrested all had criminal backgrounds and final orders of deportation from an immigration judge.
Attorneys for the Iraqis, meanwhile, have been filing appeals for the detainees in immigration and local county courts.
“We are thankful and relieved that our clients will not be immediately be sent to Iraq, where they face grave danger of persecution, torture or death," Michael Steinberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, has previously stated. "It would be unconstitutional and unconscionable to deport these individuals without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate the harm that awaits them in Iraq."
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @tbaldas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 11:31:59 GMT -5
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that Judge Goldsmith's asinine order will be overturned eventually, perhaps by a ruling against his having any jurisdiction (which he hasn't even decided himself, yet).
Meanwhile the ridiculous wailing -- and superfluous claptrap perpetuated by idle dweebs like Jackel -- continues.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 27, 2017 13:07:40 GMT -5
Michigan has it's handful with middle eastern immigration. We see a ton of Yemen fraud and crime land in Michigan, too.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jun 27, 2017 13:17:50 GMT -5
There's this show on Netflix called "Border Security". Sort of like the Border Wars show on the Discovery channel. Some of the show is filmed in the Detroit airport. Most flights coming in seem to be from some middle eastern country. They also film at JFK in NY........of course most of the people bringing in shit are from the Dominican Republic, my people, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 27, 2017 15:26:40 GMT -5
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that Judge Goldsmith's asinine order will be overturned eventually, perhaps by a ruling against his having any jurisdiction (which he hasn't even decided himself, yet). Meanwhile the ridiculous wailing -- and superfluous claptrap perpetuated by idle dweebs like Jackel -- continues. I don't think it'll be overturned, at least not completely. At most I'd expect a case-by-case review of each of the immigrants. IF TRUE that all, or any of them would be killed back in their home country for being who they are, they should be allowed to stay. That pretty much is what America was about, and should always be about. If you are gonna be killed for something we consider legal in the first place, you should be welcome here, we should be their refuge. Saving those kind of people are what will eventually (albeit likely slowly) change the other countries to fall more in line maybe not with us but in line with basic freedoms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 15:45:27 GMT -5
I'd like to dig deeper into finding out if these "death sentences" are really true. While I'm sure there is a bit of a risk for any proud Christian that wades into Muslim territory, I feel like you can tone down your need to express your religious belief. I know that's not acceptable to some, but if your life is on the line...
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 27, 2017 16:16:21 GMT -5
I'd like to dig deeper into finding out if these "death sentences" are really true. While I'm sure there is a bit of a risk for any proud Christian that wades into Muslim territory, I feel like you can tone down your need to express your religious belief. I know that's not acceptable to some, but if your life is on the line... In some places, proselytizing a non-state religion is flat out illegal. In many other places you will be attacked by groups, or dissapeared by the government. Regardless of your religion you should be able to wade anywhere. Though what some may think of as ironic, some of the safest places for Christians is in heavy Muslim territory. A great example of how it should be IMO. Senegal. 95% Muslim, and what do they do, elect a Catholic to lead them, and adhere to a secular state. They are mostly a more traditional Sufi Muslim though (which today ironically is known as Neo-Sufi) which is probably why they are so accepting of other religions. However most of that part of the world is not like Senegal.
|
|