Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
Author Message
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #21
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 09:06 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

The fence systems of San Diego and El Paso work well, and in other places. What is the cost of illegal immigration annually, depressed wages, crime prison rates, public school systems flooded with illegals?

XACLY!

it's amazing how dippos don't worry about spending on creating lack of incentive vs. something that actually has value....

I'll never tire tossing that feces in their faces....
02-25-2018 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,998
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 683
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #22
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-24-2018 10:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is the Mexican government proud that 20% of their population has left for the USA in the last 25 years?

Yes.
02-25-2018 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #23
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 09:20 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 09:06 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

The fence systems of San Diego and El Paso work well, and in other places. What is the cost of illegal immigration annually, depressed wages, crime prison rates, public school systems flooded with illegals?

You didn't answer the questions. I agree that walls or fences can have some effect in more densely populated areas of the border. To answer your question though, I don't know the cost of illegal immigration, but it is way too high to be left untreated. I am asking if you believe that these sound-bite solutions are the most efficient and effective means of dealing with these serious issues or might other alternatives be a better way to solve some of this? I would also like to see responses to the last question of my post.

Look first and foremost no border no country. We built hundreds of miles of fencing after the 2006 Secure Fence Act, with many Dems voting for it, including Schumer, Hillary, and Obama. All I know is that where fencing and walls have been built illegal crossings have dropped dramatically. Then they go find another weak spot.
02-25-2018 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,998
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 683
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #24
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 09:20 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 09:06 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

The fence systems of San Diego and El Paso work well, and in other places. What is the cost of illegal immigration annually, depressed wages, crime prison rates, public school systems flooded with illegals?

You didn't answer the questions. I agree that walls or fences can have some effect in more densely populated areas of the border. To answer your question though, I don't know the cost of illegal immigration, but it is way too high to be left untreated. I am asking if you believe that these sound-bite solutions are the most efficient and effective means of dealing with these serious issues or might other alternatives be a better way to solve some of this? I would also like to see responses to the last question of my post.

Yes.
Your snippy “sound bite solutions” comment tells me all I need to know about your willingness to accept any solution that would actually solve the problem.
You ask the question, in snarky manner, why don’t you answer it for us?
02-25-2018 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #25
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
I am sorry if my post seemed snippy or snarky as that was not my intention. The phrase "sound bite solutions" was not to suggest that none of those methods have value, but was meant to illustrate the simplistic manner that some choose to view a fairly complex problem. That is why I asked whether people felt that the wall and total deportation were the best methods to address these issues. The last question about conservatism was a personal one intended to reveal whether people understood the principles of conservatism or they were simply content to be the anti-liberal (being opposed to liberal ideology myself, I understand the sentiment).
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2018 09:43 AM by Zombiewoof.)
02-25-2018 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #26
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Before you spout off about what you consider a principle of conservatism, understand that when a patient in the ER is bleeding out, first and foremost is stop the bleeding and deal with any consequences of that afterwards.

Spend the money on the wall and deportation. Spend money to enforce US immigration law.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2018 09:49 AM by 200yrs2late.)
02-25-2018 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #27
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 09:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Anything else?

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

Thanks. I now feel enlightened. You can go back to watching cartoons now. :D
02-25-2018 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.
02-25-2018 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #29
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
This town is proof that Trump’s wall can work
By Paul Sperry
January 13, 2018 | 9:15am

[Image: wall.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=915]
A Border Patrol agent keeps an eye on the fence in El Paso, Texas. REUTERS

When charges of “racism” and “xenophobia” fail, Democrats’ fallback argument against President Trump’s proposed border wall is that it simply “won’t work,” so why waste billions building it? Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas.

Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez.

In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data I reviewed. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.

They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows.

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics. The turnaround even caught the attention of former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other Obama administration officials, who touted it as one of the nation’s safest cities while citing the beefed-up border security there.

Federal data illustrates just how remarkable the turnaround in crime has been since the fence was built. According to FBI tables, property crimes in El Paso have plunged more than 37 percent to 12,357 from their pre-fence peak of 19,702 a year, while violent crimes have dropped more than 6 percent to 2,682 from a peak of 2,861 a year.


The overall crime rate in El Paso continued to fall last year, prompting city leaders to trumpet the good news in a press release that noted, “Because El Paso is a border town, its low crime rate may surprise you.”

Since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half

El Paso City Manager Tommy Gonzalez boasted that the city will “continue to lead our country in public safety.”

Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico.

“We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety,” Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. “We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.”

On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.

Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half.

The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.

All told, a legion of empirical evidence supports the idea a southern border wall could, in fact, work. There is also anecdotal evidence. In local press accounts, El Paso residents and business owners alike have praised the fence, citing it as an effective deterrent to both illegal crossings and crime.

Now Trump plans to build a possibly bigger deterrent.

The existing fence along the El Paso sector, which is made of a combination of corrugated steel and metal meshing, towers 21-feet high at some points and is already hard to climb. But the Trump wall, which will begin construction in El Paso, will be even taller and have multiple layers of security.

Still, Democratic leaders are adamantly opposed to it. They argue the $18 billion wall won’t work to keep out illegal immigrants and drugs, and will only be a massive waste of tax dollars.

“We think, frankly, the building of the wall, its cost is not justified either by its efficiency or effectiveness,” House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday.
Even local Democrats are arguing with success.

“That wall in itself is a racist reaction to a racist myth that does not reflect the reality of this country at all,” said Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-El Paso).
02-25-2018 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #30
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.

There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?

I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.
02-25-2018 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #31
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.

There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?

I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think 1.8M was the latest number that the dems couldn't combat....

your posit to the latter is unfair and too subjective to define in a few sentences....however, I will say in my case, it's principle to simply get the existing off of the gov't teat....

there's always going to be a few kings, some offspring, and many a servant......what's important is reducing the incentive to become a thief.....
02-25-2018 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #32
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 09:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Before you spout off about what you consider a principle of conservatism, understand that when a patient in the ER is bleeding out, first and foremost is stop the bleeding and deal with any consequences of that afterwards.

Spend the money on the wall and deportation. Spend money to enforce US immigration law.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

Since I rarely spout, I will just say that your suggestion that as a nation we should act without consideration for long term consequences is very much not a conservative attitude. To be clear, I also believe that we should enforce US immigration law, but it makes little sense to me that for the better part of the last 30 years we have done a very poor job of it, but today we will draw a line in the sand and apply the law like a hammer to squash an ant in some cases. IMHO, there should be an intelligent response to the porous border to the south, the rampant overstaying of people on HB-1 visas and we need a long term plan for dealing with the 14-25 million undocumented people who are already here, including deportations and a rational permanent resident/citizenship path.
02-25-2018 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.
Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.
Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.
There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?
I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think out would be a good start for you to answer the same question for yourself.
02-25-2018 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
I think the first thing you have to do with those already here is to get control of the situation. We don't know who they are, we don't even know how many there are, and we definitely don't know where they are. I think some sort of guest worker amnesty, with no path to citizenship, is the best answer. Call it a red card, as opposed to a green card which has a path to citizenship. Everybody registers, we track them, we collect taxes, they have access to the courts. But you don't become a citizen by breaking the law. And if you commit a felony, or multiple misdemeanors, then you serve full term and then you go back.

I think we need to increase legal immigration coupled with implementing a merit-based system. No more lengthy family chain--immediate family members only--and no more lottery.
02-25-2018 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #35
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the first thing you have to do with those already here is to get control of the situation. We don't know who they are, we don't even know how many there are, and we definitely don't know where they are. I think some sort of guest worker amnesty, with no path to citizenship, is the best answer. Call it a red card, as opposed to a green card which has a path to citizenship. Everybody registers, we track them, we collect taxes, they have access to the courts. But you don't become a citizen by breaking the law. And if you commit a felony, or multiple misdemeanors, then you serve full term and then you go back.

I think we need to increase legal immigration coupled with implementing a merit-based system. No more lengthy family chain--immediate family members only--and no more lottery.

too many times we say the same thing in varying fashion.....it's the laureate vs. the abstract.....

you sir, I would love to share a few 'pints' with....
02-25-2018 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #36
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:26 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.

There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?

I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think 1.8M was the latest number that the dems couldn't combat....

your posit to the latter is unfair and too subjective to define in a few sentences....however, I will say in my case, it's principle to simply get the existing off of the gov't teat....

there's always going to be a few kings, some offspring, and many a servant......what's important is reducing the incentive to become a thief.....

I don't know if deporting 1.8 million illegals is a good number or not, but it would be a good start.

I absolutely agree that removing illegal immigrants from government assistance is consistent with conservative attitudes, but the devil is in the details. How do we achieve that? How do we reach enough of a consensus as a nation that will produce the desired results and would be unlikely to be overturned by future administrations?

While I appreciate the thief analogy, I believe what is important in relation to immigration is that we create an environment that everyone wants to come to, but they know they have to follow the law or face penalty. Immigration enforcement has not had enough carrot or stick, while multiple administrations have weakly addressed these issues.

From my own experience as a city councilman, I went to Washington years ago (during the Clinton administration) during a National League of Cities convention. I attended the panels on immigration and met with numerous city leaders on the issues. There was a sense of resignation among those I spoke with that there simply wasn't the will to do anything about illegal immigration. Frustrated, I visited the offices of Mississippi's congressional delegation and was either largely ignored or given a half-hearted "I'll pass along your concerns to the congressman." In fact, the only persons who genuinely appeared to understand the issues involved and the possible impacts on our society were two women -- an alderman from Indiana who had all but given up, believing her city was beyond hope, and a Hispanic councilman from southern California, who understood the problems for others, but saw opportunities for herself.

My point is this -- illegal immigration didn't just start yesterday and it won't be solved overnight. But just because someone says they have the solution, we still have a responsibility as citizens to question whether those proposals are likely to be efficient and effective and to ask what the long term ramifications of our actions are likely to be.
02-25-2018 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #37
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 11:01 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:26 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.

There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?

I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think 1.8M was the latest number that the dems couldn't combat....

your posit to the latter is unfair and too subjective to define in a few sentences....however, I will say in my case, it's principle to simply get the existing off of the gov't teat....

there's always going to be a few kings, some offspring, and many a servant......what's important is reducing the incentive to become a thief.....

I don't know if deporting 1.8 million illegals is a good number or not, but it would be a good start.

I absolutely agree that removing illegal immigrants from government assistance is consistent with conservative attitudes, but the devil is in the details. How do we achieve that? How do we reach enough of a consensus as a nation that will produce the desired results and would be unlikely to be overturned by future administrations?

While I appreciate the thief analogy, I believe what is important in relation to immigration is that we create an environment that everyone wants to come to, but they know they have to follow the law or face penalty. Immigration enforcement has not had enough carrot or stick, while multiple administrations have weakly addressed these issues.

From my own experience as a city councilman, I went to Washington years ago (during the Clinton administration) during a National League of Cities convention. I attended the panels on immigration and met with numerous city leaders on the issues. There was a sense of resignation among those I spoke with that there simply wasn't the will to do anything about illegal immigration. Frustrated, I visited the offices of Mississippi's congressional delegation and was either largely ignored or given a half-hearted "I'll pass along your concerns to the congressman." In fact, the only persons who genuinely appeared to understand the issues involved and the possible impacts on our society were two women -- an alderman from Indiana who had all but given up, believing her city was beyond hope, and a Hispanic councilman from southern California, who understood the problems for others, but saw opportunities for herself.

My point is this -- illegal immigration didn't just start yesterday and it won't be solved overnight. But just because someone says they have the solution, we still have a responsibility as citizens to question whether those proposals are likely to be efficient and effective and to ask what the long term ramifications of our actions are likely to be.

there's too much subjective mat'l to respond to in that.....

two line items....

1. set the benchmark and enforce
2. revise as req'd

I don't do dissertations on a bbs.....
02-25-2018 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #38
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.
Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.
Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.
There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?
I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think out would be a good start for you to answer the same question for yourself.

About to have to go, but I would love to discuss the principles of conservatism with anyone here and at length. I think it is important to know why we believe the things we believe.

(02-25-2018 10:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the first thing you have to do with those already here is to get control of the situation. We don't know who they are, we don't even know how many there are, and we definitely don't know where they are. I think some sort of guest worker amnesty, with no path to citizenship, is the best answer. Call it a red card, as opposed to a green card which has a path to citizenship. Everybody registers, we track them, we collect taxes, they have access to the courts. But you don't become a citizen by breaking the law. And if you commit a felony, or multiple misdemeanors, then you serve full term and then you go back.

I think we need to increase legal immigration coupled with implementing a merit-based system. No more lengthy family chain--immediate family members only--and no more lottery.

This is very similar to a proposal I have made for 25 years. In today's world, everyone has access to information, so announce that all undocumented persons must register at one of multiple locations (libraries, school, work, post office, etc.). They would be given three months to do so, which I believe is reasonable and everyone would have plenty of time to comply. Upon registration, they would be granted temporary status and could make application for permanent resident status or citizenship. I am not as hung up on the fact that they were here illegally, since my primary objective is to determine who is here. They would be notified that failure to register in the timeframe stated would not result in immediate deportation, but rather would subject them to jail time prior to deportation. I don't believe the amount of time in jail (say two years as opposed to one or three) is as important as them having the knowledge that they can't ignore the registration without risking both deportation AND jail. Once we know who everyone is, we can track them more easily, remove those we need to and make permanent the status of those who we want to stay. We can reduce the government assistance rolls, identify those who are unproductive and likely involved in criminal behavior, and generally create a better environment for those staying. The penalties for criminals and those who fail to comply would need to be severe though or the whole thing falls apart. I am in favor of doubling normal sentences for illegals committing felonies. Ultimately, I believe our best course is to make things more welcoming to those who will remain with us and unbearable for those who need to go.
02-25-2018 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #39
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 11:20 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?
A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.
Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.
Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.
There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?
I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

I think out would be a good start for you to answer the same question for yourself.

About to have to go, but I would love to discuss the principles of conservatism with anyone here and at length. I think it is important to know why we believe the things we believe.

(02-25-2018 10:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the first thing you have to do with those already here is to get control of the situation. We don't know who they are, we don't even know how many there are, and we definitely don't know where they are. I think some sort of guest worker amnesty, with no path to citizenship, is the best answer. Call it a red card, as opposed to a green card which has a path to citizenship. Everybody registers, we track them, we collect taxes, they have access to the courts. But you don't become a citizen by breaking the law. And if you commit a felony, or multiple misdemeanors, then you serve full term and then you go back.

I think we need to increase legal immigration coupled with implementing a merit-based system. No more lengthy family chain--immediate family members only--and no more lottery.

This is very similar to a proposal I have made for 25 years. In today's world, everyone has access to information, so announce that all undocumented persons must register at one of multiple locations (libraries, school, work, post office, etc.). They would be given three months to do so, which I believe is reasonable and everyone would have plenty of time to comply. Upon registration, they would be granted temporary status and could make application for permanent resident status or citizenship. I am not as hung up on the fact that they were here illegally, since my primary objective is to determine who is here. They would be notified that failure to register in the timeframe stated would not result in immediate deportation, but rather would subject them to jail time prior to deportation. I don't believe the amount of time in jail (say two years as opposed to one or three) is as important as them having the knowledge that they can't ignore the registration without risking both deportation AND jail. Once we know who everyone is, we can track them more easily, remove those we need to and make permanent the status of those who we want to stay. We can reduce the government assistance rolls, identify those who are unproductive and likely involved in criminal behavior, and generally create a better environment for those staying. The penalties for criminals and those who fail to comply would need to be severe though or the whole thing falls apart. I am in favor of doubling normal sentences for illegals committing felonies. Ultimately, I believe our best course is to make things more welcoming to those who will remain with us and unbearable for those who need to go.

Oh hell no. We did that 2 times before. Sorry you are not turning Texas blue. Phuck no.
02-25-2018 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #40
RE: After testy call Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House
(02-25-2018 10:18 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-25-2018 08:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Serious question -- do you guys really believe that spending over $25 billion to construct a partial wall along the southern border of the US is the best means of dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico (and Central America)? Do you believe that the best solution to the undocumented non-citizens among us is to "deport them all?" And to those claiming to be conservatives, do you feel those solutions best represent the principles of conservatism?

A literal wall along every foot of the border? No. Better enforcement of the border, including walls at appropriate places? Yes.

Deport them all? No. That just makes Mexico a failed state, and we don't want Somalia on our southern border.

Does a secure border represent the principles of conservatism? Absolutely. The question is the best method to achieve it.

There you go -- an intelligent response not found on a bumper sticker. I agree with your first answer. If we aren't going to deport them all, where do you draw the line?

I agree that a secure border is a necessity, but that wasn't really what I asked. The question was asked to determine whether those identifying as conservative were basing their opinions on the problems of illegal immigration on emotions, politics or principles.

You don't have to do massive immigration raids, just do as we do now....deport them as you encounter them.

Empower the local law enforcement agencies that want to help enforce immigration laws to do so.

Secure the border not only to stop illegal immigration but as a matter of national security. Do we really wants someone to have the ability to simply walk into out country when the neighboring country has vast swaths of their nation not under government control but under the control of the drug cartels?

Use the wall to allow you to reallocate resources to secure the Canadian border where due to massive distance a wall would be impossible.
02-25-2018 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.