Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

toshiba

Members
  • Content Count

    7,285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,666 Excellent

About toshiba

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Recent Profile Visitors

5,276 profile views
  1. How is this even possible? People consume more resources then they create, seems pretty simple.
  2. Based on what I know, they are being moved to areas that welcome them. If you're going to be that beacon on the hill welcoming all who are seeking safety, do you get to complain when someone takes up up on your offer? I get apalmer's argument where one might have a plan already and want to be somewhere else and if they are forced to stay there, I sort of get that complaint. I have no issue if the immigrant is asking to go there.
  3. I think whistle-blowers are vital and prosecuting WikiLinks might be a step too close to violation of freedom of the press.
  4. I don't fully understand them. Just seems like a problem capitalism would handle. Capitalism is kind of not the great solution people think it is.
  5. So if the two options are keep them detained or let them live in sanctuary cities... the reply is #### trump??? No, but those aren't the only two options.
  6. Well if you are going to let them go then just let them go, don't play games and bring them to areas where you have political weakness.
  7. There is no plan. This was a “gotcha!” by President Trump. Frustrated that he has no idea what to do, he wants to punish his political enemies. As far the people moving- they’re destitute. And they don’t want to be undocumented. They didn’t come here to sneak in. They want asylum. Completely agree on the Trump part, his pettiness is appalling!
  8. Well, putting aside the fact that if you were correct economic growth would be impossible, your point isn’t really relevant to this topic. Oh thank you the the ultimate evaluator of this discussion, once again you show yourself to be way too into your opinion to have a discussion that might not go exactly as you determine it should... 🙄
  9. The answer is that they are a financial benefit long term. Nobody has ever made the argument that they are a short term financial benefit; like all poor and destitute people, they cost a lot more than they produce initially. Eventually they don’t. The 10-15 million undocumented immigrants who live in this country are not a financial burden overall, but most of them have been here for quite some time. (As much of a positive as they are, they would be far more if we simply gave them citizenship.) I disagree, generally speaking everyone (rich included) end up taking more from society then they add.
  10. I haven't said that, so I can't answer. All people are a financial burden.
  11. No they are just less accepting of carrying the financial burden for the federal government on enforcing their immigration policy.
  12. I am being genuine in my questions...work with me here. How about this. How is this so much different than the current catch/release process? Maybe it's not fair to ask you to justify Tim's apparent outrage. If you don't share that position, I get that. I can wait for him to answer. You are moving a person from locations based off of your political desire to punish a community for not having the same view as you. This results in a community having a higher burden of responsibility than they otherwise would have just because they choose to not accept the financial burden of the federal government. Do you not see how this is different?
  13. I think either you or I have the wrong interpretation of sanctuary city. My interpretation is in line with what the article defines: "we're not going to help the feds detain these people". That doesn't mean they won't still be living under a bridge. It just means local cops won't be picking them up or holding onto them for the feds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city I am guessing he doesn't fully understand the policy. Which is reasonable as there is a ton of misinformation out there. I don't want to argue over the definitions as there are many that have been created...none of which doesn't boil down to simply not doing the federal government's job for them by seeking out and catching illegal immigrants. That's ICE's job. I pay federal taxes and the funding of those types of tasks should come out of that money, not my local/state taxes. That said, I need someone to explain why this concept is so different from the standard catch/release. I just don't get it, but am happy to admit I don't necessarily do well with nuance in situations like this. It's already known that in the catch/release concept most end up in the same general areas, same towns where they feel safe. Why is taking them there directly a huge issue? I don't understand this particular policy proposal, that's why I am asking the questions. "Officer I am not an accomplice, I just drove them to the bank. They were going to end up there anyway. Why is this my fault?"
  14. I think either you or I have the wrong interpretation of sanctuary city. My interpretation is in line with what the article defines: "we're not going to help the feds detain these people". That doesn't mean they won't still be living under a bridge. It just means local cops won't be picking them up or holding onto them for the feds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city I am guessing he doesn't fully understand the policy. Which is reasonable as there is a ton of misinformation out there.