Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

The Wall: Update: Federal Judge blocks emergency spending on the Wall

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Possibly.  I think strengthening their countries would still be more beneficial to us.  I think there are still going to be enough people wanting to come work in the US.

I see both points.  I worked in construction my whole life. I have moved to different states multiple times in my life for better jobs, better money. Moving to a place for work is probably more in my mindset then others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have no idea.  Someone smarter than me would have to put that budget together.  I know I'd rather see money go towards something like that instead of a wall though.  I could be way off on this too as it may not be feasible for us financially. 

I did the math in this thread a while back to try and illustrate how expensive the wall is and how many people the new segments alone would have to stop, deport and insure they never reenter again (which a wall CAN'T do)....even used the GOP talking point of tens of thousands of dollars each illegal "costs" us even though the number has been thoroughly debunked.  I believe it was around 2 million "illegals" per segment.  The reality is a wall, for what it actually provides, is probably the most inefficient approach to the real problems we are experiencing at our southern border today.  One might even argue a wall does ZERO to help with the problems we are facing at the border right now.  I have yet to see a cogent argument regarding cost/benefit from anyone reputable on this subject.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roadkill1292 said:

No Wall. No compromise.

+1. 

Since a wall is the worst possible outcome, far worse than any solution you’re attempting to solve by having it, it’s not something that can be open to compromise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

+1. 

Since a wall is the worst possible outcome, far worse than any solution you’re attempting to solve by having it, it’s not something that can be open to compromise. 

Then don't complain when undocumented immigrants are sent back to their country along with their children that were born here. 

That's not something that can be open to compromise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

+1. 

Since a wall is the worst possible outcome, far worse than any solution you’re attempting to solve by having it, it’s not something that can be open to compromise. 

Too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a wall keep folks out?  I suggest that history and our own experiences would tell us the answer is no.  Hadrian's wall was a bust, the Great wall of China, a bust, the Great Western Wall, every castle ever built, walls don't keep folks out.  sometimes they are pretty good at locking people in, but not out.

Would it be an ecological disaster?  Maybe, probably. Animals are seasonally migratory.

Does it address responsible immigration policy? Not in the least.  While a secure border might assist in shaping immigration policy this does not secure the border.  Manpower secures borders. 

Should we allow illegal immigrants to overwhelm us, driving policy?  No.  We should be the masters of our fate.  We need to remain a nation of laws, crafted for reason and purpose, not succumbing to pressure from others.

Do we need immigrants?  Probably so.

Would we benefit from guest workers on top of immigrants?  Certainly.

Do I like Latinos or am I bigoted against them?  I like Latinos. I like Latinas.  I like their musics, their cuisines, their language.  I like their countries.  I do not like their bugs, or some of their leaders, the dictatorial ones.  I like their literature.

Should we help our neighbors?  Yeah.

Should we round up and deport law breakers?  Yes.

Will the last answer cause some to question the answer two before it?  Undoubtedly.

 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Would a wall keep folks out?  I suggest that history and our own experiences would tell us the answer is no.  Hadrian's wall was a bust, the Great wall of China, a bust, the Great Western Wall, every castle ever built, walls don't keep folks out.  sometimes they are pretty good at locking people in, but not out.

Would it be an ecological disaster?  Maybe, probably. Animals are seasonally migratory.

Does it address responsible immigration policy? Not in the least.  While a secure border might assist in shaping immigration policy this does not secure the border.  Manpower secures borders. 

Should we allow illegal immigrants to overwhelm us, driving policy?  No.  We should be the masters of our fate.  We need to remain a nation of laws, crafted for reason and purpose, not succumbing to pressure from others.

Do we need immigrants?  Probably so.

Would we benefit from guest workers on top of immigrants?  Certainly.

Do I like Latinos or am I bigoted against them?  I like Latinos. I like Latinas.  I like their musics, their cuisines, their language.  I like their countries.  I do not like their bugs, or some of their leaders, the dictatorial ones.  I like their literature.

Should we help our neighbors?  Yeah.

Should we round up and deport law breakers?  Yes.

Will the last answer cause some to question the answer two before it?  Undoubtedly.

 

I like this but would add the “should we round up and deport law breakers” is a bit larger than a simple yes or no.

I think a threshold is needed there and simple tickets or misdemeanors probably should not lead to a person being deported (especially if the rest of the family would then be left without a wage earner or the person would be leaving behind kids who are citizens).  Violent crimes...yes, I don’t have much tolerance there and nor should there be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I like this but would add the “should we round up and deport law breakers” is a bit larger than a simple yes or no.

I think a threshold is needed there and simple tickets or misdemeanors probably should not lead to a person being deported (especially if the rest of the family would then be left without a wage earner or the person would be leaving behind kids who are citizens).  Violent crimes...yes, I don’t have much tolerance there and nor should there be.  

A compassionate stance.  That compassion has become a bludgeon with which we have been knocked about.  I would note that  Families are not deprived of a wage earner, just a wage earner in this country.  I would note that separation of families on deportation of illegals would be at their choice.  I would allow natural born citizens to return, maybe that means when they are adults, not dependent upon their wage earner.

Is this harsh, maybe.  Does it uphold the rule of law, certainly, and I value that.  Does it provide opportunity and space for those who follow the rules, absolutely, an important matter in my mind.

Would I give a rats ### about the rule of law if my family were suffering on the wrong side of a border?  Absolutely not.  I would violate the law to secure my family a better future.

Share this post


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

Would a wall keep folks out?  I suggest that history and our own experiences would tell us the answer is no.  Hadrian's wall was a bust, the Great wall of China, a bust, the Great Western Wall, every castle ever built, walls don't keep folks out.  sometimes they are pretty good at locking people in, but not out.

Would it be an ecological disaster?  Maybe, probably. Animals are seasonally migratory.

Does it address responsible immigration policy? Not in the least.  While a secure border might assist in shaping immigration policy this does not secure the border.  Manpower secures borders. 

Should we allow illegal immigrants to overwhelm us, driving policy?  No.  We should be the masters of our fate.  We need to remain a nation of laws, crafted for reason and purpose, not succumbing to pressure from others.

Do we need immigrants?  Probably so.

Would we benefit from guest workers on top of immigrants?  Certainly.

Do I like Latinos or am I bigoted against them?  I like Latinos. I like Latinas.  I like their musics, their cuisines, their language.  I like their countries.  I do not like their bugs, or some of their leaders, the dictatorial ones.  I like their literature.

Should we help our neighbors?  Yeah.

Should we round up and deport law breakers?  Yes.

Will the last answer cause some to question the answer two before it?  Undoubtedly.

 

"Hey! What gives you the right?"

"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"

"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, man, you're some kinda sinner"

~Five Man Electrical Band

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, timschochet said:

+1. 

Since a wall is the worst possible outcome, far worse than any solution you’re attempting to solve by having it, it’s not something that can be open to compromise. 

This is old hat but people fall into Trump’s magic bs trap by referring to a wall. Even Trump isn’t building a wall if he gets what he wants. Elaborate fencing / technology / manpower policy? Trumpites ain’t interested. ‘WALL’? Oh yeah, feed it to them all day.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crossing the border at points other than designated entry points is breaking the law. 

Remaining in the country as an undocumented person is breaking the law. 

It's odd how some want to regulate American citizens more than they want to regulate immigrants that have already broken established laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

"Hey! What gives you the right?"

"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"

"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, man, you're some kinda sinner"

~Five Man Electrical Band

I try to live my life by the philosophes espoused by the Five Man Electrical Band, the Free Electric Band, the Band, and the Archies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKlUfVb90Y

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Crossing the border at points other than designated entry points is breaking the law. 

Remaining in the country as an undocumented person is breaking the law. 

It's odd how some want to regulate American citizens more than they want to regulate immigrants that have already broken established laws.

I think it's odd that we have higher standards for posters on a fantasy football forum than we do our own President.  It's a messed up world we live in, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I think it's odd that we have higher standards for posters on a fantasy football forum than we do our own President.  It's a messed up world we live in, isn't it?

You're preaching to the choir. I've said numerous times that I don't trust the path our government has taken in the past few decades. It's not a left or right thing. It's a politician being out for themselves thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

You're preaching to the choir. I've said numerous times that I don't trust the path our government has taken in the past few decades. It's not a left or right thing. It's a politician being out for themselves thing. 

We need to hold ourselves accountable for voting is such crap though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

We need to hold ourselves accountable for voting is such crap though.

Not really. We need to hold those we vote in accountable. 

I suggested an accountability contract with all elected officials. If they can spend months spewing campaign promises in order to get elected, then they can put those promises on paper. Failure to act on those promises, would initiate removal from office. 

The only other person that gets by with this is a weatherman. 

Share this post


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

Not really. We need to hold those we vote in accountable. 

I suggested an accountability contract with all elected officials. If they can spend months spewing campaign promises in order to get elected, then they can put those promises on paper. Failure to act on those promises, would initiate removal from office. 

The only other person that gets by with this is a weatherman. 

I think we're both right on this one.  I agree with accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Crossing the border at points other than designated entry points is breaking the law. 

Remaining in the country as an undocumented person is breaking the law. 

It's odd how some want to regulate American citizens more than they want to regulate immigrants that have already broken established laws.

I kind of agree with this but the 1965 INA is a 2 way street. The law requires we let people in by certain quantities and using certain methods and also asylum rules must be followed. Trump is breaking those laws daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I think we're both right on this one.  I agree with accountability.

It's ultimately the voter's responsibility...no one else's.  We hold them accountable by voting them out if they don't do their jobs.  That's what a representative democracy is and how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It's ultimately the voter's responsibility...no one else's.  We hold them accountable by voting them out if they don't do their jobs.  That's what a representative democracy is and how it works.

Then KCitons suggests many of the posters here should shut up for another 18 months. Complaining about it now will make zero difference. Had there been an accountability agreement, removal proceedings could be initiated. But probably not with Trump. He's tried to do most of the things that he promised. The biggest fail is having Mexico pay for the wall. 

In reality, he's brought exactly what he said he was going to do during his campaign. A lot of people didn't like it then, and they don't like it now. But, as you pointed out, it was the responsibility of the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I kind of agree with this but the 1965 INA is a 2 way street. The law requires we let people in by certain quantities and using certain methods and also asylum rules must be followed. Trump is breaking those laws daily.

Which is why I've tried to approach it from a middle ground. What do Trump supporters want in regards to immigrants entering this country? What do Trump haters want in regards to immigrants entering this country? 

Hope City delivers what both are looking for. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.