Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Undocumented Immigrant Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Hannity has got this all figured out:

 

 

MANUFACTURED CRISIS? Border Agents Seize $13 MILLION of Meth Hidden in Frozen Strawberries

Of, course it goes against the need for a wall - since this was a truck full of Meth - going through a Port of Entry...

 

 

OMG. Please please please let Trump mention this so that somebody can ask him about the frozen strawberries. Please. 

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

Hannity has got this all figured out:

 

 

MANUFACTURED CRISIS? Border Agents Seize $13 MILLION of Meth Hidden in Frozen Strawberries

Of, course it goes against the need for a wall - since this was a truck full of Meth - going through a Port of Entry...

 

 

Having a wall covering the miles and miles of non-port of entry space along the border will free up valuable resources and budget to apply towards shoring up our defenses at the various ports of entry. 

Share this post


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

Hannity has got this all figured out:

 

 

MANUFACTURED CRISIS? Border Agents Seize $13 MILLION of Meth Hidden in Frozen Strawberries

Of, course it goes against the need for a wall - since this was a truck full of Meth - going through a Port of Entry...

 

 

Having a wall covering the miles and miles of non-port of entry space along the border will free up valuable resources and budget to apply towards shoring up our defenses at the various ports of entry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Having a wall covering the miles and miles of non-port of entry space along the border will free up valuable resources and budget to apply towards shoring up our defenses at the various ports of entry. 

Spending billions is going to free up budget?

Amd no...none of the wall frees up anything.  And this was caught...at a point of entry, where a vast majority of drugs come in...no wall would do a thing.

HTH

Share this post


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

Having a wall covering the miles and miles of non-port of entry space along the border will free up valuable resources and budget to apply towards shoring up our defenses at the various ports of entry. 

Or, and work with me here - we can acknowledge that the wall is an inefficient use of resources - because the trickle of drugs and immigrants crossing at non-border areas simply does not justify the expenditure of billions of dollars - while we forego funding improvements to areas where drug traffic and immigration is actually occurring.

 

Building the wall - hurts enforcement, rather than helps enforcement.

Share this post


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

Spending billions is going to free up budget?

Amd no...none of the wall frees up anything.  And this was caught...at a point of entry, where a vast majority of drugs come in...no wall would do a thing.

HTH

Short term expenditure for the wall for the long term benefit of focusing future budget and resources to the ports of entry.  Makes sense to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Or, and work with me here - we can acknowledge that the wall is an inefficient use of resources - because the trickle of drugs and immigrants crossing at non-border areas simply does not justify the expenditure of billions of dollars - while we forego funding improvements to areas where drug traffic and immigration is actually occurring.

 

Building the wall - hurts enforcement, rather than helps enforcement.

What you call a trickle rose 84% last month.  And that's just the people they caught coming across the border.  

Share this post


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

What you call a trickle rose 84% last month.  And that's just the people they caught coming across the border.  

From your own source:

 

“Remember, the problem right now isn’t people crossing the border illegally. It’s people presenting themselves to border patrol agents – people who want to get apprehended so they can lodge a frivolous asylum claim,” RJ Hauman, director of government relations for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, stated to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “They know we don’t have the detention space, so we just release them into the interior of the country.”

 

 

No wall is going to stop that...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Hannity has got this all figured out:

 

 

MANUFACTURED CRISIS? Border Agents Seize $13 MILLION of Meth Hidden in Frozen Strawberries

Of, course it goes against the need for a wall - since this was a truck full of Meth - going through a Port of Entry...

 

 

Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other President, which is proof that he was for open borders and weak on illegal immigration.  

Drugs seized at port of entry is just more proof that we should build a wall in areas where drugs are not coming into the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Short term expenditure for the wall for the long term benefit of focusing future budget and resources to the ports of entry.  Makes sense to me.  

Still have to focus expenditure for wall repair (the the picture he tweeted today and tried to claim was his doing) amd monitoring.  It isn’t a short term expenditure at all.  And there is nothing out there showing itfrees up any resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

From your own source:

 

“Remember, the problem right now isn’t people crossing the border illegally. It’s people presenting themselves to border patrol agents – people who want to get apprehended so they can lodge a frivolous asylum claim,” RJ Hauman, director of government relations for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, stated to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “They know we don’t have the detention space, so we just release them into the interior of the country.”

 

 

No wall is going to stop that...

 

Right, and since we wont need to spend resources protecting the non-ports of entry with a wall, maybe those resources can go towards new detention centers or other means to reduce incentives for them to present themselves to CBP.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Right, and since we wont need to spend resources protecting the non-ports of entry with a wall, maybe those resources can go towards new detention centers or other means to reduce incentives for them to present themselves to CBP.  

Its a shame we spent all that money on a wall - now we don't have the resources to address the issues that are actually important.

Share this post


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

Its a shame we spent all that money on a wall - now we don't have the resources to address the issues that are actually important.

Yes, it will be a large short term expense, but the benefits will be long term.  I would think that future annual budgets after the wall is built will see much more allocated to ports of entry and less allocated for other areas where the wall is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Yes, it will be a large short term expense, but the benefits will be long term.  

This is simply not true and you have no way to prove it.

Share this post


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

This is simply not true and you have no way to prove it.

It seems obvious to me that if we are spending our current resources protecting the entire open border, then those resources can mostly be freed up at spots where the wall is in place, and those freed up resources can be better spent at our ports of entry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the wall won’t need monitoring or repair.  Like the repair Trump claimed credit for as building the wall today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

It seems obvious to me that if we are spending our current resources protecting the entire open border, then those resources can mostly be freed up at spots where the wall is in place, and those freed up resources can be better spent at our ports of entry.  

People are just going to climb over, under, around this wall.

Share this post


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

Apparently the wall won’t need monitoring or repair.  Like the repair Trump claimed credit for as building the wall today.

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/border-wall-pros-cons-3-biblical-facts.html

From the article:

The US Customs and Border Patrol uses patrols to guard more remote borderlands. It spends $4 billion a year, utilizing 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones.

Do you think maintenance will cost $4B a year, require 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones?  I don't.  I think most of those resources can be placed at ports of entry to shore things up there, and a fraction of it used for maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/border-wall-pros-cons-3-biblical-facts.html

From the article:

 

 

Do you think maintenance will cost $4B a year, require 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones?  I don't.  I think most of those resources can be placed at ports of entry to shore things up there, and a fraction of it used for maintenance.

They will still monitor yes.  And there will still be miles and miles that aren’t covered by the wall.

Also...biblical facts about the wall? 

Share this post


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

They will still monitor yes.  And there will still be miles and miles that aren’t covered by the wall.

Also...biblical facts about the wall? 

So you think they'll use the same resources to monitor current open border areas as they would if there was a wall?  How do you justify that?  

Share this post


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

So you think they'll use the same resources to monitor current open border areas as they would if there was a wall?  How do you justify that?  

I think they will monitor the wall as well as other open border spots...and still have to repair the wall.

Its not just a short term cost.  And it’s a foolish cost at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The General said:

People are just going to climb over, under, around this wall.

I'm thinking catapults is the smart play by the drug lords, and I think they already have the technology to arrange for someone to pick up the package on the American side of the "wall."

Share this post


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

I'm thinking catapults is the smart play by the drug lords, and I think they already have the technology to arrange for someone to pick up the package on the American side of the "wall."

You can just pass them right through. "The great big beautiful wall" is just some metal polls planted next to each other.

Share this post


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

Yes, it will be a large short term expense, but the benefits will be long term.  I would think that future annual budgets after the wall is built will see much more allocated to ports of entry and less allocated for other areas where the wall is.  

Now imagine how much more effective our border security would be - if they did not wast money on an inefficient wall - and instead put that money to good use!

 

Why do you hate America?  Why don't you want secure borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

I think they will monitor the wall as well as other open border spots...and still have to repair the wall.

Its not just a short term cost.  And it’s a foolish cost at that.

 

You did not answer my question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

You did not answer my question. 

Becaus I didn’t say what you claimed only reworded as a question starting with “so”.

 So why would I answer a bogus question like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Becaus I didn’t say what you claimed only reworded as a question starting with “so”.

 So why would I answer a bogus question like that?

Ok cool. So you dont think they will need the same resources to monitor those areas once the wall is built.  I agree with you. 

Share this post


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

Ok cool. So you dont think they will need the same resources to monitor those areas once the wall is built.  I agree with you. 

Monitor plus repair isn’t going to leave all these resources as you claim is the point.  It’s not a short term expense.  Which is why they still spend to monitor and repair the existing fences.

Share this post


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

Monitor plus repair isn’t going to leave all these resources as you claim is the point.  It’s not a short term expense.  Which is why they still spend to monitor and repair the existing fences.

I think it will. It’s common sense that the level of effort required to monitor an area with a wall would be less than the effort at an area without the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, butcher boy said:

Having a wall covering the miles and miles of non-port of entry space along the border will free up valuable resources and budget to apply towards shoring up our defenses at the various ports of entry. 

How does THAT math work?  Have you even begun the analysis financial on a statement like this?  I did a while back.  Literally millions of people would have to be stopped specifically by the new border wall/fencing implemented before we can even start talking about break even and that analysis used the crappy numbers from that terrible study around the cost of an illegal alien thrown out by the Trump supporters all the time.  It's much more efficient to dump the new monies right into the ports of entry day one.  Money will be recouped faster and those points will become more efficient....win/win.

Share this post


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

How does THAT math work?  Have you even begun the analysis financial on a statement like this?  I did a while back.  Literally millions of people would have to be stopped specifically by the new border wall/fencing implemented before we can even start talking about break even and that analysis used the crappy numbers from that terrible study around the cost of an illegal alien thrown out by the Trump supporters all the time.  It's much more efficient to dump the new monies right into the ports of entry day one.  Money will be recouped faster and those points will become more efficient....win/win.

CBP apprehended 60k+ last month, and that's just at ports of entry.  That equates to 720K per year, so millions will not take that long.  

The math is very simple.  If it takes CBP XXX number of agents to patrol a completely open stretch of border, it goes without saying that having a huge wall to help prevent crossings should mean less of a need for that same number of agents.  Same goes for drone sweeps, air sweeps, etc.  All can be reduced in places where the wall is in place, and redirected to make the ports of entry even stronger.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, butcher boy said:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/border-wall-pros-cons-3-biblical-facts.html

From the article:

 

 

Do you think maintenance will cost $4B a year, require 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones?  I don't.  I think most of those resources can be placed at ports of entry to shore things up there, and a fraction of it used for maintenance.

I would imagine with more wall comes more maintenance.

Share this post


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

I think it will. It’s common sense that the level of effort required to monitor an area with a wall would be less than the effort at an area without the wall. 

Not much no...and then you have maintenance as well.

I don't think it frees up much at all...and ignores where the major problems are when it comes to drugs and other things.  Which is the whole point of the opposition to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dickies said:
18 hours ago, butcher boy said:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/border-wall-pros-cons-3-biblical-facts.html

From the article:

 

 

Do you think maintenance will cost $4B a year, require 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones?  I don't.  I think most of those resources can be placed at ports of entry to shore things up there, and a fraction of it used for maintenance.

I would imagine with more wall comes more maintenance.

This is just the sort of thing a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would tell us.  Trump's been in office over 2 years and campaigned on the wall - yet he's ordered no study on how to best spend upwards of $25B??  From the party of "fiscal responsibility"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

CBP apprehended 60k+ last month, and that's just at ports of entry.  That equates to 720K per year, so millions will not take that long.  

The math is very simple.  If it takes CBP XXX number of agents to patrol a completely open stretch of border, it goes without saying that having a huge wall to help prevent crossings should mean less of a need for that same number of agents.  Same goes for drone sweeps, air sweeps, etc.  All can be reduced in places where the wall is in place, and redirected to make the ports of entry even stronger.  

Yeah...that's not how it works if you're being intellectually honest :shrug:  mixing apprehensions in areas with significantly more opportunities with those in areas where they are/will be few and far between is akin to saying this country has a gun problem because we have 10K more gun incidents than a country where guns are flat out banned.  Comparing apples and oranges never ends well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen Thom Tillis  (R-NC)

Quote

As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms. These are the reasons I would vote in favor of the resolution disapproving of the president's national-emergency declaration, if and when it comes before the Senate.

Sen Susan Collins  (R-ME)

Quote

I disagree with the President's decision to invoke the National Emergencies Act. I don't think that is what the law was intended for. It was intended for catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our nation on 9/11 and severe natural disasters. I do support the lawsuit that was filed by the states. I think that may be the quickest way to get an injunction that would halt this transfer of funds.

Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not put out a statement (yet) but publicly stated her intent to vote for as well. Assuming all Dems vote for, that puts the current public count at 50 fors I think.

They only need 51 (and then Trump will have to veto).  And for those thinking McConnell will keep it from going to a vote, he does not have that option (it's privileged so if any single Senator requests a vote, the Senate must vote within 18 days) so there are a lot of Senators that will have to go on record here in a very contentious vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, prefontaine said:

Sen Thom Tillis  (R-NC)

Sen Susan Collins  (R-ME)

Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not put out a statement (yet) but publicly stated her intent to vote for as well. Assuming all Dems vote for, that puts the current public count at 50 fors I think.

They only need 51 (and then Trump will have to veto).  And for those thinking McConnell will keep it from going to a vote, he does not have that option (it's privileged so if any single Senator requests a vote, the Senate must vote within 18 days) so there are a lot of Senators that will have to go on record here in a very contentious vote. 

Any Republican who votes to uphold Trump on this one should be shamed out of office.  (Won't happen, but it should).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Any Republican who votes to uphold Trump on this one should be shamed out of office.  (Won't happen, but it should).

Agreed. Cornyn stated his opposition which means I will 100% not be voting for him in 2020. And I'm going to send him a note as much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House officially passes resolution blocking Emergency declaration 245-182

13 Republicans voted for:

Amash

Herrera Beutler

Fitzpatrick

Stefanik

Johnson (SD)

Rooney (FL)

Hurd

Gallagher (Wis)

Massie

Walden

Sensebbrenner

Upton

McMorris Rogers

Edited by prefontaine
adding list of GOP ayes
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, prefontaine said:

Agreed. Cornyn stated his opposition which means I will 100% not be voting for him in 2020. And I'm going to send him a note as much. 

Oh no a note, i'm sure he shouldn't vote his conscience since you are sending him a note!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, prefontaine said:

 

Sen Susan Collins  

Too late, Susan. You've already sold out America.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Any Republican who votes to uphold Trump on this one should be shamed out of office.  (Won't happen, but it should).

That would require a conscious and the ability to think.

Won't happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough to override veto, now on to the Senate.  I think it's a done deal and he will use the pen and get what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, yak651 said:

Oh no a note, i'm sure he shouldn't vote his conscience since you are sending him a note!

Not voting his conscience (assuming he has one) is exactly what disappointed pre and led to the note. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This needs to be posted in multiple threads because it offers insight to the very basis for them.

From Cohen's testimony:

Quote

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court white supremacists and bigots. You have heard him call poorer countries “####holes.” In private, he is even worse.He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a “####hole.” This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States. While we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way.And, he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.And yet I continued to work for him.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

Not enough to override veto, now on to the Senate.  I think it's a done deal and he will use the pen and get what he wants.

Democracy in action!   The precedent has been set going forward.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting lost in this crazy news cycle but Lamar Alexander (R-TN) rebukes Trump on border emergency. 

Quote

Sen. Lamar Alexander delivered an ultimatum to President Donald Trump on Thursday: Reconsider your national emergency declaration at the border or face a potential rebellion from the GOP.

Quote

“We’ve never had a case where the president has asked for money, been refused the money by Congress, then used the national emergency powers to spend it anyway,” he added. “To me that’s a dangerous precedent.“

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to believe it...but they will treat Lamar like others before him and cast him out as lame duck as he isn’t running again.

Despite his years log leadership in the state and nationally as a conservative.

Share this post


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

This is getting lost in this crazy news cycle but Lamar Alexander (R-TN) rebukes Trump on border emergency. 

 

 

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

I’d love to believe it...but they will treat Lamar like others before him and cast him out as lame duck as he isn’t running again.

Despite his years log leadership in the state and nationally as a conservative.

Trump won't reconsider and there won't be a GOP rebellion.  Easy parlay.

  • 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.