Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Thank you Beaver Cleaver, for recognizing that it's not shtick.

Curious how you personally would solve this issue if you were in charge.

Just shut the #### up for once.

Well I don't think much of that solution. Got any others?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Thank you Beaver Cleaver, for recognizing that it's not shtick.

Curious how you personally would solve this issue if you were in charge.

Just shut the #### up for once.

Well I don't think much of that solution. Got any others?

Of course you don't...you'd curl up in the fetal position if you couldn't post here.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you Beaver Cleaver, for recognizing that it's not shtick.

Curious how you personally would solve this issue if you were in charge.

Just shut the #### up for once.

Well I don't think much of that solution. Got any others?

Of course you don't...you'd curl up in the fetal position if you couldn't post here.

How do you know I'm not there already?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Thank you Beaver Cleaver, for recognizing that it's not shtick.

Curious how you personally would solve this issue if you were in charge.

Just shut the #### up for once.

Well I don't think much of that solution. Got any others?

Of course you don't...you'd curl up in the fetal position if you couldn't post here.

How do you know I'm not there already?

 

[Kal El]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

You must have made a killing investing the Romanian Orphan market. http://annikagudjonsson.blogspot.com/



You know, because according to you history has shown this to be so, tens of thousands of impoverished orphans in state care is a success story waiting to happen.

As a father, that story breaks my heart. Children should be loved and cared for, not abandoned. I understand these Central American parents wanting to get their kid out of harms way, but this isn't the way to do it.

 

[Sarnoff]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

 

[timschochet]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

 

[Sarnoff]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

 

[timschochet]

Sarnoff, if you're the same guy who has made posts over the years about physics and science, (if I'm confusing you with someone else I apologize) then you're obviously a very smart person, way smarter than I am. And your overall views on this subject, that illegal immigrants are more of a drain than a benefit, and even if they were a benefit it wouldn't matter to you because they are illegal and their presence here upsets our lawful society- I get those arguments, I do. They are legitimate arguments, worthy of respect and consideration even though I disagree. (There are other arguments you have made complaining about the Latino culture and how there are no signs in English which IMO are NOT worthy of respect.)

But that being said- your proposed solutions are so simplistic and mindless and so guaranteed to make things much worse, without achieving your stated goal, that I have trouble believing that intelligent people could possibly believe in them. Were you a moron, I wouldn't bother to comment. But the fact that you seem like a very bright guy, yet still spout this nonsense, depresses me.

 

[pizzatyme]

Enforcing laws already in place is moronic and simplistic, but having a free for all at the border is good for the country?

Tim, you depress me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

What we do know is that both GOP and Demo presidents and leaders have been allowing this to go on, in a lesser amount or different way, for a while. Obama seems to be setting new records for inaction and failure, but when I see that kind of pattern over a long time my one thought is that someone, somewhere is making money off this policy.

If we take Tiim's/Obama's theorizations on this what we get is:

• Companies breaking the law and making money off of sub minimum wage labor to the disadvantage of those (citizens and companies) who play by the rules.
• Incentivization of more illegal aliens to come here.

And these are the main problems, labor problems, law breaking and stress on social support programs to the detriment of citizens.

There are other things, like gang activity, which is a good point, but it works in the opposite way that Tim describes, the ranks of gangs are filled, not depleted, by Obama's policies.

The whole of the current policy is absolutely insane. And add to it this president is completely awol, it's not clear this guy even shows up to work to be "the President."

 

[Todd Andrews]

Sarnoff, if you're the same guy who has made posts over the years about physics and science, (if I'm confusing you with someone else I apologize) then you're obviously a very smart person, way smarter than I am. And your overall views on this subject, that illegal immigrants are more of a drain than a benefit, and even if they were a benefit it wouldn't matter to you because they are illegal and their presence here upsets our lawful society- I get those arguments, I do. They are legitimate arguments, worthy of respect and consideration even though I disagree. (There are other arguments you have made complaining about the Latino culture and how there are no signs in English which IMO are NOT worthy of respect.)

But that being said- your proposed solutions are so simplistic and mindless and so guaranteed to make things much worse, without achieving your stated goal, that I have trouble believing that intelligent people could possibly believe in them. Were you a moron, I wouldn't bother to comment. But the fact that you seem like a very bright guy, yet still spout this nonsense, depresses me.

Sarnoff's solutions will stop new illegal immigration because enforcing our laws will decrease the jobs available to illegals.

 

[Todd Andrews]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

What we do know is that both GOP and Demo presidents and leaders have been allowing this to go on, in a lesser amount or different way, for a while. Obama seems to be setting new records for inaction and failure, but when I see that kind of pattern over a long time my one thought is that someone, somewhere is making money off this policy.

If we take Tiim's/Obama's theorizations on this what we get is:

• Companies breaking the law and making money off of sub minimum wage labor to the disadvantage of those (citizens and companies) who play by the rules.
• Incentivization of more illegal aliens to come here.

And these are the main problems, labor problems, law breaking and stress on social support programs to the detriment of citizens.

There are other things, like gang activity, which is a good point, but it works in the opposite way that Tim describes, the ranks of gangs are filled, not depleted, by Obama's policies.

The whole of the current policy is absolutely insane. And add to it this president is completely awol, it's not clear this guy even shows up to work to be "the President."

The bolded is a complete lie.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

What we do know is that both GOP and Demo presidents and leaders have been allowing this to go on, in a lesser amount or different way, for a while. Obama seems to be setting new records for inaction and failure, but when I see that kind of pattern over a long time my one thought is that someone, somewhere is making money off this policy.

If we take Tiim's/Obama's theorizations on this what we get is:

• Companies breaking the law and making money off of sub minimum wage labor to the disadvantage of those (citizens and companies) who play by the rules.
• Incentivization of more illegal aliens to come here.

And these are the main problems, labor problems, law breaking and stress on social support programs to the detriment of citizens.

There are other things, like gang activity, which is a good point, but it works in the opposite way that Tim describes, the ranks of gangs are filled, not depleted, by Obama's policies.

The whole of the current policy is absolutely insane. And add to it this president is completely awol, it's not clear this guy even shows up to work to be "the President."

The bolded is a complete lie.

You're right about that (well it wasn't a lie, I was just referring to something else). I was speaking of putting a sufficient force on the border to stop the inflow. I pointed out that prior presidents hadn't really done any better, Obama just looks worse because the flow in has gotten so much greater.

 

[Rove!]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

What we do know is that both GOP and Demo presidents and leaders have been allowing this to go on, in a lesser amount or different way, for a while. Obama seems to be setting new records for inaction and failure, but when I see that kind of pattern over a long time my one thought is that someone, somewhere is making money off this policy.

If we take Tiim's/Obama's theorizations on this what we get is:

• Companies breaking the law and making money off of sub minimum wage labor to the disadvantage of those (citizens and companies) who play by the rules.
• Incentivization of more illegal aliens to come here.

And these are the main problems, labor problems, law breaking and stress on social support programs to the detriment of citizens.

There are other things, like gang activity, which is a good point, but it works in the opposite way that Tim describes, the ranks of gangs are filled, not depleted, by Obama's policies.

The whole of the current policy is absolutely insane. And add to it this president is completely awol, it's not clear this guy even shows up to work to be "the President."

The bolded is a complete lie.

your link actually backs up the assertion that Obama is sending less people back. Even if you account for the idea that people "returned" might retry and get double-counted, the average "returnee" would have to make 6 attempts and get caught 6 times in one year to make 2004 look like 2012

.

 

[GroveDiesel]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Regarding Tim’s criticism of my ideas: he says stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns like TB; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications with the enforcement of my proposals, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo.

What we do know is that both GOP and Demo presidents and leaders have been allowing this to go on, in a lesser amount or different way, for a while. Obama seems to be setting new records for inaction and failure, but when I see that kind of pattern over a long time my one thought is that someone, somewhere is making money off this policy.

If we take Tiim's/Obama's theorizations on this what we get is:

• Companies breaking the law and making money off of sub minimum wage labor to the disadvantage of those (citizens and companies) who play by the rules.
• Incentivization of more illegal aliens to come here.

And these are the main problems, labor problems, law breaking and stress on social support programs to the detriment of citizens.There are other things, like gang activity, which is a good point, but it works in the opposite way that Tim describes, the ranks of gangs are filled, not depleted, by Obama's policies.

The whole of the current policy is absolutely insane. And add to it this president is completely awol, it's not clear this guy even shows up to work to be "the President."

The bolded is a complete lie.

Slow down there. It turns out that the Obama administration has been manipulating the numbers and including a whole bunch of "returns" as "removals".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From Todd's link this seems like a good point.

And then there’s the broader question about how well the numbers reflect what the Obama administration is actually trying to do. The immigration courts have a backlog of 363,239 immigration cases—all people the government is attempting to deport—according to TRAC, a data analysis project at Syracuse University.

Seems to me we should be ramping up this system big time. Then again why people who come into the country illegally get an administrative hearing, I have no idea.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The government only deported 25% of identifiable aliens that were potentially deportable that it encounters in 2013 in the nation's interior. Most of which came to their attention after committing a crime.

As of the end of 2013, ICE reported more than 870,000 aliens that had deportations orders but were still in the country.

http://cis.org/catch-and-release

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Were you a moron, I wouldn't bother to comment. But the fact that you seem like a very bright guy, yet still spout this nonsense, depresses me.

 

[mr roboto]

This is gold.

 

[RCon]

All you’ve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: don’t allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you won’t have to deport anybody. They’ll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:

1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Wait... you're saying that, all else being equal, if we make the penalty for a particular crime harsher, more companies will break that particular law?

 

[timschochet]

All youve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: dont allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you wont have to deport anybody. Theyll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Wait... you're saying that, all else being equal, if we make the penalty for a particular crime harsher, more companies will break that particular law?

No, but in this case all things are not equal. The companies and people that hire illegals need them to perform certain jobs at very low wages. If you try and penalize that, you simply create a black market, because you haven't eliminated the need.

 

[timschochet]

Sarnoff, if you're the same guy who has made posts over the years about physics and science, (if I'm confusing you with someone else I apologize) then you're obviously a very smart person, way smarter than I am. And your overall views on this subject, that illegal immigrants are more of a drain than a benefit, and even if they were a benefit it wouldn't matter to you because they are illegal and their presence here upsets our lawful society- I get those arguments, I do. They are legitimate arguments, worthy of respect and consideration even though I disagree. (There are other arguments you have made complaining about the Latino culture and how there are no signs in English which IMO are NOT worthy of respect.)

But that being said- your proposed solutions are so simplistic and mindless and so guaranteed to make things much worse, without achieving your stated goal, that I have trouble believing that intelligent people could possibly believe in them. Were you a moron, I wouldn't bother to comment. But the fact that you seem like a very bright guy, yet still spout this nonsense, depresses me.

Sarnoff's solutions will stop new illegal immigration because enforcing our laws will decrease the jobs available to illegals.

Doubt that. But in any case Sarnoff's intent is to get the ones already here to leave. That won't happen.

 

[timschochet]

Enforcing laws already in place is moronic and simplistic, but having a free for all at the border is good for the country?

Tim, you depress me.

Denying the children of illegals sccess to public schools and hospitals is not in place.

 

[RCon]

All youve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: dont allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you wont have to deport anybody. Theyll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Wait... you're saying that, all else being equal, if we make the penalty for a particular crime harsher, more companies will break that particular law?

No, but in this case all things are not equal. The companies and people that hire illegals need them to perform certain jobs at very low wages. If you try and penalize that, you simply create a black market, because you haven't eliminated the need.

It's already a black market because it's already illegal. HTH

 

[timschochet]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

So what is to be done? Penalize employers? Will that punish illegals or the rest of us? Kick their kids out of school? Will that stop gang activity or make it worse? Prevent them from using hospitals? Will that improve public health or threaten it?

No matter how you feel about illegal immigration, there are certain realities to this situation people stubbornly refuse to face. Even if I shared most of views about them being a drain, and wanted the borders sealed against further intrusion, I would still be forced to favor a path to citizenship as the only viable, and ultimately inevitable, solution for those already here.

 

[timschochet]

All youve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: dont allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you wont have to deport anybody. Theyll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Wait... you're saying that, all else being equal, if we make the penalty for a particular crime harsher, more companies will break that particular law?

No, but in this case all things are not equal. The companies and people that hire illegals need them to perform certain jobs at very low wages. If you try and penalize that, you simply create a black market, because you haven't eliminated the need.

It's already a black market because it's already illegal. HTH

Of course. So all your penalty would do is impose a tax that is a burden on the public which pays for ineffective enforcement- much like our war on drugs.

 

[jonessed]

From Todd's link this seems like a good point.

And then theres the broader question about how well the numbers reflect what the Obama administration is actually trying to do. The immigration courts have a backlog of 363,239 immigration casesall people the government is attempting to deportaccording to TRAC, a data analysis project at Syracuse University.

Seems to me we should be ramping up this system big time. Then again why people who come into the country illegally get an administrative hearing, I have no idea.

Yeah, that makes no sense. If they are here illegally, they are here illegally. You don't need a judge to reaffirm it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

 

[timschochet]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

Yes its my opinion.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

Yes its my opinion.

So people who think (or know) that you're wrong about that don't need to "understand" this, no matter how loudly you yell it, do they?

 

[RCon]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

So what is to be done? Penalize employers? Will that punish illegals or the rest of us? Kick their kids out of school? Will that stop gang activity or make it worse? Prevent them from using hospitals? Will that improve public health or threaten it?

No matter how you feel about illegal immigration, there are certain realities to this situation people stubbornly refuse to face. Even if I shared most of views about them being a drain, and wanted the borders sealed against further intrusion, I would still be forced to favor a path to citizenship as the only viable, and ultimately inevitable, solution for those already here.

Put simply, you're wrong about this. If employers stopped hiring illegals, some percentage of illegals already here would most certainly self-deport.

 

[RCon]

All youve got to do with them are two things: first, impose strict large penalties on companies who employ illegals. Second, enforce the terms of Proposition 187: dont allow them free access to our schools, our welfare, our hospitals. You do these two things, and you wont have to deport anybody. Theyll leave on their own.

What you'll have is:1. Lots of companies breaking the law.

2. Rampant inflation.

3. Public health risks like tuberculosis.

4. Increased gang activity because the kids are not in school (which also creates a permanent underclass.)

And guess what? They still won't leave.

Wait... you're saying that, all else being equal, if we make the penalty for a particular crime harsher, more companies will break that particular law?

No, but in this case all things are not equal. The companies and people that hire illegals need them to perform certain jobs at very low wages. If you try and penalize that, you simply create a black market, because you haven't eliminated the need.

It's already a black market because it's already illegal. HTH

Of course. So all your penalty would do is impose a tax that is a burden on the public which pays for ineffective enforcement- much like our war on drugs.

What the hell are you talking about?

If nothing changed other than the penalty to employers becoming much more harsh (e.g. $1M fine per incident of illegal employed), I guarantee that fewer companies (not more) would hire illegals.

 

[Mark Davis]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

 

[The Commish]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

 

[timschochet]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

Yes its my opinion.

So people who think (or know) that you're wrong about that don't need to "understand" this, no matter how loudly you yell it, do they?

It's a very strong opinion based on common sense and history. You and Rich and Sarnoff and whoever else are certainly welcome to disregard it. Doesn't matter. They're not going anywhere. We will not penalize employers. We will continue to allow their children to attend schools and allow them access to hospitals. None of what you want to happen is going to happen. None of it. (Meanwhile, eventually most of what I want to happen WILL happen.)

 

[timschochet]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

The size of our debt (and our annual deficit) is so overwhelming that its meaningless to bring it up in the context of this discussion. It's like asking a guy to loan you a quarter, and he says "I can't afford it because I owe somebody $100,000!" Saving that quarter isn't going to make a bit of difference one way or the other.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

Yes its my opinion.

So people who think (or know) that you're wrong about that don't need to "understand" this, no matter how loudly you yell it, do they?

It's a very strong opinion based on common sense and history. You and Rich and Sarnoff and whoever else are certainly welcome to disregard it. Doesn't matter. They're not going anywhere. We will not penalize employers. We will continue to allow their children to attend schools and allow them access to hospitals. None of what you want to happen is going to happen. None of it. (Meanwhile, eventually most of what I want to happen WILL happen.)

There's a huge difference between "they're not going anywhere regardless of what measures we take regarding employers, etc..." and "they're not going anywhere because we won't do anything to remove the incentives for them to be here." Just so I'm clear, since you're notorious for moving the goalposts, are you talking about the former or the latter scenario?

 

[Mark Davis]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

We need to take care of the families and children we already have. There's plenty of poverty to go around now. The politicians just simply won't solve it and work together. To me you have a compromise and address two issues. Secure the border as Republicans want and do an infrastructure and roads bill as the Democrats want. The infrastructure bill would create jobs for the people who need them most. Nobody wants to see these kids suffer, but we don't have the means or will to take care of the ones we have here now.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

The size of our debt (and our annual deficit) is so overwhelming that its meaningless to bring it up in the context of this discussion. It's like asking a guy to loan you a quarter, and he says "I can't afford it because I owe somebody $100,000!" Saving that quarter isn't going to make a bit of difference one way or the other.

More BS. The cost of illegal immigrants to our systems is huge but even if it isn't any saving will help.

 

[timschochet]

Look, the main thing you guys need to understand regarding the millions of illegals already here is:

THEYRE NOT LEAVING.

They're here here to stay. Their children are here to stay. They're not going to self-deport, and you'll never have the money or political will to forcibly send them back, as I know some of you yearn to.

This is utter BS. The limited data we have on this indicates that they would in fact self deport. We simply have to remove the incentives for them to stay. I realize that you have it in your signature but let's clarify something - The above capitalized statement is your opinion, correct?

Yes its my opinion.

So people who think (or know) that you're wrong about that don't need to "understand" this, no matter how loudly you yell it, do they?

It's a very strong opinion based on common sense and history. You and Rich and Sarnoff and whoever else are certainly welcome to disregard it. Doesn't matter. They're not going anywhere. We will not penalize employers. We will continue to allow their children to attend schools and allow them access to hospitals. None of what you want to happen is going to happen. None of it. (Meanwhile, eventually most of what I want to happen WILL happen.)

There's a huge difference between "they're not going anywhere regardless of what measures we take regarding employers, etc..." and "they're not going anywhere because we won't do anything to remove the incentives for them to be here." Just so I'm clear, since you're notorious for moving the goalposts, are you talking about the former or the latter scenario?

Both. I don't believe that either will cause them to leave.

 

[Kal El]

Here's an idea that might help. Remove the incentives for illegals to try and get into the country, and some of them will self deport. For the rest, enter them into a system where they can pay taxes and other money towards the removal of their status as illegals, say, $10,000. Once paid off, they will be tracked towards becoming a citizen, the process of which needs a huge overhaul, but that's for people more familiar with the system to decide. If they commit a crime before they become a citizen, they get deported, and if they wish to try again, the cost is now 10k plus what they had left to pay off before. If they don't want to come back, then that issue solved itself.

It's not perfect, and obviously people will try and circumvent the system, but I feel it's a start.

 

[Mark Davis]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

The size of our debt (and our annual deficit) is so overwhelming that its meaningless to bring it up in the context of this discussion. It's like asking a guy to loan you a quarter, and he says "I can't afford it because I owe somebody $100,000!" Saving that quarter isn't going to make a bit of difference one way or the other.

I believe your scale is way off. If we want to use analogies, that's like saying I'm about to lose my home due to my overspending, but since I'm in such a bind anyway, why not buy this new flat screen? It's that mentality that got you here to begin with. You have to address it before you are as broke as those you are claiming to want to help.

 

[timschochet]

Here's an idea that might help. Remove the incentives for illegals to try and get into the country, and some of them will self deport. For the rest, enter them into a system where they can pay taxes and other money towards the removal of their status as illegals, say, $10,000. Once paid off, they will be tracked towards becoming a citizen, the process of which needs a huge overhaul, but that's for people more familiar with the system to decide. If they commit a crime before they become a citizen, they get deported, and if they wish to try again, the cost is now 10k plus what they had left to pay off before. If they don't want to come back, then that issue solved itself.

It's not perfect, and obviously people will try and circumvent the system, but I feel it's a start.

You have made several thoughtful posts in this thread. This is another one. I don't necessarily agree with the first sentence (because I question this whole notion of "incentives"- the main incentive is the USA itself) but I like most of the rest of it.

 

[RCon]

Here's an idea that might help. Remove the incentives for illegals to try and get into the country, and some of them will self deport. For the rest, enter them into a system where they can pay taxes and other money towards the removal of their status as illegals, say, $10,000. Once paid off, they will be tracked towards becoming a citizen, the process of which needs a huge overhaul, but that's for people more familiar with the system to decide. If they commit a crime before they become a citizen, they get deported, and if they wish to try again, the cost is now 10k plus what they had left to pay off before. If they don't want to come back, then that issue solved itself.

It's not perfect, and obviously people will try and circumvent the system, but I feel it's a start.

If we're trying to do the red, remove incentives to come here illegally, why would we also do the blue, which creates a brand new incentive to try to come here illegally?

 

[The Commish]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

The size of our debt (and our annual deficit) is so overwhelming that its meaningless to bring it up in the context of this discussion. It's like asking a guy to loan you a quarter, and he says "I can't afford it because I owe somebody $100,000!" Saving that quarter isn't going to make a bit of difference one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

Here's an idea that might help. Remove the incentives for illegals to try and get into the country, and some of them will self deport. For the rest, enter them into a system where they can pay taxes and other money towards the removal of their status as illegals, say, $10,000. Once paid off, they will be tracked towards becoming a citizen, the process of which needs a huge overhaul, but that's for people more familiar with the system to decide. If they commit a crime before they become a citizen, they get deported, and if they wish to try again, the cost is now 10k plus what they had left to pay off before. If they don't want to come back, then that issue solved itself.

It's not perfect, and obviously people will try and circumvent the system, but I feel it's a start.

If we're trying to do the red, remove incentives to come here illegally, why would we also do the blue, which creates a brand new incentive to try to come here illegally?

So get rid of the red part.

 

[The Commish]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

We need to take care of the families and children we already have. There's plenty of poverty to go around now. The politicians just simply won't solve it and work together. To me you have a compromise and address two issues. Secure the border as Republicans want and do an infrastructure and roads bill as the Democrats want. The infrastructure bill would create jobs for the people who need them most. Nobody wants to see these kids suffer, but we don't have the means or will to take care of the ones we have here now.

A lot of our poverty issues are systemic. I asked Tim early on in this thread if he understood why we have the child poverty/homeless issues in this country. Of course he didn't (an assumption I'm making sense he won't answer the question). He's correct that we have the means to help everyone, but it requires systemic change and it makes ZERO sense to keep taking on water if we haven't fixed the systemic problems allowing to take on said water.

 

[timschochet]

Kids with no parents won't require social programs?

Of course they will. But I don't believe it's an especially heavy burden (perhaps for a specific community but not for us as a nation to absorb,) it's more like a good investment IMO.

Have you seen our debt? That's like asking a guy who is being foreclosed on to float you a loan on your rent payments.

Goes back to my question early on in this thread to Tim wondering if he's researched why we have such a hard time feeding and sheltering children in this country who are here under valid means.

We need to take care of the families and children we already have. There's plenty of poverty to go around now. The politicians just simply won't solve it and work together. To me you have a compromise and address two issues. Secure the border as Republicans want and do an infrastructure and roads bill as the Democrats want. The infrastructure bill would create jobs for the people who need them most. Nobody wants to see these kids suffer, but we don't have the means or will to take care of the ones we have here now.

A lot of our poverty issues are systemic. I asked Tim early on in this thread if he understood why we have the child poverty/homeless issues in this country. Of course he didn't (an assumption I'm making sense he won't answer the question). He's correct that we have the means to help everyone, but it requires systemic change and it makes ZERO sense to keep taking on water if we haven't fixed the systemic problems allowing to take on said water.

If ultimately these children will benefit rather than detract from us, then of course it makes sense whatever the initial cost.

 

[timschochet]

And I didn't answer your question because it's a whole other topic and completely irrelevant to this one. Just like the people who bring up the homeless when defense spending is discussed- one's got nothing to do with the other.