NYC Mayor Adams calls State of Emergency for migrant influx (1 Viewer)

[jobarules]

‘State of emergency’: Adams says NYC migrant influx to cost city $1B

New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency Friday over the influx of migrants into the Big Apple and estimated it will cost $1 billion to provide them with shelter space and socia…

nypost.com

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Adams is a quick study. What happens when they declare an emergency? Funds. Oh, people want to send buses? "It's an emergency!"

He also called on Gov. Kathy Hochul to provide financial aid and staffing support and to free up state-controlled sites to provide housing.

“We need help from the federal government, we need help from the state of New York,” he said.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[jamny]

Combine this with his comments about the escalating crime and I think Adams is trying to help get Zeldin elected without actually saying it. Zeldin would fire Alvin Bragg on Day 1 and that can only help turn NYC towards a better direction.

 

[jobarules]

Combine this with his comments about the escalating crime and I think Adams is trying to help get Zeldin elected without actually saying it. Zeldin would fire Alvin Bragg on Day 1 and that can only help turn NYC towards a better direction.

I like Adams. I get the sense he wants to do the right thing on most issues but is handcuffed by these NYC Far Left Progressives that try and stop him from doing anything he tries to do.

 

[Max Power]

Are these all the busses Texas is sending because NYC is where the migrants want to go?

Side point of interest... "City officials have struggled for weeks to find space for the incoming thousands, most of whom are Venezuelans seeking asylum from that country’s brutal dictatorship and economic collapse."

Interesting in that we're discussing reducing sanctions against Venezuela because we need their oil and the "Sanctions weren't working anyway".

 

[jamny]

Combine this with his comments about the escalating crime and I think Adams is trying to help get Zeldin elected without actually saying it. Zeldin would fire Alvin Bragg on Day 1 and that can only help turn NYC towards a better direction.

I like Adams. I get the sense he wants to do the right thing on most issues but is handcuffed by these NYC Far Left Progressives that try and stop him from doing anything he tries to do.

Meh so far from me. He seems all talk.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Tim says there is no cost and they are an economic benefit so why would Adam’s care about the cost?

 

[RCon]

Combine this with his comments about the escalating crime and I think Adams is trying to help get Zeldin elected without actually saying it. Zeldin would fire Alvin Bragg on Day 1 and that can only help turn NYC towards a better direction.

I like Adams. I get the sense he wants to do the right thing on most issues but is handcuffed by these NYC Far Left Progressives that try and stop him from doing anything he tries to do.

I get the sense this is more about the mayor (and NYC in general) not having much control over their own affairs. It was about 20 years ago when the Albany/NYC feud occurred and Albany basically took control over a ton of things that most cities are able to do on their own. NYC city government actually has surprisingly little power of their own.

 

[jobarules]

Combine this with his comments about the escalating crime and I think Adams is trying to help get Zeldin elected without actually saying it. Zeldin would fire Alvin Bragg on Day 1 and that can only help turn NYC towards a better direction.

I like Adams. I get the sense he wants to do the right thing on most issues but is handcuffed by these NYC Far Left Progressives that try and stop him from doing anything he tries to do.

Meh so far from me. He seems all talk.

Hes absolutely all talk and likes to party.

 

[Max Power]

Tim says there is no cost and they are an economic benefit so why would Adam’s care about the cost?

There arent enough crops to pick in NYC to be viable there.

 

[djmich]

State of emergency lol? How many people are we talking. If its a state of emergency in NYC, it must be Armageddon for Texas. Wheres the disaster relief.

 

[dickey moe]

Now he knows how the border states feel.

 

[Max Power]

There are now some reports coming out that NYC is kicking long term homeless out of shelters to make room for the new arrivals. Sounds like they feel those people will have an easier time surviving without government resources.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

 

[HellToupee]

NYC in talks with cruise line to shelter migrants

New York City Mayor Eric Adams is looking to partner with Norwegian Cruise Line to help house migrants.

thehill.com

 

[BladeRunner]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

How the attitude changes when the tables have been turned and you have to deal with it.

Democrats don't care about unfettered immigration as long as it's NIMBY.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Still feels like this is also just a battle about what a sanctuary city is. I never took that as meaning they have more resources to house immigrants, so send them all their way.

Like you said, it's just political game of hot potato for most of these people.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Still feels like this is also just a battle about what a sanctuary city is. I never took that as meaning they have more resources to house immigrants, so send them all their way.

Like you said, it's just political game of hot potato for most of these people.

Sure...they are trying to conflate sanctuary city with what is going on here. And using people to try and do it.
Im quite sure the sanctuary city stuff has more to do with local law enforcement not doing the Fed's job than it does housing immigrants waiting on hearings.
At least here in the US.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Still feels like this is also just a battle about what a sanctuary city is. I never took that as meaning they have more resources to house immigrants, so send them all their way.

Like you said, it's just political game of hot potato for most of these people.

Sure...they are trying to conflate sanctuary city with what is going on here. And using people to try and do it.
Im quite sure the sanctuary city stuff has more to do with local law enforcement not doing the Fed's job than it does housing immigrants waiting on hearings.
At least here in the US.

Exactly, I get frustrated by the ignorance and the twisting of it, but also get it - if you come out and advertise that your city is a sanctuary at the very least it's going attract more immigrants to your area so you should be ready for that and that you attracted political attention as well.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

How the attitude changes when the tables have been turned and you have to deal with it.

Democrats don't care about unfettered immigration as long as it's NIMBY.

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to make this blanket statement based on one single Democrat’s actions. But I agree that Adams is behaving as you described.

 

[djmich]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

How the attitude changes when the tables have been turned and you have to deal with it.

Democrats don't care about unfettered immigration as long as it's NIMBY.

Lol, so bad

 

[FairWarning]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

How the attitude changes when the tables have been turned and you have to deal with it.

Democrats don't care about unfettered immigration as long as it's NIMBY.

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to make this blanket statement based on one single Democrat’s actions. But I agree that Adams is behaving as you described.

Lightfoot acted that way also. She bussed them to the suburbs and told no one.

 

[FairWarning]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

 

[quick-hands]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Map Shows the Cost of Illegal Immigration, By State

Where does YOUR state stand?

thefederalistpapers.org

this is what is spent per state by states. not including federal dollars. seems fair to send illegal immigration to states and cities that support it.

 

[quick-hands]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

 

[FairWarning]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

When the two sides don’t work together, there will most likely never be a solution.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Map Shows the Cost of Illegal Immigration, By State

Where does YOUR state stand?

thefederalistpapers.org

this is what is spent per state by states. not including federal dollars. seems fair to send illegal immigration to states and cities that support it.

Information from FAIR...strike one.
Not including Federal Dollars...strike two.
It doesn't really address much of anything in my post actually.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

As I stated...in my earlier post "And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly."
Building a wall is not a solution. how is it...do you think it stops people from trying to come here...before even getting into the effectiveness of a wall...does it stop people from coming here? From overstaying visas (which for a long time was the number one area where people end up being here illegally).

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

When the two sides don’t work together, there will most likely never be a solution.

Agreed...and the two sides seemed close at one point, but are far apart now.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

Yes, it's a solution - a bad one, but you are right that it's a solution.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

When the two sides don’t work together, there will most likely never be a solution.

That's right. Each side has vastly different ideas about this none (none of which I seem to agree much with). What's the compromise when one side keeps floating the idea of walls and SIM and the other side, well - I guess just currently only not do that?

 

[djmich]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

Yes, it's a solution - a bad one, but you are right that it's a solution.

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

 

[sho nuff]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

Yes, it's a solution - a bad one, but you are right that it's a solution.

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

I've addressed this many times. I equate similar to the idea of armed guards at schools - I find it to be an ineffective waste of money.

 

[djmich]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

 

[sho nuff]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

Going back to the previous administration as there was a deal with Schumer and Trump…until Steven Miller got involved. IIRC it lengthened the govt shut down.
I believe even Lindsey Graham was agreeing with Schumer that they didn’t want Miller involved in the negotiations.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Who is this racist white nationalist?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1578447816690728966?s=20&t=L-Xbo-87Vl-eIDYI0w4fsA

How the attitude changes when the tables have been turned and you have to deal with it.

Democrats don't care about unfettered immigration as long as it's NIMBY.

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to make this blanket statement based on one single Democrat’s actions. But I agree that Adams is behaving as you described.

Lightfoot acted that way also. She bussed them to the suburbs and told no one.

So two Dem mayors in big cities acted that way. Again, not sure it makes sense to extend that concerted to the entirety of Dems.

 

[djmich]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

I haven’t said its ineffective, you did. I think it can be effective. I won’t get into the design of it but I don’t think it needs to be the Great Wall of Mexico or nothing. Didn’t this administration continue building out parts of the wall…would they have done that if ineffective?

One can complain about the budget and still think things are good or necessary, again not sure why you’re needing to draw some absolutes. Like, if you think our budget needs fixing then you can’t support Ukraine and let Russia take them over? Can I think the budget needs fixing and still think universal healthcare is good? Do you think in these absolutes on these topics?

How does hiring more lawyers prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder? Because more of them will get processed legally? Okkk, I don’t know the numbers but that sounds relatively small with no net change to the total immigration number. Personally I’d guess the number of allowable immigrants could be increased some, but certainly not to accommodate a majority of illegals.

 

[quick-hands]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Map Shows the Cost of Illegal Immigration, By State

Where does YOUR state stand?

thefederalistpapers.org

this is what is spent per state by states. not including federal dollars. seems fair to send illegal immigration to states and cities that support it.

Information from FAIR...strike one.
Not including Federal Dollars...strike two.
It doesn't really address much of anything in my post actually.

I can't understand why so many people take personal shots at you.

ok, how much do border states get from the feds for care of illegals? how much do border states spend of their out of their own treasuries for care of illegals?

I look forward to your response sir.

 

[quick-hands]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

What can Team Red do, they don’t have the power to do anything.

Point is when they had power...it wasn't a solution. Divert money for a wall that was never meant as more than a saying at a rally...it was a stop gap at best with stay in Mexico. There was no actual solution. Just try to close off and hope the problem goes away..make it someone else's problem.
That is not a solution. The best solutions they originally started going after were nixed by Steven Miller (who then convinced Trump to back out of the deal).

team blue has all presidency and both houses. what are they doing about it.

team red was building a wall. that is an actual solution

Yes, it's a solution - a bad one, but you are right that it's a solution.

a bad one iyo, or good imo, trump did far more and it's not close.

 

[sho nuff]

Trying to compare a border state who gets federal funds with stunts shipping people off is quite the interesting take.
I think yes even liberal areas would be fine taking more in…if its set up to shop them there and resources are ready to accept people. In a perfect world these governors would work together rather than try to one uo each other getting attention.

Neither, as others have noted, seem to really want to try to do anything other than keep it a mess and make it a less rather than really take on the issues.

And yes Biden and Harris have handled this terribly.

Map Shows the Cost of Illegal Immigration, By State

Where does YOUR state stand?

thefederalistpapers.org

this is what is spent per state by states. not including federal dollars. seems fair to send illegal immigration to states and cities that support it.

Information from FAIR...strike one.
Not including Federal Dollars...strike two.
It doesn't really address much of anything in my post actually.

I can't understand why so many people take personal shots at you.

ok, how much do border states get from the feds for care of illegals? how much do border states spend of their out of their own treasuries for care of illegals?

I look forward to your response sir.

Not sure and at the moment…getting ready for a trip so not going to really look that up. Just know that FAIR and CIS are pretty terrible places to get immigration information.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

I haven’t said its ineffective, you did. I think it can be effective. I won’t get into the design of it but I don’t think it needs to be the Great Wall of Mexico or nothing. Didn’t this administration continue building out parts of the wall…would they have done that if ineffective?

One can complain about the budget and still think things are good or necessary, again not sure why you’re needing to draw some absolutes. Like, if you think our budget needs fixing then you can’t support Ukraine and let Russia take them over? Can I think the budget needs fixing and still think universal healthcare is good? Do you think in these absolutes on these topics?

How does hiring more lawyers prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder? Because more of them will get processed legally? Okkk, I don’t know the numbers but that sounds relatively small with no net change to the total immigration number. Personally I’d guess the number of allowable immigrants could be increased some, but certainly not to accommodate a majority of illegals.

It doesn't prevent that, why do you think I would think that?

IMO to advocate first and foremost for The Wall on the topic of our borders and illegal immigration, you are saying:

1. It's the most effective first step to addressing that broad issue.
2. If it's not the best first step, at least we are doing something. Basically it will help, but we will need to do more later.

If you are saying something else, please clarify. I don't think #1 is true, and I don't think #2 is a good way to address problems either, especially when we are talking billions of dollars wasting tax money. Now, it's possible we just disagree on #1 or you are specifically talking about decreasing encounters and not overall illegal immigration/border like I am. My point is more that with as many fiscal conservatives around here as are claimed that I see posts that read to me like they are saying #2, and talking about wasting money on less effective steps.

 

[djmich]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

I haven’t said its ineffective, you did. I think it can be effective. I won’t get into the design of it but I don’t think it needs to be the Great Wall of Mexico or nothing. Didn’t this administration continue building out parts of the wall…would they have done that if ineffective?

One can complain about the budget and still think things are good or necessary, again not sure why you’re needing to draw some absolutes. Like, if you think our budget needs fixing then you can’t support Ukraine and let Russia take them over? Can I think the budget needs fixing and still think universal healthcare is good? Do you think in these absolutes on these topics?

How does hiring more lawyers prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder? Because more of them will get processed legally? Okkk, I don’t know the numbers but that sounds relatively small with no net change to the total immigration number. Personally I’d guess the number of allowable immigrants could be increased some, but certainly not to accommodate a majority of illegals.

It doesn't prevent that, why do you think I would think that?

IMO to advocate first and foremost for The Wall on the topic of our borders and illegal immigration, you are saying:

1. It's the most effective first step to addressing that broad issue.
2. If it's not the best first step, at least we are doing something. Basically it will help, but we will need to do more later.

If you are saying something else, please clarify. I don't think #1 is true, and I don't think #2 is a good way to address problems either, especially when we are talking billions of dollars wasting tax money. Now, it's possible we just disagree on #1 or you are specifically talking about decreasing encounters and not overall illegal immigration/border like I am. My point is more that with as many fiscal conservatives around here as are claimed that I see posts that read to me like they are saying #2, and talking about wasting money on less effective steps.

This is a conundrum because neither of your scenarios really capture my thoughts, although they do partly.

The issue I’m looking to address is to stop illegal immigration, not sure if that’s the broad issue you are referencing but that’s the solve I’m approaching. That’s doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues, like what to do with all the people already here, but im not tying the two.

Unfortunately im not in charge so I can’t do things like require a federal agency to report back to me with an analysis on all of the potential illegal immigration preventative measures, ranked by cost effectiveness per dollar spent. If I had that I would use it and implement them in that order until I got to an acceptable level of illegal immigration.

Im not sure if you have a report like this, but if neither of us does then we can argue all day about if the wall is the most effective or mostly effective or not. I’m going off the fact that I have been presented with no other better alternatives and that two administrations have now completely and/or in some part supported it. I’d be open to being persuaded they are wrong, but the point is if it made a serious dent in the problem I wouldn’t have an issue with spending serious money on it. Again if I was in charge $50B would be getting a hell of a lot of scrutiny from me. I’m not hellbent on a wall but I’ve yet to see anything else proposed that would be better and at this point I’m working off two administrations support.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

I haven’t said its ineffective, you did. I think it can be effective. I won’t get into the design of it but I don’t think it needs to be the Great Wall of Mexico or nothing. Didn’t this administration continue building out parts of the wall…would they have done that if ineffective?

One can complain about the budget and still think things are good or necessary, again not sure why you’re needing to draw some absolutes. Like, if you think our budget needs fixing then you can’t support Ukraine and let Russia take them over? Can I think the budget needs fixing and still think universal healthcare is good? Do you think in these absolutes on these topics?

How does hiring more lawyers prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder? Because more of them will get processed legally? Okkk, I don’t know the numbers but that sounds relatively small with no net change to the total immigration number. Personally I’d guess the number of allowable immigrants could be increased some, but certainly not to accommodate a majority of illegals.

It doesn't prevent that, why do you think I would think that?

IMO to advocate first and foremost for The Wall on the topic of our borders and illegal immigration, you are saying:

1. It's the most effective first step to addressing that broad issue.
2. If it's not the best first step, at least we are doing something. Basically it will help, but we will need to do more later.

If you are saying something else, please clarify. I don't think #1 is true, and I don't think #2 is a good way to address problems either, especially when we are talking billions of dollars wasting tax money. Now, it's possible we just disagree on #1 or you are specifically talking about decreasing encounters and not overall illegal immigration/border like I am. My point is more that with as many fiscal conservatives around here as are claimed that I see posts that read to me like they are saying #2, and talking about wasting money on less effective steps.

This is a conundrum because neither of your scenarios really capture my thoughts, although they do partly.

The issue I’m looking to address is to stop illegal immigration, not sure if that’s the broad issue you are referencing but that’s the solve I’m approaching. That’s doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues, like what to do with all the people already here, but im not tying the two.

Unfortunately im not in charge so I can’t do things like require a federal agency to report back to me with an analysis on all of the potential illegal immigration preventative measures, ranked by cost effectiveness per dollar spent. If I had that I would use it and implement them in that order until I got to an acceptable level of illegal immigration.

Im not sure if you have a report like this, but if neither of us does then we can argue all day about if the wall is the most effective or mostly effective or not. I’m going off the fact that I have been presented with no other better alternatives and that two administrations have now completely and/or in some part supported it. I’d be open to being persuaded they are wrong, but the point is if it made a serious dent in the problem I wouldn’t have an issue with spending serious money on it. Again if I was in charge $50B would be getting a hell of a lot of scrutiny from me. I’m not hellbent on a wall but I’ve yet to see anything else proposed that would be better and at this point I’m working off two administrations support.

It's been posted many times in here that the biggest number of illegal immigrants are overstayed visas, not southern border crossers - so I am not convinced that The Wall is even the best solution for addressing illegal immigration. If you say that's not what you really mean and I know it, then be specific - the wall addresses the # of border encounters like I said. I can't think of what else it effectively addresses, and to me that is a small % of the overall issue of border/illegal immigration. Hense, why I think it's a dumb idea and I am surprised so many people seem to be on board with it.

 

[FairWarning]

Who is protecting the people overstaying their visas? Sanctuary cities.

 

[djmich]

I dont think it’s an entire solution, but why is it a bad component?

It may or may not be. Cost...effecitvenes...
Vs more technology based things and more enforcement. More judges and making the process to get in legally better rather than limiting it plus putting up a wall.

Part of the compromise I believe that was getting worked out was actually to give some funding to the wall...that got nixed and it wasn't by democrats.

Yes sort of, but we don’t need to conflate things. One can determine if a wall has benefit (maybe just in parts of the border) and separately have other things than can be helpful. The other things being helpful does not make the wall bad. If drones with lazers eliminated the whole issue then yah a wall would be irrelevant.

I’m not familiar the repubs nixing the wall funding, was it because it was part of a bill that eliminated all college debt or something?

But many of us grumble about the budget getting out of hand, etc.. I find it really odd to read posts like this, and to me it feels like we are saying: yeah, we get it's not very effective and sort of expensive, but it's just going to be one step of several things taken to address the border. I don't get it, I truly don't.

We should start big and go small - ie if we have $50B to address the issue of the borders/illegal immigration, what should we do first? That's how I look at these issues. Yes, a giant wall will drop our #s of encounters at the border a good bit, but that is one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't do anything to address the other myriad of issues here: huge backlog of cases, terrible infrastructure processing cases and places to put people while they wait, drugs, whatever. That's why several in here are talking about wanting to start with those things - lawyers, case workers, facilities. Why advocate for starting with something that addressing a small % of a problem?

I haven’t said its ineffective, you did. I think it can be effective. I won’t get into the design of it but I don’t think it needs to be the Great Wall of Mexico or nothing. Didn’t this administration continue building out parts of the wall…would they have done that if ineffective?

One can complain about the budget and still think things are good or necessary, again not sure why you’re needing to draw some absolutes. Like, if you think our budget needs fixing then you can’t support Ukraine and let Russia take them over? Can I think the budget needs fixing and still think universal healthcare is good? Do you think in these absolutes on these topics?

How does hiring more lawyers prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder? Because more of them will get processed legally? Okkk, I don’t know the numbers but that sounds relatively small with no net change to the total immigration number. Personally I’d guess the number of allowable immigrants could be increased some, but certainly not to accommodate a majority of illegals.

It doesn't prevent that, why do you think I would think that?

IMO to advocate first and foremost for The Wall on the topic of our borders and illegal immigration, you are saying:

1. It's the most effective first step to addressing that broad issue.
2. If it's not the best first step, at least we are doing something. Basically it will help, but we will need to do more later.

If you are saying something else, please clarify. I don't think #1 is true, and I don't think #2 is a good way to address problems either, especially when we are talking billions of dollars wasting tax money. Now, it's possible we just disagree on #1 or you are specifically talking about decreasing encounters and not overall illegal immigration/border like I am. My point is more that with as many fiscal conservatives around here as are claimed that I see posts that read to me like they are saying #2, and talking about wasting money on less effective steps.

This is a conundrum because neither of your scenarios really capture my thoughts, although they do partly.

The issue I’m looking to address is to stop illegal immigration, not sure if that’s the broad issue you are referencing but that’s the solve I’m approaching. That’s doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues, like what to do with all the people already here, but im not tying the two.

Unfortunately im not in charge so I can’t do things like require a federal agency to report back to me with an analysis on all of the potential illegal immigration preventative measures, ranked by cost effectiveness per dollar spent. If I had that I would use it and implement them in that order until I got to an acceptable level of illegal immigration.

Im not sure if you have a report like this, but if neither of us does then we can argue all day about if the wall is the most effective or mostly effective or not. I’m going off the fact that I have been presented with no other better alternatives and that two administrations have now completely and/or in some part supported it. I’d be open to being persuaded they are wrong, but the point is if it made a serious dent in the problem I wouldn’t have an issue with spending serious money on it. Again if I was in charge $50B would be getting a hell of a lot of scrutiny from me. I’m not hellbent on a wall but I’ve yet to see anything else proposed that would be better and at this point I’m working off two administrations support.

It's been posted many times in here that the biggest number of illegal immigrants are overstayed visas, not southern border crossers - so I am not convinced that The Wall is even the best solution for addressing illegal immigration. If you say that's not what you really mean and I know it, then be specific - the wall addresses the # of border encounters like I said. I can't think of what else it effectively addresses, and to me that is a small % of the overall issue of border/illegal immigration. Hense, why I think it's a dumb idea and I am surprised so many people seem to be on board with it.

Really, did not know that, would like to see the breakdown if anyone has it. Maybe we should have Visa entrants post something like a bail bond to enter if this is the issue, we could use the abandoned dollars to build the wall. Everyone wins!

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

So what’s the proposed solution? I mean I guess I could research it my damn self but since everyone’s so sure about the problem and how it’s the administration’s fault, the solution should be easy to spell out, right? I’d love to hear it. Like, “I support the current thing” so let’s fix it. I’m listening.