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

[djmich]

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.

Visa holding fees of $25k and a wall. If half of the 2M annual immigrants are via overstayed Visa, thats $25B, we'll solve the Great wall of Mexico funding in two years and fund an army of drones with lazers in year 3. We'll get Karma the laywers in year 4.

I'll solve Ukraine next lol.

 

[ICON211]

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.

I find this very surprising with the increase of illegal border crossings the last couple years. Anyway, this thread was started to discuss the mayor of NYC declaring a state of emergency. The people that ended up in NYC resulting in this declaration are not people overstaying their visas. They are people crossing the border illegally and just a fraction of those doing so. I don't understand how illegal border crossings can be viewed as just a small percentage of the overall issue given the current state of affairs. IMO the first step has to be securing the border and until it is secured not much else will get solved.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Secure it then. I don’t care if it was Trump’s idea or not, just do it. Good golly already.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

“Secure the border!” ****ing obviously I mean c’mon.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Is anyone, politician or otherwise, out there saying “nah, we shouldn’t secure the border, at all”. It’s such a tired trope.

Give djmich the keys at least he’s up for solving it. That’s what I’m saying.

 

[The Big Donkey]

link

"Hours after Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency over the ongoing flood of migrants into the Big Apple, airplanes carrying dozens of unaccompanied teen asylum seekers reportedly arrived in New York with little to no advance notice.

Two planes each carrying about 24 unaccompanied minors arrived at Orange County Airport in Montgomery around 6 p.m. Friday, County Executive Steve Neuhaus told NBC New York.

Upon landing, the kids were put on shuttle buses and sent to locations in New York City, Kingston and Poughkeepsie, according to Neuhaus. Both the buses and flights were chartered by the feds...."

 

[sho nuff]

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.

IMO work on the legal immigration system. Processing visa renewals faster, more judges to get through more hearings. More legal points of entry fully staffed.

The wall, while I believe it is still not cost efficient to other measures…if more secure means at the border, be it a wall or drones or other things…are fine if we also address legal immigration and that backlog.

The underlying issues are more complex. As to why are people coming here? Risking everything to come here.

 

[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.

I find this very surprising with the increase of illegal border crossings the last couple years. Anyway, this thread was started to discuss the mayor of NYC declaring a state of emergency. The people that ended up in NYC resulting in this declaration are not people overstaying their visas. They are people crossing the border illegally and just a fraction of those doing so. I don't understand how illegal border crossings can be viewed as just a small percentage of the overall issue given the current state of affairs. IMO the first step has to be securing the border and until it is secured not much else will get solved.

It could very well be data from a few years ago that I saw too.

Secure the border is such a blanket term, I don't even know what people mean when they say that. You could mean armed troops, you could mean a wall, you could mean better infrastructure to very quickly process claims and send the riff raff back. I haven't come across a soul who doesn't want secure borders.

Right now, IMO, a huge issue is our inability to process things quickly. We are so far behind on cases that protocol is: come here, claim asylum, get a court date way in the future, please show up to that court date. I believe it would be a deterrent if we had the infrastructure to hold them for a short duration, process their request, and either let them in if all is on the up and up or send them back if it's not. I believe spending money on these resources is a better idea becuase they can be used for multiple issues - get to old claims, locate expired visas, etc. A wall does no other functions, and costs money for maintaince as well, so it's not like it's a one time cost either.

All that aside, IMO the #1 thing either party could do to really limit the desire to come here and cut on illegal immigrants would be to severely crack down on businesses who hire them. That's the first hint to me that neither party is truly serious about this issue, and why I think the Rs are a tad more hypocritical in their messaging. So if we all know that shouldn't and won't happen, and that we need that for our economy, to me the logical step is to focus on processing the applications quickly and beefing up that infrastructure. Along with a secure border, I am constantly reading that people on both sides want better access to legal immigration.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

IMO work on the legal immigration system. Processing visa renewals faster, more judges to get through more hearings. More legal points of entry fully staffed.

The wall, while I believe it is still not cost efficient to other measures…if more secure means at the border, be it a wall or drones or other things…are fine if we also address legal immigration and that backlog.

The underlying issues are more complex. As to why are people coming here? Risking everything to come here.

And to be clear, I am not 100% opposed to a wall. I am tired of the back and forth can kicking and the bolded and what I am saying not getting addressed instead. IMO it shouldn't be step #1.

I don't think much we do is going to deter people from coming from the south, and I think it will get worse before it gets better. A bit ago in one of these threads somebody said something to the effect of if they sent their kid up north by themselves, they would be labeled a child abuser. That is a way to look at it, and they might be right depending on the situation. Another way to look at it is I think to myself how desperate my situation would have to be to send my kid off by themselves like that, many times with human traffickers.

 

[FairWarning]

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.

I find this very surprising with the increase of illegal border crossings the last couple years. Anyway, this thread was started to discuss the mayor of NYC declaring a state of emergency. The people that ended up in NYC resulting in this declaration are not people overstaying their visas. They are people crossing the border illegally and just a fraction of those doing so. I don't understand how illegal border crossings can be viewed as just a small percentage of the overall issue given the current state of affairs. IMO the first step has to be securing the border and until it is secured not much else will get solved.

I find it surprising also. I think we need some up to date numbers.

 

[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.

I find this very surprising with the increase of illegal border crossings the last couple years. Anyway, this thread was started to discuss the mayor of NYC declaring a state of emergency. The people that ended up in NYC resulting in this declaration are not people overstaying their visas. They are people crossing the border illegally and just a fraction of those doing so. I don't understand how illegal border crossings can be viewed as just a small percentage of the overall issue given the current state of affairs. IMO the first step has to be securing the border and until it is secured not much else will get solved.

I find it surprising also. I think we need some up to date numbers.

The gotaways is a fraction of the encounters and has just spiked in the last couple years. Aren't those the truly illegal that we are talking about? If they are theoretically giving a bogus reason for asylum, they are still using our legal avenues to get in the country.

 

[ICON211]

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.

I find this very surprising with the increase of illegal border crossings the last couple years. Anyway, this thread was started to discuss the mayor of NYC declaring a state of emergency. The people that ended up in NYC resulting in this declaration are not people overstaying their visas. They are people crossing the border illegally and just a fraction of those doing so. I don't understand how illegal border crossings can be viewed as just a small percentage of the overall issue given the current state of affairs. IMO the first step has to be securing the border and until it is secured not much else will get solved.

It could very well be data from a few years ago that I saw too.

Secure the border is such a blanket term, I don't even know what people mean when they say that. You could mean armed troops, you could mean a wall, you could mean better infrastructure to very quickly process claims and send the riff raff back. I haven't come across a soul who doesn't want secure borders.

Right now, IMO, a huge issue is our inability to process things quickly. We are so far behind on cases that protocol is: come here, claim asylum, get a court date way in the future, please show up to that court date. I believe it would be a deterrent if we had the infrastructure to hold them for a short duration, process their request, and either let them in if all is on the up and up or send them back if it's not. I believe spending money on these resources is a better idea becuase they can be used for multiple issues - get to old claims, locate expired visas, etc. A wall does no other functions, and costs money for maintaince as well, so it's not like it's a one time cost either.

All that aside, IMO the #1 thing either party could do to really limit the desire to come here and cut on illegal immigrants would be to severely crack down on businesses who hire them. That's the first hint to me that neither party is truly serious about this issue, and why I think the Rs are a tad more hypocritical in their messaging. So if we all know that shouldn't and won't happen, and that we need that for our economy, to me the logical step is to focus on processing the applications quickly and beefing up that infrastructure. Along with a secure border, I am constantly reading that people on both sides want better access to legal immigration.

You make some good points. I am in favor of a wall along with other measures like you mentioned. I don't see how a wall isn't a big deterrent to coming here illegally. You mentioned that there is a need for the economy, but there is also a point that too much too quickly is too much of a strain on our systems.

 

[John123]

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.

Add Washington D.C. to the list. Basically, the three cities that have had small numbers of illegals shipped to them. That's a 100% hypocrisy rate. I'd say it's reasonable to extrapolate that to most other Dem run cities.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

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.

Add Washington D.C. to the list. Basically, the three cities that have had small numbers of illegals shipped to them. That's a 100% hypocrisy rate. I'd say it's reasonable to extrapolate that to most other Dem run cities.

All 3 cities are already in the top-10 US cities in terms of illegal immigrant population, at least as of a few years ago. Not exactly “small numbers of illegals.” Btw, I’ve lived in 2 of the 3 cities — just by observation both NY and Chicago have plenty of illegal immigrants.

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas

In 2016, the 20 U.S. metro areas with the most unauthorized immigrants were home to 6.5 million of them, or 61% of the estimated total.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[BladeRunner]

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.

Add Washington D.C. to the list. Basically, the three cities that have had small numbers of illegals shipped to them. That's a 100% hypocrisy rate. I'd say it's reasonable to extrapolate that to most other Dem run cities.

All 3 cities are already in the top-10 US cities in terms of illegal immigrant population, at least as of a few years ago. Not exactly “small numbers of illegals.” Btw, I’ve lived in 2 of the 3 cities — just by observation both NY and Chicago have plenty of illegal immigrants.

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas

In 2016, the 20 U.S. metro areas with the most unauthorized immigrants were home to 6.5 million of them, or 61% of the estimated total.

www.pewresearch.org

Not even close to the surge that border states get. Maybe advocating for unfettered illegal immigration will change when it's right in their face like it is for those border states. It's easy to sit in your Ivory Tower 2000 miles away and make decrees and virtue signal for things that don't actually and personally affect them.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

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.

Add Washington D.C. to the list. Basically, the three cities that have had small numbers of illegals shipped to them. That's a 100% hypocrisy rate. I'd say it's reasonable to extrapolate that to most other Dem run cities.

All 3 cities are already in the top-10 US cities in terms of illegal immigrant population, at least as of a few years ago. Not exactly “small numbers of illegals.” Btw, I’ve lived in 2 of the 3 cities — just by observation both NY and Chicago have plenty of illegal immigrants.

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas

In 2016, the 20 U.S. metro areas with the most unauthorized immigrants were home to 6.5 million of them, or 61% of the estimated total.

www.pewresearch.org

Not even close to the surge that border states get. Maybe advocating for unfettered illegal immigration will change when it's right in their face like it is for those border states. It's easy to sit in your Ivory Tower 2000 miles away and make decrees and virtue signal for things that don't actually and personally affect them.

I agree that the surge isn’t comparable — but the sheer volume in each city shows overwhelmingly large numbers of illegal immigrants in all 3 cities that he mentioned. I don’t disagree with your premise or concern — I’m simply addressing outright inaccuracy in his statement.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

 

[BladeRunner]

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.

Add Washington D.C. to the list. Basically, the three cities that have had small numbers of illegals shipped to them. That's a 100% hypocrisy rate. I'd say it's reasonable to extrapolate that to most other Dem run cities.

All 3 cities are already in the top-10 US cities in terms of illegal immigrant population, at least as of a few years ago. Not exactly “small numbers of illegals.” Btw, I’ve lived in 2 of the 3 cities — just by observation both NY and Chicago have plenty of illegal immigrants.

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas

In 2016, the 20 U.S. metro areas with the most unauthorized immigrants were home to 6.5 million of them, or 61% of the estimated total.

www.pewresearch.org

Not even close to the surge that border states get. Maybe advocating for unfettered illegal immigration will change when it's right in their face like it is for those border states. It's easy to sit in your Ivory Tower 2000 miles away and make decrees and virtue signal for things that don't actually and personally affect them.

I agree that the surge isn’t comparable — but the sheer volume in each city shows overwhelmingly large numbers of illegal immigrants in all 3 cities that he mentioned. I don’t disagree with your premise or concern — I’m simply addressing outright inaccuracy in his statement.

Fair enough. You're right - those cities do have lots of illegal immigrants so what that says to me is that those coming over the boarder are obviously making their way into the interior and inundating other cities. Border states have it in their face every day so it's always on the radar, every day.

We need to control our border better, IMO.

 

[BladeRunner]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This is exactly what I've been saying - it's the NIMBY protocol in full affect here. Just like those advocating for no cash bail or to defund the police. As long as It doesn't affect them in their ivory towers and gated mansions then it's a-OK.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This is exactly what I've been saying - it's the NIMBY protocol in full affect here. Just like those advocating for no cash bail or to defund the police. As long as It doesn't affect them in their ivory towers and gated mansions then it's a-OK.

We could both have a lot of fun outlining all the ways that liberals are hypocrites.

I like the term “limo liberals.”

 

[BladeRunner]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This is exactly what I've been saying - it's the NIMBY protocol in full affect here. Just like those advocating for no cash bail or to defund the police. As long as It doesn't affect them in their ivory towers and gated mansions then it's a-OK.

We could both have a lot of fun outlining all the ways that liberals are hypocrites.

I like the term “limo liberals.”

To be fair, us conservatives can be hypocrites too. Even me sometimes but, IMO, Democrats seem to go out of their way to accentuate theirs. Of course, that's probably my conservative bias at play too.

 

[stlrams]

link

"Hours after Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency over the ongoing flood of migrants into the Big Apple, airplanes carrying dozens of unaccompanied teen asylum seekers reportedly arrived in New York with little to no advance notice.

Two planes each carrying about 24 unaccompanied minors arrived at Orange County Airport in Montgomery around 6 p.m. Friday, County Executive Steve Neuhaus told NBC New York.

Upon landing, the kids were put on shuttle buses and sent to locations in New York City, Kingston and Poughkeepsie, according to Neuhaus. Both the buses and flights were chartered by the feds...."

I’ve posted this weeks ago but one of my clients in New York is a social service organization that provides housing and services to at risk children. They stop taking in kids over a year ago and now exclusively take in unaccompanied minors as feds paying them roughly 2.5x as much as New York.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This is exactly what I've been saying - it's the NIMBY protocol in full affect here. Just like those advocating for no cash bail or to defund the police. As long as It doesn't affect them in their ivory towers and gated mansions then it's a-OK.

We could both have a lot of fun outlining all the ways that liberals are hypocrites.

I like the term “limo liberals.”

To be fair, us conservatives can be hypocrites too. Even me sometimes but, IMO, Democrats seem to go out of their way to accentuate theirs. Of course, that's probably my conservative bias at play too.

Meh. All humans are wired this way, me included. I try really hard not to be hypocritical….but unconscious bias is a real thing. That’s why I enjoy being challenged by folks with different views.

BR, you might enjoy hearing that my kids think I’m a raging conservative.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

link

"Hours after Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency over the ongoing flood of migrants into the Big Apple, airplanes carrying dozens of unaccompanied teen asylum seekers reportedly arrived in New York with little to no advance notice.

Two planes each carrying about 24 unaccompanied minors arrived at Orange County Airport in Montgomery around 6 p.m. Friday, County Executive Steve Neuhaus told NBC New York.

Upon landing, the kids were put on shuttle buses and sent to locations in New York City, Kingston and Poughkeepsie, according to Neuhaus. Both the buses and flights were chartered by the feds...."

I’ve posted this weeks ago but one of my clients in New York is a social service organization that provides housing and services to at risk children. They stop taking in kids over a year ago and now exclusively take in unaccompanied minors as feds paying them roughly 2.5x as much as New York.

Appalling

 

[KarmaPolice]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This probably isn't the case either.

Non-stop hyperbole in these threads.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You have to feel bad for these immigrants being used as pawns and being shipped all over the country, but on some level, seeing some Democrats lose their minds over them landing in their cities is not all that shocking. They want any and everyone to be allowed into the country...just not in their cities.

This probably isn't the case either.

Non-stop hyperbole in these threads.

Why would I feel bad for immigrants getting to travel the US for free? I have to take vacation days and pay when I do it.