What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

WH considering $450k payouts to illegal immigrants separated at border (1 Viewer)

On its own, I'd argue this seems odd and likely to cause unintended consequences.  That said, if the feeling is that the government would lose the existing lawsuits and is offering to settle at a lower number in order to A) save money, and B) not tie up government lawyers and US courts, I can understand it from that perspective.  I have no idea how likely the government would be to win/lose the lawsuits filed by the ACLU.

 
One of my goofy far right friends told me about this yesterday.  I assumed this was just some BS story brought up by some right wing nut job radio host promoting his agenda.  I cannot believe this is really a thing.  Anyone that pushes this through should be arrested for theft.  This is directly stealing from taxpaying citizens and giving it to illegals breaking our laws.  

 
On its own, I'd argue this seems odd and likely to cause unintended consequences.  That said, if the feeling is that the government would lose the existing lawsuits and is offering to settle at a lower number in order to A) save money, and B) not tie up government lawyers and US courts, I can understand it from that perspective.  I have no idea how likely the government would be to win/lose the lawsuits filed by the ACLU.


In this case, just on principle the US Government should fight.  You don't dangle a $450K carrot for people to violate your immigration laws.  

 
In this case, just on principle the US Government should fight.  You don't dangle a $450K carrot for people to violate your immigration laws.  
Again, I have no idea regarding the likelihood of winning/losing.  But, for argument's sake, let's say the government's lawyers told the decision maker, "Probably a 90% chance we lose this case, and end up paying 3 times this settlement offer, not including the nine months of salary for all the lawyers involved."  Not saying that's what happened or would happen, but would you advocate going to trial in that case?

 
I think I’ve been the most vocal defender of illegal immigrants on this board. I’ve been pretty consistent about it; it’s extremely important to me, and I fully realize that most of my views on this subject are well in the minority. 
 

I have no defense for this story. I still can’t even fathom that it’s true. It’s a total disaster of a proposal. 

Months ago, when some progressives originated the phrase “defund the police”, I immediately predicted that the phrase alone was the worst disaster that could possibly hit the Democratic Party. It didn’t matter what they meant by it, the phrase alone would devastate them in coming elections. I think I was right about that. I certainly couldn’t conceive that they could possibly do something even worse. Yet here we are. 

 
One of my goofy far right friends told me about this yesterday.  I assumed this was just some BS story brought up by some right wing nut job radio host promoting his agenda.  I cannot believe this is really a thing.  Anyone that pushes this through should be arrested for theft.  This is directly stealing from taxpaying citizens and giving it to illegals breaking our laws.  
Turns out the goofy Liberal was wrong and it was a Left Wing nut job governmental agency proposal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These payouts are dumb.  However, the government should be doing everything in their power to get these families back together.

 
Again, I have no idea regarding the likelihood of winning/losing.  But, for argument's sake, let's say the government's lawyers told the decision maker, "Probably a 90% chance we lose this case, and end up paying 3 times this settlement offer, not including the nine months of salary for all the lawyers involved."  Not saying that's what happened or would happen, but would you advocate going to trial in that case?


If I were the ACLU, I can't advocate going to trial or not going to trial without the benefit of reading the Complaints, Answers, depositions, expert reports, etc.  What I will say is neither party has an idea of the likelihood of winning/losing.  I've worked on over 15 class action lawsuits and at no point could I (or anyone I've ever worked with) put a probability on winning.  Each side has strong and weak arguments and strong and weak case law to support their arguments.  When a 3rd party is involved, trying to determine how they will rule is folly.

But in this case, if I were the US, I would not accept any settlement offers because I want a Court ruling on whether or not the United States can separate families who illegally cross the border.  I also want to take my chances that I can win the case to deter other families from trying to border cross for the sole purpose of suing the US to try and get "free" money.

 
CNN has 132 articles on its mobile home page - not one of them about this.  Not one of them about immigration or the border in general.  Tim - tell us again how the Liberal MSM is unbiased. 🤣

 
CNN has 132 articles on its mobile home page - not one of them about this.  Not one of them about immigration or the border in general.  Tim - tell us again how the Liberal MSM is unbiased. 🤣
I’m watching MSNBC right now. At at the start of the hour, it’s the number one story. 

 
There appears to be a way for Afghani immigrants to win here.  If they have this windfall awaiting them upon arrival at the southern border I am sure some enterprising individual will help them leave the country.

 
If I were the ACLU, I can't advocate going to trial or not going to trial without the benefit of reading the Complaints, Answers, depositions, expert reports, etc.  What I will say is neither party has an idea of the likelihood of winning/losing.  I've worked on over 15 class action lawsuits and at no point could I (or anyone I've ever worked with) put a probability on winning.  Each side has strong and weak arguments and strong and weak case law to support their arguments.  When a 3rd party is involved, trying to determine how they will rule is folly.

But in this case, if I were the US, I would not accept any settlement offers because I want a Court ruling on whether or not the United States can separate families who illegally cross the border.  I also want to take my chances that I can win the case to deter other families from trying to border cross for the sole purpose of suing the US to try and get "free" money.
Right, I can't emphasize enough that I don't know if something like what I stated would or could happen.  The OP asked for a defense.  My hypothetical defense is "settling for $450K instead of losing the case for $1M" makes sense if the government thinks that is what would happen.

 
There appears to be a way for Afghani immigrants to win here.  If they have this windfall awaiting them upon arrival at the southern border I am sure some enterprising individual will help them leave the country.
So the shark move is to start a business that charges $449,999 per person to escort them to a beautiful future in Canada?

 
So the shark move is to start a business that charges $449,999 per person to escort them to a beautiful future in Canada?


In theory, yes.  Our government pretends to be hamstrung, and is using the weakest of justifications for leaving people to be harmed, while they happily allow people to stream across the southern border under far less duress.  If I had the ability to land one of these Afgans at the souhtern border for say $150k in cost, plus say $50k for my administration of it, the migrant can just keep the rest....

Easy win.

 
These payouts are dumb.  However, the government should be doing everything in their power to get these families back together.


The families themselves have all the power in the world to get their own families back together, if that was so important to them.

 
No. That would be terrible, obviously. This country doesn’t work unless we have an open flow of people. 


Whether you agree with closing the border or not, It's not really debatable that IF the border were closed it would solve this problem.  I don't know why you can't just acknowledge this fact even if you don't agree with the policy.  It makes it frustrating to try to converse with you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The families themselves have all the power in the world to get their own families back together, if that was so important to them.
How does one go about getting their family back together when, some cases, they don't even know where their other family members are?  I DO suspect, what you say is true for some, but it should be obvious that it's not true for all.

 
Whether you agree with closing the border or not, It's not really debatable that IF the border were closed it would solve this problem.  I don't know why you can't just acknowledge this fact even if you don't agree with the policy.  It makes it frustrating to try to converse with you.
No it wouldn’t solve the problem. You can’t solve it that way because thousands of people are trying to get here and they will get here no matter how you “close” the border. If you build a wall they will climb over it or under it or walk around it. So long as the desire for human freedom is strong, so long as people yearn for a safe refuge for themselves and their families, so long as we are the New World and the land of hope and opportunity (the “shining city on the hill”, in Reagan’s immortal words), you will NEVER solve this problem. Because it’s not really a problem. 

 
How does one go about getting their family back together when, some cases, they don't even know where their other family members are?  I DO suspect, what you say is true for some, but it should be obvious that it's not true for all.
First step

Don't commit crime when you have children. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no defense for this story. I still can’t even fathom that it’s true. It’s a total disaster of a proposal. 
What is to defend?  Aren't we suppose to pay our bills?  Aren't we suppose to mitigate the risk to lower those bills?

The policy of a ripping children away from their parents as they attempted to seek asylum  was the total disaster.  This settlement (if it were to happen) is just a cost to that policy.  If this settlement does not happen the cost seem very likely to be much higher - even if the government were to win the court case.  Bad optics sure, but seems like the right thing to do.  Seems like the only thing to do.  Especially if the honor and integrity of the US means anything. 

 
I want to walk that back. Most of these folks are probably good people who just want to improve their lot in life. If I were in their shoes I might be as desperate as they are and given how so many millions have successfully crossed, I imagine I too would do so. 

I dont have a real answer. I'm more than ok with immigrants coming here but I just want them to leave their name and take a number first. I do not have an answer. I wish I could save everyone but also know that there will come a time that we cannot just let everyone in the entire globe come here.

My very first stab at the problem would be to try and build up south American countries so they don't want to come here. 

 
What is to defend?  Aren't we suppose to pay our bills?  Aren't we suppose to mitigate the risk to lower those bills?

The policy of a ripping children away from their parents as they attempted to seek asylum  was the total disaster.  This settlement (if it were to happen) is just a cost to that policy.  If this settlement does not happen the cost seem very likely to be much higher - even if the government were to win the court case.  Bad optics sure, but seems like the right thing to do.  Seems like the only thing to do.  Especially if the honor and integrity of the US means anything. 


Wow. lol

 
How does one go about getting their family back together when, some cases, they don't even know where their other family members are?  I DO suspect, what you say is true for some, but it should be obvious that it's not true for all.


Family members call someone back in their home country and are told to simply come home.  Everyone leaves the U.S. and goes back to where they rightly belong.  And Boom, they're all back together again.

 
What is to defend?  Aren't we suppose to pay our bills?  Aren't we suppose to mitigate the risk to lower those bills?

The policy of a ripping children away from their parents as they attempted to seek asylum  was the total disaster.  This settlement (if it were to happen) is just a cost to that policy.  If this settlement does not happen the cost seem very likely to be much higher - even if the government were to win the court case.  Bad optics sure, but seems like the right thing to do.  Seems like the only thing to do.  Especially if the honor and integrity of the US means anything. 


What court case?  The US has sovereign immunity and can't be sued unless is waives it's immunity.  Given that these suits will be brought by non citizens it seems an easy thing to ignore the suits altogether.

If we're going down this road, how do we logically not start paying compensation to families like this, this, and this?

 
Just another instance of Democrats putting illegal aliens in front of American citizens. Such a joke.


Yep.  American vets with mental issues sleep on the street while Biden flies illegals in to the U.S. and ignores Americans being held hostage in a hostile foreign land due to his incompetency or apathy.  And yet people on this forum defend those actions constantly.

 
Family members call someone back in their home country and are told to simply come home.  Everyone leaves the U.S. and goes back to where they rightly belong.  And Boom, they're all back together again.
:lmao:   So true.  It's just too obvious.  

 
Yep.  American vets with mental issues sleep on the street while Biden flies illegals in to the U.S. and ignores Americans being held hostage in a hostile foreign land due to his incompetency or apathy.  And yet people on this forum defend those actions constantly.
They have become a party I can't recognize anymore. I was a Bill Clinton type liberal back in the 90's. Big fan. I'd vote liberal today if they stop catering to the far left and come back to the middle. Biden is not a centrist. At all. 

To be fair, I could vote republican if they got away from Trumpits and came back to the middle. I'd be a RINO. I consider myself an independent. Both parties are simply awful, but democratic party is worse imo.

 
They have become a party I can't recognize anymore. I was a Bill Clinton type liberal back in the 90's. Big fan. I'd vote liberal today if they stop catering to the far left and come back to the middle. Biden is not a centrist. At all. 

To be fair, I could vote republican if they got away from Trumpits and came back to the middle. I'd be a RINO. I consider myself an independent. Both parties are simply awful, but democratic party is worse imo.


Everyone says this but no one ever specifies what POLICIES of Trump they had an issue with.  Was it his getting NATO to start paying their "fair share?"  Was it his prison reform that did more for blacks unfairly incarcerated than any President since Biden wrote and helped pass the horrible 1994 crime bill responsible for putting millions of black people in prison?  Was it his long term investment in HBCU's that for some reason even Obama couldn't be bothered with?  Was it his renegotiation of NAFTA?  I really don't know.  I hate Trump as a person but when I look at this presidency from a policy perspective, especially when compared to Biden's, there's one thing I see - He was doing what he thought was best for America.  There isn't one Biden policy I can say that about. 

 
They have become a party I can't recognize anymore. I was a Bill Clinton type liberal back in the 90's. Big fan. I'd vote liberal today if they stop catering to the far left and come back to the middle. Biden is not a centrist. At all. 

To be fair, I could vote republican if they got away from Trumpits and came back to the middle. I'd be a RINO. I consider myself an independent. Both parties are simply awful, but democratic party is worse imo.
Same. 

 
What is to defend?  Aren't we suppose to pay our bills?  Aren't we suppose to mitigate the risk to lower those bills?

The policy of a ripping children away from their parents as they attempted to seek asylum  was the total disaster.  This settlement (if it were to happen) is just a cost to that policy.  If this settlement does not happen the cost seem very likely to be much higher - even if the government were to win the court case.  Bad optics sure, but seems like the right thing to do.  Seems like the only thing to do.  Especially if the honor and integrity of the US means anything. 
Gross

 
I sincerely wanted to believe this was just some right wing conspiracy that has been blown up and out or proportion.  I'm still hoping that's true.

But now, as big as it is getting, Biden or his team better address it.  Hopefully to come out and say its a bunch of gobbely####.

If not, the republicans should literally rent billboards all over the country and display this---cause they will get a LOT of votes over it.  This is political insanity.

 
What court case?  The US has sovereign immunity and can't be sued unless is waives it's immunity.  Given that these suits will be brought by non citizens it seems an easy thing to ignore the suits altogether.

If we're going down this road, how do we logically not start paying compensation to families like this, this, and this?
The article states that this would cost a billion dollars.  I think that having the horrors of our recent monstrous policy where "we the people" purposely harmed and traumatized children in hopes that we would create a disincentive for anyone to follow dragged out for years to come would cost much more than a billion dollars.  The only fear of settling would be that this was distorted into creating a "come to the US for $450K" narrative.  Lets not do that!

And I get that you are saying that if we are settling court cases that result from our policy choices then the cases you listed would follow.  But they aren't equivalent.  It doesn't follow.  

 
Everyone says this but no one ever specifies what POLICIES of Trump they had an issue with.  Was it his getting NATO to start paying their "fair share?"  Was it his prison reform that did more for blacks unfairly incarcerated than any President since Biden wrote and helped pass the horrible 1994 crime bill responsible for putting millions of black people in prison?  Was it his long term investment in HBCU's that for some reason even Obama couldn't be bothered with?  Was it his renegotiation of NAFTA?  I really don't know.  I hate Trump as a person but when I look at this presidency from a policy perspective, especially when compared to Biden's, there's one thing I see - He was doing what he thought was best for America.  There isn't one Biden policy I can say that about. 
Mostly the lies of Trump. His attacks on everything non Trump. Stop spreading the election lie. I didn't have problems with some of the policies.  I believe our defense spending is to much, but I also believe our social programs are to much. Trump is a horrible human being. He traffics in division and hate. He's a conspiracy nut. I just don't like him or anyone who wants to act like him.

 
Mostly the lies of Trump. His attacks on everything non Trump. Stop spreading the election lie. I didn't have problems with some of the policies.  I believe our defense spending is to much, but I also believe our social programs are to much. Trump is a horrible human being. He traffics in division and hate. He's a conspiracy nut. I just don't like him or anyone who wants to act like him.
Gee Tim just a couple hours ago told me there was only one person who didn't like Trump's policies, or very little,  but were instead more concerned about whether Trump was a nice guy.   That sure didn't take too long.

 
And I get that you are saying that if we are settling court cases that result from our policy choices then the cases you listed would follow.  But they aren't equivalent. 
You're right - they're not.  The people affected in those are US citizens.  So screw them.  That's the very clear message from this administration from the get go.

 
Mostly the lies of Trump. His attacks on everything non Trump. Stop spreading the election lie. I didn't have problems with some of the policies.  I believe our defense spending is to much, but I also believe our social programs are to much. Trump is a horrible human being. He traffics in division and hate. He's a conspiracy nut. I just don't like him or anyone who wants to act like him.
Mean tweets!!   :lol:

j/k I get what you are saying.  But you are witnessing, as this thread is a prefect example, what happens when people vote for (or against) personality instead of policy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mostly the lies of Trump. His attacks on everything non Trump. Stop spreading the election lie. I didn't have problems with some of the policies.  I believe our defense spending is to much, but I also believe our social programs are to much. Trump is a horrible human being. He traffics in division and hate. He's a conspiracy nut. I just don't like him or anyone who wants to act like him.


Yeah, I said I don't like him.  In fact, I despise him and sat out his first election because I didn't think either he or Hillary were qualified to be President.  But when push comes to shove, policy is the most important thing.  Look at the disgusting policies Biden has implemented in just 10 months.  I'd love it if we could have someone with good policies AND was also likeable.  But if it's "mostly the lies of Trump" that bothered you, you should be equally disgusted with Biden.  He, mostly through his surrogate Jen Psaki since he never actually talks to us, lies as much or more than Trump did. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top