The Wall and Deportations, Something we arent Asking and They aren't Addressing

a reply to: luthier

Obviously they can get jobs. There's no way to completely eliminate that.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: for decades, people have been complaining about the illegal immigration situation. The response has been consistent: no. As the problem has progressed, the "no" has gotten louder. And the no has come from many of the same people who today cry about a wall.

We could have cracked down on border enforcement. No, we cut funding for border patrol and placed regulations to keep them from doing an effective job.

We could have cracked down on illegal hiring practices. No, we made that a low priority. The one thing we tried just made it harder to hire Americans but the illegal hiring shortcuted it.

We could have deported illegal immigrants when their numbers were smaller. No, we made sure they got court protection and instituted sanctuary cities to thwart the laws.

We could have denied them the benefits that attracted them in the first place. No, we made sure they all got welfare, food stamps, free medical care, reduced college tuition, etc.

We could have worked with the Mexican government to try and curb the problem. No, we have to be diplomatic and not take a chance on upseting them.

Now the people who see the problem are fed up. They're fed up enough to support Trump. They want the problem fixed, not promises, not ideas, not suggestions, and not improvements. Fixed. If that takes a Great Wall of America, so be it.

Once the border is fixed, I have faith in the American people to support a better immigration plan. I do not have faith in the American people to fall for the same tired old arguments and excuses. Maybe the wall will serve as a reminder that if you oppress people long enough and hard enough, they'll eventually find a way to stop it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

Two reasons:

It's the responsibility of the Federal government, not the states.

The Federal government has made it clear they would oppose any such action. Remember this story?

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

if you even the pay scale the choice of who to hire becomes a whole different situation. If there isnt enough americans who are carpenters then the immigrant labour makes up the difference.

Given a pool of workers willing to work for less, employers lower wages to match the lowest a person will accept. That there would be not enough Americans willing to work at wages and conditions dictated by the employer is really the reason for allowing the "free flow" of labor and capital, i.e. open border. It is liberty and freedom for the oligarch only.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I am to the point of not believing any of them.

It's in his own words:

On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.

donaldjtrump.com

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, they could.
Arizona tried...

Arizona legislator ends bid to build privately funded border fence

a reply to: TheRedneck

"We"? I don't think "they" had any intention of listening what "you'll" wanted.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, they could.

Arizona tried...

Arizona legislator ends bid to build privately funded border fence

So it's like what I was getting at. Everyone says they want it, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, no one wants to pay, because deep down they know it won't work.

The states could build it, but they don't want to pay for it.
Private citizens could build it, but they don't want to pay for it.
The feds already fenced a bunch, but they don't want to pay for the rest.
Trump wants to build it, but again wants to make someone else pay for it.

If it was as effective as claimed, people would jump to invest in the wall.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am fed up too. But the same problems will prevent the wall or any other situation. Trump is NOT an expert satesman who can bring people together.

a reply to: desert

Yeah but they cant lower wages by eliminating workmans comp, ssi, taxes, and skating min wage.

In reality though most illegals do pay taxes and ssi etc they just will never see the benefits. Well not exactly true plenty of mischief there too.

I posted a thread back in 2010 about the Calvary. I thought it might be a good idea to bring it back and let it patrol the borders. Its cost would be much less than the wall and I'm thinking it would also be much more effective and much less invasive of the wild life etc.. It would also give the border patrol a much needed helping hand.

I'm talking about the Horse Calvary and not exactly what it has evolved into. The old fashion Calvary.

I mean I feel like others do. They already tunnel under and just plain go over the top too. I think most of us agree the wall just isn't really feasible in the big picture.

While the Calvary may not be 100% effective, I think it could certainly put a bigger dent in plugging the hole of the borders then what we are doing now. It is also something that could come into play far more quickly than building the wall.

Just a thought anyway.

a reply to: luthier

Under the "free market" model currently talked about, especially third party candidates, govt insurance programs like workmans comp and SS would be eliminated and left up to the worker; income taxes would be eliminated, and min wage laws would be eliminated. This is the goal.

Hmmm, it just occurred to me, if the goal is to eliminate SS, then how could Johnson say that a worker from another country could be given a ss#? Does he not understand the philosophy/platform of his own party?? Good grief!!

originally posted by: onehuman
Hmm ok. Lets just say he does magically get the wall built over night and now it is time to round up 11 million people to move back across the border. Even if it is half the count or only 5 million, what kind of man power is going to be required to do this? Not only that, just exactly how are you going to send them all back, and most importantly, On Whos Dime???

You could have those people fleeing to the border so fast they'd tear Trump's wall down on their way out.

Building a wall is stupid. Trump is not. The wall is a metaphor. And, it's an anchor for a certain segment of idiots.

I'll bet anyone who wants $10,000 that no wall is built as a border between Mexico and the USA.

a reply to: desert

That isnt acrually what johnson is saying.

He is sayin ssi is bankrupt and people are paying in that wont get anything and it should be privatized and the age for benefits raised to keep it solvent.

The difference is Johnson knows he isnt a dictator. He cant pass laws. These are suggestions and debate topics.

Your really confused as to what he is saying.

The immigrants obviously would still be consuming and therefore subject to a consumption tax.

However, the biggest benefit to a Johnson presidency is he isnt a demagogue. He isnt using a boogey man to scare your vote.

a reply to: daskakik

Fair enough.

I wouldn't personally like having to show ID to wire money, but I also don't think that's the end of life as we know it. I have to show ID to make a withdrawal or write a check.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Sillyolme

Like I said, enforce the law.
Big fines the first time, prison the second.

Then orange juice will be $12 a gallon. Do you want this job?

So paying them slave wages is a good idea, we need illegals for their slavery. Democrats still support slavery to this day.

And the reason you think he wants to immediately round up all 30 million (11 is a lie) is because you're listening to NPR, national propaganda radio

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have to comend you for holding your beliefs while considering other opinions. Its not something you see all that often anymore. We may not agree on everything but you have been pretty fair in the discussions even when attacked.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, the point, of course, was that it is part of Trump's plan.

You already have to show ID to send and the receiver has to be vetted to prevent money laundering and financing terrorists. What you don't have to do is show immigration status.

In the end it won't matter because a way will be found to circumvent Trump's bloquade.

I'm ashamed that my country wants to build a wall. Yes, I'm ashamed of the fact that our beautiful country, and all it represents, wants to put a wall around it to keep others out.

Beef up the border control stations, build one every 10 miles. Use drones to spot them. Robots. Whatever.

Or we could do it the smart way. STOP BUYING THEIR STUPID DRUGS.

originally posted by: onehuman
I posted a thread back in 2010 about the Calvary. I thought it might be a good idea to bring it back and let it patrol the borders. Its cost would be much less than the wall and I'm thinking it would also be much more effective and much less invasive of the wild life etc.. It would also give the border patrol a much needed helping hand.

I'm talking about the Horse Calvary and not exactly what it has evolved into. The old fashion Calvary.

I mean I feel like others do. They already tunnel under and just plain go over the top too. I think most of us agree the wall just isn't really feasible in the big picture.

While the Calvary may not be 100% effective, I think it could certainly put a bigger dent in plugging the hole of the borders then what we are doing now. It is also something that could come into play far more quickly than building the wall.

Just a thought anyway.

Many of them come right through the border control at points of entry just like drugs. They are smuggles in either hidden, with fake paper work or by paying off the border patrol. During WW2 the border patrol was considered huge at 1000 men. It is at 28000 now. Men, walls ect. are more feel good measures than anything. Very expensive ones at that.

The only way to stop illegals to not have jobs for them. That will not happen until we figure out who will do those jobs and how increase in costs to food, which will then cut spending on other things sending the economy in a bottom spin can be avoided. Outside of that it is all just shell games. A very expensive one.

a reply to: onehuman

It would still probably be cheaper than what we currently have going on. When illegals are seriously injured and need prolonged hospital time, we fly them over in medically equipped jets. I used to personally know the owner of one such company here in AZ. They charged 100k OR MORE to fly back each one of these illegals. At the time, they were so busy that they were expanding operations here on a daily basis. They made multiple trips every single day.

The actual cost, and the actual burden on the taxpayers is downplayed by the media and politicians. One of the mantras is that we just deny people medical care. NOT true in the slightest. It is illegal to deny anyone medical care regardless of status or insurance. We pay massive amounts of money treating illegals, and it comes directly out of our pockets.

It is not my responsibility to take care of people's medical care, especially illegals. ESPECIALLY illegals.