The Looked Left when Trump went Right. the Wall BEGINS

a reply to: Blaine91555

Why make your last comment to me.

I already explained exactly what you said and why your wrong. Yes they change and adapt,..but not always to the same level of power. Read my post again and try and reply to it rather than liberal rhetoric you think I am producing.

Also can you tell me what border chain like fences will do to stop immigrants vs. Prosecuting their employers? What is his plan for 12+ million here already?

Have you ever studied economics, immigration, or criminal justice even as a hobby?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Aazadan

The military are paid regardless and that does not help the economy long term as does recycling tax money through contractors in the private sector.

The military ultimately would not be a cost saving measure anyway. Far more goes into the costs than what the soldiers earn. IMO they are best left to train for their real purpose rather than going into the construction business and the government waste is breathtaking in scope. The private sector always, always is the cheapest route.

Recycling money doesn't really matter. Government spending is ultimately deficit neutral provided you tax enough. Money doesn't just cease to exist when the government touches it, it still gets spent on products and services, it doesn't cycle through the public sector forever, and eventually every tax dollar collected for spending is spit back out (more than collected actually due to deficit spending).

Also, it's a major cost saving measure. Even if there's merit to the idea that the private sector spends money more efficiently on that specific job (an argument I would refute based on how contractors in Iraq worked out) that's still only for one specific job. If we use the military to build this stuff, they learn a more valuable skill than the military normally teaches and it keeps them busy domestically. One of our biggest issues with a military is that when the troops aren't being actively deployed they just sit around and spin their wheels. Having them build public works projects rather than spin their wheels is a good thing. It keeps them active, doing something productive, and in shape.

Other nations are already doing this, and it's been very successful. It lets you use your infrastructure spending dollars as defense as well.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Kali74

If there were full unfettered access to drugs, what would stop the flow from reversing itself and the problem becoming trafficking drugs from the US to other countries?

I don't have the answer to your question but I do know that some other countries, Norway for example, have significantly eased their drug enforcement and instead focus on rehab instead of prosecution. Their population has been healthier for it, and drug use declined.

a reply to: Aazadan

We could make a massive dent in illegals with two simple steps.


Naturalize those here and willing to become citizens with an amnesty period and then harsher enforcement.


Come down very hard on employers. Especially those of certain size, and possibly confiscate assets to pay for naturalization.

a reply to: luthier

Maybe you should read more instead of just guess. The cartels are severely hurting from legal weed so they went to different things.

I was mainly interested in responding to that. How does anyone know how well the cartels are doing and why without having inside access?

a reply to: Aazadan

That's a fair argument for using the military as long as it does not interfere with their readiness and training for their real job.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Because the amount of money (the economic impact) is large enough to Guage even without detail. That is how large it is. Some nations have less assets.

Also because Intel and counter Intel puts people in position to observe.

The cartels also put people into criminal justice programs and pick genius the same as any of the good guys.

So it's tough legally sometimes to catch.

Legally.

Ps. Many biographies even an auto or two by some big players.

a reply to: Logarock


Thanks for the lovely visual, Aunt Bea.

originally posted by: luthier
Come down very hard on employers. Especially those of certain size, and possibly confiscate assets to pay for naturalization.

Enforcing this is difficult. It requires government prying into peoples businesses.

I'm actually for open borders and competition. If you're competing against someone who can do your job when they can't even speak the language or live in your town... perhaps you've picked the wrong profession or need to brush up on your own abilities. And I say this as someone in the Computer Science field where Mexican, India, and China are outsourcing havens for companies.

a reply to: WUNK22

Well. A border wall is a band aid.

If you aren't resolving the underlying reasons for people to come. Then a wall is just going to slow down illegal immigration. Not stop it.

Gangs are powered by drugs. That's how they make money. let's treat addiction so people won't want to be on heroin. legalize it so the money isn't flowing into gangs.

There's other smarter ways to solve our issues. I don't see how a wall can solve the problem. When people can go over it or tunnel under it.

a reply to: Aazadan

It's actually not very hard Canada does it.

Gwb created an e verify system that is not mandatory.

Yes it makes government make people verify their workers are legit.


Is it easier to get a job in the US or Canada as an undocumented?

a reply to: Catscratch

I honestly don't give a crap about the wall anymore; there are bigger issues. If this is what the GOP needs to feel like they've won something, I hope they put all their energy into a stupid expensive wall. If Trump makes good on his suggested solar panel wall, even better.

I say build that wall and keep building with every ounce of your attention for the next four years.