OK let’s talk about the border

[Horseman 1,513]

Also, if you're going to pretend to be Tim, to make it believable you're going to have to be dedicated.  If Tim started a thread he'd have the majority of posts, not just 12 in three pages worth.  If Tim really decided to post here he'd be at 10K - 20K posts by now.   

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

37 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't see how dealing with the border would be all that hard... we just have too many bleeding heart liberals who have an "as long as it's not me I'm ok with it", attitude.

SIMPLE SOLUTION TO ALL BUT ELIMINATE 

• Objective 1: Remove incentives for coming here illegally through global announcements (similar can be applied to other illegal immigrants)
  1. Removal of all existence/promotion of sanctuary cities & states.
     • Anyone elected politician announcing anything to the contrary, will be seen as encouraging acts of terrorism and be found guilty of treason.
  2. Any attempts to cross the border illegally will be seen as acts of terrorism.
     • First offence, deportation
     • Second offence, death penalty
  3. Anyone who enters the US illegally can never become US citizens, nor can any children that they have here.
     • There will be no birth rights for the children whose parents entered the country illegally.
  4. Anyone who enters illegally, can never be legally employed in the US and can never receive government assistance.
• Objective 2: Dealing with the people here (similar can be applied to other illegal immigrants)
  1. The people who came here illegally, can be given "Permanent Resident Status", meaning they can live here freely and have the right to work, education, etc... as can their children, without fear of deportation... unless they are found guilty of committing a criminal offense.  Similar to, but not the same as), Objective 1 / Step 2... first offense: Jail, second offense: deportation.  Once deported, well, O1/S2.
     • They DO NOT have the right to vote.
     • They DO NOT have the right to government assistance (including social security/Medicare & ACA).  If they cannot provide for themselves, the door going out (of the country), is always open.
  2. Third generation descendants can become full US Citizens at birth, without any restrictions.
  3. Anyone who has had a full-time job for at least 15 years and never committed a violent crime, can automatically go through the process of being a naturalized citizen.  Their children can go through the same process.
     • If they are ever found guilty of a violent crime, they will remain in "Permanent Resident Status" group forever.
  4. Anyone who currently has been convicted of multiple violent crimes and is currently in prison, gets deported immediately.  We will not pay for them to live in our jail system.
• Objective 3: Promotion of LEGAL immigration (The government must set a limit on the number of immigrants allowed each year.  It CANNOT be arbitrarily raised).
  1. Set up a process to allow for businesses to sponsor immigrants to work for them.  This can be used as a pathway to citizenship (see O2/S3).
     • Businesses who participate in this can be allowed to pay lower wages if housing is provided for the employees (farmers would likely be the ones that would/could take the biggest advantage of this... which is the objective).
  2. People who have come here illegally and obtained US Citizenship can sponsor family members to come here on a provisional basis.  After 3 full years of full-time employment, they can apply for "Permanent Resident Status".
     • The US government will NOT be responsible for any expenses.  Meaning, Person A can not sponsor Person B to come here and that person apply for welfare or  housing.  If a person or family sponsors an immigrant, that person or family is financially responsible for that immigrant.
  3. People in other countries can still apply for citizenship.
     • People who obtain citizenship through the legal process will be given a $1k housing voucher every month for one year.  If you come here as a family, but get "divorced", you still only get $1k.  If you have 2 separate households, you get $500 each.  No loophole for getting $2k.
• Objective 4: Border Security (If all of the other objectives are in place, border security shouldn't be much of an issue.)
  1. Current security in place, help with tech to reduce man-power.
  2. People trying to enter now just get turned back.  There will be no processing or asylum seekers.  No entry... AT ALL.  Period.  See O2/S2.  These people will be finger printed and submit a DNA sample.  They will be added to a database and/or verified against that database to see if it's their 2nd try at illegal entry.

To note, 100% of ALL migrants... coming here legally and who came here illegally, will be finger printed and submit to a DNA test.  Why?  Creates no loopholes and protects the ones who just want to live their lives.  How?

1. People coming here illegally and try to skirt the system will not have any ID nor finger print/DNA records on file.  Makes it easier to tag people here illegally and deport them.
2. People who came here illegally and are going through the process of becoming legal, will not only have ID's, but also finger prints and DNA on file if someone tries to falsely accuse them of anything and/or prevents the government from falsely kicking them out.
3. Prevents people from exploiting benefits, such as the $1k per month housing voucher.  If a married couple with children file separately but come here and live together and try to get $1k each, their DNA is checked against the children.  If they both are the parents of the children, they forfeit citizenship and are deported.  People who do it right, should get rewarded... people who try to cheat the system makes it harder for those other people who are doing it right.
4. Enforces security for Objective 2.
5. Prevents any employer from taking advantage of migrants being sponsored to work here.  Meaning, an employer can't deny that said migrant didn't work for them.  The migrant worker will have ID and finger prints/DNA on to support their identity.

The bulk of these measures do not cost the government any extra money and will actually save the government money.  If there are no sanctuary cities or states, there will be no illegals filing for government assistance, in the form of money, food, healthcare, housing, or secondary education.  The costs for that would tower over just helping migrants out with housing in their first year.  The money we waste in processing people at the border will get slashed dramatically.  That money can be appropriated to tech of for aiding in border security.  The surplus, of which there will be a lot, goes back to the government.

As I said in an earlier post, Step 1 MUST BE, the banishment of sanctuary cities and states.  When you have governmental officials actively aiding illegal immigrants in circumventing federal policies, it costs everyone time and money.  It also promotes the incentive to come here illegally.  If you want to protect the border, this is a MUST.

Not entirely dissimilar from my initial respnse to Tim, though obviously you have given the matter greater thought than have I.  I do want any visitors entering our country from abroad to have medical insurance for the duration of their stay.  As an extgension of that I want them innoculated against a fairly comprehensive list of communicable deseases.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I think walls can and do work and history has shown is this is true.

But alone it is not enough, it is simply one of a number of deterrents.  All should be included. 

My usual first step when trying to address a problem is to think of a solution that helps either the biggest issue with the problem or one that addresses mulitple things about the problem.   I don't think the Wall does that, so I always push back on this being our first step.   

Also, I the American public doesn't have much stomach for a sinking economy and largely doesn't have the ability to endure it for an extended time.  Maybe I am overestimating the impact your idea above of sealing the border will have on our economy or you are underestimating the impact.   I think people will turn quickly on whichever party does that, and negatively impacts the economy, and I believe both parties know it.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,638]

Libtards thought walls worked fine until Trump brought it up.  

[Horseman 1,513]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

1. I’m not convinced that the wall works since illegal crossings have gone up since they started building it. 

 

Correction, walls don't work when you leave the gates open.

[listen2me 23 1,541]

15 hours ago, Gladiators said:

Good lord. This might be the biggest group of babies on the internet. HT sure has done a number on you guys.

It is amazing the level of derailment Tim Rusty Gutter and MDC will resort to if given any chance to rehash old bets and what someone said months ago.  Catching up on threads and there was a (halfway) decent discussion going on.  Until the squad showed up to take it down the same rabbit hole as always.   It is like they sit in the bushes waiting for this.  

 

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Found Raven Fan’s alias?

 

We have Tim working hard on aliases lol

15 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

That was a phrase from a forum you'll never know and wouldn't have been accepted in long ago because you're such a hateful, insufferable doosh. 

It's similar to "Can size?" 

You don't get it and never will. You'd be better off accepting your ugly intolerance and deleting your account. 

A good choice for you and everyone. 

Have a nice day and go to bed.

You're way out of your league here. Know your place if you stay.

We have rusty taking this place way too serious.  This would be a good spot for donhass to post "glory days" lyrics.  Holy hell you are like a little kid saying "we found this place first"!  You are like the protector of the early 2000s here.  So sacred to you.  Hilariously pathetic.   

[TimHauck 1,799]

7 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

 

We have Tim working hard on aliases lol

 

That was like the 3rd post in the thread that was linked. 
 

And why am I not surprised you give the board troll no blame for the thread going down the rabbit hole.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't see how dealing with the border would be all that hard... we just have too many bleeding heart liberals who have an "as long as it's not me I'm ok with it", attitude.

SIMPLE SOLUTION TO ALL BUT ELIMINATE 

• Objective 1: Remove incentives for coming here illegally through global announcements (similar can be applied to other illegal immigrants)
  1. Removal of all existence/promotion of sanctuary cities & states.
     • Anyone elected politician announcing anything to the contrary, will be seen as encouraging acts of terrorism and be found guilty of treason.
  2. Any attempts to cross the border illegally will be seen as acts of terrorism.
     • First offence, deportation
     • Second offence, death penalty
  3. Anyone who enters the US illegally can never become US citizens, nor can any children that they have here.
     • There will be no birth rights for the children whose parents entered the country illegally.
  4. Anyone who enters illegally, can never be legally employed in the US and can never receive government assistance.

As I posted to dogcows, I do wonder how quickly people's tune will change if we shut down the border like they want and then the economy goes downhill and they have to pay more for their crap again.   That said, I do appreciate the well thought out post.   You know I like a long post, but I thought if it was broken down more by each objective maybe we could get actual discussion and less grade school squabbling going on in the thread.  

I have 0 clue with 1-4 as rules and guidelines.  I don't agree with the punishments, but I do agree with these 4 as long as they are all done in tandem.   #3 gives me the most pause, but I will just think about that more as well.   

I do have some follow up questions in Objective 1:

1.  Do you have plans to revamp the asylum process?   Maybe it's addressed in the rest of the post.  It seems like a major reason for the numbers is because of how easy it is to show up at port, claim asylum, and get a date.  It's worth the risk to gain entry for a couple years.   

2.  What types of punishments do you envision for people still hiring illegal immigrants?  (again, maybe further down the post, but I didn't see on a quick scan.) 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

41 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Not entirely dissimilar from my initial respnse to Tim, though obviously you have given the matter greater thought than have I.  I do want any visitors entering our country from abroad to have medical insurance for the duration of their stay.  As an extgension of that I want them innoculated against a fairly comprehensive list of communicable deseases.

He responded to my initial post and I responded to it, then typed this out.  I did go back and realized that I did have a lot of what you said.  We're pretty much on the same wave length.

The one thing I'm a little leery about is to never giving illegal's (who are allowed to stay here illegally), a pathway to citizenship.  It's basically what Obama did with DACA.  You make people a slave to the government.  I don't want a system where people have to feel they must vote for a party that won't alter an existing Bill that could get them them deported.  A part of DACA, not only allowed illegals to stay here and also ensured those born here, to stay without fear of being deported, the bill also gave them the right to vote AND did not allow them to become citizens.  That's a problem.  That's using these people as political collateral.  Basically, all Democrats have to do... and they did do it in the Trump/Clinton election, is tell DACA people that if you vote for Trump, he'll make a policy to deport you.  Yeah, these people shouldn't be treated like that.  Either they come here and earn their keep and stay... or they go.  They shouldn't be forced to vote for Democrats because of fearmongering.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

As I posted to dogcows, I do wonder how quickly people's tune will change if we shut down the border like they want and then the economy goes downhill and they have to pay more for their crap again.   That said, I do appreciate the well thought out post.   You know I like a long post, but I thought if it was broken down more by each objective maybe we could get actual discussion and less grade school squabbling going on in the thread.  

I have 0 clue with 1-4 as rules and guidelines.  I don't agree with the punishments, but I do agree with these 4 as long as they are all done in tandem.   #3 gives me the most pause, but I will just think about that more as well.   

I do have some follow up questions in Objective 1:

1.  Do you have plans to revamp the asylum process?   Maybe it's addressed in the rest of the post.  It seems like a major reason for the numbers is because of how easy it is to show up at port, claim asylum, and get a date.  It's worth the risk to gain entry for a couple years.   

2.  What types of punishments do you envision for people still hiring illegal immigrants?  (again, maybe further down the post, but I didn't see on a quick scan.) 

The first objective is about people who aren't even here.  These are people who, in the future if they decide to illegally cross the border, this is the treatment they should expect.  It's not for people already here.  This should be used as the message to the outside world who think our borders are open.  It's basically saying, "Come here legally or don't come at all... because if you do, you're life will be worse than what it is now".

I remove the asylum process completely.  That process is the root of the problem.  Giving people the ability to just walk up to our border and try this tactic is a huge reason why people just come here.  They see sanctuary cities and states and see the asylum option, they think they can just here and live.  You know what?  They're right.

Honestly, I don't think the punishments will be necessary because I don't think it'll be an issue.  If you allow businesses to sponsor people coming here and allow them to pay lower than the state/federal minimum wage legally, I don't think they'll bother with trying to hide illegal employees.  I would incentivise the business to bring over sponsored immigrants.  Give them tax breaks based on how many they hire (along with certain expenses they must incur - like I said with Objective 3 / Step 1).  I think the government is the bigger issue.  If the government makes it hard and totally undesirable to be here illegally, I don't think people will try.  Now, maybe I have too much faith in people, but if the government does do everything I stated in Objective 1, then I'm ok with a business being shut down completely.  Forever.  The owner of the business would forfeit any and all chances to get a business permit, unless it's for themselves and family as the sole employees.

I will not support any penalty for a business if they hire illegals where the government openly allows for illegal immigration.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

20 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He responded to my initial post and I responded to it, then typed this out.  I did go back and realized that I did have a lot of what you said.  We're pretty much on the same wave length.

The one thing I'm a little leery about is to never giving illegal's (who are allowed to stay here illegally), a pathway to citizenship.  It's basically what Obama did with DACA.  You make people a slave to the government.  I don't want a system where people have to feel they must vote for a party that won't alter an existing Bill that could get them them deported.  A part of DACA, not only allowed illegals to stay here and also ensured those born here, to stay without fear of being deported, the bill also gave them the right to vote AND did not allow them to become citizens.  That's a problem.  That's using these people as political collateral.  Basically, all Democrats have to do... and they did do it in the Trump/Clinton election, is tell DACA people that if you vote for Trump, he'll make a policy to deport you.  Yeah, these people shouldn't be treated like that.  Either they come here and earn their keep and stay... or they go.  They shouldn't be forced to vote for Democrats because of fearmongering.

I resolve that by not allowing them to vote, after all, they are not citizens.  I suppose there is still some incentive for friends and relatives of illegals to vote on their behalf as you have described and to that, and your argument, I will give some thought.  As I said in my first post to you it is evident to me you have given this more thought than have I so I appeciate the discussion.

[Mungwater 588]

Yay, they moved the sun bowl fan fest to here on post because the convention center is full of migrants.

[Casual Observer 597]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:34 PM, The Real timschochet said:

With the impending Supreme Court decision, this issue is coming to a head. And we need to seriously think about what to do. 

Anyone who read my posts at FBG knows I am a liberal and have been VERY liberal on this issue. I’ve wanted fairly open immigration, much more refugees taken in, a path to citizenship for those already here without papers, etc. I’ve implied, simplistically, that those who disagreed with me were racist- the truth is that some were, most were not. 

But it’s time to face facts. My solutions are unpopular and have no chance of being enacted. And even if they were it wouldn’t have much of an effect on the current crisis. And it is a crisis. There are too many people coming over the border. There are too many refugee applicants. It’s an economic crisis to every city that has to deal with any part of it. And the presence of fentanyl has changed the ballgame entirely and made everything much worse. 
 

So I don’t have solutions to this. The current Republican solution, as practiced by the Trump administration is too cruel for me. I can’t accept it. I regard rounding up people, and dividing families, as inhumane and un-American. I will never accept that. On the other hand, the Democratic solution of doing nothing and pretending that everything is under control is unacceptable as well. And of course both sides seem far more intent on using this issue as a political cudgel to beat their opponents than actually trying to come up with some reasonable solutions. I was all for the Thom Tillis proposal but that died a quick death as it was opposed by the radicals from the right and left. So now I have no idea what to do. Does anybody hear? I’m going to put away all of my preconceived notions and prejudices and try to listen with an open mind. Come up with something new. Please. 

Another guy with nothing better to do with his day and another disingenuous premise of "putting away all of my preconceived notions and prejudices".  Refugee, indeed.

[Casual Observer 597]

3 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

As I posted to dogcows, I do wonder how quickly people's tune will change if we shut down the border like they want and then the economy goes downhill and they have to pay more for their crap again.   That said, I do appreciate the well thought out post.   You know I like a long post, but I thought if it was broken down more by each objective maybe we could get actual discussion and less grade school squabbling going on in the thread.  

I have 0 clue with 1-4 as rules and guidelines.  I don't agree with the punishments, but I do agree with these 4 as long as they are all done in tandem.   #3 gives me the most pause, but I will just think about that more as well.   

I do have some follow up questions in Objective 1:

1.  Do you have plans to revamp the asylum process?   Maybe it's addressed in the rest of the post.  It seems like a major reason for the numbers is because of how easy it is to show up at port, claim asylum, and get a date.  It's worth the risk to gain entry for a couple years.   

2.  What types of punishments do you envision for people still hiring illegal immigrants?  (again, maybe further down the post, but I didn't see on a quick scan.) 

Another disingenuous refugee.  Why would the economy go downhill if we shut down the border?  The domestic economy is already a rotting corpse.  How is not letting in low IQ, low skill laborers going to hurt, other than to postpone the replacement of Americans that has been ongoing for decades?

[TheNewGirl 1,029]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:55 AM, Pimpadeaux said:

Wouldn't be a bad thing to help Mexico take down the cartels.

This is starting to sound like a Liam Neeson movie. 

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, Casual Observer said:

Another disingenuous refugee.  Why would the economy go downhill if we shut down the border?  The domestic economy is already a rotting corpse.  How is not letting in low IQ, low skill laborers going to hurt, other than to postpone the replacement of Americans that has been ongoing for decades?

Ah, another poster too worried about "other" people from another site online.  Oh the horror!! 

Economy in the sense that prices will rise if we either have to pay more afterwards for labor, or we go into even more of a labor shortage because of shutting down the border.    Our current economy and prices are affected by all this cheap labor.  I'm not sure how it's not effected if we were to completely shut it down like the person I was responding to was suggesting.   You don't think there would be ramifications from Wall Street as well?  

Yes, all this is also going on as humans are slowly being replaced by automation as well.  It's complicated.  

[BuckSwope 654]

4 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The first objective is about people who aren't even here.  These are people who, in the future if they decide to illegally cross the border, this is the treatment they should expect.  It's not for people already here.  This should be used as the message to the outside world who think our borders are open.  It's basically saying, "Come here legally or don't come at all... because if you do, you're life will be worse than what it is now".

I remove the asylum process completely.  That process is the root of the problem.  Giving people the ability to just walk up to our border and try this tactic is a huge reason why people just come here.  They see sanctuary cities and states and see the asylum option, they think they can just here and live.  You know what?  They're right.

Honestly, I don't think the punishments will be necessary because I don't think it'll be an issue.  If you allow businesses to sponsor people coming here and allow them to pay lower than the state/federal minimum wage legally, I don't think they'll bother with trying to hide illegal employees.  I would incentivise the business to bring over sponsored immigrants.  Give them tax breaks based on how many they hire (along with certain expenses they must incur - like I said with Objective 3 / Step 1).  I think the government is the bigger issue.  If the government makes it hard and totally undesirable to be here illegally, I don't think people will try.  Now, maybe I have too much faith in people, but if the government does do everything I stated in Objective 1, then I'm ok with a business being shut down completely.  Forever.  The owner of the business would forfeit any and all chances to get a business permit, unless it's for themselves and family as the sole employees.

I will not support any penalty for a business if they hire illegals where the government openly allows for illegal immigration.

I find this idea of yours interesting in the bolded.     Politically speaking, do you think there would be big negative blowback as we start to say the quiet part out loud or do you think since it would be so open that businesses would get pushback when people see them in the open choosing workers from south of the border over American citizens?    Like I said, I find the concept interesting, I am just trying to imagine the real world application of it.  

Anyway, good posts - appreciate the back and forth.  

[BirdGang 312]

6 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Libtards thought walls worked fine until Trump brought it up.  

Exactly, once they were triggered by you know who all ability to reason and think clearly were gone. 

[Horseman 1,513]

SCOTUS keeping Title 42 until it can hear arguments in Feb.

[Pimpadeaux 2,263]

6 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

I find this idea of yours interesting in the bolded.     Politically speaking, do you think there would be big negative blowback as we start to say the quiet part out loud or do you think since it would be so open that businesses would get pushback when people see them in the open choosing workers from south of the border over American citizens?    Like I said, I find the concept interesting, I am just trying to imagine the real world application of it.  

Anyway, good posts - appreciate the back and forth.  

What we need more than anything is for these illegals to be assigned and confined to the work camps that produce FF Today T-shirts, squish balls, coffee mugs and other paraphernalia. 

This is simple economics of supply and demand. 

Demand is high, and supply is low to non-existent. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

17 hours ago, Horseman said:

Correction, walls don't work when you leave the gates open.

@Baker Boy told me a couple months ago that putting up a few shipping containers helped prevent people crossing the border

[RLLD 3,455]

A big win here is admitting to the problem, something the administration has steadfastly not done.  They continue to lie to us unabashedly....

[Flipper 57]

11 hours ago, Horseman said:

SCOTUS keeping Title 42 until it can hear arguments in Feb.

They are the only institution that realizes an uncontrolled increase in the population increases our carbon footprint.  Can't have that! 

[The Real timschochet 2,931]

19 hours ago, Horseman said:

Also, if you're going to pretend to be Tim, to make it believable you're going to have to be dedicated.  If Tim started a thread he'd have the majority of posts, not just 12 in three pages worth.  If Tim really decided to post here he'd be at 10K - 20K posts by now.   

Sorry man I’m in Jamaica on vacation, just got here. 
 

A lot of the posts are repetitive and don’t make much sense to me. I don’t understand why refugees and undocumented immigrants are conflated. I don’t get the obsession with sanctuary cities- or why people think ending them would be some sort of deterrent. (All ending them would do is create an impetus for local police forces to behave in a Gestapo like fashion- no thanks.) 

Mass deportation is a terrible idea. Closing the southern border is even worse. The guy who proposed that wrote “I know it may hurt the economy” LOLOLOL. 

Most of the proposals in this thread so far seem guaranteed to make things worse. The first thing that everyone needs to acknowledge is this: we can’t prevent most of these people from coming here. We can’t send most of them back once they’re here. That’s never going to happen. So now what? 

[Horseman 1,513]

52 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry man I’m in Jamaica on vacation, just got here. 
 

A lot of the posts are repetitive and don’t make much sense to me. I don’t understand why refugees and undocumented immigrants are conflated. I don’t get the obsession with sanctuary cities- or why people think ending them would be some sort of deterrent. (All ending them would do is create an impetus for local police forces to behave in a Gestapo like fashion- no thanks.) 

Mass deportation is a terrible idea. Closing the southern border is even worse. The guy who proposed that wrote “I know it may hurt the economy” LOLOLOL. 

Most of the proposals in this thread so far seem guaranteed to make things worse. The first thing that everyone needs to acknowledge is this: we can’t prevent most of these people from coming here. We can’t send most of them back once they’re here. That’s never going to happen. So now what? 

Fraud. 

20 hours ago, Horseman said:

NOT the real Tim Schochet.  Probably the worst hijack of an alias I've ever seen.  I'd like to see a link to the real Tim at FBG ever saying it was a crisis and there are too many people crossing.  The real Tim simply doesn't believe that at all.  

Link. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

16 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I rersolve that by not allowong them to vote, after all, they are not citizens.  I suppose there is still some incentive for friends and relatives of illegals to vote on their behalf as you have described and to that, and your argument, i will give some thought.  As I said in my first post to you it is evident to me you have given this more thought than have I so I appeciate the discussion.

For people who come here illegally in the future, they should never be allowed to stay or become citizens.  If they manage to evade the system, yeah, they should never be allowed to vote, ever.  But for the people who've been here for a while (meaning under Obama and prior... based on DACA), at some point, they need to become citizens and vote.  They have to because they're paying taxes.  If you're legally allowed to stay here and have to pay taxes, you have the right to vote.  It's the American way.  In my opinion, you're either an American or you leave.

I think anyone who came here illegally since Trump was elected, should be eligible to be deported without any parameters.

[dogcows 1,029]

19 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I remove the asylum process completely.  That process is the root of the problem.

We can’t do this because of multiple international treaties and laws. We can improve the process though.

Just want to also say how this discussion is simultaneously encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging? People on far ends of the political spectrum actually agree on more about this process than we disagree! Discouraging? Politicians still aren’t doing anything to act.

It would be great if they could get over the “Your side wants to replace Americans” vs “Your side is cruel to brown people” bomb throwing. It would be nice if everybody in Congress would read this thread and realize liberals, conservatives (oh yes and centrists) just want them to try some reasonable fixes to the system.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

14 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

I find this idea of yours interesting in the bolded.     Politically speaking, do you think there would be big negative blowback as we start to say the quiet part out loud or do you think since it would be so open that businesses would get pushback when people see them in the open choosing workers from south of the border over American citizens?    Like I said, I find the concept interesting, I am just trying to imagine the real world application of it.  

Anyway, good posts - appreciate the back and forth.  

I think what my suggestions are, are a combination of what both sides hate and both sides love.  Neither side should be all in on this and neither side should be fully against this.  It's why I think the mass majority of the country would think it's perfect.  Sure, some tweaking could be done, but I don't think there needs to be much more.  It's why I said I don't think that fixing the border is all that hard... it's a political tennis ball that keeps getting hit across the net.  I also didn't put much thought in it, as I think it's pretty much all common sense.  We need to establish a hard line and hard penalties.  It let's the good people in and keeps the bad people out.

That's why I say, screw the political blowback.  The vast majority of this country are fine people from other countries coming here.  I think there needs to be a cap on the number of people we let in, a number that should never change.  The people that are coming here, would be coming here for lower than the state and/or federal wage limit for jobs that no one here wants.  If people have a problem with that, then maybe you should stop voting for people who are arbitrarily increasing the minimum wage and forcing prices to increase.  Increasing the minimum wage never helps anyone, ever.  Yeah, you'll hear the bleeding heart liberals clamor for $15/hr, but within a couple of years, of which those few will be great for those people, costs will go up, job opportunities will go down, raises will be non-existent, and job security is out the window.  The only people who win in that scenario are the politician's conning you into thinking you're going to be able to live better, and big business.  Also, I think the majority of the employers who get the biggest advantage of this, are farmers and hotels.  People like their produce being cheap and hotel costs being cheap when they go on vacation.  This would help keep those costs down.  No one loses.

Could the argument be about McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc, making a push to hire immigrants instead of American's?  Yeah, I could see that... but I doubt it.  Farmers and Hotels can easily providing living conditions for the people they hire.  A hotel can free up a few rooms or make a small addition.  Farmers have exemptions for the number of buildings they can have on their property.  They can build some forms of reasonable housing at low costs.  Heck, go on YouTube and look at all the channels where people are building their own Tiny Homes, cabins, and converting barns, shed's, and even shipping containers into houses for like $50k and less.  I have a hard time thinking that fast food joints are going to want to go into the real estate business just pay a person $7/hr to flip burgers instead of $15/hr.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

38 minutes ago, dogcows said:

We can’t do this because of multiple international treaties and laws. We can improve the process though.

Just want to also say how this discussion is simultaneously encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging? People on far ends of the political spectrum actually agree on more about this process than we disagree! Discouraging? Politicians still aren’t doing anything to act.

It would be great if they could get over the “Your side wants to replace Americans” vs “Your side is cruel to brown people” bomb throwing. It would be nice if everybody in Congress would read this thread and realize liberals, conservatives (oh yes and centrists) just want them to try some reasonable fixes to the system.

That's fine.  Then we just put the message out there globally that states if anyone walks up to our border and crosses into the US illegally, they will never be allowed to apply for an asylum.  You must apply in advance, from your home country.

You can't get rid of that stuff... division of political beliefs is what keeps those people in power.  It's also why the media isn't reliable either.  They're taking sides for the exact same reasons.

I think the members of this board could collaborate and come up with a simple plan that would work for everyone and the politicians on either side would never go for it because they need division.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry man I’m in Jamaica on vacation, just got here. 
 

A lot of the posts are repetitive and don’t make much sense to me. I don’t understand why refugees and undocumented immigrants are conflated. I don’t get the obsession with sanctuary cities- or why people think ending them would be some sort of deterrent. (All ending them would do is create an impetus for local police forces to behave in a Gestapo like fashion- no thanks.) 

Mass deportation is a terrible idea. Closing the southern border is even worse. The guy who proposed that wrote “I know it may hurt the economy” LOLOLOL. 

Most of the proposals in this thread so far seem guaranteed to make things worse. The first thing that everyone needs to acknowledge is this: we can’t prevent most of these people from coming here. We can’t send most of them back once they’re here. That’s never going to happen. So now what? 

I don't accept your premise.  True, perhaps, that you can't.  True that it runs contrary to the politically correct, woke orthodoxy, but ultimately not remotely true.  We can.  Other countries can and do and so can we.  It would take an act of will, national will, but that will may yet be found when conditions change, as they invariably do.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

42 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

For people who come here illegally in the future, they should never be allowed to stay or become citizens.  If they manage to evade the system, yeah, they should never be allowed to vote, ever.  But for the people who've been here for a while (meaning under Obama and prior... based on DACA), at some point, they need to become citizens and vote.  They have to because they're paying taxes.  If you're legally allowed to stay here and have to pay taxes, you have the right to vote.  It's the American way.  In my opinion, you're either an American or you leave.

I think anyone who came here illegally since Trump was elected, should be eligible to be deported without any parameters.

I do not believe in allowing non-members to a club to dictate membership rules to the members.  If the non-members use the facilities they pay, yet they can be excluded now or in the future.  Same thing nationally. aallowing our immigration policy and qualification for citizenship to be dictated to us by non-members is to say there are no qualifications, rights, or benefits of citizenship.  We threw up our hands during the reagan years and admiited some with the pomise we would never do so again.  We have more or less done the same under obama, and now it is proposed yet again.  No, kicking the down down the road means the damn can does not get picked up and disposed of properly. 

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

46 minutes ago, dogcows said:

We can’t do this because of multiple international treaties and laws. We can improve the process though.

Just want to also say how this discussion is simultaneously encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging? People on far ends of the political spectrum actually agree on more about this process than we disagree! Discouraging? Politicians still aren’t doing anything to act.

It would be great if they could get over the “Your side wants to replace Americans” vs “Your side is cruel to brown people” bomb throwing. It would be nice if everybody in Congress would read this thread and realize liberals, conservatives (oh yes and centrists) just want them to try some reasonable fixes to the system.

These are not absolute prohibitions, these are impediments.  They can be changed.  Treaties and laws are not forever, just ask the native americans.They had assurances some matters would prevail as long as the grass did grow and the wind did blow.  Ask them how long that turned out to be.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I do not believe in allowing non-members to a club to dictate membership rules to the members.  If the non-members use the facilities they pay, yet they can be excluded now or in the future.  Same thing nationally. aallowing our immigration policy and qualification for citizenship to be dictated to us by non-members is to say there are no qualifications, rights, or benefits of citizenship.  We threw up our hands during the reagan years and admiited some with the pomise we would never do so again.  We have more or less done the same under obama, and now it is proposed yet again.  No, kicking the down down the road means the damn can does not get picked up and disposed of properly. 

I agree.  I don't think any non-citizen would be dictating anything though, if that's what you're getting at.  It's why I say, no more crossing the border and getting it.  Anyone who crosses the border must be turned back, no questions asked.  No asylum.  Nothing.  You come here, you turn around and go home.  Period.

For people that have been here though, we're kind of stuck with them.  They were allowed to stay and build their lives... you can't just tell them to leave or kick them out.  Just put them on the path to citizenship, pay taxes, vote, etc.  Never give them a reason to fear deportation and then they're no longer tied a political party because you believe one side is a liar and the other isn't.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I agree.  I don't think any non-citizen would be dictating anything though, if that's what you're getting at.  It's why I say, no more crossing the border and getting it.  Anyone who crosses the border must be turned back, no questions asked.  No asylum.  Nothing.  You come here, you turn around and go home.  Period.

For people that have been here though, we're kind of stuck with them.  They were allowed to stay and build their lives... you can't just tell them to leave or kick them out.  Just put them on the path to citizenship, pay taxes, vote, etc.  Never give them a reason to fear deportation and then they're no longer tied a political party because you believe one side is a liar and the other isn't.

I understand and appreciate your position.  On this one matter I do not share your position entirely.  That puts you in good company,  The roster of those who do not entirely agree with me (or who disagree with me) includes a number of good and intelligent folks, some of whom are my intellectual and moral betters, no doubt.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I understand and appreciate your position.  On this one matter I do not share your position entirely.  That puts you in good company,  The roster of those who do not entirely agree with me (or who disagree with me) includes a number of good and intelligent folks, some of whom are my intellectual and moral betters, no doubt.  

We're actually not that far off on this either.  In my initial post, I said that they had to become citizens before they can vote.  I said that they wouldn't be eligible to become citizens until after proof of 15 years of full-time employment.  So, I do agree with you... just not on the "never" part.    I guess maybe that doesn't put me in good company after all then. Dam! 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

13 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I agree.  I don't think any non-citizen would be dictating anything though, if that's what you're getting at.  It's why I say, no more crossing the border and getting it.  Anyone who crosses the border must be turned back, no questions asked.  No asylum.  Nothing.  You come here, you turn around and go home.  Period.

For people that have been here though, we're kind of stuck with them.  They were allowed to stay and build their lives... you can't just tell them to leave or kick them out.  Just put them on the path to citizenship, pay taxes, vote, etc.  Never give them a reason to fear deportation and then they're no longer tied a political party because you believe one side is a liar and the other isn't.

That's what your boy Reagan did and it turned California solid blue. Texas up next.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I agree.  I don't think any non-citizen would be dictating anything though, if that's what you're getting at.  It's why I say, no more crossing the border and getting it.  Anyone who crosses the border must be turned back, no questions asked.  No asylum.  Nothing.  You come here, you turn around and go home.  Period.

For people that have been here though, we're kind of stuck with them.  They were allowed to stay and build their lives... you can't just tell them to leave or kick them out.  Just put them on the path to citizenship, pay taxes, vote, etc.  Never give them a reason to fear deportation and then they're no longer tied a political party because you believe one side is a liar and the other isn't.

I do believe we can tolerate their presence so long as they obey our laws and pay our taxes.  I still don't give them the right to citizenship or to vote.  To me the matters are not irretrievably connected.  They have been connected to divide and inflame for political puropses by the unashamably and unabashedly cynical seekers of political power.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

We're actually not that far off on this either.  In my initial post, I said that they had to become citizens before they can vote.  I said that they wouldn't be eligible to become citizens until after proof of 15 years of full-time employment.  So, I do agree with you... just not on the "never" part.    I guess maybe that doesn't put me in good company after all then. Dam! 

You would have to do far more to lose that designation.  Something more heinous than simply seeing matters slightly different than do I.  Something really foul, like being a Cowboy or Viking fan.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,638]

And what exactly does “tolerate” them entail? Certain communities are going to be doing a lot more tolerating than others. And foot the bill. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

That's what your boy Reagan did and it turned California solid blue. Texas up next.

Wrong.  Prop 187 & Pete Wilson that turned California blue (even though it was already mostly blue to begin with).  In 1988, Bush won CA but lost in '92.  It was because in '91, Wilson started pushing the "Save our State" agenda.  It was his hardcore, anti-immigrant policy that turned CA blue.  If there's no "anti-immigrant" policy, there's no racism to push, and no tie to the Democrat party... who thrives on victimhood.