Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

There is def humanity in immigration. And "Myth" carved in Statue of Liberty?

Sorry, your way of thinking is immoral not reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We allow people to immigrate because of their humanity and our humanity. It’s not about low income or high income. That’s dangerous, amoral thinking.

No you don't. You allow people to immigrate because they have sponsorable family here, because they have a sponsorable job, or because (in very few cases) because they deserve asylum. Humanity is shared by everyone on the planet but the majority will never be allowed to immigrate. Please don't perpetuate the lies that immigration has anything to do with humanity or with whatever myth is carved into Lady Liberty. And to the degree that people are chosen to immigrate based on certain criteria, making income one of these criteria is perfectly reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why US taxpayers have to pay for this wall if our POTUS said that Mexico is paying for it. I mean, he just tweeted it, so it has to be true. Can a Trump supporter explain this to me? I'm so confused. I voted for him because he said Mexico would be paying for the wall, so I really don't understand why he keeps asking our government (and the US taxpayers) to pay for it.

I don’t even like him, but let’s not make this about him.
He does this all the time.

Immigration problem “look at me!!!” ——->T R U M P<——-
Wild fire ———->T R U M P<———
Etc.

This is the last I want to talk about him on this thread. This will be a problem long after he is gone.

Exactly. THe growing obsession some have with opposing everything the president supports mirrors the very same obsession the other side had (has) with President Obama and his policies. At this point we are so polorized I think if the other side said the sky was blue, most would object on principle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

What are you even talking about? If you only put in sections of border wall, it will only drive people further and further out to where you've stopped building. It will never stop. The wall must cover every single inch of the border that people are capable of walking.

What ever we end up paying for that will be worth the ROI of not paying for hospital bills of anchor babies, schooling of illegal and anchor children, government assistance, lawsuits, dealing with child camps, and the uncalculated costs of the negatives.

1) have you seen the cost estimates?
2) how do you count for the inches that cross the rio grande, topographically tricky areas, or cut off ranchers land? Do your research. I’m serious, don’t come back until you have looked this up.
3) they’ll get over or under it anyway. They have in San Diego where there are walls.
4) again, the cost. It costs less to fund anchor babies than to build every inch.
5) there will still be a secondary, illegal system of immigration due to overstays from those who FLY over the wall with legal papers.

I don’t mean to take you down. Trying to keep it civil, but man you are wrong. Go read some more, then come back with a better idea.
3)

LOL Believe me, you didnt "take me down" ...
Yes, I've seen the cost estimates. It a drop in the bucket for our spending and worth every penny.

And I did say in my reply that it should be everywhere where people can walk over.

We have this thing called eminent domain. Obviously the ranchers will fight it but it needs to happen.

I never said the wall should be the only thing we have, but one of many things. We need a wall, e-verify, automatic reporting to immigration authorities whenever someone illegal touches the government (schooling, government assistance programs, drivers license, etc.), tracking of tourist visa holders, and entry/exit system with facial or other personal identifiers to ensure that people are leaving once they come in. No immigration benefits if you are illegal (ie no finding someone to marry you to avoid deportation), no sponsorship of anyone other than spouse or minor child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

What are you even talking about? If you only put in sections of border wall, it will only drive people further and further out to where you've stopped building. It will never stop. The wall must cover every single inch of the border that people are capable of walking.

What ever we end up paying for that will be worth the ROI of not paying for hospital bills of anchor babies, schooling of illegal and anchor children, government assistance, lawsuits, dealing with child camps, and the uncalculated costs of the negatives.

1) have you seen the cost estimates?
2) how do you count for the inches that cross the rio grande, topographically tricky areas, or cut off ranchers land? Do your research. I’m serious, don’t come back until you have looked this up.
3) they’ll get over or under it anyway. They have in San Diego where there are walls.
4) again, the cost. It costs less to fund anchor babies than to build every inch.
5) there will still be a secondary, illegal system of immigration due to overstays from those who FLY over the wall with legal papers.

I don’t mean to take you down. Trying to keep it civil, but man you are wrong. Go read some more, then come back with a better idea.
3)

LOL Believe me, you didnt "take me down" ...
Yes, I've seen the cost estimates. It a drop in the bucket for our spending and worth every penny.

And I did say in my reply that it should be everywhere where people can walk over.

We have this thing called eminent domain. Obviously the ranchers will fight it but it needs to happen.

I never said the wall should be the only thing we have, but one of many things. We need a wall, e-verify, automatic reporting to immigration authorities whenever someone illegal touches the government (schooling, government assistance programs, drivers license, etc.), tracking of tourist visa holders, and entry/exit system with facial or other personal identifiers to ensure that people are leaving once they come in. No immigration benefits if you are illegal (ie no finding someone to marry you to avoid deportation), no sponsorship of anyone other than spouse or minor child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.

Yup. Put up or shut up.

republicans will never do immigration reform - who would they get to work on their family farms at slave wages?

Do democrats support having an immigrant underclass?

Both parties are to blame here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.

Yup. Put up or shut up.

republicans will never do immigration reform - who would they get to work on their family farms at slave wages?

Do democrats support having an immigrant underclass?

Both parties are to blame here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why US taxpayers have to pay for this wall if our POTUS said that Mexico is paying for it. I mean, he just tweeted it, so it has to be true. Can a Trump supporter explain this to me? I'm so confused. I voted for him because he said Mexico would be paying for the wall, so I really don't understand why he keeps asking our government (and the US taxpayers) to pay for it.

I don’t even like him, but let’s not make this about him.
He does this all the time.

Immigration problem “look at me!!!” ——->T R U M P<——-
Wild fire ———->T R U M P<———
Etc.

This is the last I want to talk about him on this thread. This will be a problem long after he is gone.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why US taxpayers have to pay for this wall if our POTUS said that Mexico is paying for it. I mean, he just tweeted it, so it has to be true. Can a Trump supporter explain this to me? I'm so confused. I voted for him because he said Mexico would be paying for the wall, so I really don't understand why he keeps asking our government (and the US taxpayers) to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.

Yup. Put up or shut up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

What are you even talking about? If you only put in sections of border wall, it will only drive people further and further out to where you've stopped building. It will never stop. The wall must cover every single inch of the border that people are capable of walking.

What ever we end up paying for that will be worth the ROI of not paying for hospital bills of anchor babies, schooling of illegal and anchor children, government assistance, lawsuits, dealing with child camps, and the uncalculated costs of the negatives.

1) have you seen the cost estimates?
2) how do you count for the inches that cross the rio grande, topographically tricky areas, or cut off ranchers land? Do your research. I’m serious, don’t come back until you have looked this up.
3) they’ll get over or under it anyway. They have in San Diego where there are walls.
4) again, the cost. It costs less to fund anchor babies than to build every inch.
5) there will still be a secondary, illegal system of immigration due to overstays from those who FLY over the wall with legal papers.

I don’t mean to take you down. Trying to keep it civil, but man you are wrong. Go read some more, then come back with a better idea.
3)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.