THE WALL

LOL

--pt 4

So now, is it really that simple or is it a lot more complex and nuanced? I have purposefully not gotten into the laws and SCOTUS rulings in depth. I pointed out that Trump cost the country millions of dollars because of doing things that were illegal. Try changing the laws and see what SCOTUS says. They will probably WTF own any attempt at being authoritarian. Again, proving how complex this is, there is a case that is on SCOTUS docket this term. That case will determine the authority of an agency. The fucktard Republicans are trying to make sure that Congress controls everything within an agency. This was their way of saying that the FDA could not approve the abortion pill because Congress didn't give them the authority to approve that pill. If SCOTUS rules that Congress has to control everything, good fucking luck. The idiot Republicans can't even govern at all. The last FOUR houses they controlled what happened? What was their accomplishment? Forced THREE speakers to retire and then had one removed, you know, for the very first time. How many of the government shutdowns have occurred in Democratic houses? Answer: None. So if SCOTUS rules that Congress has to control and the agency can't, then when DHS has an issue, they have to run to the House to get it resolved. So sad, the house is closed down.

Even my proposed solution has a lot of problems. It would require finding a fuck ton of judges. These people do not grow on trees, so where are they going to come from? Chances are they would have to be appointed and then we have seen what McConnel has done with appointments, he stops them. Then there would need to be a BUNCH of Krome Detention centers built. It would be nice to use some military bases that want to close, but I doubt the local area would buy that. So where do you build all these facilities at? Of course, Bechtel would love that because they would get the job and build a fuckton of overpriced centers. Then there would be the fight from Matt Gaetz saying, "They had STEAK served to them at the center! They were only supposed to get bread and water." I would require a bunch of agents to be put in at ports of entry. These could be a different classification than those that patrol the border.

So yes, this is complex. This is nuanced. This is tied to a LOT of other things. The stakeholders all have their hands in it and have different agendas. This is why I have stated over and over, that it is a congress problem. Congress can solve it and probably piss off about 40% of the people. That would be better than pissing 80% of the people off.

--pt 3

One's solution is to move the process further out and buy Mexico off to have them control people entering their country. Again, I don't think moving the process to a person's home country is doable. Logistically it sounds simple, but getting the people there to do it does not.

I have said what I want a solution to be. I want to spend money and have people go through ports of entry, claim asylum and be taken to a detention center. I want lots of judges to handle the cases. I would prefer to see cases handled within 10 days and realize that is probably a pipe dream, but if it is 30 days, great. Then if asylum is granted, they can have a work visa and a bus ticket to any city in the US. Hell, I'd even like to have JOB RECRUITERS at the detention centers! Imagine a recruiter for Holiday Inn who can offer a person a job at a Holiday Inn Express in St. Louis and tell them the salary and roughly how much apartments are? Imagine a recruiter for farms. It goes on and on. If the asylum is denied, well, we now have their DNA, fingerprints, etc. They get a free flight back to their home country. BTW, we do this already. But if they come back, well, we can see they are rejected and now they are prisoners. Yes, I suspect that we will get people who would prefer to be prisoners in America than be 'free' in their home country. It will probably be a small amount and Ted Cruz will scream how terrible it is that they are getting better health care on our dime than in their home country. It would still be cheaper than hiring 100,000 new border agents. IIRC, we have around 20k now. I do think that there could be a change in the law that will pass SCOTUS and that would be the repeal of the dry foot,wet foot asylum issue. Repeal that law and then you can make ANY crossing that is not at a port of entry be a situation where if caught, you go to the detention center, processed, and then sent back to your home country with a five year limit on being able to come back.

I realize that I am part of the problem. My wife and I had one kid. We didn't create our replacements, nor did we add to the population on our death. We shrunk it. There are a lot more people like me in that aspect. And what I believe scares a lot of 'Conservatives' is that those that are like me in that aspect are the same color as me as well. The fear of whites becoming a minority in this country scares the fuck out of them. But hey, wouldn't it have been better and cheaper to implement government healthcare and education? I was well aware that my kid was going to college. I knew what it cost to what the average salary was when I got into Duke. I didn't want to write that check three or four times. I figured once would be fine. Then the cheap bastard in me didn't want to have to pay $7k per birth and then all the associated costs for kids. I remember my mother setting up payment plans because I broke my foot or leg and she couldn't write the check. It took her 4 years to pay for my broken leg.

--pt 2

How does that tie into the wall? VERY SIMPLY. If you were to send 200 migrants to my city, we have no place for them to live in shelters. There are a little over 800 homeless in my area. There is housing for about 600 in shelters. Adding 200 migrants would double the 'street' population.

What happened when Abbot tried to be a dick and get political points, he chose Martha's Vineyard in MA. Do you think they can take in 120 immigrants? They may have 10 homeless people and have capabilities for that. Abbot flooded them. He did the same to NYC.

So when you say overrun, no, they are not overrun. The system for housing people is not built to take a massive influx. Cities are not going to spend money to just have it sit empty, the people who pay property taxes will be quite pissed if they have room for 1000 and there are only 20.

Now before you get an erection and say, "What about Texas?" that would be a valid point if you didn't know that the Feds send TONS of money to Texas just for this purpose alone. Just like a kid in public school means income to the school, so does an immigrant to Texas.

Again, here I am with South Florida history. Ever see the movie Scarface? The beginning scene of the Cubans in tents under the highway. That was NOT fiction. The city had a bunch of land under I95 that they used to build that. What did that spawn? That spawned the creation of Krome Detention center at a former military base. However, it took two years to convert and three more after that to get to truly usable. The boatlift ended five years earlier. So shit is not immediate.

Your solution and @Marion's is the same. CLOSE the border. Again, good luck with that. It is NOT feasible. It is NOT realistic. TBR even mentioned the tunnels. You guys are reminding me of my ignorance of some things and thinking it was simple. When I lived in Florida I read (roughly 1990) something about some issues with (I forget what it was) getting into Yosemite. I said, "Well, that is fucking stupid, just put a fence around it." A few years later I went to Yosemite. Once I saw it, I realized that there was no fucking way you are putting a fence around it. The way I was thinking is the way I think you and Marion are. It sounds great in a soundbite, but once you talk to an engineer or anyone who has studied it, they will say, "Are you fucking serious? This is not feasible."

@2out

You are getting more than seven paragraphs :)

Try reading what I have written. I have NEVER said, 'the more the merrier.' I have said that we need immigrants. I have not implied that we need to take in an unlimited amount.

Cities being over run with immigrants. What a fun thing to talk about. Hell, this goes back to the point that you are making that this is SIMPLE. It really isn't. There are so many stakeholders involved. But let's stay with the cities being overrun. I love the colorful adjectives being used. What does overrun mean? It paints a picture of lawlessness and, well, anarchy. That is far from the truth. Words have meanings. Try using ones that are apropos to the topic at hand. Are cities having problems with housing immigrants? YES. DING DING DING. Does that mean that they are overrun? Here want some more proof of how this whole topic is a LOT MORE COMPLEX than you have even thought?

Do you realize that Gavin Newsom has filed an amicus brief against the feds to hopefully have a case by THIS Supreme Court decided differently? Do you realize that this case directly impacts the immigrant situation? Didn't think you did. Betcha don't even know anything about it. Do you know why there are homeless encampments and cities don't do anything about it? It is because in Idaho a case was brought on behalf of a homeless person who was being harrased by the local cops. The SCOTUS ruled that it was NOT illegal to be homeless. The SCOTUS ruled that the city had to provide housing and if there was none, the homeless person could be homeless on public land. SCOTUS tied the hands of every city with that. So what did cities do? Go to the state and ask for a fuck ton of money to buy/make housing. If there is an opening at the facility, the person can be moved to it. So now the cities have to be in the motel business. Hell, the city I live in bought a fucking motel just for this purpose. This is how I learned about the issue.

How fast can cities buy/rent housing? That is a huge variable because it depends on the city itself. Speaking on behalf of my little area, by law, there has to be over 4000 new residences built in a very short period. This was mandated by state law. This was AFTER allowing for ADU's to be fasttracked. hcd.ca. gov/policy-and-research/accessory-dwelling-units The issue for a good chunk of California is the same for a lot of other metro places. There is no new land being built. Where do you build when it is saturated? My town is talking to a nursery that has been in business for ~50 years about selling their nursery to put apartments in. They have been talking to a ~100 year farm about the same issue. They are probably going to kill the municipal golf course for this issue. In 1990 the city leased land to build a mall. The land lease was 100 years. The mall is effectively dead, the owner of the mall gave it back to the lender. The city has been working with the lender and Nordstroms who owns their building on the land, about leveling it and putting in apartments. They figure they can get about 800 residences there.

Housing is a huge issue.

@ea.

All you show is hypocrisy. Yesterday you were "the more the merrier". Today your fixing problems with immigration.

I noticed you didn't say shit about the cities being overrun with immigrants. Apparently that doesn't factor into the stats you live by. So as long as you're not directly affected and they can help pay your ss checks. You're cool with it.

I might not have it right. At least I'm consistently wrong. I'm not just arguing in whatever direction that proves me a superior intellectual being.

Nobody here. "Nope not one" has said we should never allow another immigrant in. All we are advocating for is a sudden stop to the current imaginary propaganda driven influx of unknown illegals.

Stop that. Force congress to make new laws that keeps shit under control.

What the fuck is hard to comprehend? We have X sq footage. We have X jobs. We only need X people. It's not nearly as complicated and nuanced as you think.

Ya ya ya. You always say "well the laws don't permit this or that". Change the fuckin law. You're always advocating for changing gun laws. Why is this any different?

EA. You should read Sir John Glubb, Fate of empires. If you're half as smart as you think you are, it'll change your life.

He was pandering to the crowd. His PR department was awesome.

Life long democrat, what do you expect?

@Marion

"Orange man was an asshole, what else is new?"

True.

But breaking the law has cost you and me money. Are you cool with that?

It is not like he was trying something that had not already been researched and was told it was illegal as fuck.

Orange man was an asshole, what else is new?

Today it was announced the ramifications of Trump's policy regarding immigrants.

The ACLU filed a suit. This was about the splitting of families.

The results?

"The settlement also specifies that families who were separated will get an interview with an asylum officer briefed on their experience. They'll also get work authorization and housing benefits."

They will be fast-tracked through the system for a hearing, if asylum is granted, fast-tracked for a green card and citizenship.

Congrats Trump, you just cost taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars for your hubris and NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

Wow.... would you like to find an example of the morality laws being enforced in Alabama against a married couple since the civil rights era... leave it to a socialist to bring up Jim crow laws.

@Marion

No. Not all of them.

There are some felonies there.

@EA: your confused. There are these things called "fines" where you use fiat currency to buy your way out of jail.

@2out

And if you knew definitions of words you would not have the issue that you have.

I showed no hypocrisy. The Libertarian concept is simple, "I got mine, fuck you, you don't get yours" Having funding for SS that I paid into is not that. I haven't gotten it!

Keep trying though. One day you may get it right.

@Marion

What are the sex laws in Alabama?
What are the morality laws in Alabama?
What are the traffic laws in Alabama?
Wasn't there some law there about it being illegal to wear a mask in public? Damn . . . Covid and Halloween!

What other places have you lived in? Bet you broke some laws there that if 'enforced' would put you in jail.

It's nothing to worry about. It's all propaganda. The more the merrier. But we don't want every Tom dick and Harry to cross.

Libertarians suck because they're self centered. Let's make damn sure we have enough others to pay "MY" SS checks. That's not the least bit self centered. Lol

Thank God he exposes everyone else's hypocrisy.

And exactly why the fuck would we be in jail?

Then see previous post. IDGAF, I'm buying a wrecker service & gonna incarcerate every one I can, for as long as I can.

You are part of the problem. First we imported the Africans. Then we imported the Irish. Then we imported Chinese.. we got our cotton picked. We got our textile mills and factories built and staffed. Then we got our railroads built. Now, we're importing the south American to "do the work Americans won't"...

EA, you are a modern day advocate for the slave trade...

@Marion

'@EA: read current law. Obey current law. Enforce current law. If we did that, 99% of all our problems go away."

You would be in jail.

Chances are your wife would be as well.

You cool with that?

@Marion

L2read.

"Why those meanie head poopie face republicans wouldn't pass it. It seems, their constituents called them and said they didn't like it.
REP-RE-SENT-ITIVE RE-PUB-LIC"

Boehner NEVER put it up for a vote.

He gave shade.

Remember, it had an EIGHTY FIVE percent approval in the Senate.

"Why those meanie head poopie face republicans wouldn't pass it. It seems, their constituents called them and said they didn't like it.
REP-RE-SENT-ITIVE RE-PUB-LIC"

Don't make me bring out the Princess Bride line . . . AGAIN. You keep saying this and you have no idea.

Boehner was afraid that it would have 100% democrat approval and 30% republican approval. Then it would be law with a 260ish pass.

@EA: I've dug a little into the magical 2013 super great immigration bill. Found what many articles called the "truth" of why it failed. Why those meanie head poopie face republicans wouldn't pass it. It seems, their constituents called them and said they didn't like it.

REP-RE-SENT-ITIVE RE-PUB-LIC

Don't like current law? See paragraph a- how to change law. Follow instructions.

@EA: read current law. Obey current law. Enforce current law. If we did that, 99% of all our problems go away.