TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Do you think that nationality is a good indicator of whether or not someone is going to be a leech? Isn't this the same xenophobic argument that people have been making for centuries? "We can't let all of these Italians come in, they're a bunch of leeches!" No, that's why he's for merit based immigration. Although it's pretty silly to ignore some pretty obvious generalities when you speak of certain areas of the world. eta: Throughout history, nobody has been lining up at our door from first world countries. To Trump's point about Norway, we don't get a lot of Norwegian immigrants because Norway isn't poor and they're all pretty content with their socialized healthcare and high quality of living. why are so many people taking his Norway comment so damn literally. I think it's pretty funny and pretty obvious he was tongue and cheek making a pretty blatant observation. It is true that they are known to be a hard working and wealthy/successful group hence the reason he contrasted that with his shit hole comment. People act as if he's carving out specifics to a policy when he talks or tweets like that. Removing his statements from the overall context of a conversation is dumb. We get immigrants from poor countries because they want a better life. Wanting a better life and being willing to uproot yourself and your family to get it is, IMHO, a pretty good indicator of whether or not someone is going to end up being productive. And I think the data over 200 years of American history bears this out. well you might look at all 200 years but the reality is times change and I would say that looking at things from say 1970's or 80's through today is likely a better indicator. no one is saying shut down all immigration, just to curb the shit coming into the country and ensure those that do are vetted well and selected more appropriately. Even a blind person can walk around and know that we have large segments of our immigrant population that honestly would have been better off left where they came from. You might not like that statement but it's true and to continue that practice is committing an injustice to all of us including immigrants that are productive members of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 My big problem is that there's no way for the vast majority of would-be-immigrants to even access the hoops, which is why we have all kinds of people overstaying their visas and whatnot. the above is the problem. we have limits on the numbers of new immigrants for a reason and we can't keep creating sanctuaries or ignoring those that over stay visas or come here illegally. If they don't like the waiting period, move to Canada or another country if they hate their so much. They don't get a hall-pass and get to break our laws and just move in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 -You must find work within 6 months of living here or be enrolled full-time in college. -You get 18 months total of Government assistance. -Commit a crime above a misdemeanor, you're gone. -Fail to come off ANY form of Government assistance after 18 months, you're gone. -Unemployed after 6 months here, gone. How much of this do you think doesn't happen already? There are many classes of visas and all have different rules. That's kind of what makes this issue so complex. There isn't a "no reason" visa that people come in under - generally you kind of have to have a reason to come into the country in the first place. There are also hard caps to the number of any one category being issued, for example there are only 140,000 employment visas issued per year. That's it. There are 5 different types of Employment Visas, but generally they are revoked within a reasonable amount of time within the end of your job. They also have time limits and have to be renewed periodically. If you stay after that you become an illegal alien. For a family sponsored visa (what is called Chain migration): sponsors of immigrant family members must prove they can support them financially for an extended period of time, starting with proof of an income at or above 125 percent of the federal poverty level. They remain financially responsible for all sponsored immigrant relatives until the latter become citizens, are credited with having worked 10 years in the U.S., leave the country permanently, or die. Felony conviction is grounds for deportation. It honestly sounds like you have no problem with the current system, you just mistake lack of enforcement for those items missing from what's actually going on. But the enforcement part can be fixed - just raise taxes so the federal government can pay the state government to enforce their laws and also build out the immigration dept. Yay!!! more big government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0n8 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Please, come visit. If the schools (Woodward Park & Northland) were better I'd still live in Forest Park. I'd be down to visit and help wrench after cars & coffee when it warms up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 When you say you have "seen" these areas, and I'm not just talking to Tim, what do you mean? Do you mean I drove through it with doors locked or saw it from the interstate, which I will almost guarantee is the majority case for all the Gary Indiana folks. Or did you stop and get gas? Maybe check out a local eatery that you didn't find on Spoon, or Yelp, or wherever? How to you feel you have a taste for a community and its experience when you haven't ever been even remotely involved in their lives? Please, come visit. We can get some soul food at Lawshea's or West African food at West African Restaurant, maybe some Cajun/Caribbean food at Red Pepper Caribbean Bar and Grill and talk with the owners who are almost always there. I've been in Cbus since 1988. The Northland Mall area hasn't been a great area of town for quite some time. I actually had a former coworker and good friend that lived over there from the 80's through his passing a few years ago. My admin. assistant actually lives just east of you and like you, by choice. Her and her husband invest in a lot of rental properties near there too. We frequent and know the owner of Graves Piano who has been there for years too. Growing up in the business and having worked for the Gills and Chesrown back in the day, I spent plenty of time over there. I've personally called on businesses in that area in my line of work too. I also had a co-worker have his car vandalized in that are on one of our calls. I've dined at Momo Ghar in he Saraga Market. Great food. There's an obscure little Italian place I've dined at around there too. So all-in, I feel I know it pretty well and more than just from driving through there. That said, of course as a local who willingly moved and integrated there, you're going to get along and do well there. That doesn't change the surroundings or crime rates in the area and even nationally the findings of crime by illegals and immigrants overall. Glad it's worked out well for you and what you were looking to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 It honestly sounds like you have no problem with the current system, you just mistake lack of enforcement for those items missing from what's actually going on. But the enforcement part can be fixed - just raise taxes so the federal government can pay the state government to enforce their laws and also build out the immigration dept. Yay!!! more big government. sounds like it's time to change who funds the enforcement of the laws that are currently being ignored. perhaps it's time for such a fundamental change that results in states such as CA, NY, TX and those with sanctuary supporters or sources of the problem to ante up more money to flip the bill. After all, if Mr. Brown of Cali wants to be so "liberal" with his support of illegals then perhaps he and his constituents living there should be the ones paying for it. Perhaps when the costs go up other areas of the country will recognize what's coming and they will police themselves by not encouraging illegals to stay in their city. Who knows, maybe TX will ante up higher costs to fund a wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Stock market's broken. This is not Trump's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 sounds like it's time to change who funds the enforcement of the laws that are currently being ignored. perhaps it's time for such a fundamental change that results in states such as CA, NY, TX and those with sanctuary supporters or sources of the problem to ante up more money to flip the bill. Change it to whom? The federal government relies on the states to enforce a lot of their laws, not just immigration. It's part and parcel of how the government works. The Fed then can pick and choose which ones it wants to prosecute at a federal level and leave the states to deal with the rest. That's why a lot of states will enact their own versions of federal law so as to be able to prosecute the ones left behind and add to their numbers. There are actually a shit ton of factors involved General speaking criminal cases that involve multiple states or interstate commerce or travel have to be litigated by the federal government (usually you see the exceptions in drug cases, but again lots of factors and complex). However, when it comes to immigration, the states can't really write their own laws that supersede federal law. So if the feds decide not to prosecute the case, the state is left holding the check for a stay in prison for someone that they can't incarcerate (and thus add to their numbers). To take some of the pressure off the Executive Office for Immigration Review runs a special court in all the states to handle immigration cases specifically. and INS does have it's own officers but the department is just not in the best position to be policing everywhere, so they rely on the state and local law enforcement to do it. After all, if Mr. Brown of Cali wants to be so "liberal" with his support of illegals then perhaps he and his constituents living there should be the ones paying for it. Perhaps when the costs go up other areas of the country will recognize what's coming and they will police themselves by not encouraging illegals to stay in their city. Who knows, maybe TX will ante up higher costs to fund a wall. I dare you to make less sense. A "Sanctuary city" isn't stopping INS or any other federal law enforcement branch from arresting and prosecuting immigrants of any kind, it is just saying that they will not dedicate the local resources to make it a priority. Either way the constituency pays because either it comes out of federal taxes or state and local taxes. Asking one state to pay for all of the immigration in this country is the text book definition of unconstitutional. Not because of unfair taxation or tax policy, but because of a violation of the equal protection clause. Also, so is persecuting a state on the basis of political affiliation or message under the first, fourth, and fourteenth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Change it to whom? The federal government relies on the states to enforce a lot of their laws, not just immigration. It's part and parcel of how the government works. The Fed then can pick and choose which ones it wants to prosecute at a federal level and leave the states to deal with the rest. That's why a lot of states will enact their own versions of federal law so as to be able to prosecute the ones left behind and add to their numbers. There are actually a shit ton of factors involved General speaking criminal cases that involve multiple states or interstate commerce or travel have to be litigated by the federal government (usually you see the exceptions in drug cases, but again lots of factors and complex). However, when it comes to immigration, the states can't really write their own laws that supersede federal law. So if the feds decide not to prosecute the case, the state is left holding the check for a stay in prison for someone that they can't incarcerate (and thus add to their numbers). To take some of the pressure off the Executive Office for Immigration Review runs a special court in all the states to handle immigration cases specifically. and INS does have it's own officers but the department is just not in the best position to be policing everywhere, so they rely on the state and local law enforcement to do it. I dare you to make less sense. A "Sanctuary city" isn't stopping INS or any other federal law enforcement branch from arresting and prosecuting immigrants of any kind, it is just saying that they will not dedicate the local resources to make it a priority. Either way the constituency pays because either it comes out of federal taxes or state and local taxes. Asking one state to pay for all of the immigration in this country is the text book definition of unconstitutional. Not because of unfair taxation or tax policy, but because of a violation of the equal protection clause. Also, so is persecuting a state on the basis of political affiliation or message under the first, fourth, and fourteenth. It's pretty simple Kerry and it doesn't take 20 paragraphs to figure out. You're claiming it's lack of enforcement due to lack funding. The solution is to figure out who to bill for the added enforcement that's needed and if the states who are condoning the bad behavior aren't willing to do so then it's time to get creative to make those fuckers pay in a different way. If the states don't want their agencies to do the work, there too, toss resources at it and bill those who are the cause of the problem. States and their leadership can either partner with the feds or fight them. I don't care which they do but perhaps they should be looking out for the people who live there an are actually legal citizens and worry less about fuck-sticks who shouldn't be here to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Should states start enforcing federal marijuana laws too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) Should states start enforcing federal marijuana laws too? Should local cops enforce any federal drug laws? Imagine what we could save if local authorities just said "fuck it" to all federal laws and just went around picking and choosing. Oh wait..... Illegals are way more of an problem but hey why don't we just say fuck it to bank robberies or kidnapping or human trafficking. I mean if it's all about funding then why not... LOL though, States like Cali will spend money educating illegals, providing them benefits and all the monies related to protecting illegals but they won't spend a fraction of that to simply hold them for ICE to come? It's not about budget; that's a bullshit argument. Edited February 8, 2018 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Should local cops enforce any federal drug laws? Imagine what we could save if local authorities just said "fuck it" to all federal laws and just went around picking and choosing. Oh wait..... Local authorities don't enforce federal drug laws. Local authorities do say "fuck it" to all federal laws. Do you really not know how legal jurisdiction works? What point are you trying to make here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Local authorities don't enforce federal drug laws. Local authorities do say "fuck it" to all federal laws. Do you really not know how legal jurisdiction works? What point are you trying to make here? So do local OSP officers ever partner with the Feds on large drug busts or do they simply look past mounds of drugs hidden inside vehicles? We all know the answer so if local and state agencies have the time and resources to partner with federal agencies to enforce drug or firearm laws is it too much to ask that they do the same when encountering illegal aliens? The answer is absolutely. It's called concurrent jurisdiction. In fact, task forces have proven to be a highly effective way for the FBI and federal, state, and local law enforcement to join together to address specific crime problems and national security threats. So I guess the question is do you understand how jurisdiction works and how agencies actually do work together? Well......when it's not slanted with the bullshit of liberal politics and agendas. Guns and drugs are bad but illegal aliens.....well, we need to turn a blind eye to that because it costs too much money for us to make a fucking phone call and keep that asshole who overstayed a visa or hopped across the river over and over again after being deported over and over again, in our cell for a day or so after we arrested him for assault or drunk driving, etc.... It's time to stop the stupidity and start taking care of the problem when it's right in front of you. "hey, that's not our job" http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/Not_My_Job.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 So do local OSP officers ever partner with the Feds on large drug busts or do they simply look past mounds of drugs hidden inside vehicles? We all know the answer so if local and state agencies have the time and resources to partner with federal agencies to enforce drug or firearm laws is it too much to ask that they do the same when encountering illegal aliens? Do you think state and local agencies partner with federal agencies for the benefit of the federal agencies? Or do they do it in order to leverage the big pockets of the federal government for helping enforce their own laws? Would it make sense for state police in Colorado to help the DEA enforce marijuana laws? Can you ever see that happening? Why not? Can you cite a single example of the kind of cooperation you're talking about where the criminal behavior in question isn't illegal at both federal and state/local levels? If Colorado authorities aren't expected to team up with the DEA to enforce pot prohibition, why would they be expected to team up with ICE for anything? drugs are bad Lol, OK Nancy. but illegal aliens Yeah, safe to say a lot of people don't live in constant fear of illegal aliens the way you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Do you think state and local agencies partner with federal agencies for the benefit of the federal agencies? so I guess they aren't here to serve and protect the citizens? Can you cite a single example of the kind of cooperation you're talking about where the criminal behavior in question isn't illegal at both federal and state/local levels?should that matter? again, let's interject a little fucking common sense. if a local agency arrests a guy for DUI and he's here illegally how about they simply inform ICE. Yeah, safe to say a lot of people don't live in constant fear of illegal aliens the way you do.It's not about fear, it's about injecting a little common sense to get fuckers who don't belong here in the hands of those that can get rid of them. You know if that dude in San Fran can get away with killing someone, shouldn't I be able to get away with killing an illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 so I guess they aren't here to serve and protect the citizens? Of course not, that's a myth. Gun rights advocates have figured this out, right? The cops aren't under any duty to protect you. They're under no particular duty to enforce any laws. should that matter? again, let's interject a little fucking common sense. if a local agency arrests a guy for DUI and he's here illegally how about they simply inform ICE. How can they tell if someone's here illegally? Webbed feet? Are you here legally? How would you prove it if you got pulled over? What steps would you expect local law enforcement take to verify your legal status? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 They're under no particular duty to enforce any laws. of course, but then why not let the individual officers make that call. why are their gov't officials "ordering" them not to report or investigate legal status? Again, let's interject a little common sense and remove the illegal aliens by making a phone call. The answer is political agendas. How can they tell if someone's here illegally? Webbed feet? Are you here legally? How would you prove it if you got pulled over? What steps would you expect local law enforcement take to verify your legal status? I'll let you do your homework on who's liable for proving citizenship when you're detained for a crime and refuse to provide proof and are in-turn detained as an illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 It honestly sounds like you have no problem with the current system, you just mistake lack of enforcement for those items missing from what's actually going on. But the enforcement part can be fixed - just raise taxes so the federal government can pay the state government to enforce their laws and also build out the immigration dept. Yay!!! more big government. OR they could re-allocate some of the traffic cop jobs. I know you're very against cutting out any taxes, as you prefer the American citizens give MORE of their money away to the group of thugs who waste it, but I think this could work better. LOL https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/584335323/pentagon-audit-shows-logistical-arm-of-military-cant-explain-where-800-million-w :lolguy::lolguy::lolguy::dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/584335323/pentagon-audit-shows-logistical-arm-of-military-cant-explain-where-800-million-w :lolguy::lolguy::lolguy::dumb: I think what's so concerning to many about the Defense Logistics Agency is that it was seen as the test case for whether the entire Pentagon could pass an audit. Jesus Christ. I don't even want to know how much $ will be "missing" then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Jesus Christ. I don't even want to know how much $ will be "missing" then. Drain. The. Swamp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 of course, but then why not let the individual officers make that call. why are their gov't officials "ordering" them not to report or investigate legal status? Again, let's interject a little common sense and remove the illegal aliens by making a phone call. The answer is political agendas. Yeah, but sometimes that political agenda is protecting your constituents. You keep trying to "make this simple" and it really isn't simple, there are a lot of permutations and there is no one single policy that is going to work at a state or local level for everyone. This isn't as simple as "making a phone call", because every "phone call" comes with expenditure for detaining that prisoner. Let's take two examples - one a city in a state not near a border and one a city in a state near a border. In the first city, since illegal border crossing is not a concern it is unlikely the state or local municipality will have an illegal immigration companion law (since states can not write immigration policy, some states will write laws that pair up with federal immigration laws so they can still detain and try the prisoner if the feds balk, the ACLU has a lot of fun suing states over these as most end up being discriminatory). So they stop an individual for a minor traffic violation, one that does not have a detainment requirement, and they discover the person is an illegal alien. Now what? they can hold the person until the feds exert jurisdiction to move him to immigration court for a trial, which means he costs the state money they won't get reimbursed for, or they can let him go. Also if they do decide to hold him and the feds decline to prosecute, who pays for his stay in jail? the state. In a city with a significant population of illegal immigrants this doesn't make sense for them to waste time on this, so they implement a policy to basically ignore it unless the individual committed a serious state crime (misdemeanor or higher). When they get a hardline federal politician telling them they need to enforce more, they declare themselves a sanctuary city and market it as being progressive on immigration. In reality if the Federal government started reimbursing the state for the detainment costs, most of those states would quietly roll over and play along. But they don't. Now take our city in a border state. Same situation, but the state is likely to have an immigration companion law they can charge the individual with so they have incentive to hold him because either way - he is going to get charged at the state level which adds to their crime statistics and can help when they request budgeting for next year. Even if the feds don't pursue an immigration case against the individual or he wins his deportation case, the state may still hold him in prison if he doesn't beat the state charge. In either situation it is highly political but for different reasons. Same can be said for sanctuary cities in a state near an international border, their political motivation is to appeal to their voting base because of some industry that supports immigrant workers or has a larger ethnic citizen population that share an ethnicity with the majority of illegal immigrants. That's just politics. I will point out that if an illegal immigrant does comitt a felony, not even the sanctuary cities will ignore that, but then there is a different difficult problem - do you deport him or do you put him in prison in the US and then deport him? You keep thinking it's "so simple - find out who is responsible and make them pay" except it isn't that simple and because of the constitution and the equal protection clause and freedom of speech you can't really treat people of a different political message differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Drain. The. Swamp. Perhaps we can start with the head swamp monster. The creature from the orange lagoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 OR they could re-allocate some of the traffic cop jobs. Why would they reallocate something that generates a significant amount of revenue for the state? That's like saying you are going to close your profitable ice cream stand to hand out dollar bills on the street corner. I know you're very against cutting out any taxes, as you prefer the American citizens give MORE of their money away to the group of thugs who waste it, you really don't know shit about me, but that's ok. You don't listen and just paint everyone that doesn't see it your way as a socialist. There is no 1 approach to anything. There are some things the government is in the best position to handle and others where it is not optimal. Taxes pay for this. I don't want to see tax payer money wasted either, but unlike you I do understand that some things I do get a benefit from even if I am not the person the program is directed at for my taxpayer money. Social benefit programs like WIC and such are like that - My child benefits from other kids getting proper nutrition. How? inadequate nutrition can lead to higher child mortality rate which itself draws resources away in schools to deal with it re-actively. Also undernourished children are more prone to illness, esp contagious illnesses that my child might be exposed to in the school system. Children with poor nutrition grow up to be adults with generally poor health and that taxes the health care system because generally they are going to be poor but we aren't going to let them die in the streets either. I bring up child nutrition, because while most immigrants, illegal or legal, don't have access to social benefit programs, the few programs that they do have access too mostly are aimed at benefiting children. You want to complain about immigrants leeching off the system, but I want you to remember the majority of those people you are calling "leeches" are children - not adults. but I think this could work better. I think it can too, but for some reasons our definition of better is different. Why? https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/584335323/pentagon-audit-shows-logistical-arm-of-military-cant-explain-where-800-million-w Government spending has always baffled me. We know that the government runs classified and covert operations, but also that government spending is generally a matter of public record. So how does the government pay for these covert ops without calling attention to it in the budget? $100 hammers is one way. Is this $800 Million such a case where it is an aggregate of covert spending? or is it really lost money? Depends on how you look at it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Pretty interesting story.... Report: U.S. Forces Killed More Than 200 Russian Fighters in Syria Attack https://www.thedailybeast.com/category/politics https://www.yahoo.com/news/russians-dead-battle-syrias-east-173442627.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted February 14, 2018 Report Share Posted February 14, 2018 Jesus. Been gone a weekish and the same shit show continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.