Trump requests from Congress $18 billion for his wall

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Cant Trump just say the wall is built and it is the bestest without actually building it? I mean, his base will believe it either way, just like with his base believing he abolished Obamacare.

How many months until the midterm elections again?

Warhound:

Edit: And I think you would get more traction insulting me calling me a xenophobe rather than a racist, since I am a nationalist, and just don't like foreigners in general, rather than people from mexico, hell if it was dirty leaves sneaking into our country by the tens of thousands I would be all for setting up a bunch of these along our northern boarder.image

That thing looks expensive. Who's gonna pay for that?

Warhound:

renegade7:

Protect from what? The abject horror of a few immigrants?

Immigrants,

...why?

Criminals,

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

hard drugs, human traffickers and so on.

Who do you think is buying the hard drugs and slaves? The direction of human trafficking is women and girls abducted in Mexico and sold in the US.

There's not going to be a real long-term solution to either of those until the demand for them among the native US population is reduced.

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for this?

Warhound:

Dr. Thrax:

Warhound:
I mean, if its the military/coastguard blowing things up in accordance with government policy i don't think its extra-judicial.

Also stunned/shocked applause would be appropriate.

They aren't given due process of law, it's therefore extra-judicial, but sure, let's just torpedo desperate foreigners trying to get a better life for themselves or their family.

Your username makes a bit more sense now.

When I look it up it gives two definitions, 'out of court' (Would fit your definition) and 'not legally authorized' (Which would fit my definition) since if the military is following orders from the top then it is legally authorized.

As mentioned, if they have been told, very clearly, that its gonna happen and they do it anyway, then oh well. Maybe they shoulda tried making a better life in their own nation.

I picked the name based on the Warhound titan from Warhammer 40k, glad you like it though.

This ammount of weapons and searches would just make the coastguard and border patrol budgets even more bloated. I that really what the US needs, even more bloated militaristic organizations with far too much funding and weapons? Is it really worth turning the southern border into a north korean style DMZ? Additionally, considering the quality of the current coast guardd and border patrol, giving them leave to manhandle every entrant legal or not seems like it would only create a foreign relations migraine and very little else. Not to mention the US's terrible track record of bombing the wrong target. I give it about a week before multiple officers are hit with rape charges and a bunch of innocent fishermen get blown to shreds by missiles

Warhound:

Morals and ethics change. Just look at the last 8 years. People call George Bush a war criminal for his use of drones, but Obama is clean as a whistle even though he expanded our drone assassination program by leaps and bounds.

Obama was highly criticized for the use of drones; so don't bring up that fake example when talking about changes in morals and ethics in the US. Speaking of changes in morals and ethics, how is it then that the fear-mongering BS you have been spewing is the same that I have heard for over 30 years? Or that always the source of it are the politicians aching for voters and the rest is just regurgitated by the parrots whom they fed?

I hope your time in military/coastguard/watchman/whatever gives you a better perspective.

EDIT: Sorry if I came too aggressive. Hearing old-school xenophobic arguments always brings out the worst of me.

inu-kun:
So let's talk statistics, how many low class jobs are created on average for X amount of immigrant divided by X?

That depends on a lot of very complicated factors. Also, I think it should be obvious by now that "number of jobs" is kind of a meaningless abstraction. The government could pay every unemployed person minimum wage to go and dig holes in the desert and they'd all have "jobs" (heck, one of the few advantages of this whole wall nonsense is that people will have to be employed to build it, temporarily creating more jobs. That's how the Nazis famously "solved" unemployment in Germany although in that case they were at least building roads which had long term benefits for industry and commerce).

inu-kun:
There is also the concern of having more illegal immigrants in a field reducing the salary for local populace in that field since the former can be exploited and the latter needs to keep up.

Which fields are we talking about in which undocumented and native born workers compete directly though?

I mean, one of the biggest employers of low skilled migrants (including undocumented ones) is always going to be agriculture. The reason for this is actually very specific.. agriculture is seasonal. A farmer might need to hire hundreds of people to pick a crop of fruit very quickly, but once the work is done then they have no further need of those workers. Farmers certainly can't afford to keep hundreds of people on salary just for those few weeks a year where they need to be brought in.

Migrant labourers have always been required to meet these kinds of seasonal needs. It's an industry which requires more from its workers than just to be paid as little as possible, they also have to be flexible in a way most people aren't (because most people need the security of a permanent, salaried job). So yeah, it's not always as simple as a straightforward competition. Because that farm can bring in seasonal migrant workers to meet its short term labour needs, it's also going to be able to offer more secure forms of work and to bring money into the local community.

I mean, there are a few jobs were you might see this kind of direct competition, but even then they tend to be so thoroughly unpleasant that noone wants to work in them for very long. Social care, for example, is an industry increasingly reliant on migrant labour because wiping up after demented old people while they swear at and physically attack you is not particularly fun, and yet it's something people expect to be done very, very cheaply.

This is the thing. The vast majority of migrant workers go home. They show up, they do what they have to do to earn a better lives for themselves or their families and then they leave, because ultimately who the hell wants to live in a country whose people talk about you like you're a form of vermin and whose political discourse is based on building walls to keep you out?

inu-kun:
I find it very hard to believe, finding how much education a person has is likely one of the first things on the forms. Heck, I only need to mention the reduced crime rate of immigrants in comparison to local population to prove that there is a working vetting process.

I mean.. have you considered that maybe that's not to do with the immigrants simply being "good" or "bad" people but perhaps, just perhaps, might have something to do with the risk of being deported over minor crimes..

CaitSeith:

Warhound:

Morals and ethics change. Just look at the last 8 years. People call George Bush a war criminal for his use of drones, but Obama is clean as a whistle even though he expanded our drone assassination program by leaps and bounds.

Obama was highly criticized for the use of drones; so don't bring up that fake example when talking about changes in morals and ethics in the US. Speaking of changes in morals and ethics, how is it then that the fear-mongering BS you have been spewing is the same that I have heard for over 30 years? Or that always the source of it are the politicians aching for voters and the rest is just regurgitated by the parrots whom they fed?

I hope your time in military/coastguard/watchman/whatever gives you a better perspective.

Not to mention I've never really heard anyone in the mainstream call Bush a war criminal just for using drones, most of the justification for calling him a war criminal revolves around invading Iraq under false pretenses. Those that disliked Bush's drone use also tended to dislike Obama's as well, so it's a poor example of the US changing morals, Obama's drone usage was one of the major reasons that often got listed for his decreasing approval rating amongst registered Democrats in his second term, it also is what got him some support amongst independents and some Republicans that also supported Bush's policy.

American attitudes around the morality of using drones is not 100% static but it sure as hell did not shift from, "war criminal" to "clean as a whistle", Obama, Bush, and Trump have all received criticism from the public and media for their drone policies, it is very much still an active debate on how moral it is to use drones in places like Pakistan.

Warhound:

BeetleManiac:

Warhound:
Morals and ethics change. Just look at the last 8 years. People call George Bush a war criminal for his use of drones, but Obama is clean as a whistle even though he expanded our drone assassination program by leaps and bounds.

I've actually criticized Obama heavily for drone warfare as have a lot of other people. More to the point, what justification for such actions do you think are going to fly when Mexico comes knocking asking why we sent out the armed forces to massacre a bunch of their unarmed civilians.

"Perhaps you should keep your people from committing suicide by keeping a better watch on them in that area. They had plenty of warning." Besides, its Mexico, we could flip them the middle finger if we wanted (Which is basically what Trump has done at every turn.)

I don't think you realize on how important, and influential, Mexico is on the USA. They're one of our main trading partners and an ally, perhaps more so than Canada.

The Lunatic:
So, your solution is to legalise cocaine and grant citizenship to a bunch of criminals who broke the law in getting here in the first place...

Uh... Yeah, I think that might have a fair few more flaws in it than Trump's Wall, I'm afraid.

My solution is to not penalize people for things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. All criminalizing these things has done has created criminals; it solved neither problem (in fact, the criminalization of Cocaine just made it more popular, especially in the past few years), has created criminal syndicates that profit from both, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for years and has wasted millions, even billions, of dollars for endless causes that, again, don't fix the problem.

If you removed the criminality of possessing a drug, you get rid of the Crime Syndicates, the seedy individuals who hide in Ghettos that either sell or abuse the stuff, the stigma(/fear of being arrested) of being on said drug, and real businesses can form that can sell the product legit.

inu-kun:

But illegal immigration is, while not dangerous per se, harmful to lower classes. This is out of the basic "more demand for work lowers the salary". With regular immigration you can at least choose people with qualification for jobs that are in demand.
Also even if you make getting a citizenship a lot easier, there isn't any logical reason to choose people with lower education compared to other people (which I'm under the assumption there is a lot of demand for USA citizenship).

You remove the criminality of being in this country without the 'proper channels', these people can be greater contributors of society, criminal immigrants (like murderers and rapists) can be properly punished, which means that crime syndicates would be less likely to send their agents in, wages can't be depreciated because they would have to have the same wages (since they're American citizens), and people like Dreamers and Salvadorans wouldn't have to worry about one day being uprooted for no fault of their own, saving the government some money.

Ryotknife:
Cant Trump just say the wall is built and it is the bestest without actually building it? I mean, his base will believe it either way, just like with his base believing he abolished Obamacare.

How many months until the midterm elections again?

That's more or less what's happening. The "wall" at this point isn't planned to be a full wall like originally promised. It would be upgrading what we already have, with sections of his glorious wall thrown about where it would be deemed to be needed. What's funny is despite the fact he's had to drop the idea of having a complete wall, it would still be much more expensive then he ever said it would be.

I get why he originally pushed the idea, and why the Republican base thinks it's a good idea, but how much more effective would it actually be? I'm sure it would have some effect, but there's no way in hell this is even remotely the best solution. It's expensive and overly simplistic. It's a child's idea of what should be done.

Taking bets now on how many of those billions will end up in Trump's own pockets

Watch as undocumented immigrant populations in the US jump after the wall just like they have after every security increase.

Before we got so paranoid about the border usually a family would just send one man across for a harvest season then he'd go home until the next year. Make it more expensive to come here by putting up barriers, people have to stay longer to make up the expense. Accordingly, they start to bring their whole families (a man can go a few months without seeing his family, probably won't be willing to go ten years without them), which contributes to the "anchor babies" the right loves to complain about so much.

If you want to reduce undocumented immigrant populations, you've got to work with the material reality of the situation, which is that a several thousand mile long border cannot actually be adequately policed to prevent illegal entry. That being the case, escalating border security only makes the problem worse.

renegade7:

Warhound:

Edit: And I think you would get more traction insulting me calling me a xenophobe rather than a racist, since I am a nationalist, and just don't like foreigners in general, rather than people from mexico, hell if it was dirty leaves sneaking into our country by the tens of thousands I would be all for setting up a bunch of these along our northern boarder.image

That thing looks expensive. Who's gonna pay for that?

Mexico, clearly.

I want to know where the fuck people are getting the figure of 18 billion, because the reports I'm getting is almost 3 times that over 10 years.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

renegade7:

Warhound:

Edit: And I think you would get more traction insulting me calling me a xenophobe rather than a racist, since I am a nationalist, and just don't like foreigners in general, rather than people from mexico, hell if it was dirty leafs sneaking into our country by the tens of thousands I would be all for setting up a bunch of these along our northern boarder.image

That thing looks expensive. Who's gonna pay for that?

Mexico, clearly.

I want to know where the fuck people are getting the figure of 18 billion, because the reports I'm getting is almost 3 times that over 10 years.

Why would Mexico pay for the Samsung(Yes those things are made by Samsung, crazy right?) Sentry Guns we set up to keep Canadians out? Now you are just spouting crazy-talk. Clearly we make the leafs pay for em

renegade7:

Warhound:

renegade7:

Protect from what? The abject horror of a few immigrants?

Immigrants,

...why?

Criminals,

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

hard drugs, human traffickers and so on.

Who do you think is buying the hard drugs and slaves? The direction of human trafficking is women and girls abducted in Mexico and sold in the US.

There's not going to be a real long-term solution to either of those until the demand for them among the native US population is reduced.

1) Because they should go through the process like everyone else that wants to live in our country, they shouldn't just have to jump the boarder and yell olly olly oxenfree while proper immigrants went through the time and work required. That being said we should really reform our immigration system.

2) Well considering they are breaking laws to come here literally every single one of them is a criminal by their very presence here. How many MORE crimes they commit is likely minimal, but they shouldn't have the chance to commit any.

3) Yep, more stuff flows into this country, rather than out of it. But if you make the methods of bringing it in insanely expensive, and insanely risky, the prices of those products will skyrocket, and price out the customers. For human trafficking if the demand drops with the price raise because the supply can't make it through then that means less people will be kidnapped to be shipped over here.

Warhound:

Why would Mexico pay for the Samsung(Yes those things are made by Samsung, crazy right?) Sentry Guns we set up to keep Canadians out? Now you are just spouting crazy-talk. Clearly we make the leafs pay for em

Westinghouse make nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers. Mitsubishi made jet fighters. Fiat Motors used to partner with Vasella Meccanotechnica to make some of the deadliest landmines and their delivery/dispersion systems on the market. Given Samsung wound have experience with making sophisticated communications devices for wireless connections and have a fairly reliable track record of delivering on projects, seems logical that they might be interested in the emerging markets of remote guided and networked defence systems.

So no?

Also the Wall is dumb, and I still don't get why the fuck people assume this will only cost 18 billion. Where the hell are they gettingthis figure from? Because sure as shit withthat amount of money, everything won't even be close to effective even if Trump wasvoted in twice.

Essentially for 18 billion you'll have an incomplete wall, without the trained personnel to patrol and keep it in serviceable condition. And that's over ten years in the future.

The way I see it 18 billion is enough to pretend you can build it, but everyone in Congress would know enough that it's going to cost well more than that but for Republicans it gives them the excuse it's somehow the evil Dems fault of getting in the wayof building it if they take the midterms ....

Warhound:

1) Because they should go through the process like everyone else that wants to live in our country, they shouldn't just have to jump the boarder and yell olly olly oxenfree while proper immigrants went through the time and work required. That being said we should really reform our immigration system.

In an ideal world, this would be possible to stop. However, as I and many people have pointed out, it's an extremely long border that stretches between large bodies of water over various biomes and properties. The best long-term solution is having the means on becoming a legal migrant/citizen easier or more inclusive, because if you throw these people out they're only going to try to find another way in. Simply getting a visa and a passport to come in legally and stay once the visa expires is already a common tactic to begin with.

2) Well considering they are breaking laws to come here literally every single one of them is a criminal by their very presence here. How many MORE crimes they commit is likely minimal, but they shouldn't have the chance to commit any.

Again, many come over legally and more or less just end up staying here past their limit. There is also the reality of people being brought here illegally and against their will as part of human trafficking, or as children by parents. That's partially why measures like the DREAM Act and DACA exist.

3) Yep, more stuff flows into this country, rather than out of it. But if you make the methods of bringing it in insanely expensive, and insanely risky, the prices of those products will skyrocket, and price out the customers. For human trafficking if the demand drops with the price raise because the supply can't make it through then that means less people will be kidnapped to be shipped over here.

You make it sound like there isn't a multi-million dollar national effort to arrest, punish, and make an example of any kind of illegal drug use or trafficking in this country for the past 50 years. The War on Drugs is a thing that exists and it hasn't solved the problem. The best solution that seems to work best is to legalize drugs and provide funding for rehabilitation centers for addicts.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Also the Wall is dumb, and I still don't get why the fuck people assume this will only cost 18 billion.

I have no idea where 18 billion came from. It was mentioned in this thread and I think everyone just used that figure.

Warhound:

I have no idea where 18 billion came from. It was mentioned in this thread and I think everyone just used that figure.

Oh no ... 18 billion was what was asked for over 10 years. But 18 billion is a fucking pipedream. I* get well enough that taxation from spending that much might recuperate the coffers, but that doesn't actually come close to actually portraying the total figure and nor would taxes recup anywhere near the amount needed ....

I feel like Trump and the Republicans pushed for 18 billion because at least they can pretend they can build the wall with that amount of money, but if the Dems sweep them out in 2018 and 2020 the Republicans can then claim that the Dems somehow fucked it all up. Essentially I have the feeling that Republicans are pushing to charge the American people 18 billion on a ten year pipedream for the sake of political point scoring in the future.

Nobody in their right mind pretends that all the costs associated with this project, all the legal challenges, all the unforeseen projection blowouts will come to a total of 18 billion .... just 18 billion is theoretically enoughfor them to basically talk over competing specialist and expert debateswhen they criticise the Republicans in debate.

I imagine the conversation would go like this;

'Pub Pundit: "Are you telling me that building the Wall would cost more than 18B?"

Expert: "I mean, yeah, hypothetically 18B over ten years you could build the wall, just that..."

'Pub Pundit: "So why is it that a now Democrat majority in Congress can't get their act together and deliver on the project!? Why are they now asking for 33B!?"

Expert: "Because that's how much it was projected to cost, not only that to complete all its non-Wall specific project costs we've been facing and with projected inflation --"

Pub Pundit: "So you're telling me that a Wall that you *yourself* say could be built for 18B is now costing the American people over 40B now!?"

And so on and so on...

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Warhound:

I have no idea where 18 billion came from. It was mentioned in this thread and I think everyone just used that figure.

Oh no ... 18 billion was what was asked for over 10 years. But 18 billion is a fucking pipedream. I* get well enough that taxation from spending that much might recuperate the coffers, but that doesn't actually come close to actually portraying the total figure and nor would taxes recup anywhere near the amount needed ....

I feel like Trump and the Republicans pushed for 18 billion because at least they can pretend they can build the wall with that amount of money, but if the Dems sweep them out in 2018 and 2020 the Republicans can then claim that the Dems somehow fucked it all up. Essentially I have the feeling that Republicans are pushing to charge the American people 18 billion on a ten year pipedream for the sake of political point scoring in the future.

Nobody in their right mind pretends that all the costs associated with this project, all the legal challenges, all the unforeseen projection blowouts will come to a total of 18 billion .... just 18 billion is theoretically enoughfor them to basically talk over competing specialist and expert debateswhen they criticise the Republicans in debate.

I imagine the conversation would go like this;

'Pub Pundit: "Are you telling me that building the Wall would cost more than 18B?"

Expert: "I mean, yeah, hypothetically 18B over ten years you could build the wall, just that..."

'Pub Pundit: "So why is it that a now Democrat majority in Congress can't get their act together and deliver on the project!? Why are they now asking for 33B!?"

Expert: "Because that's how much it was projected to cost, not only that to complete all its non-Wall specific project costs we've been facing and with projected inflation --"

Pub Pundit: "So you're telling me that a Wall that you *yourself* say could be built for 18B is now costing the American people over 40B now!?"

And so on and so on...

Plus there's the whole "AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!" shtick that's suddenly absent on the conversation from Trump & Friends.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Warhound:

I have no idea where 18 billion came from. It was mentioned in this thread and I think everyone just used that figure.

Oh no ... 18 billion was what was asked for over 10 years. But 18 billion is a fucking pipedream. I* get well enough that taxation from spending that much might recuperate the coffers, but that doesn't actually come close to actually portraying the total figure and nor would taxes recup anywhere near the amount needed ....

I feel like Trump and the Republicans pushed for 18 billion because at least they can pretend they can build the wall with that amount of money, but if the Dems sweep them out in 2018 and 2020 the Republicans can then claim that the Dems somehow fucked it all up. Essentially I have the feeling that Republicans are pushing to charge the American people 18 billion on a ten year pipedream for the sake of political point scoring in the future.

Nobody in their right mind pretends that all the costs associated with this project, all the legal challenges, all the unforeseen projection blowouts will come to a total of 18 billion .... just 18 billion is theoretically enoughfor them to basically talk over competing specialist and expert debateswhen they criticise the Republicans in debate.

I imagine the conversation would go like this;

'Pub Pundit: "Are you telling me that building the Wall would cost more than 18B?"

Expert: "I mean, yeah, hypothetically 18B over ten years you could build the wall, just that..."

'Pub Pundit: "So why is it that a now Democrat majority in Congress can't get their act together and deliver on the project!? Why are they now asking for 33B!?"

Expert: "Because that's how much it was projected to cost, not only that to complete all its non-Wall specific project costs we've been facing and with projected inflation --"

Pub Pundit: "So you're telling me that a Wall that you *yourself* say could be built for 18B is now costing the American people over 40B now!?"

And so on and so on...

See also, permanent tax cut for the super rich and expiring tax cuts for the middle/lower class...which will see the middle/lower class taxes spike during the hypothetical democrat administration.

Warhound:

1) Because they should go through the process like everyone else that wants to live in our country, they shouldn't just have to jump the boarder and yell olly olly oxenfree while proper immigrants went through the time and work required. That being said we should really reform our immigration system.
2) Well considering they are breaking laws to come here literally every single one of them is a criminal by their very presence here. How many MORE crimes they commit is likely minimal, but they shouldn't have the chance to commit any.

I mean, overstaying a visa is literally less of a crime than driving a car without insurance. Maybe don't oversell the "criminal" aspect of being undocumented?

3) Yep, more stuff flows into this country, rather than out of it. But if you make the methods of bringing it in insanely expensive, and insanely risky, the prices of those products will skyrocket, and price out the customers. For human trafficking if the demand drops with the price raise because the supply can't make it through then that means less people will be kidnapped to be shipped over here.

"And that's why we should be okay with killing the trafficked people as a deterrent".

2012 Wont Happen:
Watch as undocumented immigrant populations in the US jump after the wall just like they have after every security increase.

Before we got so paranoid about the border usually a family would just send one man across for a harvest season then he'd go home until the next year. Make it more expensive to come here by putting up barriers, people have to stay longer to make up the expense. Accordingly, they start to bring their whole families (a man can go a few months without seeing his family, probably won't be willing to go ten years without them), which contributes to the "anchor babies" the right loves to complain about so much.

If you want to reduce undocumented immigrant populations, you've got to work with the material reality of the situation, which is that a several thousand mile long border cannot actually be adequately policed to prevent illegal entry. That being the case, escalating border security only makes the problem worse.

I'm telling you, jail time for the executives of companies that use undocumented labor will keep more undocumented folks out than a wall of any height.

Of course, this is com8ng from a guy who's okay with migrant labor as long as companies were forced to pay everybody, undocumented or not, a living wage. Which, if you're having to pay real wages anyway, might as well employ citizens.

altnameJag:

Warhound:

1) Because they should go through the process like everyone else that wants to live in our country, they shouldn't just have to jump the boarder and yell olly olly oxenfree while proper immigrants went through the time and work required. That being said we should really reform our immigration system.
2) Well considering they are breaking laws to come here literally every single one of them is a criminal by their very presence here. How many MORE crimes they commit is likely minimal, but they shouldn't have the chance to commit any.

I mean, overstaying a visa is literally less of a crime than driving a car without insurance. Maybe don't oversell the "criminal" aspect of being undocumented?

3) Yep, more stuff flows into this country, rather than out of it. But if you make the methods of bringing it in insanely expensive, and insanely risky, the prices of those products will skyrocket, and price out the customers. For human trafficking if the demand drops with the price raise because the supply can't make it through then that means less people will be kidnapped to be shipped over here.

"And that's why we should be okay with killing the trafficked people as a deterrent".

Less of a crime based on...what? The punishment and severity of crimes like that is entirely arbitrary.

If it were me, personally, I would prefer a swift instant death rather than being raped and abused for years and years leading to what will most likely be a slow death. That's just me though, I'm not into being raped and abused, but you do you though.

altnameJag:

2012 Wont Happen:
Watch as undocumented immigrant populations in the US jump after the wall just like they have after every security increase.

Before we got so paranoid about the border usually a family would just send one man across for a harvest season then he'd go home until the next year. Make it more expensive to come here by putting up barriers, people have to stay longer to make up the expense. Accordingly, they start to bring their whole families (a man can go a few months without seeing his family, probably won't be willing to go ten years without them), which contributes to the "anchor babies" the right loves to complain about so much.

If you want to reduce undocumented immigrant populations, you've got to work with the material reality of the situation, which is that a several thousand mile long border cannot actually be adequately policed to prevent illegal entry. That being the case, escalating border security only makes the problem worse.

I'm telling you, jail time for the executives of companies that use undocumented labor will keep more undocumented folks out than a wall of any height.

Of course, this is com8ng from a guy who's okay with migrant labor as long as companies were forced to pay everybody, undocumented or not, a living wage. Which, if you're having to pay real wages anyway, might as well employ citizens.

I would personally be totally down for large jail times (And civil forfeiture of all possessions) for CEOs and execs who use illegals, as well as some solid temp visas for things like seasonal laborors with fair wages and taxes applied.

Edit: Maybe the jail and civil forfeiture for the manager/person who brought the illegal on instead, possibly up to regional manager, going too high with it could lead to some silly corporate espionage stuff. Possibly with reporting being ordered/"suggested" hiring illegals being reward and the ordering person being slapped.

Warhound:
Less of a crime based on...what? The punishment and severity of crimes like that is entirely arbitrary.

Let's back up for a second. How familiar are you with the nuts and bolts of the US criminal justice system? To back up jag's point, I smoke a lot of weed and that could actually get me into greater trouble than someone who overstayed a visa. Arbitrary or not, it's still a brute fact that this is a thing. And by the standards you are setting, I should be executed for getting baked and watching cartoons in my own home.

BeetleManiac:

Warhound:
Less of a crime based on...what? The punishment and severity of crimes like that is entirely arbitrary.

Let's back up for a second. How familiar are you with the nuts and bolts of the US criminal justice system? To back up jag's point, I smoke a lot of weed and that could actually get me into greater trouble than someone who overstayed a visa. Arbitrary or not, it's still a brute fact that this is a thing. And by the standards you are setting, I should be executed for getting baked and watching cartoons in my own home.

fucking stoners

why dont you just go get blackout drunk on legal alcohol and drink and drive like the rest of us!

Warhound:

Less of a crime based on...what? The punishment and severity of crimes like that is entirely arbitrary.

Driving without insurance is a criminal act, subject to arrest by police forces, criminal law proceedings, trial by jury (if push comes to shove), and prison sentences. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, which is on the same level as breaking any other contract, meaning the government has to sue you, police forces don't have any obligation to arrest you if they don't want, doesn't result in fines or jail time (outside of possible contempt of court), and isn't a jury trial.

For someone who's so gung-ho about enforcing the law to the point that shooting unarmed civilians is okay, you really don't know that much about it.

If it were me, personally, I would prefer a swift instant death rather than being raped and abused for years and years leading to what will most likely be a slow death. That's just me though, I'm not into being raped and abused, but you do you though.

I'd prefer rescue by law enforcement to death by naval shelling, yeah. Pretty sure their families would too. Also, not too keen on the whole slaughter of innocent civilians thing. I dunno, difference between nationalism and patriotism, I guess. Hopefully your background check picks up this forum.

Or the literal decades worth of experience that shows that killing civilians just to maybe kill a few bad guys does nothing but breed resentment and terrorists. Probably doubly so when you aren't too picky about whether or not there are actually bad guys.

Warhound:

I would personally be totally down for large jail times (And civil forfeiture of all possessions) for CEOs and execs who use illegals, as well as some solid temp visas for things like seasonal laborors with fair wages and taxes applied.

Edit: Maybe the jail and civil forfeiture for the manager/person who brought the illegal on instead, possibly up to regional manager, going too high with it could lead to some silly corporate espionage stuff. Possibly with reporting being ordered/"suggested" hiring illegals being reward and the ordering person being slapped.

Thank you for posting a textbook walkback explaining how every instance of immigration reform ends up not solving the problem.

Warhound:

I would personally be totally down for large jail times (And civil forfeiture of all possessions) for CEOs and execs who use illegals, as well as some solid temp visas for things like seasonal laborors with fair wages and taxes applied.

Edit: Maybe the jail and civil forfeiture for the manager/person who brought the illegal on instead, possibly up to regional manager, going too high with it could lead to some silly corporate espionage stuff. Possibly with reporting being ordered/"suggested" hiring illegals being reward and the ordering person being slapped.

Now you are just being a bleeding heart. If illegal immigration is such a serious national security issue that you would have illegal immigrants executed at the border, then the act of hiring illegal immigrants should be treated as tantamount to treason. Just think of how much you would discourage the practice if you had a bunch of CEOs and senior managers drawn and quartered on live TV.

Thaluikhain:
On a related note:

https://rewire.news/article/2018/01/09/justice-department-revokes-naturalized-citizenship-citing-fingerprint-issue/

....You should make a topic about that. I have SO much to say about it, but I feel like saying too much would derail this thread.

Nielas:

Warhound:

I would personally be totally down for large jail times (And civil forfeiture of all possessions) for CEOs and execs who use illegals, as well as some solid temp visas for things like seasonal laborors with fair wages and taxes applied.

Edit: Maybe the jail and civil forfeiture for the manager/person who brought the illegal on instead, possibly up to regional manager, going too high with it could lead to some silly corporate espionage stuff. Possibly with reporting being ordered/"suggested" hiring illegals being reward and the ordering person being slapped.

Now you are just being a bleeding heart. If illegal immigration is such a serious national security issue that you would have illegal immigrants executed at the border, then the act of hiring illegal immigrants should be treated as tantamount to treason. Just think of how much you would discourage the practice if you had a bunch of CEOs and senior managers drawn and quartered on live TV.

So only semi-serious but definitely off-topic suggestion:

Imagine how much the business practices of companies operating in the US would be if every other year during Congressional elections, voters got to pick the C-Suite and Board Members of a couple of Fortune 500 companies to draw and quarter as part of the new year's festivities.

Avnger:

Nielas:

Warhound:

I would personally be totally down for large jail times (And civil forfeiture of all possessions) for CEOs and execs who use illegals, as well as some solid temp visas for things like seasonal laborors with fair wages and taxes applied.

Edit: Maybe the jail and civil forfeiture for the manager/person who brought the illegal on instead, possibly up to regional manager, going too high with it could lead to some silly corporate espionage stuff. Possibly with reporting being ordered/"suggested" hiring illegals being reward and the ordering person being slapped.

Now you are just being a bleeding heart. If illegal immigration is such a serious national security issue that you would have illegal immigrants executed at the border, then the act of hiring illegal immigrants should be treated as tantamount to treason. Just think of how much you would discourage the practice if you had a bunch of CEOs and senior managers drawn and quartered on live TV.

So only semi-serious but definitely off-topic suggestion:

Imagine how much the business practices of companies operating in the US would be if every other year during Congressional elections, voters got to pick the C-Suite and Board Members of a couple of Fortune 500 companies to draw and quarter as part of the new year's festivities.

less deadly example, every other year we get to vote on which Fortune 500 company CEO's have to work at McDonalds and live in shitty apartments for a year.

like a more serious version of Undercover Boss, but the boss has to live paycheck to paycheck like the rest of us.

A Federal Judge in California strikes down Trump ending DACA, saying this Administration's reasoning was based on a 'flawed legal premise'. So even if another court, namely the Supreme Court, found in favor of Trump, as of right now, DACA is the law of the land.

So that's a good thing for Dreamers, but there definitely needs to be a Legislative Bill passed that keeps Dreamers safe. Trump will just keep trying to end the Executive DACA.

McMarbles:
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for this?

It doesn't matter for Trump whether Mexico pays for it.

Simply building it will constitute enough of a "win" that billing Mexico can simply be ignored. Kick the "Mexico pays" can down the road a year or two, attention will move on and no-one will care if Mexico is never even sent an invoice.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here