Moiraine Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said: It seems like there's some apples and oranges comparisons in here. As far as whether illegal immigration is a net negative, B.B. and StPaul seem like you're talking about the morality involved in following or breaking the law, whereas Moiraine focused on the overall effects of illegal immigration on the country as a whole. I was definitely focused on the latter. That said, I don't think there is anything immoral about crossing an invisible line between 2 geographic locations. It is in the US's best interests to stop a flood of immigrants from entering and doing damage to the economy, etc., and that's why we should do it, and we are doing that. And I think we're doing enough of it. It's decreased a crapton over the years. I also don't think there is anything immoral about crossing the street at a place not marked by a crosswalk. It's in the US's (or individual communities') best interest to deter this behavior because it costs taxpayer money to clean up the mess when someone gets run over by a car, so that's why I think the law should continue to exists. But I think we are doing enough. Link to comment
FrankWheeler Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Except it's not a campaign promise. He promised Mexico would pay for it. AND the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for the past two years, there is no reason why this couldn't have been approved then if Republicans believed funding the construction of the wall was the correct thing to do. 2 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said: AND the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for the past two years, there is no reason why this couldn't have been approved then if Republicans believed funding the construction of the wall was the correct thing to do. They did approve "some" funding during that 2 years Link to comment
FrankWheeler Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: They did approve "some" funding during that 2 years Wasn't that more for replacement than for new wall? Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: So, you agree that we get benefit from foreign aid. What evidence do you have that we are spending too much on it? What country do you think we should pull money out of and what affects do you think that would cause? 42% of our foreign aid goes towards the "long-term development" of foreign countries (the majority of that is related to HIV/AIDS in the poorest parts of Africa). That would seem to be a damn good place to start. 33 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Building walls instead of bridges is usually a pretty profound metaphor, but we literally need to be building bridges instead of walls according to the American infrastructure. Makes business sense, too. Yes. If I have to travel those Iowa interstates one more time on my way to a Husker game! 1 Link to comment
Waldo Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Saying illegal immigration isn't a problem is sticking your head in the sand. We need legal immigrants in this county and people coming into the country need to do it legally. HOW we accomplish that is where the debate needs to be. Our immigration laws are pathetic. It's extremely difficult for someone to become legal. No, it shouldn't just be sign a piece of paper and done. But, it definitely needs to be MUCH easier than it is. The biggest issue with this stupid wall is that it's 95% a political grandstanding by Trump. The majority of illegals don't come across that border. So....why is it that that seems to be the ONLY place he's concentrating? Answer.....because stoping those brown people gets his base all lathered up. Overstaying Visa’s? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Waldo said: Overstaying Visa’s? We have a winner!!! About 700,000 travelers to the United States overstayed their visas in fiscal 2017, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security has published figures. DHS estimated that, as of Sept. 30, 2017, the end of that fiscal year, more than 600,000 of those travelers were still in the U.S. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 22 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Yes. If I have to travel those Iowa interstates one more time on my way to a Husker game! They're kind of a lull until you get to the World's Largest Truckstop. Then you know it's time to party! Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Well...there's a very strong argument to be made ( and I would support it) to now help places like Honduras deal with these issues. If we can help them deal with the gangs and drug lords, families would not be fleeing at the rate they are to the US. It's easy to proclaim foreign aid needs to stop, but there are consequences to those actions. This is essentially the rationale for a lot of the libertarian-minded reform efforts that have been done by groups like the Koch Brothers in Central America. Imagine if Venezuela had a fledgling market economy that idealized free-trade and international cooperation instead of a commie dictator that's piledriving their economy into the ground while he himself is fine. This argument is virtually always going to butt heads with those that think we need to spend less on foreign aid and stop being world police, but there's an argument to be made that it would be best for us and them long-term to have a stable market economy helping boost the global economy that we can then trade with instead of an unstable protectionist no-go zone. And, like you said, it would potentially stem the tide of people fleeing these countries if they are stable, safer and doing well financially. It's a bit dicey as to whether intervening is the right choice, but you brought up a good point. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 19 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said: They're kind of a lull until you get to the World's Largest Truckstop. Then you know it's time to party! Never seen it, but just googled it.... Iowa's greatest contribution to travelers, I'd say. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said: This is essentially the rationale for a lot of the libertarian-minded reform efforts that have been done by groups like the Koch Brothers in Central America. Imagine if Venezuela had a fledgling market economy that idealized free-trade and international cooperation instead of a commie dictator that's piledriving their economy into the ground while he himself is fine. This argument is virtually always going to butt heads with those that think we need to spend less on foreign aid and stop being world police, but there's an argument to be made that it would be best for us and them long-term to have a stable market economy helping boost the global economy that we can then trade with instead of an unstable protectionist no-go zone. And, like you said, it would potentially stem the tide of people fleeing these countries if they are stable, safer and doing well financially. It's a bit dicey as to whether intervening is the right choice, but you brought up a good point. I can appreciate that (even if I disagree to an extent), but you have to wonder that if the return is worth the investment. Especially in some of the African countries. 1 Link to comment
deedsker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 https://abcnews.go.com/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672 Quote The largest single group of asylum seekers ever to cross into the U.S. tunneled beneath the border wall near San Luis, Arizona, on Monday, voluntarily turning themselves into Customs and Border Protection, according to the agency. Quote The vast majority of them, like the group near Yuma Monday, surrender immediately or seek out Border Patrol agents in order to begin the asylum process. It's almost like they just want to be heard and what is at the border doesn't actually matter...Imagine if their cases were just heard at points of entry. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Imagine how many immigration hearing judges we could hire for $5 billion. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, knapplc said: Imagine how many immigration hearing judges we could hire for $5 billion. None. Because we are in a shutdown over a stupid, stupid immigration idea. 2 Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, deedsker said: https://abcnews.go.com/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672 It's almost like they just want to be heard and what is at the border doesn't actually matter...Imagine if their cases were just heard at points of entry. How many would flee into the country, never to return for their hearings? Link to comment
Recommended Posts