U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It would stop illegals from entering a country they have no right to enter. If anything the US should operate like Israel on that matter. There's so much bait & buzzwords in that post roxas. 

If the Holocaust were legal, the Nuremberg Trials would not have happened. C'mon

[Phantom Roxas]

Care to explain how it's bait?

 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-why-comparing-the-mexican-and-gaza-borders-is-irresistible-but-dangerous-1.6697228

 

The situations in Israel and the US are not similar, so suggesting that we should operate like Israel is not the appropriate response to this. It's trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. What you're advocating for is outright murder, and that's also not the first time you've suggested that. Last time you said it was okay because migrants should not be treated as human beings. Crossing territories does not warrant murdering them.

 

The Holocaust was legal under German law. The Nuremberg Trials operated under international law. The Nuremberg Trials happened precisely because the Holocaust was allowed to be legal, so your revionist history will not work here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Care to explain how it's bait?

 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-why-comparing-the-mexican-and-gaza-borders-is-irresistible-but-dangerous-1.6697228

 

The situations in Israel and the US are not similar, so suggesting that we should operate like Israel is not the appropriate response to this. It's trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. What you're advocating for is outright murder, and that's also not the first time you've suggested that. Last time you said it was okay because migrants should not be treated as human beings. Crossing territories does not warrant murdering them.

 

The Holocaust was legal under German law. The Nuremberg Trials operated under international law. The Nuremberg Trials happened precisely because the Holocaust was allowed to be legal, so your revionist history will not work here.

I'm pretty open to treating hostile foreign invading our country as hostiles

 

If they're seeking asylum there are ports of entry

 

Situation is actually pretty similar when you realize cartels exist

[Horu]

Ok. So they come here seeking asylum. When you're law enforcement, you can't just open fire and kill people in cold blood, you have to be in legitimate danger. But Trump could try passing a bill concerning illegal migrants who seek asylum. Generally, he could state that the migrants in question would have asylum for a year (with food, water and shelter provided) while they sought out jobs and applied for citizenship. If that year expires and the migrants haven't applied for citizenship, then they would be deported (by force if necessary). This gives ICE less power over who comes in but it gives them plenty of freedom to weed out anyone who came to the US for free benefits.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm pretty open to treating hostile foreign invading our country as hostiles

 

If they're seeking asylum there are ports of entry

 

Situation is actually pretty similar when you realize cartels exist

 

For migrants who do not belong to cartels, and whose only "crime" is immigrating, what are they doing that is so hostile to our country?

 

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/faq-why-do-asylum-seekers-cross-us-border-between-ports-entry

 

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/how-rules-for-seeking-asylum-at-legal-ports-of-entry-could-be-driving-families-to-enter-the-us-illegally/

 

Ports of entries are managed so poorly that they're forced to cross the border instead, either to get into the country before Trump can enforce his discrimination policies, or to flee Mexico as soon as possible. Some also have either no information or bad information on how to properly seek asylum. The daily restrictions imposed by the Trump administration also make people feel less inclined to depend on the ports of entries. Trump claims that he wants more legal immigration, except the actions he's taking only make immigration that much more difficult, to the point that more and more forms of immigration are going to be illegal simply by virtue of Trump's restrictions.

 

The problem isn't that the immigration is illegal. It's that Trump's laws are wrong, and are more likely to help cartels, not harm them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ok. So they come here seeking asylum. When you're law enforcement, you can't just open fire and kill people in cold blood, you have to be in legitimate danger. But Trump could try passing a bill concerning illegal migrants who seek asylum. Generally, he could state that the migrants in question would have asylum for a year (with food, water and shelter provided) while they sought out jobs and applied for citizenship. If that year expires and the migrants haven't applied for citizenship, then they would be deported (by force if necessary). This gives ICE less power over who comes in but it gives them plenty of freedom to weed out anyone who came to the US for free benefits.

I think they should only open fire on the people who don't go through a port of entry. Americans are dying due to the opiates that cartels force illegals to carry as payment. American lives need to come first. Ideally we'd have a wall so that people don't get shot at all. The president could just lower refugee quotas if he wanted to. 

For migrants who do not belong to cartels, and whose only "crime" is immigrating, what are they doing that is so hostile to our country?

 

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/faq-why-do-asylum-seekers-cross-us-border-between-ports-entry

 

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/how-rules-for-seeking-asylum-at-legal-ports-of-entry-could-be-driving-families-to-enter-the-us-illegally/

 

Ports of entries are managed so poorly that they're forced to cross the border instead, either to get into the country before Trump can enforce his discrimination policies, or to flee Mexico as soon as possible. Some also have either no information or bad information on how to properly seek asylum. The daily restrictions imposed by the Trump administration also make people feel less inclined to depend on the ports of entries. Trump claims that he wants more legal immigration, except the actions he's taking only make immigration that much more difficult, to the point that more and more forms of immigration are going to be illegal simply by virtue of Trump's restrictions.

 

The problem isn't that the immigration is illegal. It's that Trump's laws are wrong, and are more likely to help cartels, not harm them.

Getting Asylum or any form of entry into the United States should be a privilege, not a right. How is this so hard for you to get.

 

For one it lowers low end wages. Which further exacerbates our income divide and creates a welfare state that needs to be growing in order to help real Americans. America doesn't owe the world anything, we're not the dumping ground for the unwanted. We can't financially support that anymore.

 

People are less inclined to go to ports of entry cuz they're full of sheet on why they want to come over.

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-how-bad-does-border-have-to-be-for-democrats-to-admit-its-an-emergency

 

Apprehensions of illegal border crossers now surging toward levels not seen since mid-2000s. Yet Democrats insist it's a 'fake emergency.' How high do numbers have to soar for them to admit emergency is real?

 

I look forward to beating y'all in court

[Horu]

I think they should only open fire on the people who don't go through a port of entry. Americans are dying due to the opiates that cartels force illegals to carry as payment. American lives need to come first. Ideally we'd have a wall so that people don't get shot at all. The president could just lower refugee quotas if he wanted to.

 

Getting Asylum or any form of entry into the United States should be a privilege, not a right. How is this so hard for you to get.

 

For one it lowers low end wages. Which further exacerbates our income divide and creates a welfare state that needs to be growing in order to help real Americans. America doesn't owe the world anything, we're not the dumping ground for the unwanted. We can't financially support that anymore.

 

People are less inclined to go to ports of entry cuz they're full of sheet on why they want to come over.

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-how-bad-does-border-have-to-be-for-democrats-to-admit-its-an-emergency

 

Apprehensions of illegal border crossers now surging toward levels not seen since mid-2000s. Yet Democrats insist it's a 'fake emergency.' How high do numbers have to soar for them to admit emergency is real?

 

I look forward to beating y'all in court

I don't condone murder. If drugs are a concern, Border Patrol can detain and search refugees before giving them asylum. Also, people seeking asylum are likely running from cartels. So jusr shooting everyone trying to cross means you'll likely only kill 1 or 2 cartel members for every 50 innocents. So would willingly kill 100 innocent people, some of which are children, just for the purpose of killing a maximum of 5 cartel members?

[vla1ne]

I'm not saying all illegals are bad. Some people live in Mexico and Canada and work in the US. I have no issue with that since they are honest and not seeking benefits. I have more issue with people that refuse citizenship and still want to live in the US and claim all the benefits of being a citizen. But if we keep allowing illegals to milk the system, I say that the river will eventually run dry and the mountain will crumble. Just a matter of time.

We can all hopefully agree with that. nobody beleives all illegals are bad. Even those against illegal immigration want said immigrants to life a good life. but fact is, we can't tell who's who out of the batch till it's too late, which is why preventing illegal immigration in the first place is the optimal solution. Also the benefits part. I've spoken on that multiple times. Some states truly do not wish to stop "sanctuary city" programs. fighting tooth and nail to keep them in place, all the while protesting the alternative solutions. Said programs and 'sanctuaries' are a drain on our economy and create absolutely massive incentive to come across illegally. which is one of the problems faced by trump at the moment. 

 

 

 

Ok. So they come here seeking asylum. When you're law enforcement, you can't just open fire and kill people in cold blood, you have to be in legitimate danger. But Trump could try passing a bill concerning illegal migrants who seek asylum. Generally, he could state that the migrants in question would have asylum for a year (with food, water and shelter provided) while they sought out jobs and applied for citizenship. If that year expires and the migrants haven't applied for citizenship, then they would be deported (by force if necessary). This gives ICE less power over who comes in but it gives them plenty of freedom to weed out anyone who came to the US for free benefits.

Agreed that we can't kill people off rip. that's a terrible idea, and i'm against that as much as you are. That said, we do know of quite a few people who illegally enter two or three times more after being deported. If such people are caught continuously, especially after a violent crime(s), I honestly support just killing them off. Catch and release only works with people who learn their lesson.

 

He tried to actually act in the spirit of the asylum program you just suggested. I happened to have responded to an article from roxas that demonstrates exactly why that's having problems (the most recent one in fact). Many of the hati victims (among others) had gained asylum after the tragedy struck them, and they've been here, many on benefits, ever since. trump tried to send as many of them back as he could, as they need to go back and help rebuild their country. The outcry raised against him just for that was massive. with accusations of hating Haitians and the like coming from all over the left. many of them trying to frame his actions in the most negative manner possible (see said article for an example), Even ICE is under assault with litigation being drafted to further limit their power and funding. Luckily congress shut down the restraints on their power, and trump is fighting the limits on their funding.

 

 

 

First, the wall has to span a distance of roughly 1500 miles. Then it needs to be about 4 feet thick. Also, it needs to rest in a 10 foot deep trench and be about 10-15 feet above the ground. In the long run, it is dependant on wether or not each state in question has funding for their portion of the wall. Ultimately, the cost of the wall will nearly bankrupt Texas and Arizona. Honestly, mobilizing the national guard to patrol the border would be more effective and economically sound than building a wall. Also, you're giving soldiers a much needed presence in their own country. For what it would cost to build the wall, the border states could assign guard units to patrol low security areas on the border for 4 weeks at a time.

The wall is being built in segments, from what i can tell. Each portion being individually reinforced as it's buried into the dirt. As for funding, winter has stated as much earlier, but it's being funded by the federal government, as it falls under national security concerns to have a wide open border while dealing with large amounts of illegal drugs/traffickers/immigrants. as for the national guard, the ideal is not to drag from other places, the ideal is to establish a barrier that can deter or delay long enough for the border patrol to arrive. It creates clear line for border patrol to travel along and monitor, and is more consistent overall while requiring far fewer people and money in the long run. professional architects and construction business owners estimated 25-30 billion from the start, and the wall has become quite a bit more spartan since then, so a 25 billion budget over the course of 2-4 years isn't too far out there. on top of that, the federal budget is 4 trillion. 25-30 billion over 2-4 years is a rather small investment overall. besides, it's true that wall+surveillance+personnel is the best coverage you can get at the border when it comes to drugs, because each one plays a different role. would you agree that that's a fair argument?

[Horu]

We can all hopefully agree with that. nobody beleives all illegals are bad. Even those against illegal immigration want said immigrants to life a good life. but fact is, we can't tell who's who out of the batch till it's too late, which is why preventing illegal immigration in the first place is the optimal solution. Also the benefits part. I've spoken on that multiple times. Some states truly do not wish to stop "sanctuary city" programs. fighting tooth and nailt to keep them in place, all the while protesting the alternative solutions. Said programs and 'sanctuaries' are a drain on our economy and create absolutely massive incentive to come across illegally. whish is one of the problems faced by trump at the moment.

 

 

 

Agreed that we can't kill people off rip. that's a terrible idea, and i'm against that as much as you are. That said, we do know of quite a few people who illegally enter two or three times more after being deported. If such people are caught continuously, especially after a violent crime(s), I honestly support just killing them off. Catch and release only works with people who learn their lesson.

 

He tried to actually act in the spirit of the asylum program you just suggested. I happened to have responded to an article from roxas that demonstrates exactly why that's having problems (the most recent one in fact). Many of the hati victims (among others) had gained asylum after the tragedy struck them, and they've been here, many on benefits, ever since. trump tried to send as many of them back as he could, as they nee to go back and help rebuild their country. The outcry raised against him just for that was massive. with accusations of hating Haitians and the like coming from all over the left. many of them trying to frame his actions in the most negative manner possible (see said article for an example), Even ICE is under assault with litigation being drafted to further limit their power and funding. Luckily congress shut down the restraints on their power, and trump is fighting the limits on their funding.

 

 

 

The wall is being built in segments, each portion being individually reinforced as it's buried into the dirt. As for funding, winter has stated as much earlier, but it's being funded by the federal government, as it falls under national security concerns to have a wide open border while dealing with large amounts of illegal drugs/traffickers/immigrants. as for the national guard, the ideal is not to drag from other places, the ideal is to establish a barrier that can deter or delay long enough for the border patrol to arrive. It creates clear line for border patrol to travel along and monitor, and is more consistent overall while requiring far fewer people and money in the long run. professional architects and construction business owners estimated 25-30 billion from the start, and the wall has become quite a bit more spartan since then, so a 25 billion budget over the course of 2-4 years isn't too far out there. on top of that, the federal budget is 4 trillion. 25-30 billion over 2-4 years is a rather small investment overall. besides, it's true that wall+surveillance+personnel is the best coverage you can get at the border when it comes to drugs, because each one plays a different role. would you agree that that's a fair argument?

You make some very fair points. As for the Asylum program, those benefits would expire after a year and they would receive no further government assistance until they became citizens. The sanctuary city thing is too hard on the economy because it allows illegals to milk the system indefinitely. I'm more suggesting, if they don't have a citizen application in the system by the time that 365 days expires, ICE is more than free to deport them. A year with free housing is more than enough time to apply for citizenship and find a job. Citizenship applications can be pushed through within 10 weeks. So in all fairness, if they haven't made an effort to submit the application, then they have no right to be here.

[vla1ne]

I'd agree to the asylum program the way you put it. it's similar to the way i was thinking of it. Trump was already going after the sanctuary cities. He was going to revoke federal funding for states that employed and encouraged sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. They fought it all the way up to the 9th circuit last time, and won because the SCOTUS refused to take it on after the 9th circuit ruled in favor of sanctuary cities. It's up for round 2 now, and the Supreme court is willing to give it a look this time as well, so we'll see how that turns out. I actually think they already got 2 good rulings on the matter but i can't recall right now, and don't have too much time to check. As for citizenship applications, that's something that i agree with most of the people here on, saying it needs some reform to be a little more efficient and effective. That happens to be another stalemate in the house though, so we likely won't get to see where that goes for a long time if the current political climate is any indication.

[Horu]

I'd agree to the asylum program the way you put it. it's similar to the way i was thinking of it. Trump was already going after the sanctuary cities. He was going to revoke federal funding for states that employed and encouraged sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. They fought it all the way up to the 9th circuit last time, and won because the SCOTUS refused to take it on after the 9th circuit ruled in favor of sanctuary cities. It's up for round 2 now, and the Supreme court is willing to give it a look this time as well, so we'll see how that turns out. I actually think they already got 2 good rulings on the matter but i can't recall right now, and don't have too much time to check. As for citizenship applications, that's something that i agree with most of the people here on, saying it needs some reform to be a little more efficient and effective. That happens to be another stalemate in the house though, so we likely won't get to see where that goes for a long time if the current political climate is any indication.

I say the citizen application can be pushed through in 10 weeks or less because when they join the army, they have to have citizenship status by the time they finish basic training or the army has to discharge and deport them.

[vla1ne]

The army is a separate deal though. They likely have that level of speed because they are entering the military, so they can probably get priority on their checks. For a considerable number of a foreign population though, they would likely be far slower to get everything needed to make them all (the people applying, not the entire group) citizens. just speculation on that though. could be wrong.

[Phantom Roxas]

The army is a separate deal though. They likely have that level of speed because they are entering the military, so they can probably get priority on their checks. For a considerable number of a foreign population though, they would likely be far slower to get everything needed to make them all (the people applying, not the entire group) citizens. just speculation on that though. could be wrong.

 

IIRC, the bolded is generally one of the largest problems with the immigration process? Hence why the debate can be split over whether immigrants are the problem, or if it's whether applying for citizenship can be needlessly convoluted. I understand the need for crowd control, but surely there's a point where it's too slow?

[Horu]

The army is a separate deal though. They likely have that level of speed because they are entering the military, so they can probably get priority on their checks. For a considerable number of a foreign population though, they would likely be far slower to get everything needed to make them all (the people applying, not the entire group) citizens. just speculation on that though. could be wrong.

That is a valid point. But remember, giving somebody a year to simply submit an application is more than enough time.

[vla1ne]

That is a valid point. But remember, giving somebody a year to simply submit an application is more than enough time.

agreed.

 

 

IIRC, the bolded is generally one of the largest problems with the immigration process? Hence why the debate can be split over whether immigrants are the problem, or if it's whether applying for citizenship can be needlessly convoluted. I understand the need for crowd control, but surely there's a point where it's too slow?

Slow is not an excuse for illegal though. There is also no such thing as too slow in regards to immigration (aside from asylum, which is far faster than standard citizenship, but requires far more specific circumstances) Even if the U.S. had a 10 year waiting period (so long as they were actually filing properly), not a single non citizen has the right to be here in the first place. It's at the discretion of the country whether or not it even accepts immigrants. I would agree that the process should be far smoother, no question, and 10 years is definitely unreasonable for immigration as far as that goes. The thing about that though is, even if it were dozens of times slower, it would be america's right to do so, and entering illegally would still be against the rules of the country.

[Horu]

Let's say you go to England and take advantage of their jobs, education, healthcare, and government handouts without ever becoming a citizen. Or let's say you do that with Mexico even. How do you think they would feel about you? Do you think they would want you there?

[Phantom Roxas]

Slow is not an excuse for illegal though. There is also no such thing as too slow in regards to immigration (aside from asylum, which is far faster than standard citizenship, but requires far more specific circumstances) Even if the U.S. had a 10 year waiting period (so long as they were actually filing properly), not a single non citizen has the right to be here in the first place. It's at the discretion of the country whether or not it even accepts immigrants. I would agree that the process should be far smoother, no question, and 10 years is definitely unreasonable for immigration as far as that goes. The thing about that though is, even if it were dozens of times slower, it would be america's right to do so, and entering illegally would still be against the rules of the country.

 

Nah, considering how modern America was founded on invading another country that belonged to its indigenous people, the United States has no such "right" to block off other immigrants. If you steal someone else's home, I'm not going to support you if you think you now get to decide who gets to come into that home. Give me a reason to support that hypocrisy.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Nah, considering how modern America was founded on invading another country that belonged to its indigenous people, the United States has no such "right" to block off other immigrants. If you steal someone else's home, I'm not going to support you if you think you now get to decide who gets to come into that home. Give me a reason to support that hypocrisy.

Mordern Mexico was founded by an invading nation that liked to sacrifice the hearts of children to their god, mate

[Phantom Roxas]

Mordern Mexico was founded by an invading nation that liked to sacrifice the hearts of children to their god, mate

 

Holy sheet this is so full of ignorance.

 

You're skipping a few centuries, and that doesn't address my argument anyway. I was disagreeing with whether America truly has the right to decide if it should accept immigrants, and why I believe that to be a hypocritical position.

[Horu]

Actually, the Spanish invaded Mexico and killed off the vast majority of Mayans and Aztecs. So modern Mexicans have very minute traces of Mayan/Aztec blood. That being said, the same happened when the English invaded North America. So under the logic of "Our ancestors are immagrants", Mexico shouldn't have rights to their border either. But the fact is this: The US Government purchased said territory from Mexico. So yes, the US has the right to decide who can and can't enter.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Actually, the Spanish invaded Mexico and killed off the vast majority of Mayans and Aztecs. So modern Mexicans have very minute traces of Mayan/Aztec blood. That being said, the same happened when the English invaded North America. So under the logic of "Our ancestors are immagrants", Mexico shouldn't have rights to their border either. But the fact is this: The US Government purchased said territory from Mexico. So yes, the US has the right to decide who can and can't enter.

I'm aware, noting that the Aztecs radically expanded their empire wiping out a lot of the older native tribes in pretty brutal ways. There's a reason a lot of Tribes joined the Spaniards in beating them down. Roxas loves to loath his own country to score political points. But if we're going to play that game, it's not like mexico's hands are clean either

California Attorney General calls for unauthorized immigration to be decriminalized

The overton widow is approaching super luminal speeds

[Phantom Roxas]

"They are not criminals,” Becerra told HuffPost regarding those who cross the border illegally in an interview published on Wednesday. “They haven’t committed a crime against someone, and they are not acting violently or in a way that’s harmful to people. And I would argue they are not harming people indirectly either."

 

Becerra is making a pretty solid argument. Don't really see much of an issue here, so I support his call to decriminalize unauthorized immigration, especially since he said that it should still carry consequences.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Them being here lowers wages for actual Americans. That's a harm. They take up resources they have no rights to. 

 

There's no such thing as a good illegal. They're a blight on this country and tolerating them is perpetuating the rape of our sovereignty.  

No offense Roxas, that's one of the most cuckish things I've ever heard someone say

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

"A decrease in the supply of immigrants can only increase native wages if immigrants and natives are substitutes for one another; in other words, if they compete for the same jobs. According to the types of his policies, President Trump appears to believe that natives and immigrants compete for both low-skilled and high-skilled jobs."

"Restricting immigration will not have a substantial positive impact on native wages, at least in real terms. The question then is: What types of alternative impacts might occur if migration was further restricted?"

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs

"A recent analysis commissioned and published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found 'the literature on employment impacts finds little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers.'"

 

There are so many other factors affecting wages that have little to nothing to do with immigration. Maybe use other sources instead of parroting talking points from Stephen Miller? Immigrants take up resources that other Americans wouldn't even want to use anyway.

[Horu]

"They are not criminals,” Becerra told HuffPost regarding those who cross the border illegally in an interview published on Wednesday. “They haven’t committed a crime against someone, and they are not acting violently or in a way that’s harmful to people. And I would argue they are not harming people indirectly either."

 

Becerra is making a pretty solid argument. Don't really see much of an issue here, so I support his call to decriminalize unauthorized immigration, especially since he said that it should still carry consequences.

Ok. Let's put it into easier terms.

Let's say somebody breaks into your house, uses your electricity, water, gas, cable, internet, bed, eats your food and refuses to leave. How would you feel about that person?