07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 7172737475 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    You're wrong. This problem predates that. Additionally, people that come here now are ineligible for any previously made decisions.

    You're also wrong about him doing nothing to secure the border. Do you realize that border security is part of the legislation that Obama has pushed for years, and that was passed by the Senate but has sat there in the House going nowhere because John Boehner will not bring it up for a vote? Must be Boehner who wants an open border. Do you realize that part of the money he has asked for this week includes security? Do you realize that Hispanics are upset with him and call him the "deporter in chief" due to the numbers deported under his administration? You seem oblivious to all of that.

    You're also wrong on the money. You can put all the military you want on border and money will still be needed. Because people are already here and still, by law, need their hearings which takes time and personal to administer which cost money.

    Posted via Android Central App
    You are wrong on all counts. This current problem is the direct result of Obama's actions.
    As far as his legislation to secure the border, it is buried in a " comprehensive" immigration legislation. Republicans want the border secured first, because they know that it will never be done otherwise. They have passed bills in the House to secure the border, and Harry Reid won't bring them up for a vote in the Senate.
    Plus, what is the reason for not securing the border with military now? They have even pulled the border agents off the border to help take care of the illegals, leaving the border wide open for illegals and drug smugglers. Because if that isn't done, then this current tide of illegals will continue to enter, counting on Obama's suggestion that they can stay.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 04:20 PM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You are wrong on all counts. This current problem is the direct result of Obama's actions.
    As far as his legislation to secure the border, it is buried in a " comprehensive" immigration legislation. Republicans want the border secured first, because they know that it will never be done otherwise. They have passed bills in the House to secure the border, and Harry Reid won't bring them up for a vote in the Senate.
    Plus, what is the reason for not securing the border with military now? They have even pulled the border agents off the border to help take care of the illegals, leaving the border wide open for illegals and drug smugglers. Because if that isn't done, then this current tide of illegals will continue to enter, counting on Obama's suggestion that they can stay.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I'm not wrong on ANY of those things. Why would border securing not be done on a comprehensive plan? Just make the law require everything be done concurrently, set the wheels in motion and get it done. Besides, if the GOP was so concerned with border security, they have had plenty of congresses and White House occupations in which to do so. This is just more of the same inaction that Boehner could resolve tomorrow if he wanted to.

    And (yet again) anything Obama has done previously does not pertain to anyone coming in now. They are coming because they fear for their lives or their children's life's. Not because Obama has rolled out the welcome mat for them.

    I'm okay with the military being deployed. Although couldn't Rick Perry do some mobilization of his own as well?

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-09-2014 06:37 PM
  3. pappy53's Avatar
    "This is just more of the same inaction that Boehner could resolve tomorrow if he wanted to."
    I could say the same thing about Harry Reid. Why won't he submit a bill to secure the border first?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 07:01 PM
  4. pappy53's Avatar
    On top of everything else, the Democratic congressman from Texas that has disagreed with Obama on his handling of this situation was told today by other Democrats to shut up because it was making the president look bad.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 07:04 PM
  5. GadgetGator's Avatar
    "This is just more of the same inaction that Boehner could resolve tomorrow if he wanted to."
    I could say the same thing about Harry Reid. Why won't he submit a bill to secure the border first?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Because you can't solve this problem piecemeal. The entire plan which would address the problem is on the table. If this is something you REALLY care about, (and not just trying to make political points) then write the speaker of the house and tell him you want an up and down vote on something that has ALREADY been agreed to on a bipartisan basis.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-09-2014 07:34 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Why would border securing not be done on a comprehensive plan? Just make the law require everything be done concurrently, set the wheels in motion and get it done.
    If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that how amnesty was sold to the nation under Regan? We'll do it all at once! Except nothing happened other than amnesty, and Republicans don't want to be fooled again. The first amnesty plan was before my time, and that's just how it was explained to me.

    But even if that wasn't the case, the track record on the rest of our government's activities would suggest a comprehensive plan would result in nothing more than amnesty through lack of enforcement anyway. I can't count the number of times they promised us something "comprehensive," only to partially deliver. I don't blame anyone that would want the government to show some responsibility through boarder security and cracking down on illegal employers before letting them decide how to handle future illegals. Otherwise it's just closing the barn door after the horses left, assuming it gets closed at all.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-09-2014 07:35 PM
  7. pappy53's Avatar
    I happen to agree with the speaker, because if everything is done at one time the Democrats will never secure the border.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 07:36 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    I don't blame anyone that would want the government to show some responsibility through boarder security and cracking down on illegal employers before letting them decide how to handle future illegals.
    I always get the impression that businesses like illegal immigration because they get a source of cheap labor. If businesses can influence the government, there will be less of an incentive to enforce the border.
    07-09-2014 07:54 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I always get the impression that businesses like illegal immigration because they get a source of cheap labor. If businesses can influence the government, there will be less of an incentive to enforce the border.
    I agree 100% they like illegals for cheap labor. That incentive could be drastically reduced and their lobbying efforts killed overnight if we can enact the Fair Tax.

    Been a while since I've brought up that plan.
    Scott7217 and nolittdroid like this.
    07-09-2014 08:15 PM
  10. busa2006's Avatar
    Lmao. ..The things people post
    07-09-2014 08:53 PM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    Lmao. ..The things people post
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (in her biography on Voltaire)
    07-09-2014 09:10 PM
  12. GadgetGator's Avatar
    If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that how amnesty was sold to the nation under Regan? We'll do it all at once! Except nothing happened other than amnesty, and Republicans don't want to be fooled again. The first amnesty plan was before my time, and that's just how it was explained to me.

    But even if that wasn't the case, the track record on the rest of our government's activities would suggest a comprehensive plan would result in nothing more than amnesty through lack of enforcement anyway. I can't count the number of times they promised us something "comprehensive," only to partially deliver. I don't blame anyone that would want the government to show some responsibility through boarder security and cracking down on illegal employers before letting them decide how to handle future illegals. Otherwise it's just closing the barn door after the horses left, assuming it gets closed at all.
    So if Republicans don't want to get fooled again, then there shouldn't be any objection to putting it up for a vote then, right? Oh...what's that? Wait... there might be enough Republican votes FOR it? Oh dear. It sounds like their trust issues are a lot closer to home than the other party. Meanwhile while they stand on paranoid principle, Rome is burning. Great plan. (Slow golf clap)

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-09-2014 09:53 PM
  13. pappy53's Avatar
    Why are the rules different for the Central American children? They come to this country and can stay up to two years with no worry of being deported.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 10:13 PM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    So if Republicans don't want to get fooled again, then there shouldn't be any objection to putting it up for a vote then, right?
    I'm guessing since you're referring to Republicans holding back, you're talking about a "comprehensive" (I've come to hate that term as much as "leveling the playing field" ) plan. If so, re-read the last part of my last post. It answers your question.
    07-09-2014 10:41 PM
  15. pappy53's Avatar
    It is funny to me that MSNBC and some of the national news reporting organizations are kind of turning on Obama now. They just can't protect him anymore.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-09-2014 10:55 PM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Here's another thought. It's obviously costing us money to deal with these kids and other illegals from countries we're sending financial aid to. How about we charge those countries for the care of their citizens, take it out of the money we're sending them, and redirect that to the care of their illegals until returned. I'm sure those countries will throw a fit, but it's not like our money has done them much good in the first place.

    I also heard another great example of how lopsided our government is related to this. There's a new rival to the Panama Canal in the works in Nicaragua, funded and ran by a Hong Kong company.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal

    That's going to be millions, if not billions invested into that country. Now let's look at the U.S's financial aid to that country over the years. I couldn't find any current numbers and the amounts have fluctuated over the years, but I did find this bit giving a summation.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicar...ates_relations

    Since 1990, the United States has provided over $1.2 billion in assistance to Nicaragua. About $260 million of that was for debt relief, and another $450 million was for balance-of-payments support. The U.S. also provided $93 million in 1999, 2000, and 2001 as part of its overall response to Hurricane Mitch. In response to Hurricane Felix, the United States provided over $400,000 in direct aid to Nicaragua to support recovery operations from the damage inflicted in September 2007.
    Now let's look at the results. Nicaragua stands to see a potential huge economic boost through commercial enterprise, putting people to work on the canal, and the Hong Kong company stands to profit from the effort if it succeeds. The U.S. just hands the money over to the government, where who knows where it went, the country is still in abject poverty, and what do we get in return? Their citizens sneaking over our borders, where they become a drain on our society like every other illegal. Who do you think spent their money the most wisely there?

    And what of those and other illegals now in our country, working under the table? Guess what, that excess labor now depresses the wages of everyone due to over supply. Those jobs taken by illegals means the would be legal workers for the same jobs are now competing for the other jobs out there, and the laws of supply and demand take over. Wages for regular workers go down while the company owners still rake in the cash. Guess what that means...

    It's the current darling of the left, greater income inequality gap!!! But you'll never hear those in power on the left (and I suspect many of the commoners like us on these forums) make that connection. At least not publicly. Just recently, Pelosi referred to the immigration crisis as a "community with a border running through it."

    Not to say Republicans, Libertarians, and other parties aren't without their problem people, but there is plenty of hypocrisy like this on the left to be found if you actually think their policies through.
    07-10-2014 12:10 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Thread is re-opened. Let's pretend I said the thing I always say. Thanks!
    07-10-2014 11:18 AM
  18. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Why are the rules different for the Central American children? They come to this country and can stay up to two years with no worry of being deported.
    I imagine it's because other countries do not share a border with the U.S. so it makes it more difficult to return the people to the correct country. But ultimately you'll have to ask that question to the last President since that is when this was enacted.
    07-10-2014 02:24 PM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Now let's look at the results. Nicaragua stands to see a potential huge economic boost through commercial enterprise, putting people to work on the canal, and the Hong Kong company stands to profit from the effort if it succeeds. The U.S. just hands the money over to the government, where who knows where it went, the country is still in abject poverty, and what do we get in return? Their citizens sneaking over our borders, where they become a drain on our society like every other illegal.
    Not sure why you are focused on Nicaragua. The current humanitarian crisis we are experiencing is coming from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

    And what of those and other illegals now in our country, working under the table? Guess what, that excess labor now depresses the wages of everyone due to over supply. Those jobs taken by illegals means the would be legal workers for the same jobs are now competing for the other jobs out there, and the laws of supply and demand take over. Wages for regular workers go down while the company owners still rake in the cash. Guess what that means...
    How many american citizens want to work on a field picking lettuce?
    07-10-2014 02:34 PM
  20. SteveISU's Avatar
    I'd just start loading them on a plane and shipping them back in thirds to the respective countries. Fast turn around back to where they came from will likely be a decent deterrent.
    toober likes this.
    07-10-2014 02:52 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Not sure why you are focused on Nicaragua. The current humanitarian crisis we are experiencing is coming from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
    Our problems are from central America in general, and this just happened to be a current story about the new canal.

    How many american citizens want to work on a field picking lettuce?
    That's a loaded question. Of course none at the illegal wages, but pay them enough and people will. There's also the argument that you could take the unemployed people on welfare and make them take some of those jobs at a legal wage in order to keep their benefits. You may call it something like turning them into slaves by forcing them to work, but keep in mind that things like unemployment require you to look for a job to get the benefit. So if a job is waiting for them and they don't take it, they should loose the benefit.

    There's a saying that no one is too good to work at McDonald's/Wal-Mart. They also aren't too good to pick lettuce.
    toober likes this.
    07-10-2014 02:57 PM
  22. SteveISU's Avatar
    I imagine it's because other countries do not share a border with the U.S. so it makes it more difficult to return the people to the correct country. But ultimately you'll have to ask that question to the last President since that is when this was enacted.
    A law that was passed unanimously by both party's to deal with sex trafficking. A law that has been on the books for 6yrs now and we haven't had to deal with surges like this yearly for 6yrs. My guess is people in S. America realize their might be a chance to "get in" with this current President and they're using kids to take their best shot.
    07-10-2014 03:46 PM
  23. GadgetGator's Avatar
    A law that was passed unanimously by both party's to deal with sex trafficking. A law that has been on the books for 6yrs now and we haven't had to deal with surges like this yearly for 6yrs. My guess is people in S. America realize their might be a chance to "get in" with this current President and they're using kids to take their best shot.
    Your "guess" would be wrong. Also your idea that you can just put people back on a plane ignores reality and is far too simplistic. First, there is our own law that must be followed. Can't complain about illegals breaking the law while doing it ourselves. So these kids are stuck here for awhile.

    Next you fail to realize that many of these kids don't know where home is. So how are you suppose to return them there? What's your father's name? "Papi". Where do you live? " Mi Casa". Those are the types of responses you get with young children.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-10-2014 04:46 PM
  24. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Our problems are from central America in general, and this just happened to be a current story about the new canal.


    That's a loaded question. Of course none at the illegal wages, but pay them enough and people will. There's also the argument that you could take the unemployed people on welfare and make them take some of those jobs at a legal wage in order to keep their benefits. You may call it something like turning them into slaves by forcing them to work, but keep in mind that things like unemployment require you to look for a job to get the benefit. So if a job is waiting for them and they don't take it, they should loose the benefit.

    There's a saying that no one is too good to work at McDonald's/Wal-Mart. They also aren't too good to pick lettuce.
    Your comment ignores the fact that these jobs are in rural areas, not cities so there's a geographical relocation component to this for many people as well.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-10-2014 04:50 PM
  25. SteveISU's Avatar
    Your "guess" would be wrong. Also your idea that you can just put people back on a plane ignores reality and is far too simplistic. First, there is our own law that must be followed. Can't complain about illegals breaking the law while doing it ourselves. So these kids are stuck here for awhile.

    Next you fail to realize that many of these kids don't know where home is. So how are you suppose to return them there? What's your father's name? "Papi". Where do you live? " Mi Casa". Those are the types of responses you get with young children.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Explain to me how my guess is wrong? Because you say it is? You don't think other countries watch what is going on in the US? A country they are trying any which way to get into? Then why now? Why is the flood occurring when our current POTUS has outwardly stated he wants immigration reform and he'll do it himself without the house or the senate?

    Kids don't know where home is or they have been told to lie, don't talk, ect. My 3yr old knows mine and my wifes first, middle, and last name. My 7yr old knew his address and phone number from age 5. Both sure as heck know they live in Illinois.
    07-10-2014 05:02 PM
1,900 ... 7172737475 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD