[Plantagenet]

Trump was right. There is a humanitarian disaster going on at the borders. Tens of thousands of women and children are streaming to the US border because they can get food stamps, free medical care, housing assistance, etc. etc. as soon as they cross the border and say the magic words "I am seeking asylum".

Clearly we need to reform our immigration system so we aren't attracting tens of thousands of vulnerable women and children to our borders.

Cheers!

[Revi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')rump was right.
Clearly we need to reform our immigration system so we aren't attracting tens of thousands of vulnerable women and children to our borders.
Cheers!

[Newfie]

The only reason the economy needs more people is to infuse growth. To stop AGW you need to stop growth, including human population.

I know we are taping about things being terribly unfair and frankly brutal.

But this is a real life game of Lifeboat.

Every public gathering place I see has some maximum occupancy: theater, restaurant, ball park, whatever. The USA (or any other country) is a public gathering place for the citizens. What is our “Maximum Occupancy”?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', '
')Sure, what are we going to do?

[Revi]

Okay, so we start sending those kids back to the towns they have relatives in. Who rides the bus to the town? I used to live there, and it's a long way on bad roads back to every tiny town people are coming from. Some are on impassable roads in the rainy season, which starts in June. It's going to be a very difficult task.

[Cog]

Their difficulties are not my problem. Don't make it my problem and we won't have to resort to more drastic measures to keep them out.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', ' ')

But this is a real life game of Lifeboat.

?

[Newfie]

Ibon,
I’m OK with that. I’m also OK with providing the bordering countries with some additional aid to make things better where they are.

Cog,
Their difficulties are not your/our problem in a legal sense. In a real world sense they are very much of a problem or else we would not have had the government shutdown and all the ensuing turmoil. Trump and his staff also seem to think it’s a problem, Hensel the National Emergency.

Now what is the best and most cost effective way to deal with the issue? Trump had a problem with Stormy Danielle. Presumably it was sex between consenting adults. Maybe considerations were involved? Who knows. But legally there were no ties, no problem. When it became an “optics” problem then Trump knew how to fix it. He made a deal.

He needs to show some similar outside the box creative thinking on the immigration issue. Walls in some areas probably make sense, at least in the short term. In the long term something else needs to be done.

[Cog]

A simple law change that would require congressional action. If you enter the country illegally you can not claim asylum now or ever. You are immediately deported. No judicial review, no waits, no legal process to slow things down. If you try to enter again, you are sentenced to a hard labor camp for five years.

You can only claim asylum at an official point of entry and you must stay south of the border until it's approved, if ever.

[Newfie]

Are you advocating for that change or describing existing law?

[Newfie]

I very seldom read Tucker Carlson, too partisan, and much of this commentary of his is just that, partisan drivel. Yet there is a bit to it that, to me, makes good sense. In fact it’s something I’ve been saying for a while. So I found it interesting that it actually came up. It would have been far better for it to be framed in a less polarized manner, yet there it is.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')First and most obvious, how many immigrants should we admit every year? What's the ideal number? We currently take a little over a million every year, legally. Should we double that to over two million? How about 10 million immigrants a year? How about 20 million? Is there any number that's too high? And if so, why?

While we are at it, what's the ideal population of the United States? Immigration affects population size more than any other factor. We're at about 325 million people in the United States today, and that's a lot. Our highways are crumbling, many of our cities are painfully overcrowded. How big should we get? 400 million? 600 million? A billion people?

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'A')re you advocating for that change or describing existing law?

[Newfie]

Thanks for the reply.

[Revi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'T')heir difficulties are not my problem. Don't make it my problem and we won't have to resort to more drastic measures to keep them out.

[Cog]

I mow my own lawn. I do my own dishes since most of my meals are home cooked and I don't have a pool. If wages have to go up to pay Americans to do those jobs I'm fine with that. You import masses of people who cant assimilate, it's you who will be assimilated. I don't give a damn how hard they work. They can work hard in their own country.

[onlooker]

Cog, Republicans have had periods since WWII, whereby they had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. So, why didn't they reform Immigration laws to stop this flooding of immigrants? Simple, because the powerful business lobby ie. Chambers of Commerce like things the way they are, as they get to exploit these illegals wantonly. Like all the issues and problems in the US for the average person, follow the money that is what dictates the policies.

[Cog]

Oh I get that completely onlooker. Both parties have motivations never to stop illegals. How many is enough? 10 million, 50 million, 100 million. Pick a number you want here. They will destroy the Usa and you and others desire it to happen.

[Newfie]

This will be interesting.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a legal battle with lasting implications that could dramatically affect political representation and federal funding over the next decade. The justices are weighing whether to allow the Trump administration to add a question about U.S. citizenship status to forms for the upcoming 2020 census.

In multiple lawsuits brought by dozens of states, cities and other groups, three federal judges at U.S. district courts have issued rulings blocking the administration's plans for the question. It asks, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

All three judges — in New York, California and Maryland — ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision to include the question violated procedures for adding new census questions under administrative law. The judges in California and Maryland have also ruled that adding the question is unconstitutional because it hurts the government's ability to carry out the constitutional mandate for a once-a-decade head count of every person living in the U.S.

[KaiserJeep]

It's an interesting question. Prior rulings have established that all resident people in this country enjoy some but not all rights delineated in the US Constitution. The right to vote is a key priviledge.

I myself take a pragmatic approach. If a person has a valid SSN and a history of paying payroll taxes, and a voter registration (either a party or non-aligned), they should be able to vote. If however they have been participating in an underground economy, have been enjoying the privileges of a citizen without paying - then they are a criminal and a burden on real citizens.

[Newfie]

There a number of good reasons to start a federal citizen registry.

Not thinking of a lot of good reasons no to.