National Emergency

[phiwum]

Zero illegal crossings are beneficial. Breaking any law is not beneficial over doing it legally, except to the person committing the act.
What does Trumps opinion have to do with a crossing being illegal or not?

You sure must have a lot of faith in the government. You seem to presume that laws are always chosen for the best societal effects, no matter the situation.

Obviously, you can't literally mean what you wrote. If a man needs immediate help, for instance, you can't seriously think that a medical professional passing would benefit only himself if he trespassed on private property in order to aide the fella.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Marine Corps commandant says deploying troops to the border poses ‘unacceptable risk’

The commandant of the Marines has warned the Pentagon that deployments to the southwest border and funding transfers under the president's emergency declaration, among other unexpected demands, have posed “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.”

In two internal memos, Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller said the “unplanned/unbudgeted” deployment along the border that President Trump ordered last fall, and shifts of other funds to support border security, had forced him to cancel or reduce planned military training in at least five countries, and delay urgent repairs at bases.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...border-national-emergency-20190321-story.html

 

[wareyin]

Breaking any law is not beneficial over doing it legally, except to the person committing the act.

Never heard of Rosa Parks, or think she should have given up her seat?

 

[quadraginta]

On the plus side, new opportunities are appearing in razor wire entrepreneurship in Mexican border towns.

 

[Upchurch]

It's interesting that you think laws are always in the public's best interests. A brief study of history will find many examples where breaking a bad law was better than obeying it, ultimately more for the people who didn't break it over then immediately for the ones who did.

Never heard of Rosa Parks, or think she should have given up her seat?

What? An easily found example of someone breaking the law not for their own immediate benefit but ultimately to the benefit of those who didn’t break the law?

Why, it’s almost like that was one the examples I had in mind! Weird.

 

[wareyin]

What? An easily found example of someone breaking the law not for their own immediate benefit but ultimately to the benefit of those who didn’t break the law?

Why, it’s almost like that was one the examples I had in mind! Weird.

I figured as much, it's just that you have to really spell things out for some people to get the hint.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Marine Corps commandant says deploying troops to the border poses ‘unacceptable risk’



https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...border-national-emergency-20190321-story.html

If he is worried about that, I can't wait until he finds out about 16 years of nation building.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If we jailed those who knowingly employ undocumented workers, that would fix most of the immigration "problem". That won't happen though because big Ag has massive power in congress.

 

[quadraginta]

If we jailed those who knowingly employ undocumented workers, that would fix most of the immigration "problem". That won't happen though because big Ag has massive power in congress.

Not good enough. Even the rare times it would happen you'd be getting flunkies. Crew bosses and low level managers.

If you want to see the pipeline dry up then get the owners and top management behind bars for substantial sentences. With punitive financial penalties that crush their businesses.

And send them somewhere that rents out the inmates for agricultural labor.

Of course, making E-Verify universally mandatory instead of exempting all the trades that tend to hire illegals would be a good start.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed, quadrainta. I'm certain that the executives at the top pass down unwritten policies to hire undocumented workers in order to exploit them.

 

[quadraginta]

Agreed, quadrainta. I'm certain that the executives at the top pass down unwritten policies to hire undocumented workers in order to exploit them.

They just don't need to be too proactive about not hiring them to achieve the same effect.

I doubt it's happening in spite of their strenuous efforts to prevent it.

And I doubt that it is field supervisors and lower management who lobby so effectively against requiring simple measures like E-Verify from being required for the very industries which need to use them the most.

 

[mgidm86]

I think you might find that farmers who rely on seasonal migratory workers might disagree with you. And the contributions made to social security that will never be paid back out. And the sales tax paid.

It's interesting that you think laws are always in the public's best interests. A brief study of history will find many examples where breaking a bad law was better than obeying it, ultimately more for the people who didn't break it over then immediately for the ones who did.


Because Trump considers people entering the country to apply for sanctuary illegal when it's really not.

You sure must have a lot of faith in the government. You seem to presume that laws are always chosen for the best societal effects, no matter the situation.

Obviously, you can't literally mean what you wrote. If a man needs immediate help, for instance, you can't seriously think that a medical professional passing would benefit only himself if he trespassed on private property in order to aide the fella.

Never heard of Rosa Parks, or think she should have given up her seat?

Do you all think crossing the border should be legal for anyone in the world who feels like doing it?

If not, then we agree that this particular law is a good law. This is a law that should not be broken (illegal crossings).

If we need guest workers then we develop a strategy to make it easy to do legally for people we authorize to do it. Breaking the law to do it is not "beneficial".

Well it benefits the farmers and companies who hire illegals and can undercut the competition that way, that's for sure. My friend is a contractor and he can't compete against the guys who hire illegals because they bid jobs for less.

Social security? Just pay em under the table. You guys are living in a fantasy world. Yeah, we're really bringing in the big bucks from the illegals! How about entitlements?

Imagine how much better we'd be doing if they were here legally!!!

I mean it sounds like you guys are fine just leaving things as they are. Do you live in LA county with the 1 million illegals that do? Didn't think so. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Baylor]

Do you all think crossing the border should be legal for anyone in the world who feels like doing it?

If not, then we agree that this particular law is a good law. This is a law that should not be broken (illegal crossings).

If we need guest workers then we develop a strategy to make it easy to do legally for people we authorize to do it. Breaking the law to do it is not "beneficial".

Well it benefits the farmers and companies who hire illegals and can undercut the competition that way, that's for sure. My friend is a contractor and he can't compete against the guys who hire illegals because they bid jobs for less.

Social security? Just pay em under the table. You guys are living in a fantasy world. Yeah, we're really bringing in the big bucks from the illegals! How about entitlements?

Imagine how much better we'd be doing if they were here legally!!!

I mean it sounds like you guys are fine just leaving things as they are. Do you live in LA county with the 1 million illegals that do? Didn't think so. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Come on, we all know they're not looking to solve problems but are just high on self-righteousness. Meanwhile:

 

[Belz...]

Come on, we all know they're not looking to solve problems but are just high on self-righteousness. Meanwhile:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ZOh3upF.gif[/qimg]

Meanwhile what? Oh, you found a gif of a bunch of people exiting a truck. I'm sure that means something to you.

I can find videos of white people doing crack cocaine, I'm sure. Does that say something about white people? What are you on about?

 

[Upchurch]

Do you all think crossing the border should be legal for anyone in the world who feels like doing it?

What makes you think anyone would think that? The world is not made of false dichotomies.

If not, then we agree that this particular law is a good law. This is a law that should not be broken (illegal crossings).

That’s the problem. Your position is overly simplistic. There is no particular law or set of policies to enforce them. There are many pertinent laws. Some allow crossing the border and surrendering to authorities. Moreover, there are are a matter of priorities. What makes this such an important problem right now? Why this and not, say, jaywalking?

Social security? Just pay em under the table. You guys are living in a fantasy world.

You think all employers pay em under the table? You think all employers intentionally break the law when hiring undocumented immigrants? You don’t think anyone uses false SSNs when applying for jobs? You don’t think any of these people pay into social security with no hope of ever getting it back?

Well, someone is living in a fantasy world, but it isn’t me.

 

[phiwum]

Do you all think crossing the border should be legal for anyone in the world who feels like doing it?

If not, then we agree that this particular law is a good law. This is a law that should not be broken (illegal crossings).

My complaint was regarding the exaggerated principle (Breaking a law only benefits the lawbreaker).

I am not opposed to enforcing immigration laws, by and large. This includes the law that one in this country (legally or otherwise) has the right to apply for asylum.

I am opposed to building a wall as a means to enforce immigration laws. (NOTE: It would not prevent the current situation. The Post had an article about how the current fencing is back a ways from the Rio Grande, because it cannot be built on unstable soil. As a result, asylum seekers cross the river, they're in the nation, no matter which side of the fence they're on, and can legally apply for asylum.)

 

[Upchurch]

I am opposed to building a wall as a means to enforce immigration laws. (NOTE: It would not prevent the current situation.

This is one of the reasons I asked what problem we're trying to solve by building a wall.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If we jailed those who knowingly employ undocumented workers, that would fix most of the immigration "problem". That won't happen though because big Ag has massive power in congress.

Not good enough. Even the rare times it would happen you'd be getting flunkies. Crew bosses and low level managers.

If you want to see the pipeline dry up then get the owners and top management behind bars for substantial sentences. With punitive financial penalties that crush their businesses.

And send them somewhere that rents out the inmates for agricultural labor.

Of course, making E-Verify universally mandatory instead of exempting all the trades that tend to hire illegals would be a good start.

Agreed, quadrainta. I'm certain that the executives at the top pass down unwritten policies to hire undocumented workers in order to exploit them.

They just don't need to be too proactive about not hiring them to achieve the same effect.

I doubt it's happening in spite of their strenuous efforts to prevent it.

And I doubt that it is field supervisors and lower management who lobby so effectively against requiring simple measures like E-Verify from being required for the very industries which need to use them the most.

I used to try to point this sort of stuff out in every immigration thread, but it got tiring. I'm glad this issues are not being ignored, though.

Illegal immigration ebbs and flows with the relative economic opportunity offered here versus home. All we have to do is turn that opportunity off, or a least drive well down underground and punish those who try to use that underground labor. Currently, companies like Tyson Chicken are just laughing about the silly wall, because they will still be getting cheap labor.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, Reagan had his share of culpability. He just came along before the Internet arose to savage his values, which included amnesty and discouraged fence-worship. And George W. Bush did everything he could to get what you proposed passed. It was largely his own party that defeated him, and also IMO spawned the vitriol against McCain that Trump carries on 7 months after McCain died.

It did seem that Bush could get something done, on the "only Nixon could go to China" principle, but it seems that, given the current GOP, not even Nixon could have gone to China.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ryan Saavedra
‏Verified account
@RealSaavedra

BREAKING: The Pentagon has notified Congress that it has authorized the transfer of $1 billion to begin new wall construction along the US-Mexico border