• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

most countries don't violate the International Law on asylum seekers.
most countries have a working system for processing migrants and refugees.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
most countries don't violate the International Law on asylum seekers.
most countries have a working system for processing migrants and refugees.
Click to expand...
Countries don't violate the law EXCEPT the USA.
Countries have a working system for processing migrants and refugees, EXCEPT the USA.

See, American Exceptionalism.
 
plague311 said:
Just as a note:



So by my math, let me carry the one, multiply by this, move that...well look at that, I was pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ close. Also, that would require absolutely no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ immigrants to come back into the US illegally. Which, I'm sure, Trump will lock down tightly :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahahaha... The American Immigration Council is full of ◊◊◊◊. Are they building their assumption on the idea that we would put each illegal entrant up in a five-star hotel, all expenses paid for a couple of months, and also give them each a full year's income in their nation or origin's currency?

"Well, we're going to send you back home, but don't worry, we're also giving you a new Nissan Versa and a year's supply of caviar!"
 
The current trend towards lawlessness by Trump will likely have the desired effect on immigration into the USA, legal and otherwise. Because potential immigrants and refugees will quickly realise that the USA has actually become far worse than the ◊◊◊◊-hole country that is trying to kill them now.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Hahahahahahahahahaha... The American Immigration Council is full of ◊◊◊◊. Are they building their assumption on the idea that we would put each illegal entrant up in a five-star hotel, all expenses paid for a couple of months, and also give them each a full year's income in their nation or origin's currency?

"Well, we're going to send you back home, but don't worry, we're also giving you a new Nissan Versa and a year's supply of caviar!"
Click to expand...
Oh look, another pizza cutter response. No actual point but a lot of edge.

I noticed that, as is your habit, you provide nothing to refute their claim, you don't bring any facts or evidence of your own, and you provide nothing to further the conversation. Not even some stupid anecdote about how "some people I know totally blah, blah, blah". Uncharacteristic of you, but did you have something to contribute or contest what I'm saying or was this nonsense the best you had?

Don't bother answering.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
No, he should not be saying things until they have been thoroughly examined; he is harming the reputation of individuals
Click to expand...
Sure, sure, because that's clearly everyone's highest value and is always applied evenly and without cherry-picking, right? Nobody here, for instance, would ever dare to make declarative statements that haven't been thoroughly examined and might be viewed as harmful to someone's reputation...
 
Emily's Cat said:
Hahahahahahahahahaha... The American Immigration Council is full of ◊◊◊◊. Are they building their assumption on the idea that we would put each illegal entrant up in a five-star hotel, all expenses paid for a couple of months, and also give them each a full year's income in their nation or origin's currency?

"Well, we're going to send you back home, but don't worry,
we're also giving you a new Nissan Versa and a year's supply of caviar!"
Click to expand...
Oh, that's just mean!
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, sure, because that's clearly everyone's highest value and is always applied evenly and without cherry-picking, right? Nobody here, for instance, would ever dare to make declarative statements that haven't been thoroughly examined and might be viewed as harmful to someone's reputation...
Click to expand...
No one here is a government representative with Fox News and the rest of the media as a platform.
 
TomB said:
No one here is a government representative with Fox News and the rest of the media as a platform.
Click to expand...
Oh don't get me wrong - I agree that people should refrain from making inflammatory unevidenced statements that could cause harm. I just don't limit that expectation to specific people that I dislike, I expect that EVERYONE be held to that standard.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
What about limiting that expectation to people who hold the power to cause harm with their statements?
Click to expand...
Anyone can cause harm with their statements. Your next door neighbor could cause harm to you by making false statements about you to everyone else in your neighborhood, or to the cops, or to your employer.

So yeah, how about we expect EVERYONE to keep the same standard, instead of giving a special dispensation for harmful falsehoods to people subjectively determined by you to be not a real risk?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud by healthcare "providers" is many tens of billions, well documented, but it is far more important to shut down something Trump doesn't like for the cost of a few ten thousand dollars.
You are a gullible idiot if you think any of this is about fraud or saving money.
Click to expand...
Well it is about fraud in that a lot of what's being done will make fraud easier,and deliberately so.
 
Knock off the incivility, the personalisation and the name-calling.

Trans issues go in the dedicated thread. Whilst we understand there will be times when trans issues may be tangentially on-topic in other threads, bringing up these issues always causes derails. So please try harder to limit your discussions to the thread set up for the purpose.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think the US government should invest in the health of US citizens.
Click to expand...
The Republicans in Congress are currently discussing how much to CUT Medicaid (the US' health care program for the poor), so investing in the health of US citizens is obviously not a goal of the Republican Party.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's some basic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ math, plague. Even you should be able to pull it off, all you need is phone with a calculator. $88K PER PERSON is an absolutely retarded estimate.
Click to expand...

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed forum management content


The average cost to house an inmate per year is $33-$60k depending on which state you're in. So lets meet closer to your side and say $40k.

Well, that $40k is with the housing (prisons) already built, so no need for tent cities or changing current housing. Which would be required for moving 1 million immigrants a year.

Guards will be needed, after all we can't have these people just entering society again! So add the cost of that on.

Transportation to places like Gitmo, since that's what we're doing now. Our current inmates don't have that cost.

Add in judges, legal representation to address all of these cases. Again, something not needed for current inmates because they've already been tried and convicted, and a lot of that is on the state's dime, not the Feds, which is different here.

None of this includes the cost of rounding all of the immigrants up. Add that on to the $40k per person.

Lastly, you'll also need to transport those people back to their country. Something inmates don't have now as well.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed forum management content
The numbers look pretty right to me. What are you basing your numbers on, Emily's Cat? Show me something. Show me anything that supports your claim. At all.

You won't, because you can't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat said:
That earmarks are a bad way to allocate government spending,
Click to expand...
What?

"Earmark" is an idiom meaning "allocate". I have never hard it used before in relation to pork barrels. On this side of the Atlantic we use the term in a neutral way. Anybody might say "I have earmarked the money for project X". It's quite common. "Pork barrel", on the other hand is pretty much unknown here. Earmarking is not a way of allocating government spending, it's just another way of saying "allocate".

Maybe it's a transatlantic thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom