Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They keep their head down and pay dem taxes and don’t make a peep?These are not legal citizens. And so many of them disappear into the country never to be seen again.
They keep their head down and pay dem taxes and don’t make a peep?
What’s the “complaint”?
I think we have room to increase staffing to a point, but at a certain point we'll have to entertain other options.
We have a $25 Billion dollar per year budget for Border Protection.
Canada's budget for such matters is $1.5 billion over 5 years.
Like I noted before, I think we owe it to certain Central/South American countries to fix some of the issues we helped create. (that can be via some additional foreign aid or some sort of temporary subsidy arrangement, those decisions are above my pay grade)
But I do think some reasonable cutoffs need to be established for such endeavors.
I don't think it can be a permanent arrangement where "Because you wronged us back in the 70's and 80's, either give us money to fix all of our problems or forever deal with a never-ending flow of migrants"
They took that job in the lettuce field that I have been trying to get for years now.
Because they are not needed. Most are false cases. we know this. We need to change it back to remain in mexico, etc. until a decision. That will stop all this like it did before.From the article:
"What is a magnet is the fact that the time in between an encounter of an individual at the border and their final ruling in their immigration case can sometimes take six or more years. That is a magnet, which is why precisely why I am working with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate to deliver a solution for the American people, to deliver a fix to an immigration system that everyone agrees is broken, and that is long overdue," he said.Why aren't Republicans hammering on this? Why aren't they trying to beef up the asylum/immigration courts to handle more cases and reduce the bottlenecks?
This I think is why they want all these judges. What are they going to consider legit reasons for asylum? There are judges today that apply what think. Look at the Colorado court.The Republicans too have failed to act. We can't just point fingers at the Democrats anymore. While some Republicans are standing up many still are not.
I'm not sure Trump was trying to end asylum as much as he was trying to alter it. I think most of us conservatives are for asylum for those that really need it. But that has to be shown to be valid first before being allowed into the country.
Sure, but I think we all know a blanket ban on people of a certain religion wasn't going anywhere but was instead just cynical pandering to the fringes of the GOP's base.I disagree with the campaign accusation that they are unwilling to do it for campaign reasons. Remember when Trump and the Republicans tried to do something
"What think"?There are judges today that apply what think. Look at the Colorado court.
I'm not referring to same kind of Iraq-style nation building in this instance.I'm going to be honest @ThatRobGuy , I understand the sentiment of "we should fix the places they're coming from" because that's been a left wing mainstay of their narrative for 30 years by now. It's a feel good help the world narrative that sounds "right".
Let's be honest though...it won't happen.
Let's imagine a nation we literally have total control over...like Iraq, or Afghanistan. We have elections, reforms, infrastructure being built, and the moment we step away it all falls apart. We stink at nation building.
We can't fix these nations to the point where they won't see coming here as a better option. Period.
1. We don't have total control over these nations. Anything we donate as aid is fundamentally under their control.
2. These governments are extremely corrupt. Guatemala is the perfect example, as 3 of the last 4 presidents were deposed by international corruption investigations. They take aid
....spend it on themselves.
3. Sending their poor here is the easiest, fastest, and most effective solution to 90% of their poverty issues. If they can't educate, feed, or provide basic services to 30% of the population....encouraging that population to leave works.
We aren't fixing anything there....we're struggling to fix it here...
But I understand the sentiment and optimism.
I'm off topic but thank you for this. We need better oversight of our corporations. From wiki United Fruit:If you look at a history of the company called "United Fruit", that highlights the pattern that was used.
...so you can imagine, if that's the kind of stuff they're pulling when the US government is not on board with those activities anymore. Just imagine the kind of stuff going on when those types of "silencing the opposition" measures were being not only condoned, but partially sponsored by the US government.I'm off topic but thank you for this. We need better oversight of our corporations. From wiki United Fruit:
"In March 2007 Chiquita Brands pleaded guilty in a United States Federal court to aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, when it admitted to the payment of more than $1.7 million to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a group that the United States has labeled a terrorist organization since 2001. Under a plea agreement, Chiquita Brands agreed to pay $25 million in restitution and damages to the families of victims of the AUC. The AUC had been paid to protect the company's interest in the region.[49]
In addition to monetary payments, Chiquita has also been accused of smuggling weapons (3,000 AK-47s) to the AUC and in assisting the AUC in smuggling drugs to Europe.[50] Chiquita Brands admitted that they paid AUC operatives to silence union organizers and intimidate farmers into selling only to Chiquita. In the plea agreement, the Colombian government let Chiquita Brands keep the names of U.S. Citizens who brokered this agreement with the AUC secret, in exchange for relief to 390 families.
Despite calls from Colombian authorities and human rights organizations to extradite the U.S. citizens responsible for war crimes and aiding a terrorist organization, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to grant the request, citing 'conflicts of law'. As with other high-profile cases involving wrongdoing by American companies abroad, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Justice are very careful to hand over any American citizen to be tried under another country's legal system, so for the time being Chiquita Brands International avoided a catastrophic scandal, and instead walked away with a humiliating defeat in court and eight of its employees fired.[51]"
I'm not referring to same kind of Iraq-style nation building in this instance.
I'm referring to some of the economic damage the US had a direct hand in, in the region, in the 70's and 80's and set off some pretty negative trajectories.
(for instance, helping sponsor coups to get US-friendly puppet leaders installed so our private corporations could exploit the region and allowed corporate raiders to take control of a lot of their resources)
View attachment 341278
If you look at a history of the company called "United Fruit", that highlights the pattern that was used.
It is an old law for the states to use.Like the Colorado court "think". Taking what they think should be law, and making it law.
The constitution. They just decided he he was guilty of insurrection, despite being aquitted. This same thing is going to happen with asylum cases, and liberals are going to defend it, just like the Colorado decision is.Which part? The whole thing is publicly available. If you think they made a mistake applying the law, where?
I am not sure how fringe it was. Seems more likely a goodly number supported it.Sure, but I think we all know a blanket ban on people of a certain religion wasn't going anywhere but was instead just cynical pandering to the fringes of the GOP's base.
The false premise that rigorous vetting and screening was not happening during the Obama administration was a false narrative that created a false reality which a lot of people fell for.I am not sure how fringe it was. Seems more likely a goodly number supported it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?