- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Perhaps Trump wasn't clear enough. I think he meant "Mexico will pay...dearly... for the wall."
Upvote
0
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.
Besides we're waiting for Trump to foot the bill for the wall too. But sometimes forever is too long.
We don't need uncle sam's cabin to know what were doing tho.
I don't even smoke pot so why should I care what the boy blunder does. It's been Malace in blunder land since the stones and maggie hooked up.I agree...you just legalized recreational pot.!!!!!
Exactly, it's the new free trade system of which supposedly slavery was abolished but is now the major world commodity. Any idea where most end up? My guess is on some Fear Cape episode.So I was watching Euronews earlier this evening. A piece came up on this subject with footage from Agadaz, Niger which is a major people smuggling hub for getting people across the Sahara to the Mediterranean coast. These things stuck with me:-
First, a local smuggler who was saying how now times were hard and the work more dangerous. This was because of a combination of the EU and certain EU countries tightening up controls and security and because of bandits and islamic terrorists. There were still 'customers' but 'not like it was'. He said he would still carry on, he had a family, it was his business, there was nothing else.
Secondly, it seems that now more people are dying/disappearing on the Sahara crossing than on the sea crossing.
Thirdly, the estimate is that at the moment about 3000+ people are 'stranded' in Libya unable to cross north or return south.
Lastly, in Agadaz, a young man from Guinea sat on the floor of a derelict house with about 7/8 other subsaharan africans. They were waiting to start the Saharan crossing. He said, It doesn't matter. We know we may not make it. They can do whatever they want (meaning I suppose governments, african and european), we will still try, there is nothing else.
><>
I agree...you just legalized recreational pot.!!!!!
I don't even smoke pot so why should I care what the boy blunder does. It's been Malace in blunder land since the stones and maggie hooked up.
Ok guys, please quit clogging up this thread with your snips and quips. CF is a big place go play politicos elsewhere....definitely a better choice then the Red Lanterns:
tulc(and less bloody)
So I was watching Euronews earlier this evening. A piece came up on this subject with footage from Agadaz, Niger which is a major people smuggling hub for getting people across the Sahara to the Mediterranean coast. These things stuck with me:-
First, a local smuggler who was saying how now times were hard and the work more dangerous. This was because of a combination of the EU and certain EU countries tightening up controls and security and because of bandits and islamic terrorists. There were still 'customers' but 'not like it was'. He said he would still carry on, he had a family, it was his business, there was nothing else.
Secondly, it seems that now more people are dying/disappearing on the Sahara crossing than on the sea crossing.
Thirdly, the estimate is that at the moment about 3000+ people are 'stranded' in Libya unable to cross north or return south.
Lastly, in Agadaz, a young man from Guinea sat on the floor of a derelict house with about 7/8 other subsaharan africans. They were waiting to start the Saharan crossing. He said, It doesn't matter. We know we may not make it. They can do whatever they want (meaning I suppose governments, african and european), we will still try, there is nothing else.
><>
This beats brute strength any day ... oh yah, not necessarily so. (could get messy}...definitely a better choice then the Red Lanterns:
tulc(and less bloody)
Sorry my tongue got wrapped around my eye tooth and I couldn't see what I was saying.Ok guys, please quit clogging up this thread with your snips and quips. CF is a big place go play politicos elsewhere.
><>
Analogy, legitimate or not, are not a solutions. I'm not sure why you think it is not reasonable. It may not be right but it's perfectly reasonable. If there was a way to harness and channel nationwide 'free-will' support so that it was effective and non-exploitative (of either migrants or host nation) then Amen!I think it is a legitimate analogy to make the point that asking only those of us who want to extend mercy to refugees pay for their support is not reasonable. I have no kids; does that I mean I don’t need to pay taxes for schools? Of course not.
Well Dave I've read and still often read history but I'm no historian, so if that's how you see it, fine."NOW??" With the exception of the last 2 centuries, that has been a normal part of human history everywhere.
It's not that nothing can be done fish....it's that no one is willing to do it.
If we stick with our Guatemala example, they've got 12 million people, mostly Catholics, and they've outlawed abortion. They've got too many people to feed, educate, and not a big enough economy to provide for them all even if it did have a decent welfare system.
So I'd suggest they outlaw Catholicism and create a strict 1 child per woman policy. They can sterilize all women with 1 or more children already....and allow cheap/free abortion for those without children now. Then we cut off all healthcare for anyone over 40.
Hopefully in a decade or two, the economy has grown enough and the population has shrunk to 4-6 million and they at least have enough food and jobs to go around. It won't be paradise by a long shot...but hopefully it's enough to keep them from migrating here.
Sound good to you?
Thanks PW, glad your still around to balance out some the negativity. Of course the fact that there is lots of cruel exploitation going on under the label of 'sponsorship' doesn't preclude the use of that word for ways of getting individuals and families in receiving countries to 'adopt' and support individual migrants and migrant families.This isn't my vision of sponsorship. My vision is to get them into the system of education and then employment, just like the system other Americans are in. Were you a shopkeeper in your old country? Let's help you figure out how to start a small business in the US. Were you a physician or a nurse or a midwife? Let's get you certified to practice medicine in the US. Were you a handyman or a carpenter? Let's find you construction work here. Can you cook? Let's look at the jobs in local restaurants. They're people, with their own individual skills, just like Americans are people. They may not know English, and they probably don't know American law or have American certifications, so American sponsors can help with those things. But there's no reason to envision them as permanently unemployed.
No, but thanks at least for positing something that one could think about. Population, as in lots of individual people, is an asset, a resource. It's people that make the world go round.
There is a reason why China is backing out of it's inhuman one child policy. They've realized that it's economically disastrous.
Ok guys, please quit clogging up this thread with your snips and quips. CF is a big place go play politicos elsewhere.
><>
I agree that sponsoring immigrants is only a partial solution. Anything is going to be a partial solution, I think. Overall, we (as humans across the globe) need to solve the economic hardship problems, and the political instability problems, and the human rights problems, and the environmental problems (drought, etc), and the problem of providing hospitality to those entering our country -- all of it.Thanks PW, glad your still around to balance out some the negativity. Of course the fact that there is lots of cruel exploitation going on under the label of 'sponsorship' doesn't preclude the use of that word for ways of getting individuals and families in receiving countries to 'adopt' and support individual migrants and migrant families.
But this is could be only a partial, temporary 'solution'. It's in 'fixing' the failing and failed states where the major solutions should be worked out and applied.
ok my last post for tonight.
><>
I'm thinking more along the line of lifetime disqualification from entrance to the US for the illegal worker. The last thing I would support is rewarding illegal immigrants for violating the law by entering them into a path to legal residency. My ideas are centered on removing the incentives driving illegal immigration and the employment of illegal aliens.Yes, with sanctions falling most heavily on the employer and for the illegal workers, humane repatriation or insertion into humane sponsorship/assimilation schemes.
Remember, you as Mr President or an altruistic multi billionaire have to work with the world as it is but you want to change it, you want to make it better - Or do we just want to shrug our shoulders and watch 'the game'?
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?