Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2019
(277)
-
▼
January
(31)
- Trump: King of Mount Stupid
- Tax the Rich !!! Give to the Poor !!!
- Assimilate or Stay Poor
- Pro-Lifers are Single Minded
- On a lighter note. Kind of.
- Iowa Abortion Ban
- Drag Queen Story Tellers
- 3 Weeks and Counting. What Now?
- Yes, The Government is Still Shutdown
- Reverse Discrimination is Okay?
- NY Codifies Roe v Wade Into Law
- Deep State vs Shady Characters
- House and Senate Move Seperately
- Who Harassed Who?
- Trump is an Idiot. Again
- Best Comic Ever... :-)
- Congress Personnel Should Give Away Salaries
- Border Barrier and The Environment
- MN Goes Back to Education
- Thoughts regarding Barr?
- We Are Responsible For the Shutdown
- What Should Happen at The Border?
- Receipts Fall After Tax Cut
- Wall Speech Fact Check
- The Left is Moving Left?
- Shutdown Continues
- Border Crisis?
- Never Wrestle with a Pig
- Far Left Makes Voices Heard
- The 2012 Screw Up
- DEMs Working to Extend the Shutdown
-
▼
January
(31)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
74 comments:
It is funny how Drum focus on Net migration...
Not the point that ~400,000 enter our country illegally...
I mean the point that we spend a lot of:
- money and personnel securing the border
- apprehending illegal immigrants
- handling and managing them
- adjudicating their cases
- deporting
an equal number seems wasted on him...
Why do people on both sides keep trying to mislead with funny numbers.
By the way that totals almost 14,000 per month that our border agents need to manage...
Wouldn't it be better if we kept these folks out our country until they have been given permission to enter?
Some simple rules that I would think all of folks would agree with...
- potential immigrant goes to consulate and applies for immigration or asylum there.
- potential immigrant goes to legal border crossing and applies for immigration or asylum there.
More discussion and links over here.
Laurie,
Is this what you think is okay and normal?
People trying to force their way into the USA?
The border problem is very complex and has no easy or perfect solution. I think the dems should tell more about their proposals to increase border security. Congress could debate border security measures while the govt is open and functioning.
also, the tear gas incident took place in an area with border fencing.
also, Trump should stop lying about all the terrorists that have been caught at the southern border. I believe the correct number is 0.
Thanks, Laurie.
Mother Jones seems to think there IS a simple solution; just use E-Verify. Indeed, that needs to be a significant part of the solution and could be implemented more quickly, even, than a wall could be built. There are just a few minor details to be considered. First of all, is it to be applied only to new job applicants or retroactively to all employees? If the latter, then who is going to enforce deportation of the 12 million illegals already living here and working? With only 6-1/2 million unemployed Americans, who will take those jobs? Most importantly, how does this "solution" do anything to rid us of drug dealers, criminals, terrorists and the unemployed or unemployable, the kind of folks we might like to deport in preference to the hard-working immigrant?
But John is also right – net migration is not the proper standard. Total inbound illegal crossings is the proper standard, zero should be the goal, and only a wall that is part of a complete border security system can do that.
The LAST thing I think would help would be to have "Congress … debate border security measures." I say you get together a few experts on the patterns of these crossings and the terrain, and decide what type of barrier-- tall wall, fence, electronic surveillance-- is most appropriate at each point. Then do that. After all, we would be saving lives. Too many are dying in the desert, either naturally or at the hands of the human traffickers.
The Dems are playing despicable political games. Shame.
just the facts
Laurie,
I think the problem is that folks disagree regarding what this target number should be...
"Total inbound illegal crossings is the proper standard"
I for the most part agree with Jerry, the target should be ZERO people crossing the border without permission. We need to stop the rewards:
1. Illegally cross so I can claim asylum when I am caught
2. Illegal cross and get a job if I am not caught
3. Illegally cross so I can have my "anchor baby"
Now we may never get to ZERO but we need to be a lot closer than 14,000 per month.
Does that make sense?
If you disagree, what do you think the target number should be?
Better Facts and Data
Of course these are likely low because the organized criminals likely have better tunnels etc and avoid being arrested in the first place. :-)
I don´t have an opinion about how much illegal border crossings can be reduced.
Sorry, but my laptop does not allow me to create hyperlinks.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html
I did not ask about effectiveness or methods...
What should the target be?
Again I point out that E-verify only stops NEW job applicants (type 2). The criminals, would-be criminals, ne'er-do-wells and cheats don't get stopped. That takes a wall of some kind. And even the wall doesn't stop those already here.
I don´t know what a realistic or reasonable number is for illegal border crossings. I do know the number will never be zero or anything close to it
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-democrats-ready-new-old-plan-for-border-security
this paper is a bit suspect to me but it seems to fairly represent the views of one dem leader.
Laurie's link
I think the Dem views that count are the ones left largely unsaid, that they do not want border security, and absolutely refuse to give Trump a political victory. nest of vipers.
I think the only acceptable target for illegal border crossings is zero. The only acceptable number of illegal residents is zero. Comprehensive immigration reform needs to solve both problems without any direct amnesty. Even if you do not want to call today's assault on our southern border a "crisis," (Worthy of calling out the military) the multi-decade neglect of it has created a crisis inside our borders.
Laurie,
The problem with technologies is:
- it still allows people to cross illegally and claim asylum. (huge burden on US tax payers and occupies resources that could be used elsewhere.
Is 14,000 per month too high?
your wall will also let people continue to cross illegally.
"walls don't work"? sounds like a Democrat talking point.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
I don´t think Cato Institute is dem leaning.
CATO Why a Wall Won't Work
I am preparing for a meeting in Shanghai so I jumped down to the conclusion.
"In a sense, the wall merely represents the Trump administration’s worst instincts and desires. It is harmful, wasteful, and offensive, but an ineffective wall is nonetheless better than the surge of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to round up and deport people that the president also wants. No wall has ever arrested, robbed, battered, or murdered nonviolent people, as immigration enforcement has. A wall will not create an interest group to lobby for itself, endorse nationalist presidential candidates, and demand more power and funding, as the Border Patrol union does.
The wall is more than a symbol. It will harm the lives of thousands of border residents and immigrants while wasting billions of tax dollars. But in a world run by nationalists, the one small source of comfort for non-nationalists over the next four years may be the knowledge that it could be worse."
The reality is that a good wall can certainly stymie and delay all except the most serious and well funded violators. And it gives the border patrol time to get there when the high tech sensors or drones notify them of a pending incursion.
By the way, why won't you weigh in on...
Is 14,000 per month too high?
Or
How many illegals violating our borders and distracting our resources would be too many?
Or
Are you thinking we should just go open border and stop spending all this money securing it and deporting people?
The goal of almost all good security systems is not only stop law violators in the act...
It is to dissuade them from even trying...
Why do you thinks security services give people a sign to place on their home. :-)
We should put a BIG SIGN on the border that says...
If you apply at the immigration check point you may have a chance of getting into the USA...
If you try any other way you will be stopped, deported and not allowed in ever...
Why does this seem so odd to Democrats?
Cost of wall-- $5-20 Billion. Cost of illegal immigration-- $60-120 Billion.
Cato is a libertarian/pacifist think tank and though very well written, the piece simply fails to reckon with the idea that the border must be closed. I don't care, and neither should Trump, what the actual wall looks like, so long as it ACTS like a wall and reduces illegal crossings by 95% or more. After all, if it saves one life...
Source of $60 - $120 Billion?
Even I understand that there are costs and benefits of illegal immigration.
Several, I just did a web search. Those numbers appear to be net, ANNUAL. Wall cost is one-time. No-brainer on cost (which is why it is well suited to politicians' endless haggling). The rest is just engineering.
“Wall cost is one-time.”
That’s a laughable assertion. How well does a wall work that isn’t armed and manned 24/7? Who will do that and who will pay?
Moose
Not to mention the fact that we spend hundreds of millions per year maintaining and repairing the wall we already have.
Does know one here actually believe in referencing real sources?
"Somewhere on the internet"
"armed and manned 24/7" like we won't do that fence or no fence...
"hundreds of millions per year maintaining"
Sean and Moose,
Since Laurie will not commit to a target...
What do you think is an acceptable number per month?
By the way, I am loving being halfway around the earth again...
I am awake for my usual ~2 hour work session that starts around ~1 AM...
Shanghai is 14 hours ahead of MN right now, hopefully I will get tired enough to fall asleep again... The glamour of global business travel :-)
"hundreds of millions per year maintaining"
Is in the CATO source. Don't get snippy with us because you don't read the stuff posted on your own blog.
"What do you think is an acceptable number per month?"
I don't think that's the right question to ask in order to solve this problem.
Sorry... Too busy sleeping or working over here to read that long piece...
Being a farm boy that number seems real high if they build good steel structures. But then again I forget that it is "government employees" and government bidding... :-)
If we can not even agree how many border violators per year is acceptable, we have a real problem...
I mean that is the one primary reason we have border security systems and personnel...
It is like trying select a furnace with no idea how warm or cold you want to keep the room.
If your "acceptable" number is zero, then are you willing to apply infinite resources to the border to ensure that is the case?
It's simply a racist cause. We have a huge border with Canada. Where's the outcry to build a wall to keep out the white people?
Moose
Sean,
Let me tell you a story... When I worked for Caterpillar there was discussion regarding what the safety target should be? I mean how many employees should be injured or killed at work everyday or year?
I mean they had all the reporting numbers and it certainly was not ZERO, and due to the huge number of people doing complicated tasks with very complicated and potentially dangerous equipment it was unlikely it will ever reach ZERO. However did it make any sense to set a target say 10% below today's performance?
Now this did not mean that the company would stop operating or spend an infinite about of money to reach the ZERO target. It was decided that the target had to be ZERO, because it was the CORRECT NUMBER. Everyone in the organization needed work safe, watch out for each other and plan to strive that NO ONE got hurt or killed at work.
Now with over 100,000 employees, many of whom work with heavy, hot, complicated, equipment... I am sure they still have injuries and deaths occurring... But that does not mean that their efforts are wasted or the target is wrong.
Sean,
So if not zero per month? What about 14,000 per month? More?
Moose,
There are only ~35,000,000 people of many races in Canada. The difference is that they seem happy staying in Canada.
If we had 14,000 people month spilling over the North border, I sure we would be discussing improved security there also.
Just an FYI. Apparently Mexico has 130,000,000 and Central America has 40,000,000.
Jerry,
Personally I think this the core issue.
Many on the left are fine with folks just crossing the border willy nilly…
I mean look at the reluctance to even set an acceptable target...
"Now this did not mean that the company would stop operating or spend an infinite about of money to reach the ZERO target. It was decided that the target had to be ZERO, because it was the CORRECT NUMBER. "
So, in reality, what you're actually saying is there is an acceptable number greater than zero.
This, like nearly everything else in life, is about tradeoffs. You're drawing the line in a slightly different place and pretending you're taking this principled, tough stand that liberals aren't, which is a charade. Republicans aren't willing to, say, raise taxes to pay for the wall. Republicans aren't willing to crack down hard on employers to solve this problem. But it's a national emergency? Laughable!
Bickering about a specific number is pointless and meaningless, just like your periodic mouth-foaming about your 33% GDP threshold. It doesn't get anybody anywhere and does nothing to move the ball forward.
When they started the space race...
Do you think they set the target first?
Or did they think of all the reasons they could never reach the target?
What Happened When A Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the Wall
Moose
Excellent article, Moose, I read the same thing. It's amazing how smart people can argue any side of an issue, so long as common sense doesn't enter into it. Trump's statement should be seen as symbolic, that is, that a "wall" is "a physical means of preventing unwanted entry." We should be learning where most of the illegal crossings are, how they are being done (vehicle/pedestrian) and the most cost-effective way of greatly reducing the problem in each area, respectively. Then it costs what it costs to erect, maintain and service. That's common sense. You don't put bars on your 3rd-story windows and you don't put alarms on the gazebo.
Now, if we could ever get the Democrats off of this "everybody is entitled to vote for us" mentality, we could greatly reduce the problem in a sensible and compassionate manner. But since they won't even let us "turn the water off" on this problem, the rest must wait.
Moose,
It was an interesting piece, though it apparently pulled all of the points from the CATO paper?
Not sure I am fully calling the accurate or conservative yet.
A symbol is not the same as the thing. Try again.
Moose
A symbol is not the same as the thing. So why are the Democrats fighting so hard against the symbol when they say they support the thing?
I don't know, why do Republicans fight for the flag instead of the things it represents?
Moose
Moose,
I don't see anything "American" in ILLEGAL ENTRY...
The USA accepts over 1 MILLION legal immigrants and refugees per year from all over the world...
Now that is GREAT...
Your side encouraging people to risk their lives and those of their children with the small hope that they will be able to get in illegally and get to stay is cruel and wrong.
Or are you thinking we should take every one of the ~6 Billion people who may like to live in America?
"Your side encouraging people to risk their lives and those of their children with the small hope that they will be able to get in illegally and get to stay is cruel and wrong."
You really should just come out and say that you're against asylum instead of sitting on the fence. The international community is against you in that regard. That doesn't make you a warrior for the truth.
Moose
You avoided answering my question by throwing rocks at me again...
How many of the billions of people in the world who live in more disruptive unfair and unsafe communities than ours do you want to accept into ours each year?
Do you want them to go to our consulates, apply and await permission?
Or do you want them to sell everything, pack up their kids, start walking through crime invested areas just be told their issues are not bad enough when they arrive?
This quote also seems appropriate.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Kind of like the decline of the North Minneapolis community and schools, I wonder how troubled parts of the world are supposed to become successful if the smart, capable and financially stable people flee their communities instead of fighting for them?
If one makes it easy for people to flee a challenged community, do we doom that community to failure and crime for an extended period of time?
If they know they have to stay, will they do and risk more to help improve the community for all who live there?
I do not have the answers to these weighty questions but they are worth considering.
Remember my other favorite quote. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
Or look at the odds. almost 90% of asylum claims are judged phony and the folks don't get in. Well, actually, they DO get in while waiting for adjudication, and then blend into the woodwork and stay. That's one problem. Visa overstays are another. The one that kills people is crossing overland illegally. They all have to stop, but the first thing is to get the wall--the "barrier" if the word is the problem-- up and working.
We aren't doing these people or these countries by letting them forsake everything they know and come to this strange country, knowing they will have to violate our laws to do so.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Indeed. That is exactly why people are standing up to the corruption of this administration.
Also. I don’t accept the premise of many of your questions, so I don’t answer them.
Moose
Moose, if this administration is so "corrupt" how about you prove that to a skeptic?
You can use inductive or deductive reasoning, but not irrational diatribes.
You’ve proven to be impervious to the facts. They’re out there. Educate yourself.
Moose
Sorry. I prefer reality to your "facts." Your facts are simply too "out there."
And I think you are avoiding the question. If there IS some number above which the crime, economic disturbance, and social cost of illegal immigrants is too high, how do you propose to reduce below that number?
Trump Foundation
Trump University
Illegal immigrants hired at Mar-A-Lago
Hush money
All of the above (and there are more) are evidence of fraud and corruption. You of course will say it's not. Nothing I can do about that. Regardless, the Constitution does not require illegality in order to impeach and remove from office.
Net illegal immigration from Mexico is negative. Apparently the wall is being built to keep them IN the country?
More terrorists from the watch list were apprehended at the Canadian border than the Mexican Border last year. Why is that not a "National Emergency"? (hint: Canada is majority white)
As has been regularly and repeatedly pointed out to you, the vast majority of illegal immigrants come here legally but overstay...most of them through ports of entry.
I understand that you don't care about the facts, only that your guy win. So be it. Those of us who want thoughtful, reasonable, educated, just, and reliable people in government will continue to fight those of you who want "crisis" upon "crisis" and fake national emergencies.
Moose
Moose,
I understand if you are scared to answer my simple questions. They are daunting.
By the way, I dislike Trump's lying also.
"If one makes it easy for people to flee a challenged community, do we doom that community to failure and crime for an extended period of time?"
Where would you be today if this had been our policy, say, 150 years ago?
"Are you still beating your wife?"
Would you accept the premise of that simple question? It's a simple question. Answer it.
Moose
It's different. They were white.
Moose
Sean,
I assume I would be living in Norway...
Moose,
Easy answer. I have not and do not beat my wife...
Now back to the questions I have:
How many of the world's impoverished and undereducated peoples do you want to allow to legally immigrate into the USA each year?
How do you see this impacting the poor and undereducated citizens of the USA?
Now you can try to compare this to 150 years ago, however we do not have farms to settle and the scope of the challenge is very different.
Here were the other 2 questions.
Do you want them to go to our consulates, apply and await permission?
Or do you want them to sell everything, pack up their kids, start walking through crime invested areas just be told their issues are not bad enough when they arrive?
Or I guess we could add a third option...
Or do you want them to sell everything, pack up their kids, start walking through crime invested areas and the USA absorbs everyone who shows up at our border? No matter the consequences to our own struggling citizens...
Instead of defending a wall, why doesn't the other side defend law-breaking, disease-carrying, human smuggling, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, drugs, gangs, murderers and thieves being allowed free reign coming into this country?
Yawn.
"Easy answer. I have not and do not beat my wife..."
I asked if you've stopped beating your wife. It's a simple yes or no. Try answering the question.
Moose
"however we do not have farms to settle"
We didn't have farms to settle then, either. The land already belonged to the indigenous peoples.
Moose
Moose...
Now that is so naively sweet... However...
"To the conqueror go the spoils..."
For better or worse, fair or not. We had land to settle.
My answer is better than yours... Please try...
I find it amusing that you excuse our Middle East adventuring on humanitarian grounds, but have no compassion for people in our own backyard who need help (and let's not forget how our foreign policy has played a major role in messing up Central America).
Obviously, the best solution to this crisis is thoughts and prayers. I mean, if it helps reduce the number of mass shooti....
Never mind.
Moose
I am happy to help the people of Central America to fix their country.
I would not have supported moving everyone from the Middle East into the USA.
Do you invite homeless people into your house or do you support them where they live with donations?
Post a Comment