PDA

View Full Version : Immigration


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

calvegas04
02-26-2016, 05:31 PM
Germany is loving their Foreign policy now.... I hope the US isn't next

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4L1HfiIOgBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ad2bssrzH8w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

IrishLax
02-29-2016, 02:45 PM
Clashes as France starts destroying 'Jungle' migrant camp (http://news.yahoo.com/france-begins-bulldozing-part-jungle-refugee-camp-afp-105702246.html;_ylt=AwrEWDQkgNRWK1UA1N9XNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYw NzYw--)

IrishLax
03-01-2016, 01:00 PM
Hungarian PM vows to resist EU's 'misguided' migrant policy | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-hungary-orban-idUKKCN0W10UC)

Everyone in Europe slowly realizing that they were giving away their countries. Sweden originally said they'd take "everyone"... then having mass deportation of 10s of thousands. France has a crisis, Greece has a crisis, Italy... well, I have a friend looking to sell his Tuscan villa for 10 cents on the dollar that he paid for it because he can't guarantee security anymore.

The bottom line is that these people DO NOT ASSIMILATE into the country's culture. The United States has had the same problem with Somali refugees, etc. over the years. At some point, you have to start worrying about yourself and your country and not trying to save everybody.

calvegas04
03-01-2016, 02:36 PM
Visit London, see the Queen, see Big Ben, visit the Tower of London... and Check out the muslim patrols. Brits are starting to protest the immigration laws now

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rcsG-u2GtZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

IrishLax
03-14-2016, 04:43 PM
Merkel refuses to abandon refugee policy despite election setbacks | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/angela-merkel-refuses-to-abandon-refugee-policy-despite-election-setbacks)

I mean...

Whiskeyjack
03-18-2016, 07:01 PM
Looks like Merkel is negotiating with Erdogan (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/world/europe/europe-turkey-erdogan-refugees-migrants.html) to be the EU's bouncer:

LONDON — More and more, it seems that the European Union wants President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to replace Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi as the guardian of European shores against the flow of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

It was Colonel Qaddafi, the former Libyan strongman, who, before Europe and the United States helped to overthrow him, had an agreement with Italy to keep migrants from its shores. In 2010, visiting Silvio Berlusconi, then the Italian prime minister, Colonel Qaddafi demanded 5 billion euros, then about $6.6 billion, a year to continue to stem the tide. Otherwise, he said, Europe would become “another Africa” as a result of the “advance of millions of immigrants.”

“Tomorrow,” he added, “Europe might no longer be European and even black, as there are millions who want to come in.”

Colonel Qaddafi got his money.

Now it is the European Union, prodded by a beleaguered Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and overwhelmed by 1.3 million asylum seekers last year, that is desperate to deter as many migrants as possible.

Their instrument of necessity is Mr. Erdogan, who, like Colonel Qaddafi before him, has a price, and knows how to bargain. As Marta Dassu, the former Italian deputy foreign minister and senior director for Europe for the Aspen Institute, put it: “Erdogan keeps locking and unlocking the door as it pleases him.”

Already, the European Union has promised Mr. Erdogan €3 billion. This week, in a sweeping deal still to be confirmed by European leaders, the bloc promised him at least twice as much, along with the prospect of visa-free travel for Turks and an acceleration of Turkey’s application to join the union — a process begun nearly 30 years ago, in 1987.

In return, Turkey has agreed to take back every illegal migrant reaching the shores of Europe. That would have an immediate impact on the 2,000 a day now reaching Greece, but it is also meant to discourage others contemplating the trip. Turkey will keep the migrants while they are screened, adding to the more than 2.5 million already in Turkish camps, and return those who don’t qualify to their country of origin. For every Syrian migrant returned to Turkey, Europe must accept a Syrian migrant now in Turkey who qualifies as a refugee.

But there is another kind of price to be paid by the European Union, reminiscent of the deal done with Colonel Qaddafi. The main cost is to European values.

Even as European leaders met, the Turkish government seized the popular newspaper Zaman, which has been fiercely critical of Mr. Erdogan’s rule, and replaced its journalists with pro-regime hacks. Turkey has also continued to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which Ankara regards as a terrorist organization, under the pretext of fighting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

Since his re-election last year, according to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Erdogan “has demonstrated a growing intolerance of political opposition, public protest, and critical media. Government interference with the courts and prosecutors has undermined judicial independence and the rule of law.”

European officials argue that they had to act tough and create serious disincentives for migrants to ease the enormous pressure on Greece and the countries along the Balkan route.

Unless they acted, they say, the Schengen agreement on freedom of movement within most of the bloc, now effectively suspended, would collapse, with significant economic costs.

But it was Ms. Merkel, needing a deal to reduce political pressure on her from an unceasing flow of migrants, who orchestrated the arrangement. The agreement has been criticized by various rights groups and by some countries, including Hungary, and may yet fall apart at another European Union summit meeting next week.

Stefano Stefanini, a political consultant in Brussels and former Italian diplomat, said the European Union “had to get tough” on the migrant issue, for the sake of self-preservation. “It’s a deal with the devil,” he said, but, given the other serious problems affecting the bloc — including slow economic growth, the possibility of a British exit, Greece’s continuing economic weakness, Ukraine, the Libyan chaos and terrorism generally — “something serious had to be done, and quickly.”

calvegas04
03-24-2016, 02:24 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/42jpuXJPk0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bogtrotter07
03-24-2016, 07:50 AM
And this issue is so simple.

For years, first Britain meddled in the affairs of all middle eastern nations, (and for that matter around the globe,) perpetrated barbaric acts under policy that bordered on what today would be considered genocide, and was assisted by all its European Imperial allies.

Not to be outdone, when the US eclipsed Europe on the world stage, they took creating war, poverty, and strife to a new level.

It is important to note I am not saying all these countries perpetrated all the indignities themselves, or even intended them, but their short-sighted policies led to them.

So, now that these whole regions of the world are in flame and ashes (figuratively) and cannot form self-governing groups that can stand, those that want their families to survive flee. And among those, some of the worst of the European and American haters hide themselves.

And then without having made anything they have done right, over several centuries of abuse and degradation, they have decided to open their borders, and some, usually the most racist, who would be blind to the excesses their own people perpetrated to set up this mess, are appalled by the situation!

NO SHIT! Until someone deals with the root cause in an honest, consistent, and effective manner, with a long-term goal, things will never change! We will have constant war.

Maybe not like in past on clearly defined battlefields, but war no less.

I mean no duh. This isn't rocket science. And yes, what is going on is particularly stupid insanity!

NDgradstudent
04-22-2016, 09:55 AM
Oh my.


ISIS suspect reveals plans to open up route from Syria to U.S. through Mexico (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/04/22/isis-suspect-reveals-plans-to-open-up-route-from-syria-to-us-through-mexico/)

One of the American men accused in Minnesota of trying to join the Islamic State group wanted to open up routes from the U.S. to Syria through Mexico, prosecutors said.

Gules Ali Omar told the ISIS members about the route so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks, prosecutors alleged in a document filed this week...


Completely abandoning enforcement of immigration law has costs? Who knew? I thought it just helped us elect a new people by importing millions of poor government dependent Democratic voters!

What does the ratio of ISIS members to new Democrats need to be for the Democrats to abandon this policy? 1:2?

ulukinatme
04-22-2016, 10:45 AM
I don't know what the solution is for these people fleeing from ISIS, but I know I don't want them here. I find it humorous that people called for better screening of these immigrants and Obama laughed that off.

Legacy
04-22-2016, 02:44 PM
I don't know what the solution is for these people fleeing from ISIS, but I know I don't want them here. I find it humorous that people called for better screening of these immigrants and Obama laughed that off.

4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees (http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy)

Their first point of a refugee's contact is with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The UNHCR refers people to countries based on whether they have any family members there and where resettlement makes the most sense, say U.S. officials. If that's the U.S., then refugees are vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security. Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they're bona fide refugees. Refugees from Syria are then subject to additional screening that looks at where they came from and what caused them to flee their home, stories that are checked out. All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country.

2. It's a lengthy process.

As you might imagine, all of the vetting, from interviews to fingerprinting, takes a while. On average, officials say it's 18 to 24 months before a refugee is approved for admission to the U.S.

The U.S. has admitted some 1,800 Syrian refugees in the past two years, and President Obama wants to allow 10,000 more. The administration says half of those who have been admitted are children and about a quarter of them are adults over 60. Officials say 2 percent are single males of combat age.

How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? Explaining the process (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/)

Potential refugees first apply for refugee status through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the international body in charge of protecting and assisting refugees.
The UNHCR essentially decides who merits refugee status based on the parameters laid out in the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

After the UNHCR refers a refugee applicant to the United States, the application is processed by a federally funded Resettlement Support Center, which gathers information about the candidate to prepare for an intensive screening process, which includes an interview, a medical evaluation and an interagency security screening process aimed at ensuring the refugee does not pose a threat to the United States.
The average processing time for refugee applications is 18 to 24 months, but Syrian applications can take significantly longer because of security concerns and difficulties in verifying their information.

Several federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are involved in the process, which Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner recently called, "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."

The applicant is interviewed by a DHS officer with training in this screening process as well as specialized training for Syrian and Iraqi refugee cases.
And refugees from Syria actually go through another layer of screening, called the Syria Enhanced Review process.
"With the Syrian program, we've benefited from our years of experience in vetting Iraqi refugee applicants," a senior administration official recently told reporters. "And so the partnerships we have today and the security checks we have today really are more robust because of the experience that we've had since the beginning of large-scale Iraqi processing in 2007."
Another senior administration official noted that the refugee screening process is constantly refined.

phgreek
04-22-2016, 02:50 PM
Hungarian PM vows to resist EU's 'misguided' migrant policy | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-hungary-orban-idUKKCN0W10UC)

Everyone in Europe slowly realizing that they were giving away their countries. Sweden originally said they'd take "everyone"... then having mass deportation of 10s of thousands. France has a crisis, Greece has a crisis, Italy... well, I have a friend looking to sell his Tuscan villa for 10 cents on the dollar that he paid for it because he can't guarantee security anymore.

The bottom line is that these people DO NOT ASSIMILATE into the country's culture. The United States has had the same problem with Somali refugees, etc. over the years. At some point, you have to start worrying about yourself and your country and not trying to save everybody.

So cold...so racist...so callous...SO RIGHT!

Whiskeyjack
06-02-2016, 03:47 PM
Pierre Manent recently published an article in First Things titled "Repurposing Europe (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/04/repurposing-europe)":

For the Frenchmen who lived through World War II, the defining event of their lives was quintessentially political. It was the great refusal, embodied by General Charles de Gaulle, to accept the defeat of June 1940. With that refusal came a determined commitment to reestablish national sovereignty. This was more than a matter of overthrowing German occupation. As de Gaulle recognized, it required Frenchmen to recover the spiritual independence of France, to recommit themselves to the project of building a unique and identifiable nation.

For the next generation, the events of May 1968 were their decisive experience. Both its partisans and critics agree that after May ’68 we became a society that undoes its bonds. France was no longer seen as a distinctive nation that strives for unity and independence. Collective rules, both political and social, were delegitimized. The citizen of action was succeeded by the individual of enjoyment. This movement appeared to be very political, even revolutionary, with its various groups competing to be the most radical ideologically. In reality, political differences were leveled in a flood of slogans, and the scene was prepared for the great withdrawal of loyalty from the community, a withdrawal that would take place over the years to follow.

One might be tempted to see in these years a mere inflection of France’s political regime, and a softening of its traits without a change in its essential features—just the Fifth Republic reaching its cruising speed. After the stress that accompanied the assertive leadership of General de Gaulle, some relaxation was deserved, and was moreover very pleasant. This interpretation is plausible and reassuring, but wrong.

After ’68, relaxation became the law of the land. Every constraint appeared to be useless and arbitrary, whether in civic or in private life. Now, as each letting go justifies and calls forth the next, successive governments tout themselves, no longer because of the guidance and the energy they give to common life, but because of the “new rights” they grant to individuals and groups. Underlying the ostentatious solicitude for the wishes of society and the desires of individuals, there is a growing incapacity to propose goals for common action. Here is the cause of the growing distance between the French and their political class. Faced with a number of threats, people sense the need to gather themselves for common action. They want to recover something of the Gaullist strain toward national solidarity. But the political class remains locked in the May ’68 mentality and is incapable of putting forward a vision of France as a nation. Instead, they present themselves: their expertise, their earnestness, their celebrity.

The gravity of this crisis has long been hidden by what we like to call the construction of Europe. The energies of our political class have been devoted to buttressing the authority of an enterprise that delegitimizes the nation and promises a new way of bringing humans together. As national political life becomes less and less satisfying, citizens and government officials look elsewhere. The people, unhappy with government, and the government, unhappy with the people, both turn their faces toward the promised land of Europe, a new, post-political way of being, in which each would finally be rid of the other.

These sweet hopes have become less and less plausible. Those who govern and those who are governed remain prisoners of each other. And both are prisoners of a European Union that is now just one more insoluble problem. Neither the institutions of Europe, nor the government of France, nor what is called civil society have enough strength or credibility to claim the attention or fix the hopes of citizens. As rich as we still are in material and intellectual resources, we are politically weak. Nothing seems to have the power to gather us toward the common action we all feel necessary. Faced with crises such as Greek default and the attacks of radical Islamists, we are capable only of offering technical fixes or hollow platitudes. Real political leadership of the kind that calls on our deepest loyalties and highest capacities is nowhere to be seen.

This political weakness has not escaped the attention of those who now attack us. To be sure, when men have at each other, they do not precisely calculate the power ratios, and it sometimes happens that the weaker attacks the stronger. Still, it would be a mistake to look at things this way. When some of our citizens take up arms against us so brazenly and implacably, this means that not only our state, our government, and our political body but we ourselves have lost the capacity to gather and direct our powers, to give our common life form and force.

What to do about our diminished collective capacity is the great political question of Europe. Whether in relation to European unification or to Islam, it is clear that we have nothing pertinent to say if we refrain from making claims about European identity. One way to outline essential characteristics of European political and spiritual life is to contrast them with certain fundamental features of Muslim life.

Running the risk of a somewhat rough stylization, we might say something like the following: Islam throughout its history has largely preserved the form, the impulse, and the consciousness of empire (traits that are found with renewed vigor today), while Western Christianity, though born in an imperial form, and very much subject to great missionary and conquering movements, found its relative stability in a very different arrangement. Islam was never able to abandon the imperial form that *Christianity could never assume in a lasting way. Christianity instead found its form in the nation, or in the plurality of nations once called “Christendom,” then “Europe.”

Today, because we hold the history of Europe at a distance, because we have emptied Europe of its old nations and its old religion, Islam’s entry into European life appears to elite opinion as a problem that does not arise. In our present way of thinking, “Europe” is an abstract social space where the sole principle of legitimacy now resides in human rights, understood as the unlimited rights of individual particularity. No really significant associations or communions remain; fundamentally, none truly exists. In a post-political world in which there exist only individuals and legal machinery to guarantee rights, human associations—that is, nations and churches—are no longer social realities. They are, according to ruling opinion, pretended realities that recalcitrant “reactionaries” invoke only to block newcomers. Treating old nations or the old religion as legitimate realities that must be accounted for in political judgments about the common good is now regarded as attacking Islam.

Because only the individual and the human race are legitimate, intermediate communities in which human beings actually live, such as nations and churches, have no legitimacy of their own and in fact bear the stigma of rupturing human unity. However, to be consistent, this delegitimation of communities should include or implicate the Islamic community. But this does not happen. European political elites speak of Islam and the Islamic community in a way they would never speak of Christianity and the church. In our public discourse, there are Muslims and there are Europeans. Why is it that only one form of living communal identity, the Muslim form, receives the unreserved recognition of ruling opinion?

The most decisive reason, I think, is the following. Those who decide what we have the right to say and do do not engage Islam as a social reality. It is not considered in itself. Instead, “Islam” becomes a test of our post-political resolve. It must be accepted without either reservation or question in order to verify that Europe is indeed empty of any national or religious substance that might get in the way of human universality. The refusal to treat Islam as a social or, more generally, a human reality therefore has nothing to do with Islam but instead with Europe’s self-image.

The fact that human rights might be less well guaranteed within a Muslim polity than in the old, *residually Christian nations does not imply any indulgence toward the latter; in fact the contrary is true. It is not a question of comparing the respective characters, including strengths and weaknesses, of human associations that have long histories and distinctive identities. Rather, “Islam” must be accepted so as to verify the absence of anything common—political or religious—in Europe. The unhindered presence of Islam thus takes on a paradoxical role. Its threat to a European future is actually its importance as supreme marker of our spiritual evisceration, which is taken as an achievement of human universality. Precisely because it has been the enemy of Christianity over the centuries, and because its moral practices are now the furthest from those of the Europe of human rights, a post-political European sees Islam’s unhindered presence as demonstrating the triumph of European ideals. We have become so universally human that we have no enemies.

A part of the public, though very detached from the old nations as well as from the old religion, looks at the Muslim community as a reality and worries about whether human rights, and in particular the rights of women, are respected within it. This opinion willingly and sincerely declares itself secular. This secularism that is critical of Islam expresses a cultural attachment to European history and life, an attachment that is sincere and even lively, but that does not perhaps allow itself to think clearly about the political and religious bases of European culture. It has a tendency to treat culture as a self-sufficient reality. For this very reason, it overestimates enormously the powers of secularism to sustain a particular identity, while underestimating Islam’s capacity of resistance and redoubled affirmation. This is because secularism treats religion mainly as a mere “culture.”

Therefore, in the two great sectors of politically correct opinion that seem opposites of each other—namely, the opinion that rejects even the slightest obstacle to the establishment of Islam, and the opinion that demands restrictions derived from the rule of secularity—we see an underlying commonality: Islam is not treated as a social and political reality. Europe is considered on one hand as empty of any common substance, and fortunately so, so that anyone and anything is allowed to find its place among us. On the other hand, Europe is seen as a “culture” worthy of being preserved and extended. The key point is that in both cases Islam exists only as a shadow cast by its relationship to Europe, or in a predefined role in the self-consciousness of the esteemed persons of Europe. What we say about Islam cannot be separated from what we maintain about Europe, about its politics and its religion.

We must recover a view of the European experience that allows us to see Islam as an objective reality, instead of making it the reflection of our self-*misunderstanding. We need not claim to determine the truth of Islam. Like Christianity, it too has its uncertainties and its possibilities. Europeans, and especially the French, must come to terms with Islam and try, with its help, to bring about its entry into European life in a way that takes account of European realities and possibilities, not into the dream world of hundreds of millions of individuals united by the promise of ever-greater human rights.

While elite opinion in Europe tends to consider Europe as a “nothing,” a space empty of anything common, or at most as a “culture” that is neither religious nor national in character, far from all Europeans agree. After all, despite the efforts of an almost unanimous ruling class over more than half a century, Europeans still live mainly in their old nations, and the prospect of a leap into a post-national Europe, whatever meaning one attaches to that expression, has lost almost all plausibility.

To be sure, our relationship to the nation has changed along with the nation itself. This relationship is more and more defensive and less and less confident and hopeful. We have lost faith in the idea of self-government that animated European nations since they began to take shape in the high Middle Ages. Simultaneously—and perhaps this is not a coincidence—we have lost faith in Providence, in the benevolence and protection of the Most High; or, if these expressions appear too obsolete, we have lost faith in the primacy of the Good. Unlike the Americans, we no longer call on divine protection over our nations, even if we still pray for ourselves and for those close to us. How long has it been since the bishops of France prayed for France, except perhaps very rarely and timidly?

I know that this question might appear strange, and yet self-government and petition for the protection of the Most High are two operations of freedom that are inseparable. Every action, and especially civic or political action, is carried out in view of the common good. This common good, which depends on us, is nevertheless bigger than us, too big for us. We are tempted to appropriate it wholly for ourselves, seeing ourselves as the exclusive authors of this good. When we do so, the nation becomes an object of idolatry, an idol that, in the name of its incomparable particularity or its unequaled universality, demands human sacrifices.

We can also, doing what depends on us as best we can, decline to take exclusive responsibility for this good that is greater than us. Softening our pride a little, we can appeal to the Agent who is greater than any action and any human good. As vacillating and prone to fail as we are, it makes sense to put our common goods, so mysteriously substantial and durable, under the protection and the direction of Providence. To do so is a natural expression of the recognition that there are goods too great for us to be their exclusive authors. This natural movement of appeal to the Christian God for the special cares of the nation always carries a risk of paganization, to be sure. But for us as citizens, our part is not perfectly to imitate Divine impartiality. We address the Most High from the site of our action and for the common good of the city of which we are citizens. Moreover, *Europeans never excluded their neighbors, allies or enemies, from divine benevolence, until they were subjected to the modern regimes that explicitly rejected the God of the Bible.

It is precisely the crimes committed by such regimes in the twentieth century that now prevent Europeans from turning to Providence with confidence and faith. It can be argued that the destruction of Europe’s Jews has made it impossible to believe in a God who is friend to humanity and master of history. I have touched on this question in other contexts with a trembling hand. It bears down on Europe in more ways than one. The Judge seems to be under judgment. Where was He?

And yet, to renounce divine Providence because of the crime committed would only bring us back to the religion of Epicurus, which teaches that the gods are indifferent to men. Such a view preceded the Shoah by a long time. If we return to it, what would we have learned from the Shoah? We will be going back to the impotent and ill-intentioned gods of paganism, and with them to the aimless, purposeless life of men that encourages apathia and withdrawal from public affairs.

In order to act for the common good, we must have confidence in the possibility of the Good. Why forbid ourselves, out of conscience, this confidence? A great deal is at stake. If we do not succeed in turning once more with confidence toward the possibility of the Good—as we find it in the God of European history and in the nations that history produced—we will not recover the ability to govern ourselves.

Right now, we lack that ability. The idea of acting for the common good has lost its meaning for us. We do whatever it is we do not because it is useful, honest, or noble but because it is necessary, because we cannot do otherwise. In the name of a global marketplace, we have constructed a system of action that can best be described as an artificial providence. We tell ourselves that the only thing we can do, and the best that we can do, is to allow ourselves to be governed by the global marketplace. My, how we love this providence! How docile we are when its invisible hand comes down upon us! And how well the wise and powerful know how to interpret its dictates!

With appeal to the god of the marketplace, as well as to other gods that minister to the high god of utility, we have organized public life in ways that have less and less need of free will, less and less need for political communities. Today, we no longer want to act except as driven by necessity. We will not be able to reopen the domain of communal action if we do not set aside the prestige of this false providence. We need to recover the desire for and hope in a provident God if we are to restore the political order as the framework and the product of choice for the common good.

Here the Church must play a central role. Although Catholics seem to be pushed ever further toward the periphery of public life, even in our secularized present the Church is the spiritual domain at the center of the West. Her responsibility is proportional to this centrality, which in truth is inseparable from her identity. The universal Church alone is up to the task of holding together a European form of life that has the capacity to offer hospitality to Judaism, Islam, evangelical Protestantism, and the doctrine of human rights. And so, the Church in France—that is, French Catholics—have a special responsibility for the common good in which the other spiritual forces of my country participate. One suspects that these other forces are not necessarily aware of this special responsibility, nor disposed to recognize it. This is only fair. Those who feel responsible for the whole can bring others to accept this special role only if their own contribution to the common good is sufficiently convincing. French Catholics must perform their centrality.

It is my contention that France’s Muslims will find their place only if the French nation accepts them, not just as rights-bearing citizens, along with other bearers of the same rights, but as a distinctive community to which that nation, shaped by Christianity, grants a place. Our Muslim fellow citizens must obviously enjoy the rights of French citizens without any kind of discrimination, which is not always the case at present. They cannot, however, find a place in a vacuum. They find their place only within a nation that has the spiritual and intellectual resources to be generous without being complacent.

To find their place in a France alive to its Christian center, Muslims must want to participate actively in the life of a political body that does not and will not belong to the umma; they must therefore accept a degree of separation from the umma. For the nation to accept them as Muslims without reducing their religious mark to a private particularity with no relevance to the political body, it is necessary that they accept this particular nation, the French nation, as the site of their civic activity and, more generally, of their education. A certain “communitarianism” is inevitable. Muslims will inevitably form a visible and distinct community. This will lead to difficulties, on one side or the other. But this is desirable to the degree that it prevents the ideological lie of the new secularism, which obligates us to pretend to be nothing but citizen-individuals who are permitted common action only for the sake of “humanity.”

The French Republic in which all citizens have equal rights is not an abstraction. It is a nation of a Christian mark in which Jews play an eminent role. It is in this Republic that Muslims may enjoy their rights, and it is in this nation that they must find their place. The more the nation is able to conserve its historical form, the more the Republic will be able to guarantee the equality of rights. Only a French people capable of political action in pursuit of the common good can offer a place for Islam within the body politic.

Exactly the opposite is happening, however. Islam has sprung up in a Europe that has dismantled its ancient parapets, or has let them crumble. No longer daring to be at home in their own countries, Europeans seek repose in moving toward a post-*national future, a movement that nothing can control or slow down. No border must be allowed to obstruct the free movement of capital, of goods, of services, of people, just as no law must circumscribe the unlimited right of individual particularity. A life without law in a world without borders—this has been the horizon of Europeans for at least a generation.

The history of Europe, as I have emphasized, is animated by a very different notion, one elaborated by ancient Israel, reconfigured by Christianity, and then lost when the arc of European history was broken in the great wars of the twentieth century. This notion, without which the history of Europe is unintelligible, has become unintelligible to contemporary *Europeans. I am speaking, of course, of the Covenant, the confidence that the Highest Good oversees and perfects the common good of our nations. This is not a simple rational notion, to be sure, but it is not exactly a religious dogma. It is a certain way of understanding human action in the world, of understanding at once the greatness of what we can accomplish and its precariousness. God is here the one who gives victory, but who also chastises lack of measure. He confers on actions an excess of good that makes them truly good, allowing us to venture collective ambitions that exceed a sober assessment of our powers. And he prevents the bad from taking the evil they bear to the limit, thereby saving us from despair in our times of collective trial.

It is up to Christians to renew the meaning and the credibility of the political community ennobled by the Covenant. We will not do this by inviting Islam to join a vague fraternity of the children of Abraham. We will renew the meaning and credibility of the Covenant only by renewing the meaning and credibility of the distinctively European association that bore the Covenant until only recently—that is, the nation. Now that the Jewish people have taken the form of a nation in Israel, the nations of Christian Europe cannot break with the national form without fatally wounding the legitimacy of Israel. So long as the walls of the Arab-Muslim world are crumbling and Muslims seem to have more and more difficulty producing a political form from their own resources, to admit them into, or rather to abandon them in, a Europe without either political form or gathered collective action for the sake of the common good would be to take away their best chance for a civic life. It does not suffice to bring men together to declare or even to guarantee their rights. They need a form of common life. In France, a nation of the Christian mark is the only form that can bring us all together.

Legacy
07-18-2016, 01:10 PM
Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions (http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-1.php#.V40Fxk5OlJ-)

Public debates over federal immigration reform often suffer from insufficient and inaccurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants particularly at the state level. The truth is that undocumented immigrants living in the United States pay billions of dollars each year in state and local taxes. Further, these tax contributions would increase significantly if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were granted a pathway to citizenship as part of a comprehensive immigration reform.

Immigration Reform Would Net States More Tax Revenue (http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/04/immigration_reform_would_be_a.php#.V40Er05OlJ8)

MJ12666
07-18-2016, 01:58 PM
Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions (http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-1.php#.V40Fxk5OlJ-)



Immigration Reform Would Net States More Tax Revenue (http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/04/immigration_reform_would_be_a.php#.V40Er05OlJ8)

Interesting except the author does not indicate in the article you linked to the cost of services consumed which I conservatively calculated at approximately $100B. So for the extra $2.1B in additional tax revenue for making these individuals legal total taxes paid would be approximately $14B. $14B against $100B in services. Strictly from a financial point of view they are getting a pretty good deal. US citizens, not so much.

Legacy
07-18-2016, 04:58 PM
Interesting except the author does not indicate in the article you linked to the cost of services consumed which I conservatively calculated at approximately $100B. So for the extra $2.1B in additional tax revenue for making these individuals legal total taxes paid would be approximately $14B. $14B against $100B in services. Strictly from a financial point of view they are getting a pretty good deal. US citizens, not so much.

Are you saying U.S. citizens get less services and, subsequently, that their tax to services ratio is higher? I would think that US citizens pay more indirectly as taxes increase without providing paths to citizenship.

I imagine one would factor in long-term productivity as the children of illegals go to college, increasing our GDP and tax basis.

Here's more for stats:

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013) (http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers)

United States Taxpayers (2013)
The full report is available in pdf format.

Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings
-- Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

-- The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

--Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

--At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

--Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

What do you think?

calvegas04
07-18-2016, 06:25 PM
Afghan refugee

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Man with ax said to have attacked people on German train shot dead by police, official says <a href="https://t.co/5HwW9NCf0U">https://t.co/5HwW9NCf0U</a> <a href="https://t.co/2kKJkfoCDh">pic.twitter.com/2kKJkfoCDh</a></p>&mdash; CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/755161020658769920">July 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Polish Leppy 22
07-18-2016, 06:40 PM
Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016 (http://www.dw.com/en/two-million-germany-records-largest-influx-of-immigrants-in-2015/a-19131436)

Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.

Buster Bluth
07-18-2016, 07:25 PM
What do you think?

I think I wouldn't trust anything from FAIR even if you paid me.

Buster Bluth
07-18-2016, 07:26 PM
Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016 (http://www.dw.com/en/two-million-germany-records-largest-influx-of-immigrants-in-2015/a-19131436)

Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.

Well that makes sense considering this is the largest refugee crisis since World War II, no?

calvegas04
07-18-2016, 07:43 PM
Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016 (http://www.dw.com/en/two-million-germany-records-largest-influx-of-immigrants-in-2015/a-19131436)

Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.

I feel terrible for Germany, they are going to lose their countries identity

Buster Bluth
07-18-2016, 07:54 PM
I feel terrible for Germany, they are going to lose their countries identity

At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.

calvegas04
07-18-2016, 08:10 PM
At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.

It would be different if they weren't bringing a destructive culture and crime all over Europe

Polish Leppy 22
07-18-2016, 08:17 PM
Well that makes sense considering this is the largest refugee crisis since World War II, no?

1. Yes, it makes sense that a ton of people are leaving the Middle East for Europe. But Germany (nor any other country) had no obligation to take in anyone and they took in enough "migrants" to fill up the city of Houston.

2. Safety and security: the stories linked above in this thread aren't fake. They are real. Do you have any sympathy for victims of these crimes, or are we going to pretend migrants are all innocent women and children?

3. Calvegas has a point, and it isn't insensitive, racist, etc. to say that Germany's population could undergo a HUGE shift. Syrian refugees aren't storming Berlin and staging a coup, but what if the majority of them support Sharia? The consequences will stem from the changing demographics.

4. Europe's birthrates have been in decline for decades, but couple that with mass migration from the Middle East and all of a sudden people might be reconsidering those vacations/ study abroad trips to the UK, France, Germany, etc.

NorthDakota
07-18-2016, 08:19 PM
At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.

Sucks for the good ones. But I'm not sure they are worth the trouble anymore.

It would be different if they weren't bringing a destructive culture and crime all over Europe

Girlfriend is visiting with her dad. They were about ten minutes away. Sad deal.

dad4aa
07-18-2016, 10:07 PM
Posting for people's thought...

Subject: McCarran-Walter Act of 1952


Trump not too far off!!



This Should be of Interest,

Very interesting Bit of Legislative History:
McCarran-Walter Act of 1952

Donald Trump was recently severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S.
should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic
groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The
criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being
"Un-American," dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen
and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and Obama
called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional .


As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise!!!" It seems that the
selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several
occasions. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a.k.a., the
McCarran-Walter Act allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of
restrictions by the president". Whenever the president finds that the entry
of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the
entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants
or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
appropriate."

Note that McCarran and Walter were Democrats and this act was utilized by
Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States .
but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check
in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of
their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979.
You won't hear a word about this from the liberal media, propaganda machine.

It is of note that the act requires that an applicant for immigration "must
be of good moral character" and "attached to the principles of the
Constitution."

Since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration.

Authenticated at:

http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1952_immigration_and_nationality
_act.html

NDgradstudent
07-18-2016, 10:16 PM
At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.

Once you are no longer in immediate danger, you are no longer a refugee. You are a migrant. Almost everyone on Earth would enjoy a better life in they came to a European country or to America. Does everyone therefore have the right to do so? And how are we supposed to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving?

pkt77242
07-18-2016, 10:21 PM
Once you are no longer in immediate danger, you are no longer a refugee. You are a migrant. Almost everyone on Earth would enjoy a better life in they came to a European country or to America. Does everyone therefore have the right to do so? And how are we supposed to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving?

Maybe when we fuck up their country? At what point do we bear responsibility for ISIS and the people who are trying to escape them?

NDgradstudent
07-18-2016, 10:38 PM
Maybe when we fuck up their country? At what point do we bear responsibility for ISIS and the people who are trying to escape them?

I agree. We shouldn't try to fix their countries.

pkt77242
07-18-2016, 10:47 PM
I agree. We shouldn't try to fix their countries.

I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


Sorry for the language.

calvegas04
07-18-2016, 10:56 PM
I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


Sorry for the language.

Why is it that these refugees are mainly men while they are leaving the women and children behind to fight isis?

pkt77242
07-18-2016, 11:08 PM
Why is it that these refugees are mainly men while they are leaving the women and children behind to fight isis?

No idea what this has to do with my post but:

I would guess that women (and children) are more likely to not survive the hardship and or end up as slaves/wifes for ISIS.

Also the numbers depend on what country you are talking about, Women make up about 1/2 of refugees in Jordan, Egypt, SA, Lebanon, etc.

In Europe it is about 60-65% men. In the US about half are children (makes sense).

calvegas04
07-19-2016, 12:09 AM
No idea what this has to do with my post but:



Well you want us to feel sympathy for these "refugees", but they are leaving their kids and wives behind so they can get over to Europe and have all that sweet sweet welfare. So I don't really feel any sympathy for them as they are using their civil war as a excuse to leave their already crappy country and go ruin Europe.
Meet The Brave Women Fighting ISIS In Syria (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kurdish-women-fighting-isis_us_56e05e98e4b065e2e3d46569)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141026004252-lkl-watson-kurdish-female-fighters-00012012-story-top.jpg

pkt77242
07-19-2016, 12:14 AM
Well you want us to feel sympathy for these "refugees", but they are leaving their kids and wives behind so they can get over to Europe and have all that sweet sweet welfare. So I don't really feel any sympathy for them as they are using their civil war as a excuse to leave their already crappy country and go ruin Europe.
Meet The Brave Women Fighting ISIS In Syria (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kurdish-women-fighting-isis_us_56e05e98e4b065e2e3d46569)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141026004252-lkl-watson-kurdish-female-fighters-00012012-story-top.jpg

You do realize that you are making assumptions about these people right? Why do you assume that these people are leaving their wife and kids behind? What if they don't have a wife or children? Honestly I think that you would find something wrong with them no matter what. You don't want them here and you will fit the narrative to your belief. That is fine but own it.

ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?

calvegas04
07-19-2016, 12:32 AM
You do realize that you are making assumptions about these people right? Why do you assume that these people are leaving their wife and kids behind? What if they don't have a wife or children? Honestly I think that you would find something wrong with them no matter what. You don't want them here and you will fit the narrative to your belief. That is fine but own it.

ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?

Syrian women speak out against men who are fleeing the country – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW (http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/10/09/syrian-women-speak-out-against-men-who-are-fleeing-the-country/)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-9.59.12-PM-1024x581.jpg

calvegas04
07-19-2016, 12:35 AM
ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?

I would have if the Cubans came over and started raping girls in mass and if crime shot up like crazy

pkt77242
07-19-2016, 12:45 AM
Syrian women speak out against men who are fleeing the country – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW (http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/10/09/syrian-women-speak-out-against-men-who-are-fleeing-the-country/)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-9.59.12-PM-1024x581.jpg

To the link, that is anecdotal. Could it be true, sure (and wouldn't be horribly shocking though sad) but that story hardly shows a mass exodus of married men.

As to the numbers/graphs. Yes it is more male than female but have you ever looked at why? Many of the males coming over are unaccompanied minors (predominately male, but under 18). Basically they are sending over their boys to carry on their family name. They send them over unaccompanied because they are pretty much guaranteed asylum as an unaccompanied minor. They aren't sending sending over 30-40 year old men, they are sending over 10-17 year old males. Are you really expecting these 10-17 year old boys to fight ISIS?

pkt77242
07-19-2016, 01:08 AM
I would have if the Cubans came over and started raping girls in mass and if crime shot up like crazy

What does that have to do with staying and fighting? Either people should stay and fight or you believe that they should leave the violence of their home country. The incidents in Europe have been horrible, but remember that you are talking about a couple of hundred people in relation to the millions that are there. It is a small percentage of refugees that commit crime. Here is an interesting article on it.

The Origin of Refugee Crime Rumors - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/refugees-crime-rumors/480171/)

Was there a crime uptick with the additional refugees, sure, though it seems about in-line with any country that added that many people.

Also, the article talks about the false rumors (many) and even real stories like Cologne get distorted. 12 men were linked with sexual crimes (horrific, but do you really want to judge millions of people off of 12 of them?), most were linked with robbing people (bad, but not shocking given the poverty of many of the asylum seekers).

Legacy
07-19-2016, 04:19 AM
Syria Regional Refugee Response (http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php)

Legacy
07-19-2016, 04:37 AM
New Americans in New York (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-new-york) (American Immigration Council)

Immigrants, Latinos and Asians account for large and growing shares of the economy and the electorate in New York. Immigrants (the foreign-born) account for more than 1 in 5 New Yorkers—and more than half of them are U.S. citizens eligible to vote. “New Americans”—immigrants and the children of immigrants—account for 23.9% of all registered voters in the state. New York’s immigrants are responsible for $229 billion in economic output, while Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) account for one quarter of New Yorkers and wield $165 billion in consumer purchasing power. At last count, the sales and receipts of businesses owned by Latinos and Asians totaled more than $68.7 billion and employed more than 310,000 people. Not only is New York one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation, but it is also a historic gateway for immigrants from virtually every part of the world. Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are a political and economic powerhouse in New York.

NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Launches Nearly $8 Million Assistance Program For Immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/15/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-launches-nearly-8-million-assistance-program-immigrants/)

Legacy
07-22-2016, 03:33 PM
From Ireland to Germany to Italy to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed in the States, 1850 – 2013 (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/from-ireland-to-germany-to-italy-to-mexico-how-americas-source-of-immigrants-has-changed-in-the-states-1850-to-2013/) (Pew Research)

Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065 (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/) (Pew Research)

MJ12666
07-22-2016, 04:30 PM
New Americans in New York (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-new-york) (American Immigration Council)



NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Launches Nearly $8 Million Assistance Program For Immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/15/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-launches-nearly-8-million-assistance-program-immigrants/)

He has to give them money. His latest approval rating is 35% approve. Even a majority of Dems viewed him fair or poor. His best group is Black/Latino at 36%. The $8M will probably lift his rating to 37%. lol.

BGIF
07-22-2016, 04:39 PM
He has to give them money. His latest approval rating is 35% approve. Even a majority of Dems viewed him fair or poor. His best group is Black/Latino at 36%. The $8M will probably lift his rating to 37%. lol.


Not 47% ?

MJ12666
07-22-2016, 04:42 PM
Not 47% ?

$8M only goes so far in NY. Very expensive.

ickythump1225
07-25-2016, 12:07 AM
What does that have to do with staying and fighting? Either people should stay and fight or you believe that they should leave the violence of their home country. The incidents in Europe have been horrible, but remember that you are talking about a couple of hundred people in relation to the millions that are there. It is a small percentage of refugees that commit crime. Here is an interesting article on it.

The Origin of Refugee Crime Rumors - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/refugees-crime-rumors/480171/)

Was there a crime uptick with the additional refugees, sure, though it seems about in-line with any country that added that many people.

Also, the article talks about the false rumors (many) and even real stories like Cologne get distorted. 12 men were linked with sexual crimes (horrific, but do you really want to judge millions of people off of 12 of them?), most were linked with robbing people (bad, but not shocking given the poverty of many of the asylum seekers).
1 refugee crime is too many because we're talking about a group of people who are not wanted or needed in the West. They are guests of Western nations, not citizens entitled to be there. If even 1 refugee commits a crime it is a travesty because they really weren't needed in the first place.

Why should citizens of Western nations (who by and large do NOT want "refugees" in their country) have to put up a "crime uptick" that was "in-line" with other countries? America, and the rest of the West, has enough problems and criminals to deal with, without adding in millions more. Why are Western nations deemed to be the dumping grounds for the worlds problems? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees?" Or Israel?

ickythump1225
07-25-2016, 12:10 AM
I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


Sorry for the language.
Yeah well we shouldn't go meddling into the Middle East, but haven't enough Western women been raped and Western women been killed to prove your point? The joke has gone far enough at this point...

Buster Bluth
07-25-2016, 12:29 AM
1 refugee crime is too many

I should have stopped reading here...

because we're talking about a group of people who are not wanted or needed in the West. They are guests of Western nations, not citizens entitled to be there. If even 1 refugee commits a crime it is a travesty because they really weren't needed in the first place.

Uh huh. What is it about using the word entitled/entitlement to spearhead criticisms coming from the Right? It's like a god damn dog whistle over there.

Do you know what wasn't needed? The toppling of Saddam, or the sloppy occupation of Iraq that created terrorists by the thousands, or the arming of an incompetent Iraqi military, or the subverting of the Assad regime, etc that all allowed ISIS to go on this run and cause this refugee crisis in the first place. None of that was needed, but we felt entitled to do it anyway.

Why should citizens of Western nations (who by and large do NOT want "refugees" in their country) have to put up a "crime uptick" that was "in-line" with other countries? America, and the rest of the West, has enough problems and criminals to deal with, without adding in millions more.

America has enough problems to deal with but somehow other countries' immigration policies are on that list.

Who said the West is adding millions of criminals?

Why are Western nations deemed to be the dumping grounds for the worlds problems? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees?" Or Israel?

You're aware that most of the refugees are still in the Middle East, right?

Buster Bluth
07-25-2016, 12:31 AM
Yeah well we shouldn't go meddling into the Middle East, but haven't enough Western women been raped and Western women been killed to prove your point? The joke has gone far enough at this point...

"Well okay we destroyed those countries but there have been isolated incidents of rape in the West so aren't we basically even?"

calvegas04
07-25-2016, 01:25 AM
"Well okay we destroyed those countries but there have been isolated incidents of rape in the West so aren't we basically even?"

Im sure if 20,000 Syrians moved to Toledo OH, you would be saying WTF when they raise crime and change the culture of Toledo

BGIF
07-25-2016, 01:52 AM
Im sure if 20,000 Syrians moved to Toledo OH, you would be saying WTF when they raise crime and change the culture of Toledo

IF they all become Buckeye fans it would definitely raise the gene pool of Buckeye Nation.

Legacy
07-25-2016, 03:21 AM
Where do you put 65 miĺlion "displaced" people? The largest number since WWII.

- 40.8 million people who had been forced to flee their homes but were within the confines of their own countries, "internally displaced"

-- 21.3 million refugees - "externally displaced"
A total of 54% of all refugees come from just three countries, Syria at 4.9 million, Afghanistan at 2.7 million and Somalia at 1.1 million. Turkey hosts 2.5 million externally displaced people. Followed by Pakistan (1.6 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Iran (979,000) and Ethiopia (736,000). Major refugee populations include Palestinians (4.8 million), Afghans (2.9 million), Iraqis (1.8 million), Somalis (700,000), Congolese (456,000), Myanmarese (407,000), Colombians (390,000), Sudanese (370,000).

3.2 million people in industrialized countries who, at the end of 2015, were awaiting decisions on asylum – the largest total ever recorded.

Children made up 51 per cent of the world’s refugees in 2015, many unaccompanied, separated or alone. Women make up half the refugees.

About two-thirds of the world’s refugees have been in exile for more than five years.

The number of total displaced people increased by 5.8 million last year.

kmoose
07-25-2016, 06:19 AM
You're aware that most of the refugees are still in the Middle East, right?

Which is even MORE of a reason for Western countries to better vet those requesting asylum. If the number of immigrants going to Western countries is a minority, then that means that the percentage of troublemakers getting to the West is much higher; possibly an indicator that terrorists/agitators ARE indeed mingling in with refugees in order to infiltrate the West.

ickythump1225
07-25-2016, 12:59 PM
I should have stopped reading here...



Uh huh. What is it about using the word entitled/entitlement to spearhead criticisms coming from the Right? It's like a god damn dog whistle over there.[/QUOTE
They aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a citizen. They aren't needed or wanted here, they are here as guests. When the guests start trashing your yard it is time to end the party and throw them out.
[QUOTE]Do you know what wasn't needed? The toppling of Saddam, or the sloppy occupation of Iraq that created terrorists by the thousands, or the arming of an incompetent Iraqi military, or the subverting of the Assad regime, etc that all allowed ISIS to go on this run and cause this refugee crisis in the first place. None of that was needed, but we felt entitled to do it anyway.
Okay everyone, except maybe Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, agree that America's foreign policy (which has been bipartisan) over the past 20 years sucks, but why do innocent Western women and children have to pay that price? America is going to face a lot of negative consequences for its Middle Eastern policy, but women getting raped on the streets of Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, England, etc. shouldn't be one of them. Just because we made a mistake in foreign policy doesn't mean our people should have to pay that price forever and ever.

America has enough problems to deal with but somehow other countries' immigration policies are on that list.

Who said the West is adding millions of criminals?
Crime statistics and the daily news. Germany went from a 1st world nation to a nation that has train stabbings, pregnant women getting hatcheted to death, and suicide bombings (all in a weeks timespan) in about a year since they decided to commit suicide. Isn't diversity fun?

You're aware that most of the refugees are still in the Middle East, right?
Can we send the rest of them back there?

ickythump1225
07-25-2016, 01:05 PM
"Well okay we destroyed those countries but there have been isolated incidents of rape in the West so aren't we basically even?"
We don't owe them anything. We owe our citizens everything. 1 western woman getting raped at the hands of a rapefugee is too many. If you think I'm going to feel super sorry for the state of the Middle East I won't because the modus operandi of the Middle East since the dawn of history has been nearly nonstop tribal warfare with intermittent periods of peace. America's foreign policy for the past 20 years has been horrible and has lead to a lot of negative consequences for a lot of people, that is why I want to change it. That being said, our citizens shouldn't have to pay the price for our puppet masters mistakes.

The U.S. has paid a steep price already for our foolish interventionism. Asking our people to put up with 3rd world style terrorist attacks daily isn't some form of cosmic justice. It's ethno-machismo and suicidal.

By the way the only thing "isolated" about the refugee rape epidemic in the West is media's coverage of it.

calvegas04
07-25-2016, 03:00 PM
a new bombing in Germany yesterday from a Syrian refugee

Ansbach bomber pledged allegiance to ISIS - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/world/ansbach-germany-blast/index.html)

Buster Bluth
07-25-2016, 03:52 PM
We don't owe them anything. We owe our citizens everything. 1 western woman getting raped at the hands of a rapefugee is too many. If you think I'm going to feel super sorry for the state of the Middle East I won't because the modus operandi of the Middle East since the dawn of history has been nearly nonstop tribal warfare with intermittent periods of peace. America's foreign policy for the past 20 years has been horrible and has lead to a lot of negative consequences for a lot of people, that is why I want to change it. That being said, our citizens shouldn't have to pay the price for our puppet masters mistakes.

The U.S. has paid a steep price already for our foolish interventionism. Asking our people to put up with 3rd world style terrorist attacks daily isn't some form of cosmic justice. It's ethno-machismo and suicidal.

By the way the only thing "isolated" about the refugee rape epidemic in the West is media's coverage of it.

I don't think you have a damn clue what you're talking about.

ickythump1225
07-25-2016, 05:15 PM
I don't think you have a damn clue what you're talking about.
Ohhh sick burn. Why don't you enlighten us all with your wisdom. I'm not sure anyone is listening anymore considering your worldview and the ideas you support have led to Europe becoming a 3rd world style warzone. I'm sure all of the Germans who enthusiastically lined up at the train station with their "Refugees Welcome" shirts and liberal smugness are singing a different tune. Europeans are getting a hard lesson in the reality that not all people are the same and not all cultures are equal.

You can sit there with smug liberal assurance that you know what you're talking about and vote for Gary Johnson all day long if you want. Just know that if you get your wish someday innocent Americans will pay for the insanity of your ideas. People like you never pay though, you'll have moved away to a less diverse neighborhood before you have to reap what you've showed.

dshans
07-25-2016, 06:56 PM
... Just know that if you get your wish someday innocent Americans will pay for the insanity of your ideas. People like you never pay though, you'll have moved away to a less diverse neighborhood before you have to reap what you've showed.

Well, aside from the fact that the word you were unsuccessfully reaching for was "sowed," you are full of chaff.


Will that payment be cash, credit or debit card?

ickythump1225
07-26-2016, 03:35 PM
Well, aside from the fact that the word you were unsuccessfully reaching for was "sowed," you are full of chaff.


Will that payment be cash, credit or debit card?

https://scontent.fsan1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12871490_283102638692369_961027351612644546_n.png? oh=97c32a8e40ca299606e172c34373f034&oe=5822BF78

ickythump1225
07-26-2016, 03:38 PM
ISIS knifemen film themselves murdering French priest in Normandy attack | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708394/Two-men-armed-knives-people-hostage-French-church.html)

Yeah Buster we should just keep the borders open, what we would do without such cultural enrichment?

MJ12666
07-26-2016, 05:36 PM
Where do you put 65 miĺlion "displaced" people? The largest number since WWII.

- 40.8 million people who had been forced to flee their homes but were within the confines of their own countries, "internally displaced"

-- 21.3 million refugees - "externally displaced"
A total of 54% of all refugees come from just three countries, Syria at 4.9 million, Afghanistan at 2.7 million and Somalia at 1.1 million. Turkey hosts 2.5 million externally displaced people. Followed by Pakistan (1.6 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Iran (979,000) and Ethiopia (736,000). Major refugee populations include Palestinians (4.8 million), Afghans (2.9 million), Iraqis (1.8 million), Somalis (700,000), Congolese (456,000), Myanmarese (407,000), Colombians (390,000), Sudanese (370,000).

3.2 million people in industrialized countries who, at the end of 2015, were awaiting decisions on asylum – the largest total ever recorded.

Children made up 51 per cent of the world’s refugees in 2015, many unaccompanied, separated or alone. Women make up half the refugees.

About two-thirds of the world’s refugees have been in exile for more than five years.

The number of total displaced people increased by 5.8 million last year.

These numbers don't add up. 51% (childran) + 50% (women) = 101%. That means none of the refugees are men. What am I missing?

Legacy
07-26-2016, 06:10 PM
These numbers don't add up. 51% (childran) + 50% (women) = 101%. That means none of the refugees are men. What am I missing?

50% of global refugees are female, all ages

UNHCR - Women (http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/women.html)

Buster Bluth
07-26-2016, 10:40 PM
Why don't you enlighten us all with your wisdom.

I'll try but I have a feeling much doesn't get in that ol' noggin of yours.

I'm not sure anyone is listening anymore considering your worldview and the ideas you support

Go find quotes in which I put forth outright praise for the European's decision to allow millions of refugees. I have never, not once, said Angela Merkel is making a wise decision in deciding to make Germany the most welcoming country for refugees.

What I have done is combat sloppy, xenophobic rhetoric on IE because we can do better than to broad brush millions of people.

have led to Europe becoming a 3rd world style warzone.

What the hell is that? Europe doesn't resemble any part of the third world. If someone thinks so that person is a certifiable idiot.

I'm sure all of the Germans who enthusiastically lined up at the train station with their "Refugees Welcome" shirts and liberal smugness are singing a different tune. Europeans are getting a hard lesson in the reality that not all people are the same and not all cultures are equal.

You can sit there with smug liberal assurance that you know what you're talking about and vote for Gary Johnson all day long if you want. Just know that if you get your wish someday innocent Americans will pay for the insanity of your ideas. People like you never pay though, you'll have moved away to a less diverse neighborhood before you have to reap what you've showed.

Not exaggerating when I say this isn't worth a response. Go call in a radio show or something already.

They aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a citizen. They aren't needed or wanted here, they are here as guests. When the guests start trashing your yard it is time to end the party and throw them out.

Who is saying refugees have the same rights as citizens? How are they not wanted, but then spoken of as guests?

Why do you continue to to use "we" when Europe is clearly the site of these ISIS attacks? Europeans aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a citizen.

Okay everyone, except maybe Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, agree that America's foreign policy (which has been bipartisan) over the past 20 years sucks, but why do innocent Western women and children have to pay that price? America is going to face a lot of negative consequences for its Middle Eastern policy, but women getting raped on the streets of Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, England, etc. shouldn't be one of them. Just because we made a mistake in foreign policy doesn't mean our people should have to pay that price forever and ever.

Who is "our people?" Again Europeans aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a US citizen, ie our complete concern for their well being. They are adults. They can make their own decisions. Thankfully, the US has a much different set of procedures for refugees and has a completely profile for Muslims when it comes to assimilation and countries of origin.

So fearful of refugees but are you even aware that the US has pledged to accept just 10,000? And that'd be 10,000 vetted refugees, half of whom are young children.

Crime statistics and the daily news. Germany went from a 1st world nation to a nation that has train stabbings, pregnant women getting hatcheted to death, and suicide bombings (all in a weeks timespan) in about a year since they decided to commit suicide. Isn't diversity fun?

Your attempt to smear the concept of diversity with the attacks brought on my lunatics says a great deal about you.

1 western woman getting raped at the hands of a rapefugee is too many.

This is the dumbest shit I've read in a long time. Probably another post of yours.

The standard you have here is just beyond comprehension.

If you think I'm going to feel super sorry for the state of the Middle East I won't because the modus operandi of the Middle East since the dawn of history has been nearly nonstop tribal warfare with intermittent periods of peace.

#badhistory like a mofo right now.

Every place on Earth has been "nearly nonstop tribal warfare" for a looooong time. War is pathetically common, you should know this. The West, touting a superior culture and all, has done more than its fair share of fighting. Add up some body counts and get back to me.

But let's get serious, the Middle East has not always been a giant clusterfuck that it is today. I think you like to broad brush it because you're a xenophobic clown. The Ottoman Empire dominated the Sunni parts of the Middle East for for a very long time the "tribal warfare" was basically nil until...and this is great considering your us vs them mindset...the West started one of the deadliest wars in history and then chopped up the Middle East in part to pit once-peaceful tribes and ethnicities against each other. And then the West (we're all on the same team right?) invaded the place and toppled whole countries and created this ISIS mess...

America's foreign policy for the past 20 years has been horrible and has lead to a lot of negative consequences for a lot of people, that is why I want to change it. That being said, our citizens shouldn't have to pay the price for our puppet masters mistakes.

The US policy in the Middle East has been short-sighted for decades.

US policy on one hand, "our citizens" on another. Are you talking about Europe or the US?

The U.S. has paid a steep price already for our foolish interventionism. Asking our people to put up with 3rd world style terrorist attacks daily isn't some form of cosmic justice. It's ethno-machismo and suicidal.

You don't know a steep price until you see your country ripped to bits by wave after wave of instability and terror. The future you cowardly fear is actually happening to the people in much of Syria/Iraq. Try to wrap your head around that, just try.

ISIS knifemen film themselves murdering French priest in Normandy attack | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708394/Two-men-armed-knives-people-hostage-French-church.html)

Yeah Buster we should just keep the borders open, what we would do without such cultural enrichment?

Did you just use an attack in France to criticize US border control?

News flash silly goose: refugees admitted into the US have to go through a whole different set of hoops than ones bound for Europe. Probably because, you know, they can't fucking just walk here.

You take the worst refugee policies, paint a picture that it's like that everywhere, and point to the worst attacks, and paint a picture that they're all like that everywhere. It's the lamest shit on IE right now, and there is an awful DNC being discussed, to put it in perspective. I'm not sure you put two sentences together without coming off as a xenophobe and/or being factually incorrect with your generalizations.

Buster Bluth
07-26-2016, 10:47 PM
Im sure if 20,000 Syrians moved to Toledo OH, you would be saying WTF when they raise crime and change the culture of Toledo

That would be twice the number the entire country is pledged to accept.

But it's funny you use Toledo, we have been praised repeatedly for our success in welcoming refugees.

Among The Lucky Few: Syrian Family Rebuilds In America's Heartland : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450221327/among-the-lucky-few-syrian-family-rebuilds-in-americas-heartland)

How an Ohio Town Became a Model City for Resettling Syrian Refugees | VICE | United States (http://www.vice.com/read/how-an-ohio-town-became-a-model-city-for-resettling-syrian-refugees)

Refugees from Syria happy to be in Toledo - The Blade (http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2015/09/21/Refugees-from-Syria-happy-to-be-in-Toledo.html)

NDgradstudent
07-26-2016, 11:12 PM
That would be twice the number the entire country is pledged to accept.

But it's funny you use Toledo, we have been praised repeatedly for our success in welcoming refugees.

Among The Lucky Few: Syrian Family Rebuilds In America's Heartland : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450221327/among-the-lucky-few-syrian-family-rebuilds-in-americas-heartland)

How an Ohio Town Became a Model City for Resettling Syrian Refugees | VICE | United States (http://www.vice.com/read/how-an-ohio-town-became-a-model-city-for-resettling-syrian-refugees)

Refugees from Syria happy to be in Toledo - The Blade (http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2015/09/21/Refugees-from-Syria-happy-to-be-in-Toledo.html)

Good, you can take them. I hope the "refugees" have as much affection for Ohioans as the ones in France seem to have for the French.

Buster Bluth
07-26-2016, 11:16 PM
Good, you can take them. I hope the "refugees" have as much affection for Ohioans as the ones in France seem to have for the French.

Let me just say right now that I am in no way afraid of this couple and others like them (https://vice-images.vice.com/images/content-images/2016/07/19/visiting-little-syria-just-two-hours-away-from-the-republican-national-convention-body-image-1468951733.jpg?resize=*:*&output-quality=75).

We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world and people are running around clamoring for the rejection of any and all Muslims out of fear. Say what you will about terrorism, but it works. It works because the extremists on that end get the extremists on our end to react in a way that harms themselves.

You're nothing but a coward NDgradstudent. An ignorant coward.

dshans
07-26-2016, 11:36 PM
You're nothing but a coward NDgradstudent. An ignorant coward.

Thems fightin' werds, Buster!

I say we put Monsanto to werk developin' a remedy fer tearists.

Mebbe a vaccinator.

Dayum.

Ain't no one gunna dickterate what I 'lowe be injecterated in my Red, White and Bleu chillun!

This world ain't big enough for the whole of us ... DRAW!


KAPOW, Yer daid!!!



Look at your shirt.

Judging from the blood, you are too.

NDgradstudent
07-26-2016, 11:39 PM
Let me just say right now that I am in no way afraid of this couple and others like them (https://vice-images.vice.com/images/content-images/2016/07/19/visiting-little-syria-just-two-hours-away-from-the-republican-national-convention-body-image-1468951733.jpg?resize=*:*&output-quality=75).

We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world and people are running around clamoring for the rejection of any and all Muslims out of fear. Say what you will about terrorism, but it works. It works because the extremists on that end get the extremists on our end to react in a way that harms themselves.

You're nothing but a coward NDgradstudent. An ignorant coward.

How does it harm our country to not take in tons of Muslim immigrants?

dshans
07-27-2016, 12:11 AM
How does it harm our country to not take in tons of Muslim immigrants?

I don't know.

How many Muslim immigrants are there in a ton?

Does the formula take into account the undernourished?

The children?

The percent of women, who are statistically weigh less than males?

Is this metric tonnes?

"We" are talking, in large, about a European issue, are we not?

Where's the the گاو پرواری?

Oh, yeah; it's global.

Well, Holy Hell. Welcome to the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries.

GoodGawdAwmighty.

NDgradstudent
07-27-2016, 12:40 AM
Well, Holy Hell. Welcome to the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries.

Actually, what's going on in Europe at the moment looks an awful lot like the 13th century.

Whiskeyjack
07-27-2016, 05:26 PM
News Deeply's Bethan Staton just published an article titled "Jordan Experiment Spurs Jobs for Refugees (https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2016/07/25/jordan-experiment-spurs-jobs-for-refugees#.V5X41iicGsg.twitter)". It's a good example of how we could help refugees who may have difficulty assimilating within the West.

Legacy
07-27-2016, 06:45 PM
News Deeply's Bethan Staton just published an article titled "Jordan Experiment Spurs Jobs for Refugees (https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2016/07/25/jordan-experiment-spurs-jobs-for-refugees#.V5X41iicGsg.twitter)". It's a good example of how we could help refugees who may have difficulty assimilating within the West.

A couple of articles on this camp in Jordan - the largest in the Mideast.

http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2016/03/28/2d43107e-349a-4718-aa5c-e17c4020e414/2d43107e-349a-4718-aa5c-e17c4020e414_16x9_788x442.jpg

Behind the fences of Jordan’s Zaatari refugee camp
(http://english.alarabiya.net/en/blog/2016/03/28/Behind-the-fences-of-Jordan-s-Zaatari-refugee-camp.html)

Jordan Deal with Donors Means Legal Work for Syrian Refugees (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/07/26/world/middleeast/ap-ml-jordan-syrians-at-work.html?_r=0) (perhaps what Whiskey's cited article notes) Getting a legal work permit can be problematic, because many fled without their official papers.
Jordan hosts more than 650,000 refugees, with about 80 percent living in communities, rather than refugee camps, and imposing a heavy burden on resources, including health care, schools and housing.

Some UN stats on the Zaatari Camp (http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/settlement.php?id=176&region=77&country=107).

calvegas04
07-27-2016, 07:43 PM
That would be twice the number the entire country is pledged to accept.

But it's funny you use Toledo, we have been praised repeatedly for our success in welcoming refugees.

Among The Lucky Few: Syrian Family Rebuilds In America's Heartland : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450221327/among-the-lucky-few-syrian-family-rebuilds-in-americas-heartland)

How an Ohio Town Became a Model City for Resettling Syrian Refugees | VICE | United States (http://www.vice.com/read/how-an-ohio-town-became-a-model-city-for-resettling-syrian-refugees)

Refugees from Syria happy to be in Toledo - The Blade (http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2015/09/21/Refugees-from-Syria-happy-to-be-in-Toledo.html)
get ready for sharia law gangs roaming the street

Legacy
07-28-2016, 11:48 AM
Which is even MORE of a reason for Western countries to better vet those requesting asylum. If the number of immigrants going to Western countries is a minority, then that means that the percentage of troublemakers getting to the West is much higher; possibly an indicator that terrorists/agitators ARE indeed mingling in with refugees in order to infiltrate the West.

You have to admire, if that's the word, the patience of a terrorist going deep cover into a refugee camp for an average of five years to emerge in the West to cause havoc, especially the majority who are women and children.

Religion and Refugee Resettlement in the United States
Religion and Foreign Policy Conference Call: Religion and Refugee Resettlement in the United States (http://www.cfr.org/refugees-and-the-displaced/religion-refugee-resettlement-united-states/p37991) (Council on Foreign Relations - audio or transcript)

Exceprts:
So what does it mean when a congregation signs up to be a co-sponsor? There are varying levels of commitment. And everything that I’m telling you is actually on our website, RefugeeOne.org, and, you know, you can feel free to download the packets and share it with groups in your communities. So they commit to raise resources that are needed for the resettlement, and depending on the size of the family that may vary from 4,000 (dollars) to 8,000 dollar(s). They commit to put together a group of volunteers from their congregation that will be able for a period of six months to visit the family and basically befriend them, and help them with various activities—you know, showing them the city, taking them out, visiting them at home, tutoring their children, helping adults learn English and how to navigate the system, and go to the airport to pick them up when they first arrive, help us furnish their apartment, and, you know, anything and everything that goes into being part of a welcoming community for these newly arriving refugee families.

A lot of, you know, times, these relationships, you know, are limited to six months, and then the congregation may move on and co-sponsor another family. Other times, even although they may do that and take on another family, but these relationships really blossom, and the refugees and the various individuals from these congregations remain, you know, friends throughout their lifetime.

...And I was eager to hear their stories and see what the process was like of trying to come to this country—to uproot oneself, and then to bring either just individual self or their entire families into the country.

And what I saw was what we call a “whole of society” society approach: the federal government puts in some money, often states provide social-service benefits, but it’s really the local community partnerships that have led to the successful integration of now 3.2 million refugees since 1975. And what I saw were police departments, school superintendents, an amazing array of houses of worship that come together and partner with these implementing agencies to try and smooth the transition of refugees coming into the United States.

I think the key piece of misunderstanding often in some of these controversies has to do with the extent of the security background checks for refugees who do come to the United States. As Melineh mentioned, the background checks for refugees traveling to the United States are the most extensive security background checks for any traveler to the United States, and the Department of (Health and) Human Services is involved, the intelligence community is involved, the FBI is involved in that. And if a refugee cannot affirmatively prove their safety to the American population, they are not allowed to come into the country.


One Hand Extended to Too Many (http://magazine.nd.edu/news/50254-one-hand-extended-to-too-many/) (Notre Dame Magazine)

The Place Called Nowhere (http://magazine.nd.edu/news/49966-the-place-called-nowhere/) (ND Magazine)

BGIF
07-28-2016, 12:06 PM
FBI Chief Warns ‘Terrorist Diaspora’ Will Come to the West - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/fbi-chief-warns-terrorist-diaspora-will-be-coming-to-the-west)

Chris Strohm

July 27, 2016 — 8:59 AM CDT
Updated on July 27, 2016 — 10:35 AM CDT

Hundreds of terrorists will fan out to infiltrate western Europe and the U.S. to carry out attacks on a wider scale as Islamic State is defeated in Syria, FBI Director James Comey warned.

“At some point there’s going to be a terrorist diaspora out of Syria like we’ve never seen before,” Comey said Wednesday in New York. “We saw the future of this threat in Brussels and Paris,” said the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, adding that future attacks will be on “an order of magnitude greater.”

Comey’s blunt warnings echo those of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has scoffed at Obama administration efforts to defeat Islamic State extremists in Syria and Iraq. Nonetheless, the FBI chief’s comments reflect a consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that the group inevitably will strike out abroad as it continues to lose ground militarily under attack from a U.S.-led coalition.

CIA Director John Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June that “our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach.” Using an acronym for Islamic State, Brennan said, “as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

‘Greatest Threat’
Comey, who called violence directed or inspired by Islamic State “the greatest threat to the physical safety of Americans today,” said that “a lot of terrorists fled out of Afghanistan in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is 10 times that or more.”

In his remarks at a conference on cybersecurity, Comey also cited the difficulty of heading off what are often called “lone-wolf” attackers acting on the group’s calls for violence.

It is “increasingly hard” for counterterrorism officials to find and stop individuals inspired or directed by Islamic State who use a knife or a vehicle to kill people, Comey said.

At the same time, U.S. officials have claimed increasing success in reducing Islamic State’s hold on the caliphate the group proclaimed across a swath of Iraq and Syria.
Kerry, Trump

“We can say that the tide has turned,” Secretary of State John Kerry said last week. Using an Arabic name for Islamic State, he said, “Our coalition and partners on the ground have driven Daesh out of nearly 50 percent of the territory that it once controlled in Iraq and 20 percent of the territory in Syria.” But he also cited the need for “real-time communications between countries” and other measures to counter the group’s efforts “to transform themselves into a global terrorist organization.”

While Trump has said he would be more aggressive in attacking Islamic State if elected in November, he hasn’t provided details. His response to the threat of attacks in the U.S. is a vow to introduce “extreme vetting” of potential immigrants from certain “territories” affected by terrorism.

Attacks in France have left more than 230 dead since the start of last year. A mass shooting that killed 49 people at a nightclub last month in Orlando, Florida, was carried out by a man who claimed allegiance to Islamic State. Less than two weeks before the Olympic Games begin in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian police have rounded up a dozen people it said were possibly members of an Islamic State cell.

Beyond the West, Islamic State took credit for a July 23 suicide bombing at a rally in Kabul that killed more than 80 people, the deadliest single attack in Afghanistan in 15 years of war.

Encryption Debate
The FBI chief also spoke Thursday of the unresolved fight over law enforcement access to encrypted communications that brought his agency into conflict with Apple Inc. earlier this year.

The debate over encryption “has dipped below public consciousness right now,” Comey said.

The FBI is using that time to collect data on the negative impact that encrypted communications is having on investigations, he said. From October through March, 500 of 4,000 devices the FBI confiscated couldn’t be opened due to encryption, he said.

Debate by policy makers over the issue probably will have to wait until next year, after the U.S. elections, he said.

“At some point encryption is going to figure in a major event in this country,” Comey said. “We’ve got to have the conversation before that happens.”

ickythump1225
08-02-2016, 12:46 PM
Did you just use an attack in France to criticize US border control?

News flash silly goose: refugees admitted into the US have to go through a whole different set of hoops than ones bound for Europe. Probably because, you know, they can't fucking just walk here.


Investigators are looking into Malik’s K-1 “fiancee” visa, which she had to be granted to enter the country with Farook.

Two government sources told The Times Malik used the name of a neighborhood or street near her home in Pakistan, rather than her family's home address, on her application. Investigators have speculated that she did so to deflect any investigation of her family's reputed ties to Islamic militants in Punjab.

K-1 applicants, like other visa applicants, undergo extensive counter-terrorism screening that includes checks based on fingerprints and facial recognition software. Questions for the partner seeking to come to the U.S. include: "Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?" and "Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?"

Everything we know about the San Bernardino terror attack investigation so far - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-bernardino-shooting-terror-investigation-htmlstory.html)
Ah the old "they'll be vetted" canard. First of all I work in the immigration system so I can tell you that that concept is a complete joke. We're talking about people who are coming from unstable nations with less than great record keeping to put it nicely. They aren't going to be seriously "vetted" the government is just going to fill out some paperwork and do a song and dance routine to appease people like you who think they are actually doing something productive.

Furthermore even if they do a legitimate vetting process that doesn't stop someone from being radicalized once they get here. Look at the San Bernardino shooters. The refugee/immigration system is full of scam artists, it really isn't that hard to bullshit your way into the country.

Also, it doesn't matte if it is "only" 10,000...why have any at all? They aren't wanted here nor are they needed here. America doesn't stand to benefit from their addition in fact most of them (probably all of them at some point) will end up on government aid in the short or long term. They will get refugee assistance, help finding housing, clothing, etc.

It is disingenuous to say 10,000 when you know damn well the Obama Administration wants to raise the rates to 70-80,000 a year and Clinton will most certainly do that if elected.

I'm sure at some point you'll find something I said is "xenophobic" or some other such leftist buzzword nonsense and then whimper about it. But the point remains, why take a single refugee when we don't stand to gain anything tangibly from it other than virtue signalling to other nations and new Democrat voters? Even if we take in 10,000 children, guess what kids do? They grow up, and some of them will grow up to be terrorists and criminals. Even if only 1% of them grow up to be bad, that is 100 of them. 100 terrorists or criminals that America wouldn't have had on its own.

ickythump1225
08-02-2016, 01:03 PM
I'll try but I have a feeling much doesn't get in that ol' noggin of yours.



Go find quotes in which I put forth outright praise for the European's decision to allow millions of refugees. I have never, not once, said Angela Merkel is making a wise decision in deciding to make Germany the most welcoming country for refugees.

What I have done is combat sloppy, xenophobic rhetoric on IE because we can do better than to broad brush millions of people.



What the hell is that? Europe doesn't resemble any part of the third world. If someone thinks so that person is a certifiable idiot.



Not exaggerating when I say this isn't worth a response. Go call in a radio show or something already.



Who is saying refugees have the same rights as citizens? How are they not wanted, but then spoken of as guests?

Why do you continue to to use "we" when Europe is clearly the site of these ISIS attacks? Europeans aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a citizen.



Who is "our people?" Again Europeans aren't citizens entitled to the same rights as a US citizen, ie our complete concern for their well being. They are adults. They can make their own decisions. Thankfully, the US has a much different set of procedures for refugees and has a completely profile for Muslims when it comes to assimilation and countries of origin.

So fearful of refugees but are you even aware that the US has pledged to accept just 10,000? And that'd be 10,000 vetted refugees, half of whom are young children.



Your attempt to smear the concept of diversity with the attacks brought on my lunatics says a great deal about you.



This is the dumbest shit I've read in a long time. Probably another post of yours.

The standard you have here is just beyond comprehension.



#badhistory like a mofo right now.

Every place on Earth has been "nearly nonstop tribal warfare" for a looooong time. War is pathetically common, you should know this. The West, touting a superior culture and all, has done more than its fair share of fighting. Add up some body counts and get back to me.

But let's get serious, the Middle East has not always been a giant clusterfuck that it is today. I think you like to broad brush it because you're a xenophobic clown. The Ottoman Empire dominated the Sunni parts of the Middle East for for a very long time the "tribal warfare" was basically nil until...and this is great considering your us vs them mindset...the West started one of the deadliest wars in history and then chopped up the Middle East in part to pit once-peaceful tribes and ethnicities against each other. And then the West (we're all on the same team right?) invaded the place and toppled whole countries and created this ISIS mess...



The US policy in the Middle East has been short-sighted for decades.

US policy on one hand, "our citizens" on another. Are you talking about Europe or the US?



You don't know a steep price until you see your country ripped to bits by wave after wave of instability and terror. The future you cowardly fear is actually happening to the people in much of Syria/Iraq. Try to wrap your head around that, just try.



Did you just use an attack in France to criticize US border control?

News flash silly goose: refugees admitted into the US have to go through a whole different set of hoops than ones bound for Europe. Probably because, you know, they can't fucking just walk here.

You take the worst refugee policies, paint a picture that it's like that everywhere, and point to the worst attacks, and paint a picture that they're all like that everywhere. It's the lamest shit on IE right now, and there is an awful DNC being discussed, to put it in perspective. I'm not sure you put two sentences together without coming off as a xenophobe and/or being factually incorrect with your generalizations.
BB, the whole lot of of this is just liberal virtue signalling. "Oh you don't support massive refugee resettlement? Ha ha ha, you are ignorant and not as intellectually superior as I am. hahah John Oliver called Donald Trump "Donald Drumpf" and a meanie!" This is who you are and you are like this whether we're talking football or politics.

It has nothing to do with ignorance, cowardice, or manliness. It is about doing the right thing for the United States, you know OUR country. I talk of Europe a lot because they are the canary in the coalmine and I saw "we" a lot because we are Europe's blood brothers. The overwhelming vast majority of America citizens have blood ties to Europe, in fact it is probably close to 95% maybe more. We are part of Western Civilization with Europe, Australia, and Canada. I care more about what happens in Western nations than I do in non-Western nations in the same way I'd be more upset if my cousin was murdered than some random guy I don't know.

What is happening in Europe is what our politicians want to happen here: unchecked immigration and refugee resettlement. You think we're just inoculated from what is happening over there but we're not. It is a small world now and being buffered by 2 oceans on each side doesn't stop anyone from coming here. Just ask the victims of 9/11. Ask the victims of San Bernardino. But really they don't even have to come here anymore, they're probably already here. And they will be radicalized by the internet. This is the price we will pay for accepting thousands of people every year from nations, cultures, and a religion that are incubators of anti-western terrorism.

I do have to specifically comment on this because it is hilarious:
You don't know a steep price until you see your country ripped to bits by wave after wave of instability and terror. The future you cowardly fear is actually happening to the people in much of Syria/Iraq. Try to wrap your head around that, just try.

I love how it is "cowardly" to fear your nation turning into France or Germany with weekly (sometimes daily) terrorist attacks. It is funnier still because everything about your demeanor screams soft guy who has never been in so much as a fistfight. You're just a keyboard warrior but if SHTF in Toledo (or whatever backwater heartland town you hail from) you'd piss yourself.

In reality though wanting to save my country and my civilization from terrorist attacks isn't "cowardly." We don't have to prove anything to world and subjecting westerners to terrorist attacks doesn't make us noble, it just makes us stupid.

Legacy
08-02-2016, 04:01 PM
For the economic perspective...

Facts About Immigration and the U.S. Economy
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/)(Economic Policy Institute)

Buster Bluth
08-02-2016, 11:08 PM
Ah the old "they'll be vetted" canard. First of all I work in the immigration system so I can tell you that that concept is a complete joke. We're talking about people who are coming from unstable nations with less than great record keeping to put it nicely. They aren't going to be seriously "vetted" the government is just going to fill out some paperwork and do a song and dance routine to appease people like you who think they are actually doing something productive

Did you just call yourself incompetent?

Furthermore even if they do a legitimate vetting process that doesn't stop someone from being radicalized once they get here. Look at the San Bernardino shooters. The refugee/immigration system is full of scam artists, it really isn't that hard to bullshit your way into the country.

You can say that about anyone, thus your xenophobia.

If it's not that hard, why isn't the US seeing attacks as frequently as Europe?

Also, it doesn't matte if it is "only" 10,000...why have any at all? They aren't wanted here nor are they needed here. America doesn't stand to benefit from their addition in fact most of them (probably all of them at some point) will end up on government aid in the short or long term. They will get refugee assistance, help finding housing, clothing, etc.

Please tell me you wrote this using an Apple product.

It is disingenuous to say 10,000 when you know damn well the Obama Administration wants to raise the rates to 70-80,000 a year and Clinton will most certainly do that if elected.

A year? That's a bold and unsubstantiated claim. Par for the course though.

I'm sure at some point you'll find something I said is "xenophobic" or some other such leftist buzzword nonsense and then whimper about it. But the point remains, why take a single refugee when we don't stand to gain anything tangibly from it other than virtue signalling to other nations and new Democrat voters? Even if we take in 10,000 children, guess what kids do? They grow up, and some of them will grow up to be terrorists and criminals. Even if only 1% of them grow up to be bad, that is 100 of them. 100 terrorists or criminals that America wouldn't have had on its own.

You don't have to be an expert to know that a 1% figure here is an enormously large number. Using "if only" shows a pathetic amount of ignorance, fear, and xenophobia.

Buster Bluth
08-02-2016, 11:21 PM
BB, the whole lot of of this is just liberal virtue signalling. "Oh you don't support massive refugee resettlement? Ha ha ha, you are ignorant and not as intellectually superior as I am. hahah John Oliver called Donald Trump "Donald Drumpf" and a meanie!" This is who you are and you are like this whether we're talking football or politics.

A+ stuff keep it up.

It has nothing to do with ignorance, cowardice, or manliness. It is about doing the right thing for the United States, you know OUR country. I talk of Europe a lot because they are the canary in the coalmine and I saw "we" a lot because we are Europe's blood brothers. The overwhelming vast majority of America citizens have blood ties to Europe, in fact it is probably close to 95% maybe more. We are part of Western Civilization with Europe, Australia, and Canada. I care more about what happens in Western nations than I do in non-Western nations in the same way I'd be more upset if my cousin was murdered than some random guy I don't know.

You just defined xenophobia and signed up for it.

What is happening in Europe is what our politicians want to happen here: unchecked immigration and refugee resettlement. You think we're just inoculated from what is happening over there but we're not. It is a small world now and being buffered by 2 oceans on each side doesn't stop anyone from coming here. Just ask the victims of 9/11. Ask the victims of San Bernardino. But really they don't even have to come here anymore, they're probably already here. And they will be radicalized by the internet. This is the price we will pay for accepting thousands of people every year from nations, cultures, and a religion that are incubators of anti-western terrorism.

Bringing out that ol' broad brush of yours to paint politicians this time. Nice.

"nations, cultures, and a religion that are incubators of anti-western terrorism" is really the perfect phrase to show your broad brushing stupidity. Someone who isn't quite an amateur would be hammering away at the disturbing cult of Salafism/Wahabism, our odd relationship with Saudi Arabia, a lack of a crackdown on mosques around the world spreading this ideology, etc.

No, instead you get sloppy and turn into a broad brushing xenophobe. And that's really the difference between you and me: you're just sloppy.

I do have to specifically comment on this because it is hilarious:

I love how it is "cowardly" to fear your nation turning into France or Germany with weekly (sometimes daily) terrorist attacks. It is funnier still because everything about your demeanor screams soft guy who has never been in so much as a fistfight. You're just a keyboard warrior but if SHTF in Toledo (or whatever backwater heartland town you hail from) you'd piss yourself.

Funny see this is the sort of thing I would expect from a coward behind a keyboard.

In reality though wanting to save my country and my civilization from terrorist attacks isn't "cowardly." We don't have to prove anything to world and subjecting westerners to terrorist attacks doesn't make us noble, it just makes us stupid.

You are the definition of success for a terrorist.

Legacy
08-03-2016, 04:00 AM
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/574b539b130000fb07383075.jpeg

At Least 700 Migrants May Have Died At Sea In Past Week
The migrants — fleeing wars, oppression and poverty — often do not know how to swim and do not have life jackets. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/at-least-700-migrants-may-have-died-at-sea-in-past-week_us_574affeae4b03ede441512b0?utm_hp_ref=italy)

ROME (Reuters) - At least 700 migrants may have died at sea this past week in the busiest week of migrant crossings from Libya towards Italy this year, Medecins San Frontieres and the UN Refugee agency said on Sunday.

About 14,000 have been rescued since Monday amid calm seas, and there have been at least three confirmed instances of boats sinking. But the number of dead can only be estimated based on survivor testimony, which is still being collected.

“We will never know exact numbers,” Medecins San Frontieres said in a Tweet after estimating that 900 had died during the week. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said more than 700 had drowned.

Migrants interviewed on Saturday in the Sicilian port of Pozzallo told of a large fishing boat that overturned and sank on Thursday with many women and children on board.

Initial estimates were that 400 people died, but the UN Refugee agency said on Sunday there may have been about 670 passengers on board.

According to testimony collected by EU border agency Frontex, when the motorless fishing boat capsized, 25 swam to the boat that had been towing it, while 79-89 others were saved by rescuers and 15 bodies were recovered. This meant more than 550 died, the UNHCR said.

The migrants — fleeing wars, oppression and poverty — often do not know how to swim and do not have life jackets. They pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to make the crossing from Libya to Italy, by far the most dangerous border passage for migrants in the world.

This week’s arrivals included Eritreans, Sudanese, Nigerians and many other West Africans, humanitarian groups say. Despite the surge this week, as of Friday 40,660 arrivals had been counted, 2 percent fewer than the same period of last year, the Interior Ministry said.


HANDOUT . / REUTERS
Refugees and migrants on a partially submerged boat in the Mediterranean.
Most of the boats this week appear to have left from Sabratha, Libya, where many said smugglers had beaten them and women said they had been raped, said MSF, which has three rescue boats in the area.

The migrants are piled onto flimsy rubber boats or old fishing vessels which can toss their occupants into the sea in a matter of seconds.

About 100 are thought to have either been trapped in the hull or to have drowned after tumbling into the sea on Wednesday.

On Friday, the Italian Navy ship Vega collected 45 bodies and rescued 135 from a “half submerged” rubber boat. It is not yet known exactly how many were on board, but the rubber boats normally carry about 300.

“Some were more shaken than others because they had lost their loved ones,” Raffaele Martino, commander of the Vega, told Reuters on Sunday in the southern port of Reggio Calabria, where the Vega docked with the survivors and corpses, including those of three infants.

“It’s time that Europe had the courage to offer safe alternatives that allow these people to come without putting their own lives or those of their children in danger,” Tommaso Fabri of MSF Italy said.

https://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2016/08/01/543779_img650x420_img650x420_crop.jpg

Legacy
08-04-2016, 06:11 PM
Where refugees to the U.S. come from (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/17/where-refugees-to-the-u-s-come-from/) (Pew) with other articles under the topic Immigration, too, such as

Key facts about the world’s refugees (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/20/key-facts-about-the-worlds-refugees/)

calvegas04
08-05-2016, 01:21 AM
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/574b539b130000fb07383075.jpeg

At Least 700 Migrants May Have Died At Sea In Past Week
The migrants — fleeing wars, oppression and poverty — often do not know how to swim and do not have life jackets. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/at-least-700-migrants-may-have-died-at-sea-in-past-week_us_574affeae4b03ede441512b0?utm_hp_ref=italy)


https://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2016/08/01/543779_img650x420_img650x420_crop.jpg

They should have stayed home

Legacy
08-07-2016, 12:25 AM
The World’s Largest Refugee Camp Is Invited to Please Shut Down:
The Kenyan government says it will clear its country of Somali refugees before the end of this year. But it's not saying how. (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/21/the-worlds-largest-refugee-camp-is-invited-to-please-shut-down-kenya-somalia-dadaab/) (Foreign Policy, July 2016) Dadaab camp

DADAAB REFUGEE CAMP, Kenya — Nafiso Mohamed Noor says she never wants to go back to Somalia. But if the Kenyan government follows through with its plan to close the world’s largest refugee camp by the end of the year, she may not have a choice.

Noor knows what it means to return prematurely to a war zone. In May 2015, after Kenya renewed what has become a perennial threat to shutter the sprawling, windswept settlement on its northeastern frontier that houses more than 326,000 refugees, most of them from neighboring Somalia, she decided to sign up for the U.N.’s voluntary repatriation program. Better to go back on her own terms than risk being rounded up and deported without warning, she thought.

So in August, after waiting three months for the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) to process her application, she boarded a flight to the Somali capital of Mogadishu. She found her old house in Wardigle, a neighborhood whose name in Somali roughly translates to “stream” — or “channel” — “of blood,” still standing. But less than two months later, a mortar fired by al-Shabab militants crashed into her kitchen. The round sheared off her right breast, sliced a 3-inch gash in her left foot, and left shards of metal embedded deep in her left hip.

SANCTUARY WITHOUT END: THE REFUGEES THE WORLD FORGOT (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/10/world/dadaab-refugees/) (CNN) Dadaab camp

Dadaab rose from modest beginnings, set up in 1991 as a temporary shelter for 90,000 refugees fleeing the civil war engulfing neighboring Somalia. Almost a quarter of a century later it is a complex of five distinct camps, and it is still growing. After years of conflict, famine, and floods, Somalis continue to stream over the border into the camp.
Europe's migrant crisis may have grabbed all the headlines this summer, but two-thirds of the world's roughly 20 million refugees live in protracted situations like the one here in Dadaab.
Nearly 60 million people around the world were displaced by war, conflict or persecution by the end of 2014 -- the highest figure since records began. An average of 42,500 people are forced from their homes each day, according to the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR).

Half the world's refugees are children.

During the height of Somalia's 2011 famine, tens of thousands of refugees made the journey by bus, donkey cart and foot to escape hunger and the Islamic militant group Al-Shabaab. A quarter of a million people died during the famine. Most were under the age of six, according to the U.N.

"I don't want Kenyan residency, I don't want a Somali passport, I want to be resettled," Bulle tells us. "I've worked very hard to at this job, but still feel like I'm in an open jail. I just want to lead my own life."

Legacy
08-08-2016, 11:22 PM
Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/understanding-central-american-refugee-crisis-why-they-are-fleeing)

In the spring and summer of 2014, tens of thousands of women and unaccompanied children from Central America journeyed to the United States seeking asylum. The increase of asylum-seekers, primarily from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala—the countries making up the “Northern Triangle” region—was characterized by President Obama as a “humanitarian crisis.” The situation garnered widespread congressional and media attention, much of it speculating about the cause of the increase and suggesting U.S. responses.

Figure 1. Homicide Rates for Selected North and Central American Countries, 2000-2013
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/understanding_the_central_americans_refugee_crisis _figure1.png

Figure 2. Crime Victimization and Migration Intentions, 2014
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/understanding_the_central_americans_refugee_crisis _figure2.png

Figure 3. Honduran Views of Immigration to U.S., 2014
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/understanding_the_central_americans_refugee_crisis _figure3.png

Why do these individuals continue trying to make the trip when seemingly fully aware of the dangers involved? The findings reported here suggest that no matter what the future might hold in terms of the dangers of migration, it is preferable to a present-day life of crime and violence. The unprecedented levels of crime and violence that have overwhelmed the Northern Triangle countries in recent years have produced a refugee situation for those directly in the line of fire, making no amount of danger or chance of deportation sufficient to dissuade those victims from leaving.

Legacy
08-10-2016, 03:22 AM
Turkey’s failed coup could have disastrous consequences for Europe’s migrant crisis (https://www.brookings.edu/2016/07/29/turkeys-failed-coup-could-have-disastrous-consequences-for-europes-migrant-crisis/) (Brookings Institute, July 29, 2016)

Turkey’s recent failed coup may lead to the worsening of Europe’s migration crisis. That’s because it could lead to the dissolution of a recent pact between Brussels and Ankara over the plight of refugees arriving on the European Union’s shores. Even before the events of last weekend, the fate of the agreement was uncertain amid quarrels between the parties. Now its future is even more in doubt.

Last year, more than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe, roiling politics across the continent. It’s a crisis EU chief Donald Tusk has described as an “existential challenge.”

Under the terms of the deal, Turkey agreed to accept the “rapid return of all migrants not in need of international protection crossing from Turkey into Greece and to take back all irregular migrants intercepted in Turkish waters.” In other words, almost all refugees who cross into Greece are slated to be returned to Turkish soil.

In return, the EU pledged to speed up the allocation of €3 billion in aid to Turkey to help it house and care for refugees, “reenergize” Turkey’s bid for membership in the EU, and lift visa restrictions on Turkish tourists and businessmen.

But the European Commission has conditioned changes to the visa restrictions on better governance in Turkey. In particular, it requires a change in President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s controversial anti-terror law, which he has used to crack down on journalists and critics. Erdoğan was already adamantly against narrowing the law to protect free speech. Having now overcome a determined coup attempt, he is even less likely to do so.

Instead, it appears probable that he will further clamp down on civil liberties, acting on his authoritarian instincts and retaliating against his detractors. On Sunday, he suggested that he might reintroduce the death penalty, a practice Turkey abolished in 2004 as part of its bid for EU membership. Doing so would widen the gap in political culture between Turkey and Europe and, as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier asserted forcefully on Monday in Brussels, derail the already limited possibility of reigniting accession talks.

The pact has already been strongly opposed by the European left, and particularly by humanitarian and human rights groups. Rising authoritarianism in Turkey would only increase resistance to the deal, making implementation even harder, especially if those groups were to scale back their activities on the ground.

That would not be without precedent. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Doctors Without Borders, and the International Rescue Committee, among others, have suspended some of their activities in refugee centers because they do not want to be involved in implementing a deal that they describe as constituting the blanket expulsion of refugees from Turkey back to Greece.

Crucially, a crackdown could also undermine the legal basis of the agreement. One of the agreement’s key provisions is that individuals who cross from Turkey into Greece will be sent back across the Aegean to Turkey. That hinges on the notion that Turkey is a “safe third country” for migrants. A crackdown could prompt refugees to argue that it isn’t.

If that were the case, deporting them to Turkey could be seen as constituting “refoulement”—the forcible return of asylum seekers to a country where they are prone to be subjected to persecution—which is forbidden under both international and EU law.

That’s a problem, since some analysts believe worsening conditions in Turkey could lead even more people seeking refuge to journey onward to Europe. In the past, Erdoğan has threatened to “open the gates” and send refugees streaming into Europe when displeased with the level of financial assistance from Brussels earmarked for managing the crisis. Preoccupied by troubles at home, he may see stability as in his interest and resist taking aggressive steps that would cause an open breach.

For both parties, finding a stable, though imperfect, accommodation—as they were poised to do prior to the events of last weekend—is still the most promising path forward. Let’s hope the parties take it. Managing Europe’s migration crisis depends on it.


European Immigration Through Turkey Surges After Coup Attempt (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/03/european-immigration-turkey-surges-coup-attempt/) (Breitbart, August 3, 2016)
Excerpt:
One of the few cards in Erdogan’s hand is control of the migrant situation, with some two million desperate people crowding camps throughout the Turkish peninsula, many of whom are anxious to enter the European Union. It is a card that Erdogan is not afraid to play. In a recent interview with the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu issued a stern ultimatum to European authorities: either Brussels lifts visa requirements for Turkish citizens or last March’s agreement on migrants will fall. Either alternative promises serious immigration problems for Europe.
If the EU grants visa liberalization, hundreds of thousands of migrants are likely to enter Europe “legally” from Turkey, and EU authorities will have little way of ascertaining the origins or intentions of those coming in. The risk of infiltration from Islamic terrorists is high, since the Turkish government has expressed its intention to issue some 350 thousand new passports, according to nebulous criteria. If Europe refuses, however, Erdogan will likely reopen the floodgates of migrants across the Aegean Sea into Greece, with numbers likely to equal or exceed the waves of migrants experienced in 2015.
Either way, Europe’s migrant crisis will likely get much worse before it gets better.

Legacy
08-14-2016, 01:19 PM
As many of you may know, Father Hesburgh, who headed many Presidential Commissions that resulted in some of our major legislations that are the foundations of our society now, was head of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Their report to the Senate's Subcommittee on Immigration is below.

This was a bipartisan Committee which held hearings and developed recommendations which were submitted prior to this Congressional Hearing and which were enacted into law thirty-five years ago. Here's the full text of the report. (https://archive.org/stream/finalreportofsel1981unit/finalreportofsel1981unit_djvu.txt)

Excerpts from the opening statement by Chairman Senator Alan Simpson, Wyoming:
I have had the honor of being one of the sixteen Commissioners who were part of that effort, which was the most ambitious such project in over 50 years. The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh who will be the first witness at these joint hearings was the Chairman of the Select Commission. Father Ted did a most remarkable job in that capacity. He is a true humanitarian and a man who gives much of himself to any issue in which he is involved. Without his innate skills OF reconciliation and direction the task would have been a long and labored one.

I realize that I am about to enter into a very sensitive area and there is some risk that what I will say may be misunderstood. So, at the outset, let me emphasize that I believe no individual applying to this country lawfully in search of freedom and opportunity and anxious to adapt to this country's political institutions and values should be discriminated against because of color, nationality or religion, as we have sometimes done in the nation's past. I am very much aware of the great contributions made by various ethnic groups to the well-being of all americans.

We are aware that throughout the world there constant pressures and disruptions which cause people to seek our shores. We as a nation are proud that this is the case, and i am sure that we all wish we could take within our borders all that wish to come. That is clearly impossible. The refugee figure is growing extremely rapidly. Last year there were 13 million. This year 16 million. And the immigrant demand also continues to grow.

The leadoff hitter in today's batting order will be the Chairman of the Select Commission, Father Ted Hesburgh. Father Hesburgh did a most extraordinary job in that capacity, a true humanitarian and a man who gives much of himself to any issue in which he becomes involved. Without his innate skills of reconciliation, compassion and direction, the task would have been long and labored.

Father Hesburgh's statement (beginning on page 23) includes:
Some among us, often moved by deeply religious values, ask the question, why should immigration be a problem? Why shouldn't people be free to move wherever they want to? We are all one species, all children of one God, and from the beginning of time human beings have been a curious migratory species. Why not let down the barrier of nation-states and permit people to move freely?

The questions almost answer themselves. Immigration is a problem because nearly all peoples believe in nationalism, in nation-states in which to maintain the integrity of national ideologies, institutions, and boundaries. We believe this in the United States, too, but not for narrow nationalistic purposes only, but also because we believe that our Nation has become a symbol of the possibilities of freedom and the potentiality for justice in a world which sees little of either.

In fact, the first of the three principles which undergird this Commission's important recommendations is the principle of international cooperation. As a nation, we cannot survive without international cooperation. We live in a constant state of interdependence. Consequently, the Select Commission has made several recommendations guided by that principle.

The second of our important principles is the rule of law. To the Commission, the rule of law meant two things: First, enforcing the limits we set for immigration in a firm, unambiguous manner, and second, doing so with high standards of due process. Dozens of the Commission recommendations are guided by the principle of the rule of law.

Our third principle was that of the open society and how few of them there are in today's world. By the open society we mean certain specific things. We mean that it is in the national interest of the United States to accept a reasonable number of immigrants and refugees each year to fulfill the U.S. policy goals regardless of the color, nationality, or the religion of those admitted. It also means that once admitted to this country, these people should be entitled to get on a fast track to citizenship under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of this land without discrimination.


I know there are persons who are wondering why the Commission recommended an increase in legal immigration. The answer is straightforward but not simple. It is clearly in the interest of the United States to do so. Once again I will summarize our finding with respect to legal immigrants.

Immigrants work hard, save and invest, and create more jobs than they take. Thus, they contribute to economic growth in the United States. It is true even for refugees, although the contribution takes place after a longer period of adjustment.

Immigrants rapidly pay back into the public coffers more than they take out when they arrive.

Immigrants strengthen our pool of younger and middle-aged workers, thus strengthening our social security system and enlarging the U.S. manpower capabilities.

Immigrants strengthen our ties with other nations.

Immigrants strengthen our linguistic and cultural resources.

Immigrants and their children embrace American ideals and public values rapidly and help to renew them.

Immigrants give a brilliant demonstration to the world of the advantages of a free society.

And finally, the children of immigrants, according to our studies, acculturate well to the American life and actually seem to be healthier and do better in school on the average than those of native-born Americans.

Why should we be so worrisome, in light of U.S. history? The fact is that about 45 percent of the people now in this country either arrived here from afar or are descendents of people who came here within the last four or five generations. In fact, at least one-half of the congressional members of our Commission are descendents of persons who came to the United States within the last four generations, not even counting that distinguished alumnus of Notre Dame, Ron Mazzoli.

No one questions their Americanism in the slightest, even though many people vigorously opposed the arrival of their ancestors, their grandparents, and great-grandparents, predicting dire consequences for the United States because of their admission.

We are all fortunate that some of our ancestors were immigrants, others refugees, some contract laborers, others indentured servants, and still others survived the slave trade and made it to this land. Most of them suffered the migration passage and the problems of adjustment here, even those who chose to come, but few of us regret that they stuck it out. If they had not, none of us in this room would be here today.

While this Nation should get its house in order by regaining control over immigration policy, and while it is clear that we can no longer follow George Washington's advice to open all our doors to all of the oppressed of the world, this would be a horrible time to impose additional quantitative restrictions on immigration.

We can and we should assert our own values, and traditions, and our national self-interest by modestly increasing levels of immigration and my instituting a legalization program as well and by enforcing the law firmly and fairly. What is required is a campaign of leadership to articulate those values, those traditions, and those interests in relationship to immigration so that the American people will support the recommendations of the Commission.

In his initial statement, Senator Simpson also says:
Joint Congressional hearings are nearly unprecedented, I understand that the last time it occurred was thirty years ago and then both houses of Congress were controlled by my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle! Chairman Mazzoli and I trust that the fact that we are able to work together on this issue to this degree--despite our differing party affiliations--will indeed indicate the necessity for a bipartisan revision of our nation's Immigration and refugee policy. I also trust that the joint hearing process and close consultations with each body will facilitate the development and enactment of the legislative reforms which are so vitally needed in this area.

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 04:11 PM
Immigrants rapidly pay back into the public coffers more than they take out when they arrive.

Immigrants strengthen our pool of younger and middle-aged workers, thus strengthening our social security system and enlarging the U.S. manpower capabilities.

Immigrants strengthen our ties with other nations.

Immigrants strengthen our linguistic and cultural resources.

Immigrants and their children embrace American ideals and public values rapidly and help to renew them.

Immigrants give a brilliant demonstration to the world of the advantages of a free society.

This is all nice and feel good but the bulk of them aren't true or are spun heavily. "Immigrants strength our ties with other nations?" That is debatable. Is Europe any closer to North African nations since they've let in a tidal wave of refugees? Are we that much closer to Syria since we've started admitting refugees from there?

"Immigrants strengthen our linguistic and cultural resources." That is just feel good gobbledygook. Multiculturalism is an abject failure and lowers community bonds, trust, and cohesion. America went to the moon when nearly everyone spoke English, are we really than we were when Apollo 11 was completed just because we have to press "1" for English?

"Immigrants and their children embrace American ideals and public values rapidly and help to renew them."
This is just blatantly false. Some may eventually embrace American ideals and values but it is not "rapidly." If they did, they wouldn't be strengthening our "linguistic and cultural resources" to put it in Fr. Hesburgh's words. America (which is not just an "idea" despite the claims of egalitarian neoliberals and neoconservatives) was founded on ideas like private property, individual rights, limited government, freedom of religious thought, freedom of political speech, etc. You know, ideas rooted in Western (particularly Anglo-Saxon) theory and idea. Poll after poll shows that recent immigrants favor big government, expanded welfare, collectivist ideas, etc. This is why Democrats are open border people, they see billions of potential voters out there outside the Anglosphere.

The other points are economic points and for neoliberals like Fr. Hesburgh that is the most important thing to them. Neoliberals, neoconservatives, and the like view the world through the prism of economics. Flooding the West with millions of immigrants from nations, religions, and cultures that are vastly different than (if not diametrically opposed to) our way of life is worth it to them because they economically benefit from it. That is the same reason we pursue a free trade agenda though it has clearly ruined large segments of the U.S. economy.

A nation without borders (or a country that has "borders" like we do but they exist only so we can say we have them), a common interest, a common culture, common ancestry, common ideas on religion, law, morality, virtue, governance, etc. is not really a nation but just a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area.
Human beings are unique beings with individual thoughts and passions that exist as part of larger structures like races, cultures, and nations. They are not interchangeable economic units as most of our business and political leaders see them, Fr. Hesburgh apparently thinks of them, and quite frankly how most people on this board and in this country see them. America is a unique nation with a unique culture and a unique heritage. Part of vetting process for immigration should be whether or not that individual would fit our culture.

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 04:15 PM
You are the definition of success for a terrorist.
Yeah I'm sure terrorists dream of being banned from the United States and denied access to American targets.

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 04:26 PM
"nations, cultures, and a religion that are incubators of anti-western terrorism" is really the perfect phrase to show your broad brushing stupidity. Someone who isn't quite an amateur would be hammering away at the disturbing cult of Salafism/Wahabism, our odd relationship with Saudi Arabia, a lack of a crackdown on mosques around the world spreading this ideology, etc.

No, instead you get sloppy and turn into a broad brushing xenophobe. And that's really the difference between you and me: you're just sloppy.
We can do all of that and still build a wall, deport as many illegals as humanly possible, and put severe restrictions on immigration to the country.

Also, repeating the word "xenophobe" doesn't make you right. In fact I often find that people fall back on labeling their opponents by calling them "sexist," "racist," "xenophobic," "homophobic," etc. when they have no valid points to make. Simply virtue signalling and demagouging your opponent doesn't make you right or smart.

Buster Bluth
08-14-2016, 04:34 PM
Yeah I'm sure terrorists dream of being banned from the United States and denied access to American targets.

No they dream and state openly their desire to illicit a reaction from the West that pits it in a showdown versus the Islamic world. They have spoken openly about their inability to ever occupy a square inch of North America but how they can send single terrorists to create a culture of fear.

You are afraid and the policies you support are exactly what terrorist organizations like ISIS want.

Buster Bluth
08-14-2016, 04:38 PM
We can do all of that and still build a wall, deport as many illegals as humanly possible, and put severe restrictions on immigration to the country.

The first two are stupid and the last one already exists. A+ stuff again.

Also, repeating the word "xenophobe" doesn't make you right. In fact I often find that people fall back on labeling their opponents by calling them "sexist," "racist," "xenophobic," "homophobic," etc. when they have no valid points to make. Simply virtue signalling and demagouging your opponent doesn't make you right or smart.

But when your opponent is a clear xenophobe, you call him that. That is what you are. You've stated it clearly and repeatedly in just this thread.

Legacy
08-14-2016, 06:03 PM
This is all nice and feel good but the bulk of them aren't true or are spun heavily. "Immigrants strength our ties with other nations?" That is debatable. Is Europe any closer to North African nations since they've let in a tidal wave of refugees? Are we that much closer to Syria since we've started admitting refugees from there?

• We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.

"Immigrants strengthen our linguistic and cultural resources." That is just feel good gobbledygook. Multiculturalism is an abject failure and lowers community bonds, trust, and cohesion. America went to the moon when nearly everyone spoke English, are we really than we were when Apollo 11 was completed just because we have to press "1" for English?

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.

"Immigrants and their children embrace American ideals and public values rapidly and help to renew them."
This is just blatantly false. Some may eventually embrace American ideals and values but it is not "rapidly." If they did, they wouldn't be strengthening our "linguistic and cultural resources" to put it in Fr. Hesburgh's words. America (which is not just an "idea" despite the claims of egalitarian neoliberals and neoconservatives) was founded on ideas like private property, individual rights, limited government, freedom of religious thought, freedom of political speech, etc. You know, ideas rooted in Western (particularly Anglo-Saxon) theory and idea. Poll after poll shows that recent immigrants favor big government, expanded welfare, collectivist ideas, etc. This is why Democrats are open border people, they see billions of potential voters out there outside the Anglosphere.

• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.

The other points are economic points and for neoliberals like Fr. Hesburgh that is the most important thing to them. Neoliberals, neoconservatives, and the like view the world through the prism of economics. Flooding the West with millions of immigrants from nations, religions, and cultures that are vastly different than (if not diametrically opposed to) our way of life is worth it to them because they economically benefit from it. That is the same reason we pursue a free trade agenda though it has clearly ruined large segments of the U.S. economy.

• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.

A nation without borders (or a country that has "borders" like we do but they exist only so we can say we have them), a common interest, a common culture, common ancestry, common ideas on religion, law, morality, virtue, governance, etc. is not really a nation but just a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area.

Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.

Human beings are unique beings with individual thoughts and passions that exist as part of larger structures like races, cultures, and nations. They are not interchangeable economic units as most of our business and political leaders see them, Fr. Hesburgh apparently thinks of them, and quite frankly how most people on this board and in this country see them. America is a unique nation with a unique culture and a unique heritage. Part of vetting process for immigration should be whether or not that individual would fit our culture.

• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.


The bolded quotes above are from that neo-liberal, Ronald Reagan, from:
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy, July 30, 1981. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128)

http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/reaganamnestymeme2.jpg

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 06:47 PM
The first two are stupid
God, what a great argument. You know what? You've changed my mind.

(I hope italics aren't necessary)

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 06:54 PM
No they dream and state openly their desire to illicit a reaction from the West that pits it in a showdown versus the Islamic world. They have spoken openly about their inability to ever occupy a square inch of North America but how they can send single terrorists to create a culture of fear.

You are afraid and the policies you support are exactly what terrorist organizations like ISIS want.
I'm sure they're frustrated by countries like Germany and France where they have carte blanche to machete, bomb, shoot, and run over as many people as they like. If the West ever woke up and actually pitted itself against the Islamic world it would be a start. That is just an acknowledgement of reality. The Islamic world has been standing against the West since Islam was made up by Mohammad in between banging his children sex slaves.

What you want is some fantasy world where we can defeat terrorism with flowers and hugs and maybe some vague rhetoric about shaking down "extremist Islam" (which isn't REAL Islam of course) in a manner that doesn't offend anyone at some undefined point in the future.

This reminds me of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

False bravado in the face of a dangerous enemy isn't brave, it is just stupid.

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 06:58 PM
The bolded quotes above are from that neo-liberal, Ronald Reagan, from:
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy, July 30, 1981. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128)

http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/reaganamnestymeme2.jpg

If you're expecting me to be impressed by Ronald Reagan who sold out the country and American workers with his amnesty and who really didn't a single damn thing that had any lasting effect while in office, you have no idea how wrong a tree you find yourself barking up.

I also included the phrase "neoconservative" which clearly what Reagan was. Irving Kristol may have been the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism but Ronald Reagan was their first poster child. Reagan's presidency has been since been a hamper on the Republican Party as most conservatives/Republicans are more interested in some sort of esoteric personality cult built around Reagan rather than building a winning party.

Rizzophil
08-14-2016, 07:18 PM
Report: More Than 1,000 Known Child Marriages in Germany (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/14/report-1000-child-marriages-germany/)

German authorities are reportedly “sounding the alarm” over a sharp rise in child marriages after noting that more and more girl are disappearing from school. Justice Minister Heiko Maas has announced “drastic” new measures to tackle the problem.

The girls are usually married to older men, and the trend is being linked to the new wave of migrants who entered the country over the past 18 months. The state has logged over 1,000 child marriages, but N24.de reports that the number of unreported cases may dwarf this number.

In the Welt am Sonntag newspaper, Mr. Maas said he would be setting up a new working group which will begin its work on September 5th.

SPD parliamentary leader Thomas Oppermann said the protection of children is an absolute priority which must also apply to minors from a migrant background.

“Forced marriages are, in Germany, punishable,” he said. “…that’s how it should be.”

“No one, especially not a child should be forced into marriage.”

The marriages, the report notes, are often arranged. Oppermann notes that child marriages often result in girls becoming pregnant at a young age and subsequently leaving school. “[Y]oung refugees must be informed of their rights in Germany,” he said.

And officials are also contemplating a change in law to refuse to accept an underage marriage that took place in a different country before the migrants arrived.

In June a German judge ruled that the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin was valid, despite Germany law. The Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Higher Regional Court in Bamberg, Bavaria) decided the marriage must be recognised as the wedding has already taken place as was recognised as legal in their native Syria, conducted in accordance with Sunni marriage rites.

“These marriages have been recognized in Germany, although they violate our rights,” said Interior Committee Bundestag spokesman Armin Schuster.

The consequences currently being touted include prison terms of up to five years, even for marriages which are conducted privately in religious, cultural, or social ceremonies.

N24 notes that even UNICEF is concerned about the child marriages.

CEO Christian Schneider said. “For the welfare of refugee children who live in Germany, the state has a particular responsibility to protect – for them the same principles apply as for German children”.

In February, Breitbart London reported that dozens of child brides had arrived in Norway, with the youngest being just 11-years of age. The phenomenon has also caused concern in the Netherlands, prompted by the disappearance of the nine-month pregnant 14-year-old girl Fatema Alkasem and her 24-year-old husband.

Last month the German region of North Rhine-Westphalia, which has seen 188 marriages of migrants who are underage, saw calls grow for the government to intervene and stop the practice.

Meanwhile, the increasingly authoritarian and Islamist Turkey is flirting with the idea of allowing 12-year-olds to consent to sex.

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 09:33 PM
Man won't that be great when we start getting more child marriages? By "fully vetted refugees" of course.

GoIrish41
08-14-2016, 10:36 PM
Man won't that be great when we start getting more child marriages? By "fully vetted refugees" of course.

That can only lead to great balls of fire sweeping the nation!

ickythump1225
08-14-2016, 10:56 PM
Our new country is going to be so great. I'm glad liberals and cucked "conservatives" are allowing us to be enriched by such diversity.

Legacy
08-15-2016, 01:49 PM
If you're expecting me to be impressed by Ronald Reagan who sold out the country and American workers with his amnesty and who really didn't a single damn thing that had any lasting effect while in office, you have no idea how wrong a tree you find yourself barking up.

No, I did not post so you could be impressed, just so that you could be more than dismissive. Issues and dialogue matter.

I also included the phrase "neoconservative" which clearly what Reagan was. Irving Kristol may have been the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism but Ronald Reagan was their first poster child. Reagan's presidency has been since been a hamper on the Republican Party as most conservatives/Republicans are more interested in some sort of esoteric personality cult built around Reagan rather than building a winning party.

Rather than personalities, are you satisfied with any legislation or constitutional amendments in the last fifty years? Are you an advocate of obstructing any legislation that does not meet those principles you espouse?

You may have noted that Strom Thurmond, John Conyers, and Orrin Hatch sat on that Immigration Committee - and that William Buckley's attitude towards the "poster child" Reagan was different than yours.

Are you more aligned with a segregationist attitude towards other races and cultures? Did America begin the slow slide towards an abyss when Catholics and Jews immigrated?
A nation without borders (or a country that has "borders" like we do but they exist only so we can say we have them), a common interest, a common culture, common ancestry, common ideas on religion, law, morality, virtue, governance, etc. is not really a nation but just a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area.
Human beings are unique beings with individual thoughts and passions that exist as part of larger structures like races, cultures, and nations. They are not interchangeable economic units as most of our business and political leaders see them, Fr. Hesburgh apparently thinks of them, and quite frankly how most people on this board and in this country see them. America is a unique nation with a unique culture and a unique heritage. Part of vetting process for immigration should be whether or not that individual would fit our culture.

Hesburgh does note:
The fact is that about 45 percent of the people now in this country either arrived here from afar or are descendents of people who came here within the last four or five generations.

Is that what you mean by "a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area." but not a nation?

(Bolding in your quote is mine.)

Rizzophil
08-15-2016, 06:10 PM
Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000 Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion - News Releases - Senator Jeff Sessions (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/clinton-refugee-plan-could-bring-in-620-000-refugees-in-first-term-at-lifetime-cost-of-over-400-billion)


WASHINGTON— An analysis by the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest finds the refugee plan of presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced her desire to admit at least 65,000 refugees from Syria – on top of the existing refugee flow already entering the United States. What Clinton has not explained, however, is that in addition to the clear national security implications related to accepting more refugees, there are massive financial costs that would be borne by federal, state, and local governments.‎

Assuming Clinton's desire to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees is in addition to the Obama Administration's current goal of admitting 10,000 this fiscal year (out of 85,000 total refugees), that would amount to an increase of 55,000 refugees. ‎55,000 on top of 85,000 totals 140,000 refugees. The Obama Administration's target for FY 2017 is actually 100,000 refugees, meaning that adding 55,000 refugees to that would result in 155,000 refugees each year. Due to statutory flaws in our Refugee Admissions Program, the number could be as high as Hillary Clinton desires. Assuming her goal is to admit 155,000 refugees each year during a hypothetical first term in office, a Clinton Administration would admit at least 620,000 refugees in just four years – a population roughly the size of Baltimore.

Although some have attempted to say that the ‎cost of the Refugee Admissions Program is encapsulated in the annual budget provided to the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services for refugee resettlement, the actual costs are exponentially greater – as the annual budget for refugee resettlement does not include costs related to Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, and other programs, as the Obama Administration admits. Nor does that budget include the costs imposed on state and local governments for social services. Furthermore, that budget does not include the costs of future benefits use after refugees become lawful permanent residents and citizens. The true lifetime cost of admitting a single refugee must include an accounting of all benefits received by that refugee - at the federal, state, and local levels, and over the course of that‎ refugee's lifespan. Any other calculation is akin to saying that the total cost of owning a new car is encapsulated in the down payment.

‎Undoubtedly, the resulting costs of admitting the refugees under Clinton’s plan will be enormous. Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has estimated that the total lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees is $6.5 billion. This estimate encompasses costs to taxpayers at the federal, state, and local levels. ‎Using Mr. Rector’s numbers as a baseline, admitting 155,000 refugees in one year would result in a total lifetime cost to the taxpayers of $100,750,000,000. If those levels were sustained over the course of four years – a hypothetical first term in office – the lifetime cost to the taxpayers according to Mr. Rector’s analysis would be $403 billion.

Importantly, Mr. Rector’s numbers reflect an estimate of the net taxpayer cost for admitting a defined number of refugees to the United States. As such, they do not account for aliens granted asylee status in the United States (approximately 25,000 are granted asylee status every year), nor do they account for the fact that refugees will be able to – and do – bring in additional family members after being admitted to the United States. Indeed, if an individual refugee’s spouse or unmarried children were not admitted at the same time as the refugee, they are eligible to “follow-to-join” and be admitted to the United States for two years after the individual refugee’s admission. One year after being admitted to the United States, refugees are eligible to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status (i.e. obtain a “green card”), enabling them to petition for additional family members. And assuming that a refugee becomes a Lawful Permanent Resident, he or she is further eligible to naturalize five years after being admitted to the United States, enabling them to bring in additional relatives. Thus, the total cost of admitting a certain number of refugees in any given year could be even higher than Mr. Rector predicts.

woolybug25
08-15-2016, 06:39 PM
Please reference your articles.

Buster Bluth
08-15-2016, 07:15 PM
Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000 Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion - News Releases - Senator Jeff Sessions (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/clinton-refugee-plan-could-bring-in-620-000-refugees-in-first-term-at-lifetime-cost-of-over-400-billion)


Jeff Sessions making assumptions and drawing conclusions using numbers provided by the freaking Heritage Foundation.

Forgive me for thinking that neither the 620,000 figure or $400,000,000,000 figure will ever be reached. But hey, it got passed around on the internet by folks who read the paragon of journalism known as Breitbart, so mission accomplished.

RDU Irish
08-16-2016, 09:22 AM
Anyone following this NYC imam shooting? Latest bit I saw indicated Hispanics and muslims in that neighborhood have been feuding and this was some type of retaliation.

I am curious to see this story develop as you can tell the media REALLY wants someone with an NRA MAGA hat doing a perp walk.

Legacy
08-18-2016, 05:15 PM
A Tour of Five Refugee Camps: Boar Traps, Beaches, and a Baseball Stadium (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/greece/#) (Video tour)

Some 57,000 refugees are living in Greece, and most of them aren’t happy about it.
They were fleeing wars in Syria and elsewhere, on their way to other European countries. The border closed in March, and they were stranded. The majority now live in more than 40 camps scattered around Greece, in a crazy variety of places.

A team from This American Life visited, and sent a group of architects and engineers to capture each camp in the architectural renderings that follow. Take a tour to see how people live on the third base line and what others do to deal with the wild boars that roam around at night.

Legacy
08-19-2016, 03:29 PM
America's immigrant economy: more work, less pay (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/19/news/economy/us-immigrant-economy/index.html?iid=SF_LN) (CNN Money)

Immigrants in America work more, search for jobs more and get paid way less than native-born U.S. citizens.

They're a big chunk of the U.S. job market too. Documented and undocumented immigrants make up nearly 20% of America's labor force, according to a report by Goldman Sachs (GS).
Immigrants have a lower unemployment rate (4.3%) than native-born U.S. citizens (4.9%). They also participate more in the economy, meaning they're either working or looking for work.

But they make far less than native-born citizens. Immigrants weekly income is about $681. Native-born Americans earn $837 a week, according to Goldman.

Immigration is a major factor in the economy's ability to grow more jobs, policymakers say.

Related: Trump's old school: immigration policy would kill 4 million jobs. (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/news/economy/trump-immigration-plan-jobs/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom)

"If we were to allow more immigration into this country, of course that would augment the supply of labor so you could actually have more sturdy payroll gains," William Dudley, President of the New York Federal Reserve, said Thursday.

It's not just Dudley. Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandi estimates that 77% of the potential job gains under Hillary Clinton's economic plan would come from immigration reform. Clinton has called for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers and visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Increasing the U.S. population is one key factor to creating more jobs and immigrants play a major role. According to the Pew Research Center, immigrants have made up 40 to 50% of the population gains in recent years....

Why American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/us-cities-immigrants-economy/398987/) (Atlantic)


This time, too, there is ample evidence that immigrants are creating businesses and revitalizing the U.S. workforce. From 2006 to 2012, more than two-fifths of the start-up tech companies in Silicon Valley had at least one foreign-born founder, according to the Kauffman Foundation. A report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, which advocates for immigrants in the U.S. workforce, found that they accounted for 28 percent of all new small businesses in 2011.

Immigrants also hold a third of the internationally valid patents issued to U.S. residents, according to University of California (Davis) economist Giovanni Peri. In a 2012 article published by the Cato Institute, the libertarian (and pro-immigration) think tank, Peri concluded that immigrants boost economic productivity and don’t have a notable impact—either positive or negative—on net job growth for U.S.-born workers. One reason: Immigrants and native-born workers gravitate toward different jobs.

pumpdog20
08-19-2016, 04:05 PM
I'm sure they're frustrated by countries like Germany and France where they have carte blanche to machete, bomb, shoot, and run over as many people as they like. If the West ever woke up and actually pitted itself against the Islamic world it would be a start. That is just an acknowledgement of reality. The Islamic world has been standing against the West since Islam was made up by Mohammad in between banging his children sex slaves.

What you want is some fantasy world where we can defeat terrorism with flowers and hugs and maybe some vague rhetoric about shaking down "extremist Islam" (which isn't REAL Islam of course) in a manner that doesn't offend anyone at some undefined point in the future.

This reminds me of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

False bravado in the face of a dangerous enemy isn't brave, it is just stupid.

I'm assuming your willing to send your own kids for this battle with Islam?

Legacy
08-19-2016, 05:23 PM
Refugee Girls: The Invisible Faces of War (https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/stories/ref_girls_FINAL.pdf) (Women's Refugee Commission) 48 pages

Refugee Girls: An Invisible Population
Because of their powerlessness, adolescent girls in refugee situations are more vulnerable to forced marriage, sexual
slavery and forms of gender-based violence, among other abuses. They are also the least likely to be offered education
and reproductive health care, putting them at greater risk for HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions.
Mary Diaz, in a letter to the New York Times

First Section:
Girls are rarely featured in the coverage of armed conflict. Given their invisibility, one might assume that girls are
somehow spared involvement in war.

Yet, not only are girls commonly targeted in armed conflict, in many ways their lives are more profoundly affected by it
than other groups. However, their special needs are frequently overlooked or ignored.

More than 140 million girls live in fragile states affected by armed conflict. Of the 42 million people who have had to flee
their homes because of war, 80 percent are women, children and young people. At least 10 million are estimated to be
girls and young women.

When war breaks out, people may flee their homes in search of safety. They face harrowing journeys, sometimes taking
weeks or months to reach the relative safety of a refugee camp in another country or a camp for internally displaced
persons in their own country. They may seek refuge in an urban area, often in slums on the outskirts of a city.
As they flee from war, girls face many dangers, including rape, landmines, gunfire and hunger. They may be recruited
into armed forces or captured by traffickers, or they may fall ill. As they try to navigate through the chaos and confusion
around them, family members may be left behind. Men and boys may stay and fight, or remain to protect the family’s
land and possessions.

Once refugees have reached a place of relative safety, they may stay there for years: the average length of time refugees are displaced is now 17 years — a lifetime for those displaced as young children or born during displacement.
War forces girls into unfamiliar roles. A girl not yet in her teens may suddenly find herself in charge of an entire
household or forced to provide most of the economic support for her family. A girl who has spent her young life shrouded
and kept behind closed doors by her family to ensure her “virtue” may find herself suddenly thrust into a very adult
world of sexual exploitation and abuse inflicted by war. Even as a young child, a girl may be spurned and rejected by
her family if she has been raped. Or, a daughter’s young body might be bartered by her family as a desperate means of
getting money, food and other vital goods and services.

At the same time, the unexpected new roles and responsibilities thrust upon girls during conflict confer a significant
measure of independence for the first time in their lives. They may have access to education and skills training for the
first time when they become refugees. Regular health care may be available, which may not have been true in their
former lives. There is potential, in fact, for these new life patterns to be transformative.

This book is an attempt to tell the untold story of the millions of refugee girls whose voices are almost never heard. While
much of the refugee experience for girls is difficult and depressing to read about, refugee girls are resilient and strong. Their lives are not easy, yet they strive to make the most of the opportunities they are offered.

Contents
Refugee Girls: An Invisible Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
“Collateral Violence” Suffered by Girls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Girls as Targets and Instruments of War. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fighting Isn’t Just for Boys: Girls Go to War. . . . . . . . . 6
Girls for Sale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 8
Defending the Family Honor. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 9
Close Quarters: Life in a Refugee Camp. . . . . .. . . . . . 11
The Hazards of Cooking a Meal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 13
All We Want Is to Go to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Their Bodies Are Not Their Own. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Not Only Measles: Special Health Risks for Girls. . . . . . 20
Making a Living. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Finding a Permanent Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Seeking Asylum, Finding Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 27
Why There Is Cause for Great Hope. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 29
Women’s Refugee Commission: Working to Improve the Lives of Displaced Girls Everywhere. . . . . . . . . 32

ickythump1225
08-20-2016, 07:37 PM
I'm assuming your willing to send your own kids for this battle with Islam?
I'm a vet myself, and yes I would. Islam isn't just another religion like Buddhism or whatever, it is an existential threat to Western Civilization. Fans of a Catholic (though with how things are going they are Catholic in name only at this point) school should understand religious history better.

Look, if I had it my way we would have never invaded Iraq or destabilized Libya, Syria, and Egypt thrusting the ME into chaos and creating ISIS all while allowing radical Islam to spread like a wildfire. It is time to put out the fire. We need to be smarter about our foreign policy. Putin and Assad may not be saints, but they are better than the alternative. If they want to combat ISIS we should absolutely aid them in doing so. We need to learn from the past, instead of trying to oust Assad we should be aiding him. We never should have ousted Gaddafi. We shouldn't have removed Saddam. Our actions in the ME have created the mess that is over there right now.

But we're at a point where we can't wish away what is happening. Europe is at risk of being completely overrun and ceasing to exist as a unique entity. America isn't at that grave of a risk yet, though Hillary has her way and we allow in 620,000 "refugees" in her 1st term we'll be well on our way. Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino will become the norm.

ickythump1225
08-20-2016, 08:00 PM
Rather than personalities, are you satisfied with any legislation or constitutional amendments in the last fifty years? Are you an advocate of obstructing any legislation that does not meet those principles you espouse?

You may have noted that Strom Thurmond, John Conyers, and Orrin Hatch sat on that Immigration Committee - and that William Buckley's attitude towards the "poster child" Reagan was different than yours.

Are you more aligned with a segregationist attitude towards other races and cultures? Did America begin the slow slide towards an abyss when Catholics and Jews immigrated?
If you look at the happiest, healthiest, and most productive nations they are the most homogeneous. Diversity kills trust, cooperation, and civic life in a community. Even Robert Putnam (hardly a segregationist) even couldn't avoid this conclusion despite running his study twice.
The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)
(It is worth noting I do not believe this study would be published if ran today, and if it was it would be completely ignored by the mainstream media.)

Far from being a strength, diversity is a big weakness. America is more diverse than ever yet are we really a better nation that we were when conquered a continent, built the transcontinental railroad (yes I am aware of the various contributions to the railroad from all different types of people), helped win WWI and WWII, went to the moon (on several occasions), and won the Cold War just because we were less diverse?

We were able to take in small amounts of immigrants historically (the hype about German and Irish immigrants is overblown, the numbers were small compared to what we take in every year now) because they were Europeans who had some understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture and ideas, and also because we required assimilation into our culture.

Hesburgh does note:


Is that what you mean by "a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area." but not a nation?

(Bolding in your quote is mine.)
Yes, more or less. There is a corporate push behind this as well. Globalism, a force that is being driven by elitist billionaires, transnational corporations, and their political puppets, is a force that is destroying the diversity of the planet by creating a monoculture throughout the world. Corporations like this because it is easier to craft marketing towards 1 global culture rather than 100s of unique cultures. A world without borders is a world in which giant corporations can exploit cheap labor anywhere in the world and create a race to the bottom in which other nations strip away worker protections and rights in order to cheapen labor all while importing millions of low skill, low paid foreign labor to displace expensive domestic labor.

Then they fund studies by foundations that they bankroll to state what wonderful economic effects free trade, open borders, and globalism have on economies. And it is true that the top 1-5% benefit immensely from the current paradigm, but the average America worker is far worse off than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. Wages have stagnated or declined against inflation, housing, food, healthcare, etc. is all more expensive than ever.

Corporations hold us hostage by threatening to leave unless we fling open the border, remove worker protections, and lower their taxes. Even when we meekly comply with their directives they still end up leaving because no matter what we can't out cheap China, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, etc.

The left does nothing about it because they see millions of new voters arriving on our shores yearly and the right does nothing because it has been coopted by free trade true believers and their corporate paymasters tell them not to.

Buster Bluth
08-21-2016, 01:00 AM
I'm a vet myself, and yes I would. Islam isn't just another religion like Buddhism or whatever, it is an existential threat to Western Civilization.

You're too scared to be taken seriously. It's like you don't know what the term existential threat means.

Fans of a Catholic (though with how things are going they are Catholic in name only at this point) school should understand religious history better.

I think you could use a history book or two on Islam, so you can see that clearly the existence of al-qaeda and ISIS is a new development.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims. They aren't a monolithic entity. The vast majority of Muslims do not care about much more than local matters. Given that most Muslim nations are poor, most people care about farming and don't have a shit about committing to being an existential threat to people thousands of miles away. (That's the reason why the Pentagon has said in multiple reports that Global Warming is our biggest threat, the more droughts wreck the livelihoods of poor farmers, the more instability. The more instability, the more likely a strongman lunatic will lord over them with bad intentions, like revolution and/or terrorism.)

Look, if I had it my way we would have never invaded Iraq or destabilized Libya, Syria, and Egypt thrusting the ME into chaos and creating ISIS all while allowing radical Islam to spread like a wildfire.

Libya, Syria, and Egypt all had revolutions without the help of the US. I don't know what you're getting at in Egypt specifically.

It is time to put out the fire. We need to be smarter about our foreign policy.

This is great coming from a poster who shows zero ability to not broad brush people by the billions.

Putin and Assad may not be saints, but they are better than the alternative. If they want to combat ISIS we should absolutely aid them in doing so. We need to learn from the past, instead of trying to oust Assad we should be aiding him. We never should have ousted Gaddafi. We shouldn't have removed Saddam. Our actions in the ME have created the mess that is over there right now.

If you knew anything about what's happening you'd know that Putin and Assad aren't bombing ISIS very much because they're still trying to win their civil war. There are four sides fighting in Syria, not two.

If you stopped polluting your head with alarmist media you'd learn the unfortunate fact that no government over there considers removing ISIS to be their #1 priority, except maybe Iraq. No only is ISIS not an existential threat to the West, they're not even an existential threat to a country like Jordan. Supposedly radical Islam is spreading like wild fire...yet the facts say that ISIS has been stymied for two years and everyone is just wrestling for better position in the post-ISIS Middle East. That stalemate has disastrous consequences for people on the ground of course, but outside of the warzone the surrounding countries view this as better than removing ISIS.

Helping Putin and Assad remove ISIS would be asking our current allies to accept Iranian domination in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Considering that Turkey is now sprinting away from the West's orbit and has warmed relations with Russia, and the picture looks awful for Saudi Arabia and Co.....who by the way are the ones who started ISIS in the first place.

You would do well to read about Wahhabism/Salafism and how Saudi Arabia uses it to further their interests. Maybe check out the recently declassified 28 pages of the 911 Commission report while you're at it.

But we're at a point where we can't wish away what is happening. Europe is at risk of being completely overrun and ceasing to exist as a unique entity. America isn't at that grave of a risk yet, though Hillary has her way and we allow in 620,000 "refugees" in her 1st term we'll be well on our way. Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino will become the norm.

Holy hell you are one scared man. Without question you are the definition of success for a terrorist.

calvegas04
08-21-2016, 01:23 AM
Holy hell you are one scared man. Without question you are the definition of success for a terrorist.

Well so far they have been carrying out attacks across the west and the west is still allowing them to flood across the boarders.

Buster Bluth
08-21-2016, 01:34 AM
If you look at the happiest, healthiest, and most productive nations they are the most homogeneous. Diversity kills trust, cooperation, and civic life in a community. Even Robert Putnam (hardly a segregationist) even couldn't avoid this conclusion despite running his study twice.
The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)
(It is worth noting I do not believe this study would be published if ran today, and if it was it would be completely ignored by the mainstream media.)

Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’ – Percolator - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357)

Even the guy you cite disagrees with your broad bushing bullshit.

Far from being a strength, diversity is a big weakness. America is more diverse than ever yet are we really a better nation that we were when conquered a continent, built the transcontinental railroad (yes I am aware of the various contributions to the railroad from all different types of people), helped win WWI and WWII, went to the moon (on several occasions), and won the Cold War just because we were less diverse?

We were able to take in small amounts of immigrants historically (the hype about German and Irish immigrants is overblown, the numbers were small compared to what we take in every year now) because they were Europeans who had some understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture and ideas, and also because we required assimilation into our culture.

I can't remember the last time I've read someone twist history so absurdly. I could write for an hour about all of the incorrect assertions here.

Then they fund studies by foundations that they bankroll to state what wonderful economic effects free trade, open borders, and globalism have on economies. And it is true that the top 1-5% benefit immensely from the current paradigm, but the average America worker is far worse off than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. Wages have stagnated or declined against inflation, housing, food, healthcare, etc. is all more expensive than ever.

Corporations hold us hostage by threatening to leave unless we fling open the border, remove worker protections, and lower their taxes. Even when we meekly comply with their directives they still end up leaving because no matter what we can't out cheap China, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, etc.

The left does nothing about it because they see millions of new voters arriving on our shores yearly and the right does nothing because it has been coopted by free trade true believers and their corporate paymasters tell them not to.

Here you've shifted from #badhistory to #badeconomics, but each with your signature xenophobia.

ickythump1225
08-21-2016, 04:17 PM
Well so far they have been carrying out attacks across the west and the west is still allowing them to flood across the boarders.
He sees people getting slaughtered in San Bernardino and Orlando and his response is to keep letting them in and doesn't see how he is a terrorist's wetdream.

ickythump1225
08-21-2016, 04:22 PM
Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’ – Percolator - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357)

Even the guy you cite disagrees with your broad bushing bullshit.



I can't remember the last time I've read someone twist history so absurdly. I could write for an hour about all of the incorrect assertions here.



Here you've shifted from #badhistory to #badeconomics, but each with your signature xenophobia.
"Wow, just wow. I literally can't even. You're wrong, but I'll do nothing to actually refute your claims. Don't worry my retort to this statement will be, 'wow, just wow. #Toostupid to answer. hehe"
https://scontent.fsan1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14089167_321307351538564_9055317005127148815_n.png ?oh=ffb374ec97d53254a3aead3f7f18aac5&oe=5851B0EE

ickythump1225
08-21-2016, 04:50 PM
Buster, I recommend you study the 1965 Immigration Act and see how it fundamentally transformed our immigration policy, our nation's demographics, and the essence of our country. Prior to 1965 70% of our allotted immigration spots were required to go to immigrants from England, Germany, and Ireland.

Prior to 1965 Americans at large did not think of the country as a "nation of immigrants." America was a nation founded to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration to no more than 2% of the U.S. population which was actually lower than the previous threshold of 3%. Every year untold numbers pour over the southern border, the mainstream lowball estimate is 12 million illegals living the U.S., but other figures have it between 20-30 million. It's really quite impossible to guess how many are in the country at any given time.

If one could trace a single point in history that the U.S. began to decline it would the 1965 Immigration Act. In 51 years from the signing of the act more people have immigrated (legally) to the U.S. than the previous 180ish years of the republic COMBINED. The elites want the pace to pick up as well. Hillary wants to allow 620K refugees into the country by the end of her 1st term.

Immigrants and refugees come to America and use welfare at rates higher than native born Americans. They elbow themselves into food stamps, Affirmative Action, TANF, housing assistance, etc. Many of these Great Society programs were designed to assist African-Americans as a way to right the wrongs of the past. African-Americans have a historical grievance against the U.S., 1st generation Central and South American, North African, and Middle Eastern immigrants do not.

Some further reading:
Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act | Center for Immigration Studies (http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration)
Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households | Center for Immigration Studies (http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households)
https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-article/immigration-world-poverty-and-gumballs-updated-2010
Nearly 20 million illegal immigrants in U.S., former Border Patrol agents say - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/)
30 Million Illegal Immigrants in US, Says Mexico's Former Ambassador (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/30-million-illegal-immigrants-in-us-says-mexicos-former-ambassador/)
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

ickythump1225
08-21-2016, 04:58 PM
You're too scared to be taken seriously. It's like you don't know what the term existential threat means.
You don't even know what "scared" means bro. You just keep repeating that and "xenophobic" and hope that makes your lack of substance meaningful. Your responses are the worst parodies of leftist SJW outrage, "wow, just wow. I literally can't even" about sums up 99% of your responses. On occasion you do give food for thought and decent counterpoints, but it is washed out by John Oliver-esque smugness and mock outrage. You're like a Trojan begging for the horse to be brought in because it would be xenophobic to refuse their gift.

Legacy
08-26-2016, 02:18 AM
Jeb Bush rips 'morphing,' 'abhorrent' Trump on immigration (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/jeb-bush-trump-immigration-morphing-227418)

Bush, whose own campaign hands have expressed similar sentiments, remarked that he could not specifically comment on Trump's views because "they seem to be ever, ever changing, depending on what crowd he's in front of."

"Sounds like a typical politician, by the way, where you get in front of one crowd and say one thing, and then say something else to another crowd that may want to hear a different view," Bush continued. "All the things that Donald Trump railed against, he seems to be morphing into — it’s kind of disturbing.”

As far as whether he sees Trump coming around to his views, Bush could not say.
“I don’t know what to believe about a guy who doesn't believe in things. I mean he doesn't ... this is all a game," Bush said. "He doesn't ... his views will change based on the feedback he gets from a crowd, or, you know, what he thinks he has to do. Life is too complex. For me I couldn't do that. I have to believe what I believe, and if it’s popular, great, if it’s not, I try to get better at presenting my views. But shifting my views because, because it’s political to do it? That’s what politicians do in this country, that's what Trump is trying to do right now. I find it abhorrent.”

http://p1cdn06.thewrap.com/images/2015/07/Trump2.jpg

RDU Irish
08-26-2016, 11:28 AM
Jeb Bush rips 'morphing,' 'abhorrent' Trump on immigration (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/jeb-bush-trump-immigration-morphing-227418)



http://p1cdn06.thewrap.com/images/2015/07/Trump2.jpg

He sounds way more like a drunken uncle than a "typical politician". WTF Trump - there is no upside in responding to some Jeb comment that literally NOBODY is listening to.

ACamp1900
08-26-2016, 11:47 AM
http://p1cdn06.thewrap.com/images/2015/07/Trump2.jpg

Definitely doesn't work that way... can confirm.

Legacy
08-26-2016, 07:04 PM
How Trump Betrayed Ann Coulter on Immigration: The political commentator may be more committed to the Republican nominee’s platform than he is. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/how-trump-betrayed-ann-coulter-on-immigration/497618/)

The secret of Trump’s success, she argues, has been ideological. He recognized that “Americans,” by which she mostly means Republicans, “are homesick.” They don’t just oppose immigration because they believe it depresses wages and strains government services. They’re homesick for a whiter America, an America that was once truly free because “it’s not in the Anglo-Saxon character either to take orders or to give them.” (Never mind about slavery.) Since 1965, however, when Lyndon Johnson signed legislation allowing more immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, the United States has been, according to Coulter in In Trump We Trust, overrun by “illiterate peasants … who can be instructed to learn certain symbols and bloc-vote for the Democrats.” In response, Democrats, along with rich Republicans, keep the doors open to non-European immigration, and thus America has grown “browner” and “shorter.” (That’s Coulter’s description from Adios America). Corruption rises. So does terrorism and rape.

We need ideologists to avoid spinning into a relativist universe. Will Coulter be drawn into that black hole?

ickythump1225
09-03-2016, 11:04 PM
All the talk of "pivoting" or "softening" turned out to be for naught. Trump's speech was on point and the best speech on immigration by any public figure this side of the Buchanan Brigade. The meeting with Mexican president and the speech in Arizona made for the single best day of the Trump candidacy since his announcement speech.

NDinL.A.
09-03-2016, 11:20 PM
All the talk of "pivoting" or "softening" turned out to be for naught. Trump's speech was on point and the best speech on immigration by any public figure this side of the Buchanan Brigade. The meeting with Mexican president and the speech in Arizona made for the single best day of the Trump candidacy since his announcement speech.

Are you serious Clark? History will call that speech "Ramblings of a Mad Man" or "The Reason Donald J Trump is Losing the Election" or "Reason #3,208 Trump is out of touch with 75% of today's America." He used to constantly rip Hillary for reading off a teleprompter and screaming, and now that's all he does at rallies. They seriously need to to turn down the mic volume when he's in Angry Trump mode.

Trump, Breitbart, and the alt-right are so far out of touch with reality and the way most voters think (especially young people, college grads, minorities and suburban women) it's pathetic. He is somehow losing (pretty badly, actually) to an absolute mess of a candidate because of it. Conservatives and independents are begging for a reason to vote against Hillary, but instead Trump keeps staying closer to the alt-right than pivoting to the middle, and the results could be catastrophic for conservatives.

Legacy
09-04-2016, 01:33 AM
All the talk of "pivoting" or "softening" turned out to be for naught. Trump's speech was on point and the best speech on immigration by any public figure this side of the Buchanan Brigade. The meeting with Mexican president and the speech in Arizona made for the single best day of the Trump candidacy since his announcement speech.

Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hispanic-leaders-arizona-immigration-227615)

Jacob Monty, a member of Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council, quickly resigned after the speech. Another member, Ramiro Pena, a Texas pastor, said Trump's speech likely cost him the election and said he'd have to reconsider being part of a "scam." And Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said in an interview that he is “inclined” to pull his support.
“I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump when I believed he was going to address the immigration problem realistically and compassionately,” said Monty, a Houston attorney who has aggressively made the Latino case for Trump. “What I heard today was not realistic and not compassionate.”

“It’s so disappointing because we feel we took a chance, a very risky chance,” Aguilar said. “We decided to make a big U-turn to see if we could make him change. We thought we were moving in the right direction … we’re disappointed. We feel misled.”

Single best day of the Trump candidacy?

ickythump1225
09-04-2016, 10:56 AM
Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hispanic-leaders-arizona-immigration-227615)





Single best day of the Trump candidacy?
Pssh, none of those people were going to vote for Trump anyway it was all a show. They were basing their support on the idea that he might come around to amnesty when he has made hard line immigration reform the centerpiece of his candidacy. Hispandering will get you nowhere, it didn't work for McCain or Romney and there is zero reason to believe it would work for Trump.

ickythump1225
09-04-2016, 11:08 AM
Are you serious Clark? History will call that speech "Ramblings of a Mad Man" or "The Reason Donald J Trump is Losing the Election" or "Reason #3,208 Trump is out of touch with 75% of today's America." He used to constantly rip Hillary for reading off a teleprompter and screaming, and now that's all he does at rallies. They seriously need to to turn down the mic volume when he's in Angry Trump mode.

Trump, Breitbart, and the alt-right are so far out of touch with reality and the way most voters think (especially young people, college grads, minorities and suburban women) it's pathetic. He is somehow losing (pretty badly, actually) to an absolute mess of a candidate because of it. Conservatives and independents are begging for a reason to vote against Hillary, but instead Trump keeps staying closer to the alt-right than pivoting to the middle, and the results could be catastrophic for conservatives.
All of the polls (even the ones that rigged their methodology to favor Clinton like Reuters/Ipsos) show a tightening race, a close race. Don't mistake media coverage for the actual feelings of the nation. If the media was an accurate barometer of public feeling Trump wouldn't have gotten the most votes in GOP primary history. Also, polls consistently show Trump doing well with independents. The reason the race isn't a big Trump lead is A) polling methodology is weighted against Trump (most famously Reuters changed it's polling methodology taking a 1 point Trump lead and turning it into a 6 point HRC lead:Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic confab: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5)) B) not all Republicans have gotten on board yet.

Of the demographics you listed out suburban women are the most important from a electoral strategy perspective. Young people (which includes recent college grads) and minorities are notoriously unreliable voters. Whites still make up the vast majority of the voting bloc. Romney would have increased his Hispanic vote by a third and gotten 100% of the black vote and still lost to Obama, yet an increase of 3%ish in his white turnout would have netted him a sizable victory.

ickythump1225
09-04-2016, 11:30 AM
It also shows what a pathetic nation we have become that common sense immigration proposals are thought of as "racist" or "alt right." Building a wall, enforcing laws on the books, deporting criminals, deporting visa overstays, vetting your immigrants, and ensuring the ability to self sufficient from any potential immigrants aren't "extreme" they are the historical norm for most countries' immigration policies.

Painting any form of immigration enforcement as "extreme" or "racist" puts the left and the useless right out of step with the general population.

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 12:02 PM
It also shows what a pathetic nation we have become that common sense immigration proposals are thought of as "racist" or "alt right."

It's because nothing about it is common sense.

Building a wall, enforcing laws on the books, deporting criminals, deporting visa overstays, vetting your immigrants, and ensuring the ability to self sufficient from any potential immigrants aren't "extreme" they are the historical norm for most countries' immigration policies.

Show me one time in history when a nation has built a wall thousands of miles long to stop an immigration situation that 1) is no longer happening (http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/07/FT_15.07.23_UnauthImmigrants.png), and 2) wouldn't stop anything anyway.

Show me one time in history when a nation forcibly removed millions of people and didn't immediately regret it and have a national shame afterward that lasted decades.

Show me one time in history when a nation intentionally put its economy into a recession in order to enforce a byzantine immigration system (https://d1ai9qtk9p41kl.cloudfront.net/assets/db/immigration-flow-chart.jpg?w=600).

We already vet immigrants, more thoroughly than most countries too. And everyone favors deporting criminals--but spare us all the "ah but they're all criminals as they're here illegally!"

Painting any form of immigration enforcement as "extreme" or "racist" puts the left and the useless right out of step with the general population.

The general population favors common sense: a workable path to citizenship after a background check and perhaps a fine.

Legacy
09-04-2016, 12:18 PM
We've needed a common sense immigration policy for a decade, which has been stymed by groups that refuse to work with each other or to compromise.

Does Trump have any Republican Hispanic legislators or advisors that endorse his immigration policies? Or, if elected, will he remain incalcitrant and we stumble ahead with the status quo?

kmoose
09-04-2016, 12:23 PM
We already vet immigrants, more thoroughly than most countries too. And everyone favors deporting criminals--but spare us all the "ah but they're all criminals as they're here illegally!"


"I support deporting criminals!"

"Oh! Well, not THOSE criminals. I mean, those criminals are not *really* criminals. They just broke the law, is all. Perfectly understandable."

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 12:26 PM
"I support deporting criminals!"

"Oh! Well, not THOSE criminals. I mean, those criminals are not *really* criminals. They just broke the law, is all. Perfectly understandable."

Precisely. The logic behind barring murderers and thieves from citizenship makes sense, and the logistics behind removing them are actually, ya know, possible. (Although in the cases involving serious criminals we'd want them in jail to serve their time, not deportation).

EuropeanDomer22
09-04-2016, 12:53 PM
Hungarian PM vows to resist EU's 'misguided' migrant policy | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-hungary-orban-idUKKCN0W10UC)

Everyone in Europe slowly realizing that they were giving away their countries. Sweden originally said they'd take "everyone"... then having mass deportation of 10s of thousands. France has a crisis, Greece has a crisis, Italy... well, I have a friend looking to sell his Tuscan villa for 10 cents on the dollar that he paid for it because he can't guarantee security anymore.

The bottom line is that these people DO NOT ASSIMILATE into the country's culture. The United States has had the same problem with Somali refugees, etc. over the years. At some point, you have to start worrying about yourself and your country and not trying to save everybody.

This is 100% true

I live in Europe and all i can say is that muslims are incompatible with the civilized world. I used to be a "leftie", i used to think there were no borders for people, but this massive migration has been an eye opening for me. They terrify everyone, even migrants who are christians are returning to their countries because they are tortured by muslims in the refugee camps. They hit our girls in front everyone if they are not covered. It's crazy and the police&press always cover their crimes to not create panic. That's why the far right is getting stronger in North Europe, people is SICK of political correctness. Listen, Mohammed is already the most popular name among baby boys in the UK, it is just getting bigger and bigger. The numbers of christians are decreasing while muslims are rising. All civilizations have fallen throughout history fom within, and we are not learning anything, and western life will FALL because of our own stupidity and political correctness. I do not like Trump, because he is just a cheap populist, but at least he is not scared to speak the truth about migration, in this days you can't speak the truth without being called a racist. Pls America, you are great, don't be like Europe.

kmoose
09-04-2016, 12:56 PM
(Although in the cases involving serious criminals we'd want them in jail to serve their time, not deportation).

Like hell. I don't want a bunch of murdering illegals sitting in American jails where they can make connections with domestic criminal elements inside of the United States.

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 12:58 PM
Like hell. I don't want a bunch of murdering illegals sitting in American jails where they can make connections with domestic criminal elements inside of the United States.

Oh you want to deport them to Mexico where they are then free to sneak back into the country? That...sounds like a worse idea.

kmoose
09-04-2016, 01:01 PM
Oh you want to deport them to Mexico where they are then free to sneak back into the country? That...sounds like a worse idea.

I never said anything about Mexico, or Mexicans. Why do you assume that "illegal" means "Mexican"? You, Sir, are a lousy racist scum!

The whole idea is to secure the border at the same time. It will never be airtight, but it doesn't have to be a hemorrhaging sieve for people to come through by the busload. So, no; I would not deport them and allow them to just walk back across the border.

NDCrusader
09-04-2016, 01:04 PM
This is 100% true

I live in Europe and all i can say is that muslims are incompatible with the civilized world. I used to be a "leftie", i used to think there were no borders for people, but this massive migration has been an eye opening for me. They terrify everyone, even migrants who are christians are returning to their countries because they are tortured by muslims in the refugee camps. They hit our girls in front everyone if they are not covered. It's crazy and the police&press always cover their crimes to not create panic. That's why the far right is getting stronger in North Europe, people is SICK of political correctness. Listen, Mohammed is already the most popular name among baby boys in the UK, it is just getting bigger and bigger. The numbers of christians are decreasing while muslims are rising. All civilizations have fallen throughout history fom within, and we are not learning anything, and western life will FALL because of our own stupidity and political correctness. I do not like Trump, because he is just a cheap populist, but at least he is not scared to speak the truth about migration, in this days you can't speak the truth without being called a racist. Pls America, you are great, don't be like Europe.

I'm sorry you are going through what you are now and even more sorry what awaits the continent in the next decade. It's just a matter of time before the fuse is lit. Be safe.

GoIrish41
09-04-2016, 01:07 PM
I never said anything about Mexico, or Mexicans. Why do you assume that "illegal" means "Mexican"? You, Sir, are a lousy racist scum!

The whole idea is to secure the border at the same time. It will never be airtight, but it doesn't have to be a hemorrhaging sieve for people to come through by the busload. So, no; I would not deport them and allow them to just walk back across the border.

If you don't want to deport them and you don't want to detain them in American prisons, what do you want to do? Kill them? Send them to GTMO?

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 01:22 PM
I never said anything about Mexico, or Mexicans. Why do you assume that "illegal" means "Mexican"? You, Sir, are a lousy racist scum!

Probably because there are 10x more illegal Mexicans than any other nation, and the illegal immigration question almost always focuses on that fact...

The whole idea is to secure the border at the same time. It will never be airtight, but it doesn't have to be a hemorrhaging sieve for people to come through by the busload.

Respectfully, what the hell are you talking about? When Hillary is sworn in in 2017, it will have been a decade since the number of illegal immigrants increased.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/07/FT_15.07.23_UnauthImmigrants.png

So, no; I would not deport them and allow them to just walk back across the border.

What other decision is left?

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 01:26 PM
I'm sorry you are going through what you are now and even more sorry what awaits the continent in the next decade. It's just a matter of time before the fuse is lit. Be safe.

Uh no. Muslims would have to cross oceans to get here, and numerous studies have shown that the Muslim who comes here is demonstrably different tan the Muslim who moves to Europe. American Muslims are more liberal, educated, and far more likely to assimilate. That happens when you have an immigration policy that takes a small amount of refugees and usually only educated (or skilled) workers, like a Pakistani doctor...

NDCrusader
09-04-2016, 01:30 PM
If you don't want to deport them and you don't want to detain them in American prisons, what do you want to do? Kill them? Send them to GTMO?

Enroll them in the American Apprenticeship Program. Put them in Federal Work camps along the border and use them to build the wall. After 3 years of labor, they are given probationary citizenship during which time they must stay 100% crime free for a 5 year period. During this time, a clearing house will assign them to a state. Some get Fargo ND, some get Chattanooga, TN, etc. This aids in cultural integration/assimilation. They will live there for the duration of their probationary period. After their 8 year apprenticeship is complete they take the American Acceptance Test that evaluates their mastery of the English language, American history and law. If they pass, they are full American citizens and are free to move anywhere in the country. If they fail, they retest in 60 days. If they fail twice, they go home with free airfare and a $1000 parting gift from the US government so that they are starting fresh back in their native country.

Pretty simple actually.

Write in Crusader on your ballot!

NDinL.A.
09-04-2016, 01:30 PM
All of the polls (even the ones that rigged their methodology to favor Clinton like Reuters/Ipsos) show a tightening race, a close race. Don't mistake media coverage for the actual feelings of the nation. If the media was an accurate barometer of public feeling Trump wouldn't have gotten the most votes in GOP primary history. Also, polls consistently show Trump doing well with independents. The reason the race isn't a big Trump lead is A) polling methodology is weighted against Trump (most famously Reuters changed it's polling methodology taking a 1 point Trump lead and turning it into a 6 point HRC lead:Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic confab: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5)) B) not all Republicans have gotten on board yet.

Of the demographics you listed out suburban women are the most important from a electoral strategy perspective. Young people (which includes recent college grads) and minorities are notoriously unreliable voters. Whites still make up the vast majority of the voting bloc. Romney would have increased his Hispanic vote by a third and gotten 100% of the black vote and still lost to Obama, yet an increase of 3%ish in his white turnout would have netted him a sizable victory.

Sorry, but that is SUCH bullshit. All of the polls show a close race? On what planet is 7 points nationally a close race??? Yes, the latest poll showed 7 points. And the polling average shows Clinton up 4.1 points. Obama won by 3.5 points and DESTROYED Romney. Clinton is up bigger, and you call that a close race? Tightening, for sure, but close? Not yet.

And the national doesn't mean much. It's the electoral college and the swing states that mean everything, and she is up in almost every single swing state and she's putting red states like Georgia and AZ into play, which is utterly embarrassing to the GOP. He desperately needs states like PA, NC, OH and FL, and he isn't leading on aggregate in any of them.

And sorry, not all polls swing left...matter of fact, anyone who follows the polls know which ones lean left and which ones lean right and which ones are completely legit. It's why 538 uses a complicated algorithm to find (in their view) the best, most accurate assessment of the polls, and they show Hillary with a commanding lead. In fact, no candidate since Dewey has come back from a hole like Trump is in this late, and that was with FAR less sophisticated polling back in those days. You're using the same logic that had Republicans like myself believing Romney was going to win in 2012...I was brainwashed by Fox as well. Thank God I grew up and left that fucking cacoon and realized they weren't "Fair and Balanced" but delusional and as one-sided as all the rest of the outlets.

So you're in for a rude awakening if you think the polls are screwing Trump. There is only one thing screwing Trump: Trump. He was gift-wrapped this election and but he's too much of a fuck up to take advantage. And don't hold your breath waiting for the other Republicans to jump on board - #neverTrump really did mean never for many of us...

Rizzophil
09-04-2016, 01:30 PM
If you don't want to deport them and you don't want to detain them in American prisons, what do you want to do? Kill them? Send them to GTMO?

Obama already released prisons from Gitmo and they are already causing terror around the world

kmoose
09-04-2016, 01:30 PM
[QUOTE=Buster Bluth;1782152]Respectfully, what the hell are you talking about? When Hillary is sworn in in 2017, it will have been a decade since the number of illegal immigrants increased.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/07/FT_15.07.23_UnauthImmigrants.png

So, according to your numbers........

Between 2011 and 2014, the number of illegal immigrants rose from 11.2 to 11.3 million. That's 100,000 new illegal immigrants in a 3 year period. That works out to an average of 33,000 a year, or ~641 a week , or ~91.5 a day. The average Greyhound bus holds 55 passengers. That's more than an entire busload coming across, every day, for 3 years. Is it down from before? Sure. Is it acceptable? It sure as hell shouldn't be.

irish1958
09-04-2016, 01:36 PM
Blame Bush for this mess. It looks like Obama has it under control.

GoIrish41
09-04-2016, 01:36 PM
Obama already released prisons from Gitmo and they are already causing terror around the world

That's not what I asked about though. I asked if there was a suggestion made about using it to detain illegal immigrants. If we aren't going to detain them here and we aren't going to deport them, we are running out of options. And any remaining options are a little dark for my taste.

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 01:43 PM
So, according to your numbers........

Between 2011 and 2014, the number of illegal immigrants rose from 11.2 to 11.3 million. That's 100,000 new illegal immigrants in a 4 year period. That works out to an average of 33,000 a year, or ~641 a week , or ~91.5 a day. The average Greyhound bus holds 55 passengers. That's more than an entire busload coming across, every day, for 3 years. Is it down from before? Sure. Is it acceptable? It sure as hell shouldn't be.


I actually lol'd at this.

91.5/day seems rather airtight for a border thousands and thousands of miles long.

33,000 a year when the native population grows at around 2,000,000-3,000,000 annually, specifically an increase of .1 million illegal immigrants in the same time we grew by 7.0 million.

Since Mexicans make up roughly half, lets go with 50 Mexicans a day, along a border than is around 2,000 miles. That's a 40:1 miles to person ratio, so forty miles of wall to keep out one farm laborer per day... absolutely hemorrhaging.

kmoose
09-04-2016, 01:46 PM
I actually lol'd at this.

91.5/day seems rather airtight for a border thousands and thousands of miles long.

33,000 a year when the native population grows at around 2,000,000-3,000,000 annually, specifically an increase of .1 million illegal immigrants in the same time we grew by 7.0 million.

Since Mexicans make up roughly half, lets go with 50 Mexicans a day, along a border than is around 2,000 miles. That's a 40:1 miles to person ratio, so forty miles of wall to keep out one farm laborer per day... absolutely hemorrhaging.

YOU were the one who contended that the murderer who was deported could just walk back across the border. I simply acknowledged that the border could never be completely secure, but that it didn't have to hemorrhage people either.

Buster Bluth
09-04-2016, 01:46 PM
Enroll them in the American Apprenticeship Program. Put them in Federal Work camps along the border and use them to build the wall. After 3 years of labor, they are given probationary citizenship during which time they must stay 100% crime free for a 5 year period. During this time, a clearing house will assign them to a state. Some get Fargo ND, some get Chattanooga, TN, etc. This aids in cultural integration/assimilation. They will live there for the duration of their probationary period. After their 8 year apprenticeship is complete they take the American Acceptance Test that evaluates their mastery of the English language, American history and law. If they pass, they are full American citizens and are free to move anywhere in the country. If they fail, they retest in 60 days. If they fail twice, they go home with free airfare and a $1000 parting gift from the US government so that they are starting fresh back in their native country.

Pretty simple actually.

Write in Crusader on your ballot!

Do this with criminals?? They'd be building a wall near the border. As in, they walk across a literal line in the sand and we don't have jurisdiction to apprehend them... Seems like a solid idea for a comedy scene.

NDCrusader
09-04-2016, 01:48 PM
Uh no. Muslims would have to cross oceans to get here, and numerous studies have shown that the Muslim who comes here is demonstrably different tan the Muslim who moves to Europe. American Muslims are more liberal, educated, and far more likely to assimilate. That happens when you have an immigration policy that takes a small amount of refugees and usually only educated (or skilled) workers, like a Pakistani doctor...

I didn't write anything about "here".

kmoose
09-04-2016, 01:57 PM
If you don't want to deport them and you don't want to detain them in American prisons, what do you want to do? Kill them? Send them to GTMO?

I will speak more slowly for you. I. want. to. deport. them. but. not. deport. them. and. then. allow. them. to. just. walk. back. across. the. border. and. into. the. US.

Is that clear enough for you?

kmoose
09-04-2016, 02:01 PM
Since Mexicans make up roughly half, lets go with 50 Mexicans a day, along a border than is around 2,000 miles. That's a 40:1 miles to person ratio, so forty miles of wall to keep out one farm laborer per day... absolutely hemorrhaging.

Here's the problem with this math.......... it assumes that only Mexicans are illegally crossing the US-Mexico border. And that's simply not true. And securing the border is not about keeping Mexicans in Mexico. It's about letting ONE terrorist cross undetected. We have an obligation to keep that from happening, as well as we reasonably can.

NDCrusader
09-04-2016, 02:04 PM
Do this with criminals?? They'd be building a wall near the border. As in, they walk across a literal line in the sand and we don't have jurisdiction to apprehend them... Seems like a solid idea for a comedy scene.

You were referring to Mexican/Central American Double Illegals only, ok. I was referring to ALL illegal immigrants who get caught not breaking any other law. They are just crossing the border or overstaying their visas.

In your case, I'm building a Double Illegal Only prison/internment center in bum fvck Nevada and supplying them with exactly what an American would get in the average 3rd world prison. When they've served their time, they are deported. By the time they get deported, our new wall would be complete.

GoIrish41
09-04-2016, 02:05 PM
I will speak more slowly for you. I. want. to. deport. them. but. not. deport. them. and. then. allow. them. to. just. walk. back. across. the. border. and. into. the. US.

Is that clear enough for you?

Oh, so you ARE talking about Mexicans after all.

My question is how do you do that?

kmoose
09-04-2016, 03:08 PM
Oh, so you ARE talking about Mexicans after all.

My question is how do you do that?

Don't be an asshole. I was answering his comment about walking across the border. If HE was speaking of Mexicans doing that, then yes, I guess I AM talking about Mexicans.

You secure the border as best you can. I don't have all of the answers for how. I would imagine that it would require a combination of wall, technology, and more boots on the ground. As I've previously said....... it won't keep EVERYONE out; but it will keep it from being too easy for them. And I'm sure that someone much smarter than me has some concrete answers for how to do it.

ickythump1225
09-04-2016, 05:04 PM
Oh you want to deport them to Mexico where they are then free to sneak back into the country? That...sounds like a worse idea.
OR we could secure the f**king border and not worry about them sneaking back in. Instead you'd rather leave the border porous and open.

Rizzophil
09-04-2016, 06:04 PM
why do illegal immigrants get to pull social security? It's already totally broke

Legacy
09-05-2016, 02:59 AM
why do illegal immigrants get to pull social security? It's already totally broke

Who did you hear that from?

Fact Checker
Trump’s false claim that undocumented immigrants collect Social Security benefits (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/20/trumps-false-claim-that-undocumented-immigrants-collect-social-security-benefits/)

Unauthorized immigrants, who are not granted any deferred-action status, are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits or any other federal means-tested benefits. But they pay taxes and pay into the Social Security system.

Even though the majority of unauthorized immigrants can’t collect the benefits, they paid about $12 billion into the cash flow of the Social Security program in 2010, according to the Social Security actuary. (Some undocumented immigrants could theoretically collect benefits — illegally — if they’ve overstayed their visas or falsely obtained a Social Security number.) That means the U.S. government gets far more than it pays out when it comes to unauthorized immigrants.

Current law allows immigrants when they become legal to get credit for those taxes paid when they were illegal. Until then, they pay into the system but get none of the benefits except:

-- Emergency medical care (which includes emergency labor and delivery)
-- Emergency disaster relief that is provided for the short term and is not a cash payment
-- Limited immunizations and testing, and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases
-- Certain community programs, such as soup kitchens or crisis counseling, as specified by the Attorney General
-- Limited housing or community development assistance to those already receiving it in 1996

The deferred action immigrants include Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).
DAPA and DACA grantees are considered lawfully present in the United States. They can apply for a Social Security number once they receive work permits. They earn Social Security and Medicare benefits through their payroll taxes — meaning they must be paying taxes. To collect the benefits, they must reach retirement age and must have worked for at least 10 years, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

DACA grantees will not yet reach retirement age if Clinton becomes president and serves two terms in office. DACA grantees must have been under 31 as of June 15, 2012, and meet several other criteria to be eligible. So if Clinton serves two terms and leaves office in 2025, the oldest DACA grantees would be 43.

Moreover, once people receive deferred-action status under DACA, they are considered lawfully present in the United States. So they would not be “illegal immigrants,” as the ad says. About 728,000 people have been granted DACA — 6 percent of the estimated undocumented immigrant population of 11 million.

Bluto
09-05-2016, 03:22 AM
Clicked on this hoping to see that Vangorder had gotten caught up in an ICE raid. Oh well...

Legacy
09-05-2016, 03:28 AM
'Undocumented' Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes
A new report suggests immigrants in the country illegally provide local economies billions of dollars in tax revenue. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes) (US News & World Report)

NDinL.A.
09-05-2016, 08:20 AM
OR we could secure the f**king border and not worry about them sneaking back in. Instead you'd rather leave the border porous and open.

You need to stop listening to Trump's blatant lies. NO ONE wants a porous border. Illegal immigration is actually significantly down from the 90's because of policies and money put towards securing the border. It absolutely could be better, but Trump's ridiculous fear-mongering has you guys believing that there is a revolving door at the borders. It's just not reality.

MJ12666
09-05-2016, 01:38 PM
'Undocumented' Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes
A new report suggests immigrants in the country illegally provide local economies billions of dollars in tax revenue. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes) (US News & World Report)

The problem is that they use twice the amount in government services.

How Much Does Illegal Immigration Cost You? - AMAC, Inc. (http://amac.us/illegal-immigration-cost-1/)

Buster Bluth
09-05-2016, 01:48 PM
why do illegal immigrants get to pull social security? It's already totally broke

They don't, and it's not.

You must consume the worst media available.

Buster Bluth
09-05-2016, 01:57 PM
The problem is that they use twice the amount in government services.

How Much Does Illegal Immigration Cost You? - AMAC, Inc. (http://amac.us/illegal-immigration-cost-1/)

That writeup should make people's skin crawl. So obviously designed to be consumed by an "us against them" crowd of old people who think everyone who isn't them is a taker.

This one in particular made me lol.

Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yeah, or many of the other streams of income for the federal government. Like consumption taxes, paid by everyone who consumes--even poor people. Or Social Secuirty taxes, paid by everyone with a job to be eligible to receive the benefit--even poor people. Or corporate taxes, paid by coprations and not households. Or property taxes, paid not only by households but various organizations too.

But don't bring up that context...it's either taking from my wallet or built on government debt! Durrrrrrrrrrrrr. Associarion of MATURE American Citizens my ass...

Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

We could use a little more context here pointing out just how many of these programs go to the 50+ crowd this website is made for. That might destroy the narrative of "We spend sooo much money on welfare it's killing us!" pretty quickly though.

Newsflash for everyone: mainstream economists consider illegal immigration's impact to be roughly even when accounting for the impact on the economy/purchasing power and tax benefits paid to their American children--to clarify, even if you deported them all you'd still be paying all sorts of benefits to the Americans who are members of their families.

kmoose
09-05-2016, 02:35 PM
That writeup should make people's skin crawl. So obviously designed to be consumed by an "us against them" crowd of old people who think everyone who isn't them is a taker.

This one in particular made me lol.



Yeah, or many of the other streams of income for the federal government. Like consumption taxes, paid by everyone who consumes--even poor people. Or Social Secuirty taxes, paid by everyone with a job to be eligible to receive the benefit--even poor people. Or corporate taxes, paid by coprations and not households. Or property taxes, paid not only by households but various organizations too.

But don't bring up that context...it's either taking from my wallet or built on government debt! Durrrrrrrrrrrrr. Associarion of MATURE American Citizens my ass...



We could use a little more context here pointing out just how many of these programs go to the 50+ crowd this website is made for. That might destroy the narrative of "We spend sooo much money on welfare it's killing us!" pretty quickly though.

Newsflash for everyone: mainstream economists consider illegal immigration's impact to be roughly even when accounting for the impact on the economy/purchasing power and tax benefits paid to their American children--to clarify, even if you deported them all you'd still be paying all sorts of benefits to the Americans who are members of their families.

A lot of their conclusions were predicated on an amnesty making the vast majority of these illegals actual citizens, eligible for all the social welfare programs described. It's not the most honest article, but it's not as bad as you describe, either. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

phgreek
09-06-2016, 01:53 AM
A lot of their conclusions were predicated on an amnesty making the vast majority of these illegals actual citizens, eligible for all the social welfare programs described. It's not the most honest article, but it's not as bad as you describe, either. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

even if it is half right...claiming illegal immigration is a net positive is a joke. I've read estimates ranging from $80B in costs to $113B...fine cut the small number in half...$40B is what illegals cost this country...what numbers do they contribute...12.5 Billion, lets double that. Guess what, in a very conservative estimate they cost twice as much as they contribute...this line of discussion is mind numbing.

IrishLax
09-06-2016, 02:16 AM
Elsewhere...

Angela Merkel loses votes to far-right AfD party in home state election | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/04/far-right-gains-ground-in-germany-after-merkel-suffers-electoral-defeat-6109279/)

This is what happens when you push the agenda as hard as she did... you get a reaction. In this country, that reaction is "Trump" which is very sad. But when the "elites" and the "establishment" push crap the average citizen doesn't want they swing strongly in the opposite direction as a response and everyone loses.

Legacy
09-06-2016, 02:31 AM
Israel lives with the constant need for immigrants for their businesses to survive and with hostility from their neighbors. What if we establish a temporary worker program as they have done. Mexicans and other Latin Americans, in general, cross illegally for the economic benefits that work in our country provides. Many illegals who stay here understandably consider themselves as natives of their countries, but some are fleeing violence in their countries and do not wish to return. They are not skilled labor but do the manual we need, harvesting crops, construction, roofing, hotel work, .etc

What if we establish a similar system to Israel's, securing our much longer border, but also establishing places of work in the bordering states? We give work permits, bus them to places of employment, pay them half as much as American workers, give basic health care - clinics, preventive care like immunizations, etc. Perhaps housing.

American industries like clothing manufactures could move back to America near the border, have low wage workers, who pay taxes on their wages, say 10%. Those temp workers could move back and forth even daily, bused back to Mexico, which benefits from the income they earn.

Palestinians in Israel: Crossing Borders
Nearly 50,000 Palestinians officially work in Israel, while around 30,000 cross the border illegally every day from the West Bank to work. Israel does not make it easy (https://en.qantara.de/node/17033)

Israel eases entry criteria for West Bank Palestinians
Men over 55 can now enter Israel with no permit; married laborers 22 and above are eligible to apply (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-eases-entry-criteria-for-west-bank-palestinians/)

Legacy
09-06-2016, 02:42 AM
The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law Backfires (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#41c43f68404a)

Lack of immigration reform threatens California farmers
Growers have difficulty fielding adequate crews to harvest crops; Washington has a shot this year at providing meaningful relief. (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/20/local/la-me-cap-immigration-20130221)

Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws (http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/)

I'd rather eat foods grown here than from Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Asia etc.

Imported foods causing more disease (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/imported-foods-causing-more-disease/)
Foodborne disease from imported foods is on the rise, with more foods from more countries causing more outbreaks, the CDC says.

The most common culprits are fish and spices, particularly peppers, the CDC's Hannah Gould, PhD, said in a report to this week's International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta.

Almost half of the foods causing outbreaks -- 45% -- came from Asia.
Why the increase in foreign foodborne disease? It may not be that the food is any less safe. We're just importing more of it.
From 1998 to 2007, U.S. food imports grew from $41 billion to $78 billion. About 85% of the seafood Americans eat comes from outside the country. At some times of the year, 60% of U.S. fresh produce is imported.

BGIF
09-07-2016, 06:41 AM
Work on Calais wall to start this month, Britain says | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-calais-britain-idUSKCN11D11W)


Work on building a wall in the northern French port of Calais to try to stop refugees and migrants from jumping aboard trucks bound for Britain will begin this month, according to British officials.

Immigration minister, Robert Goodwill, told lawmakers that security was being stepped up in Calais, home to the "Jungle" camp where thousands of migrants fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa hope to cross the English Channel to Britain.

"The security we're putting in in the ports is being stepped up with equipment," Goodwill said on Tuesday, referring to a 17 million pounds ($22.75 million) package of security measures agreed by Britain and France in March this year.

"We are going to start building this big new wall as part of the 17 million package that we are doing with the French ... We've done the fence and now we're doing the wall."

The wall, which is expected to be four meters (13 ft)high and be built along both sides of a 1-km (0.6 mile) stretch of the Rocade port approach road, should be completed by the end of this year.

($1 = 0.7472 pounds)

Polish Leppy 22
09-07-2016, 07:28 AM
Elsewhere...

Angela Merkel loses votes to far-right AfD party in home state election | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/04/far-right-gains-ground-in-germany-after-merkel-suffers-electoral-defeat-6109279/)

This is what happens when you push the agenda as hard as she did... you get a reaction. In this country, that reaction is "Trump" which is very sad. But when the "elites" and the "establishment" push crap the average citizen doesn't want they swing strongly in the opposite direction as a response and everyone loses.

Yep, and the GOP spending way too much time pushing Jeb, and a ridiculous 17 people running that wasted time and resources.

kmoose
09-07-2016, 08:16 AM
even if it is half right...claiming illegal immigration is a net positive is a joke. I've read estimates ranging from $80B in costs to $113B...fine cut the small number in half...$40B is what illegals cost this country...what numbers do they contribute...12.5 Billion, lets double that. Guess what, in a very conservative estimate they cost twice as much as they contribute...this line of discussion is mind numbing.

I'm just saying that the whole article is premised on an amnesty for the 11 million illegals living here right now. There is no amnesty at this point, but the article kind of gives the impression that the costs that they are referencing are happening right now. They aren't (all) happening right now, but they would under an amnesty.

phgreek
09-07-2016, 09:11 AM
I'm just saying that the whole article is premised on an amnesty for the 11 million illegals living here right now. There is no amnesty at this point, but the article kind of gives the impression that the costs that they are referencing are happening right now. They aren't (all) happening right now, but they would under an amnesty.

Understood...

The thing is, for people having families and picking fucking fruit or some other menial task...THEY CANNOT BE A NET POSITIVE... It costs more than the taxes on a fucking fruit pickers wages to educate his/her kids...not to mention myriad of medical and other services they receive but pay a pittance toward. So now we pay for them and the people whom we owe a duty to (citizens) who might do those jobs...JFC this discussion is infuriating. It cost me a thousand bucks per kid to go to PUBLIC school because of this shit. WTF is wrong with some of you people?

Is there a need for migrant workers...sure...its dumb to think the people who need jobs all live around massive farms, but the operative word is MIGRANT for fuck sakes...means go home, have your kids at home, educate your kids at home, and if you like it here, get in line to become a citizen...and if you develop a specialized skill that helps this nation, you might get to become a citizen sooner....if you are fleeing danger to your person, you might get to stay while you work to become a citizen. It is as good as it gets, so it is criminal to circumvent the system both literally and figuratively.

Just want to punch someone...swear to god!

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 09:31 AM
Understood...

The thing is, for people having families and picking fucking fruit or some other menial task...THEY CANNOT BE A NET POSITIVE... It costs more than the taxes on a fucking fruit pickers wages to educate his/her kids...not to mention myriad of medical and other services they receive but pay a pittance toward. So now we pay for them and the people whom we owe a duty to (citizens) who might do those jobs...JFC this discussion is infuriating. It cost me a thousand bucks per kid to go to PUBLIC school because of this shit. WTF is wrong with some of you people?

Is there a need for migrant workers...sure...its dumb to think the people who need jobs all live around massive farms, but the operative word is MIGRANT for fuck sakes...means go home, have your kids at home, educate your kids at home, and if you like it here, get in line to become a citizen...and if you develop a specialized skill that helps this nation, you might get to become a citizen sooner....if you are fleeing danger to your person, you might get to stay while you work to become a citizen. It is as good as it gets, so it is criminal to circumvent the system both literally and figuratively.

Just want to punch someone...swear to god!

Before you earn your internet tough guy championship belt, you may want to read this. ...
\
Is Illegal Immigration an Economic Burden to America? - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org (http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/

5 immigration myths debunked - Nov. 20, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/)

Legacy
09-07-2016, 12:37 PM
Understood...

The thing is, for people having families and picking fucking fruit or some other menial task...THEY CANNOT BE A NET POSITIVE... It costs more than the taxes on a fucking fruit pickers wages to educate his/her kids...not to mention myriad of medical and other services they receive but pay a pittance toward. So now we pay for them and the people whom we owe a duty to (citizens) who might do those jobs...JFC this discussion is infuriating. It cost me a thousand bucks per kid to go to PUBLIC school because of this shit. WTF is wrong with some of you people?

Is there a need for migrant workers...sure...its dumb to think the people who need jobs all live around massive farms, but the operative word is MIGRANT for fuck sakes...means go home, have your kids at home, educate your kids at home, and if you like it here, get in line to become a citizen...and if you develop a specialized skill that helps this nation, you might get to become a citizen sooner....if you are fleeing danger to your person, you might get to stay while you work to become a citizen. It is as good as it gets, so it is criminal to circumvent the system both literally and figuratively.

Just want to punch someone...swear to god!

There's nothing wrong in expressing an opinion on a message board. This issue has many aspects that individuals may view differently than another poster.

As with so much stagnation on issues, I blame this Congress, who acts like a little child who wants their way or no compromise instead, assigning an opposing side their last name as a touchstone for anger. "Gang of Eight" "Hillary" "Obama". Well, the establishment Republicans got that anger thrown in their faces.

We have a real need for immigration reform and have for decades. But maybe legislators are very similar to your "WTF is wrong with you people." As I posted, Georgia, Alabama and others lost a cumulative billion in crop losses with the strict immigration laws some people want. California Valley farmers want real immigration reform. We get 50% of our food grown there. Construction owners lose fifty percent of their applicants when they announce that they will do background checks or ask for SS ids, but love the labor.

I, too, am frustrated at the use of our institutions and the subsequent costs to us. Vote 'em all out that can't come up with laws on immigration, tax reform, inversions, military spending, infectious diseases, food from other countries etc. etc. But I can't vote in those states whose legislators who are obstructionists or hyperbolists.

We do have illegals setting up drug rings and gangs, health care that does not act like Mexico where you pay up front or else, parents who don't take their kids for immunizations or health care for fear of deportation, drivers licenses given without real identification, a subculture that does not have any interest in assimilation or reporting criminal activity to police.

Without immigration reform we have the status quo, which unacceptable for illegal immigration, an inflamed populace that wants to blame each other and is suffering, and simplified solutions.

I'll post another link which you can read - or not - about securing the border.

U.S. border officer: "Do you think a wall is gonna stop them?" (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/)

RDU Irish
09-07-2016, 01:41 PM
I find it hilarious the same folks that want to put coal miners out of work and promise high paying windmill jobs in return justify higher electricity costs to no end.... then in the next breath we can't possibly allow food costs to go up by screwing up the migrant workers for farmers. Collateral expenses of "global warming" are unbearable but the collateral damages of illegal immigrants are outlandishly overstated and worth the effort anyway. Give me a break. I'm with phgreek on this one.

kmoose
09-07-2016, 01:54 PM
Before you earn your internet tough guy championship belt, you may want to read this. ...
\
Is Illegal Immigration an Economic Burden to America? - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org (http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/

5 immigration myths debunked - Nov. 20, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/)

If you can't tell the difference between venting and being a tough guy.........

Maybe YOU should read the articles:

Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.

So, despite your dire predictions of doom and gloom, the average American will lose less than 1% of their wealth, if all 11 million illegals are deported. Factor in even less of a loss when they are allowed to come back under more strictly controlled temporary work visas, and your shouting about ruining the economy look even MORE "chicken little-ish".

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 02:08 PM
Hey, leftists should be happy to deport the illegal immigrants picking the fields (which I'd love to see what the actual breakdown of jobs they do)...

You could just move in with the unions and pay a decent wage.

Alsol, by advocating that we'd be destroying business by getting rid of "cheap labor", are you saying you support paying people a cheap wage?

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 02:13 PM
I say, let them stay. And drive unions out with low wage workers in these low skill/education jobs. In fact, help them move upstate into union heavy states and give them grants to start their own businesses in competition with unions.

Then, anyone not born in America, or who is not made a citizen, from then on, isn't eligible for any public assistance. At all. And charge a 50% tax on all monies being sent back to Mexico via western union or the like (or any other country)

See how low illegal immigration drops at that point.

A wall will not solve the problem. Start destroying their economic prosperity, they'll stop coming.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 03:41 PM
If you can't tell the difference between venting and being a tough guy.........

Maybe YOU should read the articles:



So, despite your dire predictions of doom and gloom, the average American will lose less than 1% of their wealth, if all 11 million illegals are deported. Factor in even less of a loss when they are allowed to come back under more strictly controlled temporary work visas, and your shouting about ruining the economy look even MORE "chicken little-ish".

The point is that they are not the drain on society that they are made out to be. In fact, the average American would be worse off than if they stayed, no matter how much worse off. We would not be better off as your argument goes. If you can say I'm not willing to pay more taxes to support them and it is disproven that you do, I can say I'm not willing to take a hit for sending them back to the despicable circumstances. Now that I'm making the same economic argument you were making, it is BS, but when you make it, it is sound. Weak sauce.

Keep reading. I posted four articles not just a sentence pulled out of one of them. And all of them agree that illegal immigrants is not costing Americans, but benefitting them.

Legacy
09-07-2016, 03:42 PM
even if it is half right...claiming illegal immigration is a net positive is a joke. I've read estimates ranging from $80B in costs to $113B...fine cut the small number in half...$40B is what illegals cost this country...what numbers do they contribute...12.5 Billion, lets double that. Guess what, in a very conservative estimate they cost twice as much as they contribute...this line of discussion is mind numbing.

The Forbes article I posted (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#78590698404a)(#169) about Georgia losing hundreds of millions due to strict immigration laws starts off:
To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.

The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year. As State Rep. Matt Ramsey, one of the bill’s authors, said at the time, “Our goal is … to eliminate incentives for illegal aliens to cross into our state.”

Now he and others are learning: Be careful what you wish for, because you may get more than you bargained for.

Georgia’s law, similar to those in Alabama, Arizona and a few other states, gives police the authority to demand immigration documentation from suspects when they detain them for other possible violations. The law also makes it more difficult for businesses to hire workers and creates harsher punishments for those who employ or harbor illegal immigrants.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that some 425,000 illegal immigrants lived in Georgia when the legislation was passed – seventh highest in the nation. Those numbers are now down, as hoped for, but the state’s economy is paying a heavy price.

The dirty secret that everybody knew was that most of the state’s agricultural workers were immigrants, many of them illegal. Some lived in the state; others migrated with the harvest from southern Florida up to New York and back. Some of the former have moved away, while many of the latter are bypassing Georgia. Without them, according to a University of Georgia study, farmers were about 40 percent short of the number of workers they needed to harvest last year’s crop.


I'm open to solutions. Georgia moved prisoners to harvest crops. Maybe we could make those unemployed Americans in Georgia and up the coast move out into the fields. Wages? Benefits provided by employers? These unemployed should be getting federal assistance with health benefits. If not, employers can buy them temp insurance.

How about Alabama's experience?
How America’s harshest immigration law failed (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama)

The lead sponsor of the bill boasted to state representatives that the law “attacks every aspect of an illegal alien’s life.” Among its key provisions: landlords were banned from renting homes to undocumented immigrants, schools had to check students’ legal status, and police were required to arrest suspected immigration violators. Even giving unauthorized immigrants a ride became a crime.

The vast scope of the law turned Alabama into an unprecedented test for the anti-immigration movement. If self-deportation didn’t work there, it’s hard to imagine where it could. Early reports suggested success: undocumented immigrants appeared to flee Alabama en masse. But two years later, HB 56 is in ruins. Its most far-reaching elements have proved unconstitutional, unworkable, or politically unsustainable. Elected officials, social workers, clergy, activists, and residents say an initial immigrant evacuation that roiled their communities ended long ago. Many who fled have returned to their old homes.

Now Alabama is back where it started, waiting for a solution from Washington that may never come.

Legacy
09-07-2016, 03:49 PM
What Migration Can (and Can’t) Do for a Country’s GDP (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/what-migration-can-and-cant-do-for-a-countrys-gdp/) (Wharton School of Business)

The biggest predictors of the financial success of an immigrant are age and educational level, according to the OECD. A highly educated immigrant who arrives at the beginning of his or her career provides more in taxes and social contributions than he or she benefits from schools, health care or pension programs. Young immigrants, who tend to have longer working lives, create a positive net fiscal contribution, according to the OECD report. Studies conducted in France, Belgium and Scandinavian countries demonstrated that migrants actually raise the GDP between 0.5% and 1.3% when they are employed at the same levels as native-born residents.

Carefully planned immigration policy also goes a long way toward stimulating economic growth, Liebig says. “With the growing focus on skilled-labor migration during the past two decades, one can be confident that recent migrants will produce more favorable results than preceding migrant waves, which often [included] low-educated migrants or humanitarian migrants [and] their families, particularly in Europe,” Liebig notes. “Also, in the past, labor-market integration was less a priority for policy than it is now.”

Another factor to consider, observers say, is that the children of immigrants have a profoundly beneficial financial impact on the countries in which they live. The OECD study found that no matter what the educational level of the parents, the children of immigrants generate a very strong financial gain — as much as $80,000 in present value terms. Shifting accumulated government debt to a larger future population could help spread the burden of debt, as well as make up for an aging workforce.

“The underlying argument is that whatever you decide on the migrant outlook, it shouldn’t be the fiscal impact that is driving public policy. In the context of the U.S. deficit, we find virtually no differences [in terms of fiscal impact] between immigrant and native-born households,” says Liebig. However, Wharton experts agree that future government immigration policies can have a direct and beneficial fiscal impact on a country’s booming entrepreneurial sector as well as its GDP.

kmoose
09-07-2016, 05:09 PM
The point is that they are not the drain on society that they are made out to be. In fact, the average American would be worse off than if they stayed, no matter how much worse off. We would not be better off as your argument goes. If you can say I'm not willing to pay more taxes to support them and it is disproven that you do, I can say I'm not willing to take a hit for sending them back to the despicable circumstances. Now that I'm making the same economic argument you were making, it is BS, but when you make it, it is sound. Weak sauce.

Keep reading. I posted four articles not just a sentence pulled out of one of them. And all of them agree that illegal immigrants is not costing Americans, but benefitting them.

But here you go again, claiming that I am making an argument that I am not making. I have never bitched about them hurting the economy. My bitch is that they are here illegally, and people who want to keep them here act like that is of NO consequence. I'm all for hammering businesses that hire them, as well, once we secure the border and have better databases for who is here legally.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 05:45 PM
But here you go again, claiming that I am making an argument that I am not making. I have never bitched about them hurting the economy. My bitch is that they are here illegally, and people who want to keep them here act like that is of NO consequence. I'm all for hammering businesses that hire them, as well, once we secure the border and have better databases for who is here legally.

If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 05:48 PM
If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.

Uhhh..no.

That's not our job. Are you kidding me!??? That is utter insanity.

So when someone breaks into your home, eats your food, bangs your wife, watches your TV...it's YOUR problem because you have nice stuff?



And weed is only ONE drug. And I don't think that legalizing weed is going to have the effect on the cartels that you think it will. Meth and Coke are also huge exports for the cartels. Should those be legal?

Staying OUT OF other countries should be our goal. Let them figure it out

kmoose
09-07-2016, 05:52 PM
If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.

Why don't we just legalize all crime? Then we won't have ANY people in prisons, or black markets. And we can take all of the money that USED to be spent on silly things like prisons and say............ law enforcement, and we can build free housing and give away free Starbucks to the rest of the world.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 05:57 PM
Uhhh..no.

That's not our job. Are you kidding me!??? That is utter insanity.

So when someone breaks into your home, eats your food, bangs your wife, watches your TV...it's YOUR problem because you have nice stuff?



And weed is only ONE drug. And I don't think that legalizing weed is going to have the effect on the cartels that you think it will. Meth and Coke are also huge exports for the cartels. Should those be legal?

Staying OUT OF other countries should be our goal. Let them figure it out

Yes. Everything, including prescription narcotics, should be legal. Nobody is sitting around saying to themselves. "ya know, if Meth was legal I'd try it." People who want to a abuse drugs abuse drugs. And right now, it is a boon for the cartels that make the lives of Mexicans suck. Legalize their product and they will go out of business.

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 06:07 PM
Yes. Everything, including prescription narcotics, should be legal. Nobody is sitting around saying to themselves. "ya know, if Meth was legal I'd try it." People who want to a abuse drugs abuse drugs. And right now, it is a boon for the cartels that make the lives of Mexicans suck. Legalize their product and they will go out of business.

Then I'm assuming that you agree all guns and firearms should be legal.

TheOneWhoKnocks
09-07-2016, 06:09 PM
Like why don't the 11 mill+ just go take Mexico over and make it super neato. So simple duhhhh.

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 06:10 PM
Also, legalizing it doesn't mean that we would supply it to them.

They'd still be buying from drug dealers. Unless you think stores should carry coke and meth.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 06:25 PM
Also, legalizing it doesn't mean that we would supply it to them.

They'd still be buying from drug dealers. Unless you think stores should carry coke and meth.

There a ton of prescription that have the same effects as street drugs. The heroine epidemic that is sweeping the nation would disappear if we weren't so tight assed about pain medications. People with chronic pain move on to illegal products when doctors cut them off and leave them to suffer. Think dispensaries and doctor issued medical cards (like California does with weed) where people can get their drug. He'll we've been doing this with alcohols for decades. And tax the sales and use the increased funding to pay down the national debt or provide universal healthcare. Because, the demand isn't going away.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 06:29 PM
Then I'm assuming that you agree all guns and firearms should be legal.

You would be wrong. Guns are used to shoot others who don't wish to be shot. People who abuse drugs are a using themselves ... whether they are legal or not.

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 06:31 PM
You would be wrong. Guns are used to shoot others who don't wish to be shot. People who abuse drugs are a using themselves ... whether they are legal or not.

And you'd be wrong to assume drug abuse doesn't have a dramatic effect on those around said person who is abusing them.

Or neighbors of those who cook them.

Or people who are victims of sexual and violent crimes committed by those addicted.


I could go on and on.

kmoose
09-07-2016, 06:34 PM
The heroine epidemic that is sweeping the nation would disappear if we weren't so tight assed about pain medications.
How is legalizing morphine going to get rid of Xena Warrior Princess, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 06:36 PM
How is legalizing morphine going to get rid of Xena Warrior Princess, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

LOL

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 06:58 PM
And you'd be wrong to assume drug abuse doesn't have a dramatic effect on those around said person who is abusing them.

Or neighbors of those who cook them.

Or people who are victims of sexual and violent crimes committed by those addicted.


I could go on and on.

Well if you run out of things to say, I'm sure their are websites that describe the dark side of alcohol sales and distribution that can be easily adapted to the topic at hand. But that's legal. During Probibition it was't and that created all sorts of unintended problems, including a dramatic rise in violent crime because while it became illegal, the demand never stopped. That's what is happening today with the criminalization of drugs. Remove the prohibition and the crime subsides and the same people who are abusing drugs today will continue to abuse drugs. Also who is going to cook meth if hydrocodone is readily available and legal? That's the type of black market BS that goes away if we legalize drugs. Are folks going to abuse them? Sure they will ... they are doing that now and it is illegal. People abuse alcohol all the time but someone can go buy a fifth of whiskey every day and drink it until I'm sloppy drunk. That causes family problems and sexual and violent crime too.

IrishBroker
09-07-2016, 07:07 PM
Well if you run out of things to say, I'm sure their are websites that describe the dark side of alcohol sales and distribution that can be easily adapted to the topic at hand. But that's legal. During Probibition it was't and that created all sorts of unintended problems, including a dramatic rise in violent crime because while it became illegal, the demand never stopped. That's what is happening today with the criminalization of drugs. Remove the prohibition and the crime subsides and the same people who are abusing drugs today will continue to abuse drugs. Also who is going to cook meth if hydrocodone is readily available and legal? That's the type of black market BS that goes away if we legalize drugs. Are folks going to abuse them? Sure they will ... they are doing that now and it is illegal. People abuse alcohol all the time but someone can go buy a fifth of whiskey every day and drink it until I'm sloppy drunk. That causes family problems and sexual and violent crime too.

And alcohol is still extremely dangerous. And still the cause of violent crimes, accidents, and overdoses. And that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with prohibition.

It would still happen simply because it's a dangerous substance that is addictive and gets abused.

I'm not debating the merits of booze. And you can't justify the legalization of crack, meth, coke, and heroin "because alcohol is legal"...that's crazy. And based on way too many assumptions.

You are saying that once those hard, addictive, destructive drugs are legal, crackheads are suddenly going to behave?


I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

And every argument you made, you can make for guns...except guns are a right. Drugs are not. Big difference.

Whiskeyjack
09-07-2016, 07:12 PM
I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

I think the argument is to decriminalize possession, and treat drug addiction as a health problem, while still prosecuting dealers harshly. That sort of policy shift has worked well in places like Portugal already.

GoIrish41
09-07-2016, 07:31 PM
And alcohol is still extremely dangerous. And still the cause of violent crimes, accidents, and overdoses. And that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with prohibition.

It would still happen simply because it's a dangerous substance that is addictive and gets abused.

I'm not debating the merits of booze. And you can't justify the legalization of crack, meth, coke, and heroin "because alcohol is legal"...that's crazy. And based on way too many assumptions.

You are saying that once those hard, addictive, destructive drugs are legal, crackheads are suddenly going to behave?


I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

And every argument you made, you can make for guns...except guns are a right. Drugs are not. Big difference.

Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.

kmoose
09-07-2016, 07:42 PM
Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.

Bullshit. They became popular because they are HIGHLY ADDICTIVE and cheap. People didn't get hooked on prescription painkillers and then move on to meth. People got hooked on meth and then moved on to prescription painkillers because prescription drugs are subsidized by insurance companies and government programs. That, and prescription drugs are easier to steal from prescription holders.

Legacy
09-07-2016, 07:45 PM
In additon to the links on the costs of strict immigration laws in Georgia, Alabama etc and the hundreds of millions of dollars those cost residents, here's another link on a raid in Postville, Iowa in 2008, and its immediate impact with some residents subsequent opinions.

Postville, Iowa, Is Up for Grabs (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/postville-iowa-is-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0)

Around 10 on a clear May morning in 2008, two black helicopters circled over Postville, Iowa, a town of two square miles and fewer than 3,000 residents. Then a line of S.U.V.’s drove past Postville’s main street and its worn brick storefronts. More than 10 white buses with darkened windows and the words “Homeland Security” on their sides were on their way to the other side of town. Postville’s four-man police force had no forewarning of what was about to happen. Neither did the mayor.

tommyIRISH23
09-07-2016, 09:40 PM
Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.

What are the "prescription cousins" to crack and meth? There is absolutely no prescription drug comparable to crack and meth. Crack and meth were abused well before drugs like aderol were created and, well pretty much abused because the high is amazing. Heroin was abused well before prescription pills came to be and abused. This wave of heroin addiction is largely because of prescription pills but that wasn't the case a few decades ago. What about mdma, what's the prescription cousin to that?

And you're wrong. Drug addicts won't choose the "safer" choice. They will choose the most potent high that comes closet to satisfying their fix. That's why they sell their method one, suboxone...etc. another point, look at it like this. Drug dealers mix fentynal inter their bundles (10-15 bags) depending where you live. Maybe 1 or 2 bags every 3 bundles is loaded with fentynal. The dealers know that someone or a few people will OD. Why would they do that you ask? Because their heroin will quickly get a reputation as being the strongest around and the drug addicts will literally run (I've seen them running down the street) to buy from said dealer. They know full and well how dangerous is it and will drive for miles to buy from the dealer who is selling dope that is killing people. It happens all day and everyday.

The black market will never end. Legalize heroin? Sure. I can garuntee that a stronger and more potent black market variation or total different drug will emerge: the drug addict will ALWAYS go for the most intense and potent high over "safety" any day.

It's not your fault you don't know this stuff. Most people don't, I've told this to professors and they won't listen. I wouldn't have believed it either. Then I became a narc and saw how ugly this really is. Treat the addicts. But there is no way you can legalize the distribution of heroin. (Crack Coke and meth as well). The addiction is nowhere near comparable to alcohol.

Rizzophil
09-07-2016, 09:48 PM
Taking page from Trump? UK building 'big new wall' to stop illegal immigrants | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/07/taking-page-from-trump-uk-building-big-new-wall-to-stop-illegal-immigrants.html)

new wall' to stop illegal immigrants
Adam Shaw

By Adam Shaw Published September 07, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France.

Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France. (Reuters)

In what could be a "told you so" moment for Donald Trump, the U.K. on Tuesday announced plans to build a "big new wall" at a border port in France to prevent migrants in nearby camps from sneaking aboard vehicles heading to Britain.

Robert Goodwill, minister of state for immigration, announced the plan for a wall in Calais, France, at a Home Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, saying it would be in addition to an already existing fence.

“We’re going to start building this big new wall very soon,” Goodwill said. “We’ve done the fence, now we’re doing a wall.”

The proposal is far smaller in scope than the kind of U.S.-Mexico wall Trump is demanding.

A Home Office spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the four-meter-high wall (about 13 feet) would be built along both sides of a one-kilometer (.6 mile) stretch of the main road into the Calais port. The office estimates it will be done by the end of the year.

Calais is a common point for migrants trying to enter the U.K. illegally. It is the narrowest point of the English Channel and has the most ferry crossings to England as well as being an access point to the Eurotunnel – the rail system that goes underneath the channel. The wall is intended to protect the road from migrants who frequently try to intercept vehicles approaching the port and jump on board.

Though the wall is significantly smaller than what Trump has proposed – and would protect a road rather than an entire border -- it weaves into Trump’s narrative that walls work and are a vital part of a comprehensive immigration policy.

Proponents of Trump’s plan have noted the success of other countries in building a border wall. The most commonly cited example is Israel, which built a wall along the West Bank that it says has been effective in reducing the threat of terrorism. Trump has cited Israel’s wall as justification for his own plan.

"You ask Israel whether or not a wall works," Trump told a New Hampshire crowd last year.

The migrant crisis in Calais has been a frequent issue of tension between the U.K. and France, with many in the U.K. concerned the French do not do enough to keep migrants from passing through.

In 2003, France, Belgium and the U.K. established “juxtaposed controls” – an arrangement by which British officials conduct immigration checks before passengers board the train or ferry from Calais, to prevent illegal immigrants from being able to lodge an asylum application on arrival in the U.K. Some French politicians have called for the arrangement to be undone.

The British government, meanwhile, has been pushing for stronger controls in Calais. A Home Office Committee report said the U.K. and France had invested in “additional fencing and floodlighting, CCTV, and infra-red detection technology.”

However, the report said the situation remained a “threat to UK security,” and noted the most common nationalities of migrants at Calais are Syrian, Eritrean, Sudanese, Iranian and Iraqi. It also found that between 5,000 and 7,000 migrants live in camps surrounding the area.

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- which advocates for stricter immigration controls -- welcomed the U.K. move but warned that more needs to be done.

“Border fences are not only visible, physical symbols that proclaim a country’s sovereignty and right to maintain a rule of law, but they also slow the flow of unauthorized entry. That said, Britain, just like the United States, must understand that unless the incentives for illegal entry are eliminated, border barriers will be breached,” Dane told FoxNews.com

Dane said Trump's immigration plan could offer guidance for Europe. “In his speech the other night, Trump moved beyond just building the fence and addressed the broader push-and-pull factors. Britain, and really all of Europe, will need to similarly take this holistic approach if it ever intends to mitigate the impact of mass migration,” he said.

The wall comes as new Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May sets her sights on cracking down on immigration in light of the British vote to leave the European Union in June. Goodwill told the committee the government wants to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands” of people “as soon as we possibly can.”

calvegas04
09-07-2016, 09:51 PM
Taking page from Trump? UK building 'big new wall' to stop illegal immigrants | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/07/taking-page-from-trump-uk-building-big-new-wall-to-stop-illegal-immigrants.html)

new wall' to stop illegal immigrants
Adam Shaw

By Adam Shaw Published September 07, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France.

Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France. (Reuters)

In what could be a "told you so" moment for Donald Trump, the U.K. on Tuesday announced plans to build a "big new wall" at a border port in France to prevent migrants in nearby camps from sneaking aboard vehicles heading to Britain.

Robert Goodwill, minister of state for immigration, announced the plan for a wall in Calais, France, at a Home Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, saying it would be in addition to an already existing fence.

“We’re going to start building this big new wall very soon,” Goodwill said. “We’ve done the fence, now we’re doing a wall.”

The proposal is far smaller in scope than the kind of U.S.-Mexico wall Trump is demanding.

A Home Office spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the four-meter-high wall (about 13 feet) would be built along both sides of a one-kilometer (.6 mile) stretch of the main road into the Calais port. The office estimates it will be done by the end of the year.

Calais is a common point for migrants trying to enter the U.K. illegally. It is the narrowest point of the English Channel and has the most ferry crossings to England as well as being an access point to the Eurotunnel – the rail system that goes underneath the channel. The wall is intended to protect the road from migrants who frequently try to intercept vehicles approaching the port and jump on board.

Though the wall is significantly smaller than what Trump has proposed – and would protect a road rather than an entire border -- it weaves into Trump’s narrative that walls work and are a vital part of a comprehensive immigration policy.

Proponents of Trump’s plan have noted the success of other countries in building a border wall. The most commonly cited example is Israel, which built a wall along the West Bank that it says has been effective in reducing the threat of terrorism. Trump has cited Israel’s wall as justification for his own plan.

"You ask Israel whether or not a wall works," Trump told a New Hampshire crowd last year.

The migrant crisis in Calais has been a frequent issue of tension between the U.K. and France, with many in the U.K. concerned the French do not do enough to keep migrants from passing through.

In 2003, France, Belgium and the U.K. established “juxtaposed controls” – an arrangement by which British officials conduct immigration checks before passengers board the train or ferry from Calais, to prevent illegal immigrants from being able to lodge an asylum application on arrival in the U.K. Some French politicians have called for the arrangement to be undone.

The British government, meanwhile, has been pushing for stronger controls in Calais. A Home Office Committee report said the U.K. and France had invested in “additional fencing and floodlighting, CCTV, and infra-red detection technology.”

However, the report said the situation remained a “threat to UK security,” and noted the most common nationalities of migrants at Calais are Syrian, Eritrean, Sudanese, Iranian and Iraqi. It also found that between 5,000 and 7,000 migrants live in camps surrounding the area.

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- which advocates for stricter immigration controls -- welcomed the U.K. move but warned that more needs to be done.

“Border fences are not only visible, physical symbols that proclaim a country’s sovereignty and right to maintain a rule of law, but they also slow the flow of unauthorized entry. That said, Britain, just like the United States, must understand that unless the incentives for illegal entry are eliminated, border barriers will be breached,” Dane told FoxNews.com

Dane said Trump's immigration plan could offer guidance for Europe. “In his speech the other night, Trump moved beyond just building the fence and addressed the broader push-and-pull factors. Britain, and really all of Europe, will need to similarly take this holistic approach if it ever intends to mitigate the impact of mass migration,” he said.

The wall comes as new Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May sets her sights on cracking down on immigration in light of the British vote to leave the European Union in June. Goodwill told the committee the government wants to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands” of people “as soon as we possibly can.”

They gotta do it, its getting real crazy over there

phgreek
09-07-2016, 10:47 PM
Before you earn your internet tough guy championship belt, you may want to read this. ...
\
Is Illegal Immigration an Economic Burden to America? - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org (http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/

5 immigration myths debunked - Nov. 20, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/)

I was PISSED huh? I wish I had a cool meme. Prolly mad cause I knew I couldn't spend all day kicking your ass on this...hehehe...I kid.

Here ya go, my stream of concious thoughts on the matter...

Yes I've read all of that shit.....most before I shot bolts out of my neck.

There are currently`8 million working illegals. They are arranged in ~3M households caring for 4.5M kids under 18. They average 35K/year in income/household. Multiple sources claim Illegal households pay 10K into various and assundry "taxes" etc . Leaves 25 K to live on. For a single adult to simply maintain themselves, the average minimum cost of living is ~28 K. For two parents and a child it is ~56K. For single parent one kid families lets shoot for the middle ~ 42K, since an estimate wasn't published that I recall...Not hard to see the going in position is net negative. Especially since approx. half the households have at least one kid and a single adult (47%), thus requiring significant aid.
So using these numbers
~1.25M illegal Households were short 56K-25K = 26K to meet average cost of living. They didn't get that much.
~1.25M illegal Households were short 40K-25K = 15K to meet average cost of living. They didn't get that much.
The point I'm making is, we have people who out of the gate are not ok financially, and lack education to get "ok"....the money they make is probably great money wherever they came from...HINT.

SO based on things I've read, consensus says those households got assistance largely due to their children, who are indeed mostly citizens but whose welfare cost is directly caused by one or more of their parents being here illegally. Estimates range that welfare type payments total 10B in 2004 dollars, which is likely more like 17B in 2016 dollars after credit is given for taxes paid.

Speaking of taxes... much of the tax revenues are not federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees. The only way they can pay federal taxes is to STEAL, or FAKE an SSN or get an ITIN, only about 700K out of the 1.6M Illegal filers used ITIN...Hmmm, how'd the rest submit....we'll hit that later.

Next, many arguments presume you can't get the supposed economic benefit of illegals' labor without them staying here...many are concentrated in jobs that have a seasonal component...for instance many (not all) grounds keeping gigs are seasonal, most Fishing, farming, forestry, construction gigs are seasonal. A conservative estimate would be 20-30 could be living elsewhere and coming here to work seasonally. You could avoid some significant cost, and get the "benefits" in a pretty good chunk of these.


Other Numbers:
Consider the ~100K illegals incarcerated that have an annual cost of 3B. Thats not considering costs related to initial prosecution and defense, courts, special services for interpreters etc. If we assume these are mostly drug related cases, it was estimated at 70K per case in 1991, which in today's value is 120K per case. So Illegals currently incarcerated have cost us 12B 2016 dollars on the way in the door so to speak, and as we turn them over or add to the numbers held, there is ongoing cost there. I'll ignore it here, but it is there, and it is significant.

There is ~20B in Social security identity fraud perpetrated on the IRS alone...who holds most of the fraudulent SSNs, and are in fact ENCOURAGED by the IRS to make and Steal SSNs? Even if you simply cap illegals participation in this activity at their % of the workforce...ie they are no more or less likely to engage in fraud (beyond making a SSN) than any other workers, they get 5% of the fraud number.)...there is another 1B. I'd add on the costs of investigation and prosecution, but The IRS doesn't really do much...neither does Ice. Although because this issue indeed exists, we have a special government agency within ICE for this very problem...50M.

Further, the cost to private citizens is hard to calculate but it is there. Based upon the policies of the IRS and LAWS which restrict telling you when your SSN is being used to deliver money to the IRS from someone other than you. Yup, your SSN is compromised, but uncle sugar is getting paid, so screw you selfish natavist. You'd have to admit, this is a pretty good indication your SSN is compromised, and folks can't tell you, and so you can't do anything until someone uses it to access your credit...so if you aren't paying a credit monitoring service with an insurance component, thats all on you. Whats that cost? Well Credit monitoring is a 5 Billion dollar industry...how much you want to attribute to Illegals? How much of the private losses (50B) experienced by people do you want to attribute to illegals. If we just use their population 3%, thats 150M and 1.5B respectively.

What about actual medicare, medicaid, and SS payment fraud...not just tax returns...But instances where our government does not have the resources to run down benefit payment fraud? Well Improper payments in 2015 totaled 137B. Again, what percentage do you want to hang on illegals...they are no more or less likely to commit fraud or simply allow payments to come to them not owed. I think its fair to use 3%...so, there is another 4B....I already got a part of this in IRS discussion, so 4-1 =3. So 3B more.

12B in prosecution costs (one time)

Welfare Cost (17B)
Prison Cost (3B)
Special ICE division for SSN fraud (50M)
Cost of ID fraud insurance (150M)
Cost of Private loss due to ID theft (1.5B)
Cost of IRS Fraud and other Improper payments (4B)

So far thats about 25.7B.

Education...
The 8 Million Illegals currently working make ~36K per household, in ~3M families...and that pay rarely increases due to their low education level. There are ~4.5M kids < 18 y/o have at least one undocumented parent . So, Illegals make up 3% of the population BUT their kids make up 6% of the K-12 population. Lets say each family does indeed contribute 10K taxes etc....thats break even for the education costs of one kid. However you slice it, that leaves 1.5M heads, and 10K/head to educate. So, in reality we are ~15B light in education funds.

This kid discussion should cause re-iteration of an important point...Yea anchor babies are citizens in the benefits sense, but they are a direct result, in a cost sense, of Illegal immigration, and benefits paid them, and the services they consume go on the ledger as a cost of illegal immigration in this discussion.

Estimates regarding unpaid services in the medical community jump around, we know it is likely a function of what percentage of the poor population illegals comprise. Estimate 2B.

We are at ~42.7B in costs, most of which are taxpayer costs. I'm sure there are things I didn't think of...just pitching off of memory mostly.

And BTW, I didn't even attribute any cost associated with displacement of American workers, whom, for every one who would take a job currently performed by an illegal...if said illegal went home, we'd save because we'd only have to prop one of them up. I think matching folks to jobs is a worthwhile endeavor where investment would show some benefit to the tax payer. I want the guy I have to pay for to be working.

Now I'm to believe that 40B in costs is just fine because the money these folks spend in the marketplace is worth the taxpayer "investment". Really...because it sounds alot like subsidies for business, like farms...don't I already subsidize farms directly...now through keeping them in cheap labor? Seems like this is kinda like ... you tax payers (ya know people who pay more than they take) keep the cheap labor afloat here, while the cheap laborers spend what little they have in the market place...sound about right?

Its some part QEx fueled stock market investment and some part farm subsidy. If chambers of commerce or companies who employ and depend on illegals want to cover the cost of their presence...I'm good with it...otherwise...not so good with it.

As I've said before, you can't punt 11 Million people. Most have kids...since the kids can stay, who'd pay for them if mom and dad got ejected. But we can stop illegal immigration from continuing. Yes it has slowed, but lets get it under control, be able to quantify it better before the next economic boom. And this concept of some greater economic benefit... Meh. Too much unknown and unseen... I'm against more of the same. I'm for knowing absolutely who and how many illegals are here. I'm for selecting folks for immigration whom we want as citizens... who bring skills we need...can be menial labor, should be short term if we need to ramp.

phgreek
09-07-2016, 11:03 PM
The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law Backfires (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#41c43f68404a)

Lack of immigration reform threatens California farmers
Growers have difficulty fielding adequate crews to harvest crops; Washington has a shot this year at providing meaningful relief. (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/20/local/la-me-cap-immigration-20130221)

Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws (http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/)

I'd rather eat foods grown here than from Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Asia etc.

Imported foods causing more disease (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/imported-foods-causing-more-disease/)

I think migrant workers are fine, so long as they go home. Seems to me there is an issue of incentive for someone to be here lining up requirements, recruiting, and setting up worker credentials, and then bringing in seasonal workers as needed. Then ensuring they get home, thus insulating farmers from any legalities. If I were a younger man I'd go figure that out...

yankeehater
09-08-2016, 12:57 AM
Maybe if Clinton would have done a better job of fulfilling his promises with regards to border security in 1996 we wouldn't have Trump.

Bill Clinton Sounded Like Trump On Immigration [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/17/bill-clinton-sounded-like-trump-on-illegal-immigration-in-1996-video/)

Legacy
09-08-2016, 02:29 AM
Having posted articles on
- Georgia's $140 million losses from their strict immigration laws and now needing to put prisoners in the fields to harvest (Forbes)

- Alabama's local businesses went into a tailspin after their immigration law change and were a "disaster" that left lawmakers scrambling to amend them. The law was opposed by Alabama's police chiefs who ended up jailing people and local businesses suffered. State courts gutted much of it, costing state taxpapers the legal bills. The CEO of Mercedes Benz was jailed because he could not produce the proper ID.

- nationally, the American Bureau Federation estimates last year's produce losses were $9 billion due to immigration law changes (Time)

- Postville, Iowa's federal immigration raid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/17/AR2008051702474.html) resulted in losses in a processing plant and left the town's native population and their primary employer suffering economically- "At its peak, Agriprocessors employed nearly 1,000 workers in a town with a population of about 2,200."

- California farmers, who produce 50% of our fruits and vegetables, have 70% of their workers are undocumented and necessary to their livelihood since "Americans won't take these jobs" and are not skilled enough. (LA Times)
"Bottom line, if I have to verify everyone, I'm not going to be able to harvest my crop." and
Some farmers, like Teixeira, pay by the hour — $9 in his case, $1 over the state minimum wage. "We also provide health insurance and a 401(k)," he says. And unlike San Joaquin Valley farmers, Teixeira offers a great climate along the ocean. But he still can't find enough hands for his 800 acres.
"Not just any bozo off the street can come in and harvest produce," he says, noting there's a special skill to, for example, cutting lettuce just right.
"Americans won't take these jobs," asserts Dave Puglia, senior vice president of the Western Growers Assn. "Not even the farmworkers raise their own children to take these jobs. It's hard work. And it's not unskilled labor."
California growers need a more reliable source of labor — one they believe would come from immigration reform. Workers would be here legally, able to move freely from farm to farm and able to cross back and forth across the border without worrying about being jumped by some federal agent.

- A long-time border patrol agent who gave his opinions about securing the border and whether walls would keep criminals out.


I'd like to offer another article on Arizona's severe immigration laws' impacts which cover both sides of the issue in terms of costs of illegals and to residents

The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration
Arizona’s economy took a hit when many illegal immigrants left, but benefits also materialized (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443) (Wall Street Journal)
Moody's Analytics looked at Arizona’s economic output for The Wall Street Journal, with an eye toward distinguishing between the effects of the mass departures of illegal immigrants and the recession that hit the state hard beginning in 2008. It concluded that the departures alone had reduced Arizona’s gross domestic product by an average of 2% a year between 2008 and 2015. Because of the departures, total employment in the state was 2.5% lower, on average, than it otherwise would have been between 2008 and 2015, according to Moody’s.

Economic activity produced by immigrants—what economists call the “immigration surplus”—shrank because there were fewer immigrants around to buy clothing and groceries, to work and to start businesses.
These days, construction, landscaping and agriculture industries, long dependent on migrants, complain of worker shortages. While competition for some jobs eased, there were fewer job openings overall for U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants.
According to the Moody’s analysis, low-skilled U.S. natives and legal Hispanic immigrants since 2008 picked up less than 10% of the jobs once held by undocumented immigrants. In a separate analysis, economists Sarah Bohn and Magnus Lofstrom of the Public Policy Institute of California and Steven Raphael of the University of California at Berkeley conclude that employment declined for low-skilled white native workers in Arizona during 2008 and 2009, the height of the out-migration. One bright spot: the median income of low-skilled whites who did manage to get jobs rose about 6% during that period, the economists estimate.

“It was like, ‘Where did everybody go?’ ” says Teresa Acuna, a Phoenix real-estate agent who works in Latino neighborhoods. Real-estate agent Patti Gorski says her sales records show that prices of homes owned by Spanish-speaking customers fell by 63% between 2007 and 2010, compared with a 44% drop for English-speaking customers, a difference she attributes partly to financial pressure on owners who had been renting homes to immigrants who departed.

SB 1070 prompted some unions and other organizations to boycott the state, in some cases canceling conventions. In Latino neighborhoods, sales declined at grocery stores and other businesses catering to migrants. At the Maryvale Market, in an immigrant community of ranch homes, Ashok Patel says his business is down by half since 2008.

On the other side of the economic ledger, government spending on immigrants fell. State and local officials don’t track total spending on undocumented migrants or how many of their children attend public schools. But the number of students enrolled in intensive English courses in Arizona public schools fell from 150,000 in 2008 to 70,000 in 2012 and has remained constant since. Schooling 80,000 fewer students would save the state roughly $350 million a year, by one measure.

During that same period, annual emergency-room spending on noncitizens fell 37% to $106 million, from $167 million. And between 2010 and 2014, the annual cost to state prisons of incarcerating noncitizens convicted of felonies fell 11% to $180 million, from $202 million.

“The economic factor is huge in terms of what it saves Arizona taxpayers,” primarily on reduced education costs, says Russell Pearce, who as a state senator sponsored SB 1070.

On the positive side, wages have gone up for workers in Arizona and California with health and 401ks for some illegals due to the shortage of illegals. On the negative side in all these states, Americans are not taking these jobs and these industries are suffering. "Immigration surplus" - the economic impact on local businesses, is an issue that must be addressed with a decreased tax base due American employers output, etc. All employers are asking the federal government for a comprehensive immigration law that addresses these issues and those raised by many of you.

Are we going to import our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, who have minimal restrictions on pesticides? Should we fine the construction, landscaping and agribusinesses for employing them illegally? Have the governmental costs - education, medical and prisons - that have saved Arizonans' money just shifted to other states? Do we deny hospitalization for a heart attack, massive bleeding, inability to breathe patients to those who cannot produce proper identification? Should our police be filling local jails with anyone who cannot produce proper identifications? Is it wrong for industries to raise their wages for illegals more than minimum wage and provide them benefits? Will unemployed Americans whose employment rate is 4.9% move for these seasonal jobs? We also don't want the prices of the products in these industries to increase due to increased labor costs.

phgreek
09-08-2016, 11:11 AM
Having posted articles on
- Georgia's $140 million losses from their strict immigration laws and now needing to put prisoners in the fields to harvest (Forbes)

- Alabama's local businesses went into a tailspin after their immigration law change and were a "disaster" that left lawmakers scrambling to amend them. The law was opposed by Alabama's police chiefs who ended up jailing people and local businesses suffered. State courts gutted much of it, costing state taxpapers the legal bills. The CEO of Mercedes Benz was jailed because he could not produce the proper ID.

- nationally, the American Bureau Federation estimates last year's produce losses were $9 billion due to immigration law changes (Time)

- Postville, Iowa's federal immigration raid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/17/AR2008051702474.html) resulted in losses in a processing plant and left the town's native population and their primary employer suffering economically- "At its peak, Agriprocessors employed nearly 1,000 workers in a town with a population of about 2,200."

- California farmers, who produce 50% of our fruits and vegetables, have 70% of their workers are undocumented and necessary to their livelihood since "Americans won't take these jobs" and are not skilled enough. (LA Times)
and


- A long-time border patrol agent who gave his opinions about securing the border and whether walls would keep criminals out.


I'd like to offer another article on Arizona's severe immigration laws' impacts which cover both sides of the issue in terms of costs of illegals and to residents

The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration
Arizona’s economy took a hit when many illegal immigrants left, but benefits also materialized (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443) (Wall Street Journal)






On the positive side, wages have gone up for workers in Arizona and California with health and 401ks for some illegals due to the shortage of illegals. On the negative side in all these states, Americans are not taking these jobs and these industries are suffering. "Immigration surplus" - the economic impact on local businesses, is an issue that must be addressed with a decreased tax base due American employers output, etc. All employers are asking the federal government for a comprehensive immigration law that addresses these issues and those raised by many of you.

Are we going to import our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, who have minimal restrictions on pesticides? Should we fine the construction, landscaping and agribusinesses for employing them illegally? Have the governmental costs - education, medical and prisons - that have saved Arizonans' money just shifted to other states? Do we deny hospitalization for a heart attack, massive bleeding, inability to breathe patients to those who cannot produce proper identification? Should our police be filling local jails with anyone who cannot produce proper identifications? Is it wrong for industries to raise their wages for illegals more than minimum wage and provide them benefits? Will unemployed Americans whose employment rate is 4.9% move for these seasonal jobs? We also don't want the prices of the products in these industries to increase due to increased labor costs.

I understand what you are saying. I think we need robust guest worker systems. I think there really should be no reason farmers don't have the help they need...I do understand why that is an issue now.

However, farmers and builders and the like can't be excused from some regulations regarding their employees, products, and work place...just like everyone else. We need to strive for competent technological solutions to streamline security and identification processes. That takes competent leadership at home and cooperation with nations from whom we get the workers.

I don't think anyone is against guest workers...

Legacy
09-08-2016, 03:11 PM
I understand what you are saying. I think we need robust guest worker systems. I think there really should be no reason farmers don't have the help they need...I do understand why that is an issue now.

However, farmers and builders and the like can't be excused from some regulations regarding their employees, products, and work place...just like everyone else. We need to strive for competent technological solutions to streamline security and identification processes. That takes competent leadership at home and cooperation with nations from whom we get the workers.

I don't think anyone is against guest workers...

I understand what you are saying too. We need to secure our borders as much as possible, reduce our costs while encouraging immigrants productive to our economy, provide disincentives to illegals not on permits, monitor those entering to assist our economy, improve our arrest and detention of criminals crossing illegally, and limit benefits. A thorny issue is "anchor babies". My person opinion is, if under a certain age or if mom crosses to give birth, they should go back. After another age where they can be independent, they can stay while parents who crossed illegally have to leave. Many national legislators have a family history of immigration, sometimes illegally. Many illegal immigrant family's sons and daughters enter the military. Many more thorny issues.

Thank you for your valuable contributions.

Some links (through ND sites):
U. of ND, General Counsel - Government Immigration Links (http://generalcounsel.nd.edu/team-practices/government-immigration-links/)

Notre Dame International - Immigration Information (http://international.nd.edu/issa/current-students-and-families/immigration-information/) "intended for Notre Dame international students in F-1 and J-1 immigration status and their dependents. International scholars (post-doctoral researchers, visiting researchers and visiting faculty) should visit the J-1Scholars page for immigration resources and information."

ND Law School - National Immigrant Justice Center Externship (http://law.nd.edu/academics/clinics-and-experiential-learning/externships/national-immigrant-justice-center-externship/)

kmoose
09-08-2016, 04:11 PM
Are we going to import our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, who have minimal restrictions on pesticides? Should we fine the construction, landscaping and agribusinesses for employing them illegally? Have the governmental costs - education, medical and prisons - that have saved Arizonans' money just shifted to other states? Do we deny hospitalization for a heart attack, massive bleeding, inability to breathe patients to those who cannot produce proper identification? Should our police be filling local jails with anyone who cannot produce proper identifications? Is it wrong for industries to raise their wages for illegals more than minimum wage and provide them benefits? Will unemployed Americans whose employment rate is 4.9% move for these seasonal jobs? We also don't want the prices of the products in these industries to increase due to increased labor costs.


Simple solution........... Deport all of the illegals. That way, the jails won't be full. The jails are only full of people "who cannot produce proper identification" because politicians are refusing to follow the law and deport them.

Step #2. Increase the Seasonal Agri-worker quotas. But, once your season is over, you go home. If you want to come back for another season, you have to reapply for a new visa. Streamline the process for "trusted workers" (no serious criminal record, no history of visa violations) and figure out how to better enforce the exit requirement when the visa runs out.

Step #3. If you are on an Agri-worker visa, and you give birth here in the US? That child will NOT be considered an American citizen, unless they go through the naturalization process.

calvegas04
09-14-2016, 12:13 AM
Dems will do anything to stay in power... even put our nation at greater risk

White House to increase number of refugees to 110k in 2017

White House to increase number of refugees to 110k in 2017 - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/white-house-refugees-increasing/index.html)

Legacy
09-14-2016, 12:47 AM
A Valuable Crop
Private prison companies are getting rich off tough immigration laws they’re helping to push. (http://www.fwweekly.com/2012/05/02/a-valuable-crop/) (Fort Worth Weekly)

What some of those inmates have gone through before they land in a cell in one of the tapioca-painted buildings is hell.

Most have never committed a crime other than being in the country illegally. Nonetheless, many have spent months or years in other jails, awaiting deportation hearings. Some were sexually molested or raped while there. None of them was entitled to a court-appointed lawyer. Many of them are mothers or fathers being deported while their U.S.-citizen children are left behind. Others had fled drug-fueled violence in Mexico or Guatemala and are being deported right back into those horrors. Many were victims of drug gang conscription who crossed into the U.S. seeking a better life. Some just came for work.

The numbers of undocumented immigrants who pass through ICE facilities like Johnson County’s jail is staggering and growing rapidly. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, between 1996 and 2010 the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, increased its prison capacity — county, state, and federal jails and prisons — from just over 6,000 to more than 33,000 beds. In 2010 the total number of immigrants who came and went through those cells, in more than 250 facilities nationwide, topped 360,000.

Emily Butera, who also works with the Women’s Refugee Commission, said most detainees never complain, for fear of making things worse. Still, she said, “There have been 200 formal complaints of sexual assault filed since 2007 by ICE and Homeland Security detainees.”

Undocumented immigrant women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault at the hands of guards and other people in authority, said Butera, “because they are lost. Some of these women simply submit because they think the guards have the power to make their lives more hellish than they already are. Many don’t speak English and so have no idea what’s going on.”

Parts of the laws in both Georgia and Alabama were quickly struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional, but not before both states felt the whiplash from their extremism. In Georgia, farmers found themselves short by more than 5,000 workers needed during peak harvest time, leaving millions of dollars’ worth of crops to rot on the vines. In Alabama the damage was even worse: Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of crops had to be plowed into the ground when farm workers vanished as soon as the law was passed.

Proponents of these strict laws all say that eliminating the illegal immigrants will open jobs for citizens, but farmers and others say they’ve found no one willing to do the work.

“It has been miserable on our farmers. It’s had a huge impact on them,” said Brian Hardin, assistant director of governmental and agricultural programs with the Alabama Farmers Federation. “They simply don’t have the workers they need.”

He said the Farmers Federation is asking for changes in federal guest worker programs, which allow seasonal agricultural workers to enter the U.S. for short periods of time. But meeting all the requirements needed to get those permits is very difficult and time-consuming.

“Until something is done to make those permits easier to get,” said Hardin, “our farmers will have to make some hard decisions on whether they’re going to continue to farm crops that depend on a good deal of manual labor. Or whether they will continue in the farming business at all.”

Roughly half of all prison beds used by Homeland Security are in the hands of the private prison industry, more than double the percentage from as recently as 2005. The federal government pays far better than anyone else for the care of detainees.

But private prison companies these days are doing more than just fighting for a share of that “prisoner market.” According to news reports and activist groups, the companies are actively lobbying for the harsh laws that guarantee more immigrants will spend more time behind bars, thus producing more income for the companies.


ICE alone spends more than $2 billion annually to pay for custody operations, the Justice Policy Institute report noted, and the agency, due to the harsh new immigration laws, is set to open a network of immigration centers — all privatized — in Texas, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois. Arizona is also considering building several new prisons it hopes will house immigration detainees.

Inevitably, Shapiro said, the key problem with privatized prisons, over time, “is the incentive to increase profits even at the expense of decent conditions and human rights.” He said studies show that private prisons have a higher level of violence than publicly managed prisons, which he attributes to low staff pay, “which lends itself to higher turnover rates, which leads to less experience walking the tiers.

“Without question,” he said, “the private prison industry is reaping lucrative rewards from a mass incarceration situation that is harming the nation as a whole.”

A few excerpts. Recommend reading the entire article.

Legacy
09-15-2016, 06:11 PM
Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065
Views of Immigration’s Impact on U.S. Society Mixed (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/)

Polish Leppy 22
09-15-2016, 09:04 PM
Mexico Wants A Border Wall To Stop Immigration From Central America (http://www.ibtimes.com/mexico-wants-border-wall-stop-immigration-central-america-2416587)

Someone please let me know when a leftist calls Mexico racist or bigoted.

Bluto
09-15-2016, 10:12 PM
Mexico Wants A Border Wall To Stop Immigration From Central America (http://www.ibtimes.com/mexico-wants-border-wall-stop-immigration-central-america-2416587)

Someone please let me know when a leftist calls Mexico racist or bigoted.

Those types of issues are discussed all the time in the Mexican media and amongst many of the Mexican Americans and or Mexican Immigrants I know. There are all kinds of Mexicans who are bigots. Case in point many of the Zapatistas in the south of Mexico are indigenous to the region and took up arms due in large part to being treated like crap by Mexicos ruling class which is comprised predominantly of people of European descent.

Irish#1
09-15-2016, 10:37 PM
Mexico Wants A Border Wall To Stop Immigration From Central America (http://www.ibtimes.com/mexico-wants-border-wall-stop-immigration-central-america-2416587)


They don't want a wall on the north border, but want one on the southern border. You just can't make this stuff up. lol

Legacy
09-16-2016, 01:54 AM
Illegal Central American Immigration Surges Again at U.S. Border (https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/15/central-american-illegal-immigration-us-border-loo/) Sept, 2016

For the second time in three years, the U.S. Border Patrol is apprehending more non-Mexicans than Mexicans along the southwest border, reflecting a renewed surge of Central American migrants fleeing violence and gang warfare in their home countries.

Many of those apprehended are children traveling alone or in so-called “family units,” and come from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, according to newly released statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement. Nearly two-thirds of the apprehensions occurred within the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, spanning much of Texas’s southernmost tip.

Through August of this year, there were a total of 369,411 apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border. More than half of those were of non-Mexicans, the statistics show. As of July, the border patrol had apprehended 57,344 people from El Salvador, 58,337 from Guatemala and 41,042 from Honduras compared to 160,193 from Mexico.

Apprehensions of non-Mexicans first outnumbered those from Mexico in 2014, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center. Faye Hipsman, policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., says the trend isn’t fading.

More non-Mexicans than Mexicans. Fleeing drugs and violence, not bringing them. Being tortured and raped in Mexico, not rapists. Unaccompanied minors. U.S. has given Mexico $100 million to prevent migration from C. America.

Mexico tortures migrants – and citizens – in effort to slow Central American surge
A growing number of indigenous Mexicans are being detained by agents looking for Central American migrants, amid a crackdown driven partly by aid from US (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/mexico-torture-migrants-citizens-central-america) April, 2016

The scale of US financial support for Mexican immigration control is opaque. At least $100m has been spent or pledged for training, new equipment and canine teams, according to Congressional Research Service. There are no human rights conditions attached to this aid. Department of Defence aid is separate and unknown.

Mexico crackdown reduced number of child migrants at US border – study
Nearly 9,000 fewer minors detained at US-Mexico border so far in 2015 but activists fear migration will continue if violence in Central America not addressed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/29/mexico-immigration-crackdown-fewer-child-migrants-central-america) April, 2015

Meanwhile, record numbers of Central American immigrant minors have been deported from Mexico this year. During the first five months of the year, Mexican officials have deported 3,819, 56% more than the same period last year, according to Pew.

More than 7,700 of the minors detained in Mexico are from Central America’s three “northern triangle” countries: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

The increase in deportations from Mexico follows intense media and political attention to a surge in unaccompanied minors crossing the US-Mexico border in the summer of 2014. Most are believed to be fleeing violence, as the northern triangle countries have some of the highest murder rates in the world.

Many immigration experts believe the stepped-up enforcement by Mexican authorities is the result of political pressure from the US after last summer’s surge stretched immigration facilities to capacity. The US has also pledged $86m towards upgrading Mexico’s checkpoints, roadblocks and naval bases.

Could the Mexican President tell his people that they will build a wall and the U.S. will pay for it?

BGIF
09-16-2016, 09:50 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/kenya-wall-israel-separation-barrier


Kenya is going to build a wall. Not just any wall, but a “separation barrier”, to employ the euphemism coined by Israel to describe the towering, snaking structure that now separates it from Palestine’s West Bank.

Kenya’s version will be built along sections of its notoriously porous border with Somalia. A physical rendering in bricks, mortar and barbed wire of a line on the map.

“Construction works will begin soon. We expect to have finished the project before the end of the year,” said Lamu county governor Issa Timamy, as reported in the Daily Nation.

...

Today, there are still plenty of barriers dividing nations and societies. In Cyprus, one runs along the Green Line that divides the Turkish north from the Greek south. On Malaysia’s northern border with Thailand there’s one to keep out cheap but illegal Thai labour. There’s one in Saudi Arabia, on its Yemeni border, to keep Yemen’s insecurity from spilling over. In the US too, several barriers have been erected to prevent illegal movement across the Mexican border.

Most famous, however, is Israel’s separation barrier – nearly 500 miles long, it alternates between rows of barbed wire and electronic fencing and eight-metre high concrete walls.

...

BGIF
09-16-2016, 09:53 AM
Switzerland expects fewer refugees after border clampdown | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-idUSKCN11M1G6?il=0)

Fri Sep 16, 2016 | 9:35am EDT
Switzerland expects fewer refugees after border clampdown

The Swiss government expects fewer asylum requests in 2016 than last year, after a clampdown on migrants crossing the Italian border.

Landlocked Switzerland is budgeting for 35,000 asylum requests this year, the Swiss Federal Council said on Friday, down from about 39,500 in 2015 and more than 20 percent less than a previous forecast of 45,000.

With the migrant crisis in its third year, a deal between the European Union and Turkey has reduced numbers of people crossing the sea to Greece, making Switzerland's neighbor Italy the new front line.

...

Some two-thirds of the nearly 7,500 migrants who reached Switzerland via the Italian border between July and early August were turned back.

Critics of the clampdown have accused Switzerland of closing its borders, causing a pile-up in northern Italian towns including Como.

But Swiss border officials say the country is merely fulfilling its obligations under Europe's so-called Dublin system for handling refugees, by returning migrants to the first country where they registered.

...

Polish Leppy 22
09-16-2016, 07:51 PM
Those types of issues are discussed all the time in the Mexican media and amongst many of the Mexican Americans and or Mexican Immigrants I know. There are all kinds of Mexicans who are bigots. Case in point many of the Zapatistas in the south of Mexico are indigenous to the region and took up arms due in large part to being treated like crap by Mexicos ruling class which is comprised predominantly of people of European descent.

I wasn't talking about the Mexican media. I'm talking about the American media.

Bluto
09-16-2016, 08:23 PM
I wasn't talking about the Mexican media. I'm talking about the American media.

What you asked for was for a leftist to say "Mexico" are bigots. So as a leftist I was telling you yes, there are all kinds of bigots in Mexico.

As to the American media, it would be great if it reported on the issues Mexico is facing and has had such as the thousands of women who were murdered in Cuidad Juarez, how IMF policies and NAFTA helped destroy the agrarian economy in Mexico and how they directly contributed to the huge surge in immigration to the US that the has become the whipping boy of many a bigot here in the US, that the Narcos are themselves with firearms smuggled in from the US and on and on...

As an aside you all do realize that net migration from Mexico has reversed and more Mexicans are returning to Mexico than are immigrating to the US.

Polish Leppy 22
09-16-2016, 09:08 PM
What you asked for was for a leftist to say "Mexico" are bigots. So as a leftist I was telling you yes, there are all kinds of bigots in Mexico.

As to the American media, it would be great if it reported on the issues Mexico is facing and has had such as the thousands of women who were murdered in Cuidad Juarez, how IMF policies and NAFTA helped destroy the agrarian economy in Mexico and how they directly contributed to the huge surge in immigration to the US that the has become the whipping boy of many a bigot here in the US, that the Narcos are themselves with firearms smuggled in from the US and on and on...

As an aside you all do realize that net migration from Mexico has reversed and more Mexicans are returning to Mexico than are immigrating to the US.

Do you see nothing hypocritical about Mexico wanting a southern wall and then having their president come up here and give the US lectures about our immigration policies?

phgreek
09-22-2016, 10:22 AM
Illegal Central American Immigration Surges Again at U.S. Border (https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/15/central-american-illegal-immigration-us-border-loo/) Sept, 2016



More non-Mexicans than Mexicans. Fleeing drugs and violence, not bringing them. Being tortured and raped in Mexico, not rapists. Unaccompanied minors. U.S. has given Mexico $100 million to prevent migration from C. America.

Mexico tortures migrants – and citizens – in effort to slow Central American surge
A growing number of indigenous Mexicans are being detained by agents looking for Central American migrants, amid a crackdown driven partly by aid from US (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/mexico-torture-migrants-citizens-central-america) April, 2016



Mexico crackdown reduced number of child migrants at US border – study
Nearly 9,000 fewer minors detained at US-Mexico border so far in 2015 but activists fear migration will continue if violence in Central America not addressed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/29/mexico-immigration-crackdown-fewer-child-migrants-central-america) April, 2015



Could the Mexican President tell his people that they will build a wall and the U.S. will pay for it?

seems like half the United States would break out in applause and reach for their checkbook. The right thing to do is create refugee camps protected by UN forces in Central America...Just don't sole source consruction to Halliburton...:) Evaluate people who seek refugee status, and bring those in who've been selected. Health and security issues abound when they bum rush our boarder...gotta stop.

Legacy
09-29-2016, 03:35 PM
Greece ill-prepared for EU asylum returns (https://euobserver.com/migration/135301)

The EU is putting pressure on Greece to start accepting returns of asylum seekers from other EU states, but Athens remains ill-prepared.
On Wednesday (28 September), EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos said there "would be a gradual return" to the EU asylum system of returns under the so-called Dublin regulation.

But an understaffed Greek Asylum Service in July said it would take three years to clear the backlog of existing asylum claims.
The prospect of receiving even more asylum seekers from other EU states has also met with incredulity from some NGOs.

Manos Moschopoulos, an migration expert from the Open Society Foundation, says Greece is already struggling.

"Most people are living in camps for months with no or little information. The Greek Asylum Service is overwhelmed. We are talking about more than 60,000 people in Greece at the moment," he said on Thursday.

Amnesty International: 18 Years Before Refugees Stranded in Greece are Relocated (http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/09/22/amnesty-international-18-years-before-refugees-stranded-in-greece-are-relocated/)

GoIrish41
10-14-2016, 08:00 PM
Attack on Somalis in Kansas thwarted, feds say - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html)

Luckily we have patriots in this country who are willing to save us from terrorist immigrants.

phgreek
10-15-2016, 02:09 PM
Attack on Somalis in Kansas thwarted, feds say - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html)

Luckily we have patriots in this country who are willing to save us from terrorist immigrants.

The simple fact of the matter is, until the immigration / illegal immigration issue is settled, and people stop vilifying one another, and have a cohesive and HONORED set of rules they can all understand, that can't be manipulated for political motivations...those who are natives are going to feel marginalized and angry as will those who come here....Shocker.

kmoose
10-15-2016, 05:53 PM
Attack on Somalis in Kansas thwarted, feds say - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html)

Luckily we have patriots in this country who are willing to save us from terrorist immigrants.

Luckily we have white law enforcement officers that serve and protect everyone, regardless of the color of their skin.

Legacy
10-17-2016, 07:25 PM
The simple fact of the matter is, until the immigration / illegal immigration issue is settled, and people stop vilifying one another, and have a cohesive and HONORED set of rules they can all understand, that can't be manipulated for political motivations...those who are natives are going to feel marginalized and angry as will those who come here....Shocker.


How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html?_r=0)
(article details how a bipartisan group of eight House legislaturers attempted to craft a comprehensive immigration bill)

GoIrish41
10-18-2016, 08:44 AM
Luckily we have white law enforcement officers that serve and protect everyone, regardless of the color of their skin.

White officers are awesome. :awesomewo But who said anything about race? What a peculiar thing to say.

kmoose
10-18-2016, 09:09 AM
But who said anything about race?

You do............. constantly.

BGIF
10-18-2016, 09:19 AM
White officers are awesome. :awesomewo But who said anything about race? What a peculiar thing to say.


It's your usual M.O. at least since the Zimmerman thread.

Keep on trollin'.

phgreek
10-18-2016, 12:06 PM
How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html?_r=0)
(article details how a bipartisan group of eight House legislaturers attempted to craft a comprehensive immigration bill)

...really was close. Shame.

Legacy
11-10-2016, 01:08 AM
The Pogues - Thousands are Sailing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1G7aCpSsI)

Legacy
11-10-2016, 05:45 PM
Australia reportedly close to US asylum seeker deal that would end offshore detention, shut down Manus and Nauru centres (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-reportedly-close-to-us-asylum-seeker-deal-that-would-end-offshore-detention-shut-down-manus-and-nauru-centres-20161110-gsmuwi.html)

Senior minister Christopher Pyne says the Turnbull government has plenty of time to make a deal to transfer immigration detainees held on Manus Island and Nauru to the United States before Donald Trump takes office.

A deal to resettle about 1800 refugees and asylum seekers held in Australia's offshore detention centres is reportedly close, with the US agreeing to take detainees after Australia said it would accept Central American refugees held in US-assisted Costa Rican camps and fleeing violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Legacy
12-07-2016, 04:41 PM
College & University Presidents Call for U.S. to Uphold and Continue DACA (https://www.pomona.edu/news/2016/11/21-college-university-presidents-call-us-uphold-and-continue-daca)

-- Higher education leaders cite “moral imperative” and “national necessity” in supporting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
-- As of Dec. 7, more than 500 college and university presidents from public and private institutions across the U.S. have signed statement offering to meet with U.S. leaders on the issue. Signatories are listed below and the list will be updated on an ongoing basis.
- The presidents are urging business, civic, religious and non-profit sectors to join them in supporting DACA and undocumented immigrant students.
-- College and university presidents can still sign the statement. For more information, contact support-daca@pomona.edu.


Statement in Support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program and our Undocumented Immigrant Students

The core mission of higher education is the advancement of knowledge, people, and society. As educational leaders, we are committed to upholding free inquiry and education in our colleges and universities, and to providing the opportunity for all our students to pursue their learning and life goals.

Since the advent of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, we have seen the critical benefits of this program for our students, and the highly positive impacts on our institutions and communities. DACA beneficiaries on our campuses have been exemplary student scholars and student leaders, working across campus and in the community. With DACA, our students and alumni have been able to pursue opportunities in business, education, high tech, and the non-profit sector; they have gone to medical school, law school, and graduate schools in numerous disciplines. They are actively contributing to their local communities and economies.

To our country’s leaders we say that DACA should be upheld, continued, and expanded. We are prepared to meet with you to present our case. This is both a moral imperative and a national necessity. America needs talent – and these students, who have been raised and educated in the United States, are already part of our national community. They represent what is best about America, and as scholars and leaders they are essential to the future.

We call on our colleagues and other leaders across the business, civic, religious, and non-profit sectors to join with us in this urgent matter.

Legacy
12-07-2016, 04:50 PM
Can a Campus Be a Sanctuary? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/15/growing-movement-calls-universities-limit-their-cooperation-federal-immigration) (Inside Higher Education)

A growing movement, in wake of Trump’s victory, calls on colleges to limit cooperation with federal immigration officials. Legal and political impacts are unclear.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency has prompted a growing number of petitions signed by students, faculty members and alumni at colleges and universities across the country calling on their institutions to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities and to declare theirs “sanctuary campuses.”

phgreek
12-07-2016, 06:42 PM
Can a Campus Be a Sanctuary? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/15/growing-movement-calls-universities-limit-their-cooperation-federal-immigration) (Inside Higher Education)

I think there are probably remedies to this behavior.

I think the number and effectiveness depends on the stance of the municipality around the school, as well as the stance of the state.

For one, I would think a couple Federal Stings here and there, with under cover folks, where folks go to jail for aiding and abetting, and compliance would be forthcoming.

NDBoiler
12-07-2016, 10:22 PM
Bear with me, as I know this sounds crazy, but please hear me out. I think this would alleviate any fear of deportation. How about...immigrating LEGALLY? Seems to be a really novel concept that is hard to grasp nowadays, but if it can just catch on and gain some traction, I think it will go a long way to easing tensions.

Legacy
12-09-2016, 02:17 PM
I think there are probably remedies to this behavior.

I think the number and effectiveness depends on the stance of the municipality around the school, as well as the stance of the state.

For one, I would think a couple Federal Stings here and there, with under cover folks, where folks go to jail for aiding and abetting, and compliance would be forthcoming.


GOP warms to immigrants they tried to close government over:
Conservatives in Congress adopt a softer tone toward ‘Dreamers,’ immigrants brought here illegally as children.
(http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/gop-congress-immigrants-dreamers-232391)(Politico)

GOP lawmakers face a stark reality come Jan. 20: They’ll have a president in the White House who will actually unravel Obama’s executive actions on immigration that they in Congress had fought tooth-and-nail. And with that comes roughly 740,000 so-called Dreamers who put their faith in the Obama administration — as well as sensitive personal data — to get a reprieve from deportation and permits to work legally.

“We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” Trump told Time magazine in an interview published this week. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Make no mistake: Republicans still say Obama was clearly wrong to act on his own to grant the reprieve to the Dreamers. But they acknowledge the reality of 740,000 young immigrants who have submitted fingerprints, paid fees and are now attending school or working legally.

“I think that we should have something that balances the concerns of all the parties involved and make sure that we don’t pull the rug out from under people,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday. “The transition team wants to make sure they get this right.”

Legacy
01-15-2017, 02:59 PM
Cubans stranded in Mexico after US 'slams door shut' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38617615)(BBC)

President Barack Obama's decision to end a long-standing policy granting temporary residency rights to Cubans arriving in the US without a visa has left many would-be migrants stranded. BBC Mundo's Valeria Perasso has been speaking to one Cuban father and daughter waiting in Mexico and now facing an uncertain future.

Jose Enrique Manresa and his daughter Arianne were hoping finally to reach the US this week after a 48-day journey from their home in Cuba through South and Central America.

"We've lost everything." says Mr Manresa. "We risked everything on our journey and if we don't have the right to live in the US after all that, then there's no hope for us."

BGIF
01-15-2017, 03:31 PM
We risked everything on our journey and if we don't have the right to live in the US after all that, then there's no hope for us.


When did they ever have "the right".

Legacy
01-25-2017, 03:15 PM
I guess this belongs best here.

Wealthy Chinese buyers are a growing force in U.S. real estate markets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wealthy-chinese-buyers-are-a-growing-force-in-us-real-estate-markets/2016/10/13/15ab3cba-7441-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.41969b54497f) (WSJ)


After a long and painful slide following the real estate collapse in 2008, Seattle’s property market is enjoying one of the sharpest rises anywhere in the United States. Buoyed by a rapidly expanding economy that has brought tens of thousands of high-paying jobs to the city, real estate values have nearly doubled since 2009, according to the online real estate database Zillow.

Yet while technology billionaires gobble up estates from Puget Sound to Lake Washington, Jim Conlan, a real estate broker with Century 21 North Homes Realty in Seattle, says the real catalyst for the dramatic upswing can be found in China.

“To be honest, Chinese buyers have been flooding this market the past few years,” says Conlan, who has been selling homes in Seattle for more than 30 years. “Some of them buy homes sight unseen, while others travel here for a kind of real estate tourism and buy real estate after only one viewing.”

Seattle is not alone. For the fourth year in a row, buyers from China ranked first among foreign nationals purchasing property in the United States, according to a survey by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). U.S. home sales to Chinese nationals totaled $27.3 billion — exceeding the total dollar sales figure of the next four countries in the rankings combined, the survey showed.

Chinese nationals started buying U.S. property in large numbers in the years after the real estate crash, when home prices plummeted in many U.S. markets.

Driven by expanding wealth in China and a desire for a haven against political instability, busloads of Chinese buyers began popping up in markets from California to New York.

Vanessa Chan says she viewed the U.S. market as a solid real estate investment when she bought a Manhattan apartment two years ago. The Hong Kong-based technology executive paid $1.25 million for a condo in a new tower in Midtown. “New York is a lot like Hong Kong in terms of prices, but the housing quality is a lot better,” says Chan, 37. “I also knew Manhattan property would appreciate much faster than some real estate investments in Asia.”

Chan’s broker, Elizabeth Schwartz of Compass, has worked with dozens of buyers from China. Although Chinese billionaires receive a lot of attention for purchasing trophy properties, she says that most Chinese buyers are looking for more moderately priced homes that give them a better return on their money.

“There’s a huge population of hardworking, educated Chinese who look to the U.S. for real estate investment,” Schwartz says. “But they come to this market not with money to just throw around, but rather to make informed, well-reasoned investment choices.”

The Housing Bubble Comes to Seattle (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2203283-the-housing-bubble-comes-to-seattle/)

Chinese Moving from Vancouver to Seattle
In addition to rising demand from tech firms, Chinese investors have become more interested in Seattle as well. And a new tax on foreign buyers in close by Vancouver is expected to support this trend, moving Chinese investors south of the Canadian border.

Vancouver started taxing foreign buyers on Aug. 2. An additional property-transfer tax of 15 percent is applied to foreign nationals and corporates to reduce the pressure on Vancouver’s overheated housing market.

http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2016/12/29/Real-Estate-graph-343x450.jpg

An additional 15% tax on foreign nationals buying real estate in the U.S.?

Legacy
01-28-2017, 05:53 PM
While Greece is suffering through economic collapse with its debt burden and restructuring, they are getting squeezed in a migrant crisis. The EU made a deal with Turkey to stop Mid-Eastern immigrants from getting to Greece in exchange for millions. That has slowed migration, but Turkey's dictator will threaten opening the flood gates on a regular basis, lately because eight soldiers who may have participated in the coup were not sent back to Turkey. Almost all of those migrants lately making their way to Greece anyway are Syrians, fleeing the Middle Eastern wars. (In 2015, Greece saw the arrival of 856,723 migrants to their shores.)

The rise of the far right groups in Europe is reminding Greeks of the Nazis, who, when they occupied northern Greece would execute whole villages. As the door to immigration to other EU countries has been slammed shut for migrants in Greece, In fact, northern European countries are insisting that migrants who meet the "Dublin rules" the EU instituted be sent back to Greece. The Dublin Rules stipulate that migrants must apply for asylum in the first EU member-state they enter. It also calls for migrants who have traveled further to be returned to the first EU country they entered, a practice that most countries suspended due to the inordinate pressure on Greece. In short, when these are re-instituted, Greece will see an influx of migrants back to Greece.

With winter's arrival, the 60,000 migrants in Greece in camps are seeing a worsening of already bad condition and the UN High Commission on Refugees wants Greece to do more for the conditions in the camps.

Put all of that within the context of this:
- From 2008-16, Greek households saw a decrease in their wealth by 37.5%
- Investments in Greek homes (home buying) over the same period has fallen 85%
- the Greek government, to meet debt requirements, is selling off their publicly-owned resources. The Greek rail system was recently acquired by an Italy company
- Greeks have recently been hit with another increase in taxes and another decrease in retirement checks.
- in a total population of 11 million, 1 million are documented immigrants and another 1 million are undocumented, not in camps
- the total unemployment rate in Greece is 27%
- total youth unemployment rate is 50%
- Greek debt will not be repaid at least until 2028

Worsening wars in the Middle East, Turkey reneging on their agreement and releasing migrants in their camps, and border closings and the refusal of other EU countries to take any more migrants as well as repopulating some existing migrants back to Greece are the main factors that are dragging down Greece's attempts to deal with immigration.

Obviously, the biggest factor in immigration in Greece is the Middle Eastern wars, which threaten to create more migrants and prevents repopulating migrants back into their homelands.

kmoose
01-28-2017, 06:25 PM
I guess this belongs best here.

Wealthy Chinese buyers are a growing force in U.S. real estate markets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wealthy-chinese-buyers-are-a-growing-force-in-us-real-estate-markets/2016/10/13/15ab3cba-7441-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.41969b54497f) (WSJ)






The Housing Bubble Comes to Seattle (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2203283-the-housing-bubble-comes-to-seattle/)



http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2016/12/29/Real-Estate-graph-343x450.jpg

An additional 15% tax on foreign nationals buying real estate in the U.S.?

You know what else causes artificially high housing prices in Portland (and maybe Seattle, but I don't know)? Urban growth boundaries!! Portland has an Urban Growth Boundary because, as they put it, "We don't want to become another LA!" "Well, Mr. Wannabe-Hippie Portand resident; there's a reason that 10 million people live in Los Angeles, and it's not because it rains 250 days a year there. So I think you are safe!"

Legacy
01-29-2017, 07:11 PM
ND advises students from seven countries to remain in US following executive order (http://ndsmcobserver.com/2017/01/nd-advises-students-seven-countries-remain-us-following-executive-order/)

“If [the order] stands, it will over time diminish the scope and strength of the educational and research efforts of American universities, … and, above all, it will demean our nation, whose true greatness has been its guiding ideals of fairness, welcome to immigrants, compassion for refugees, respect for religious faith and the courageous refusal to compromise its principles in the face of threats,” Jenkins said in the statement.

“We respectfully urge the president to rescind this order.”


I hope the University does invite Trump to give the Commencement address.

Buster Bluth
01-29-2017, 09:00 PM
You know what else causes artificially high housing prices in Portland (and maybe Seattle, but I don't know)? Urban growth boundaries!! Portland has an Urban Growth Boundary because, as they put it, "We don't want to become another LA!" "Well, Mr. Wannabe-Hippie Portand resident; there's a reason that 10 million people live in Los Angeles, and it's not because it rains 250 days a year there. So I think you are safe!"

It is not the UGB per se but the UGB paired with a lack of development within the UGB. The UGB has a meaningless effect on prices if there are available units. Portland wants density, not sprawl. And it's been that way for 44 years, so it doesn't explain the spike fully.

Part of what has happened is a cultural shift to favor walkable communities (among Millennials and others) which made Portland an extremely popular destination. Demand has skyrocketed and the developers haven't responded fast enough. There are plenty of cranes south of downtown though, or at least there were last May when I was there.

Part of the problem is the power neighborhoods have with stopping development. Far worse than a UGB is the NIMBY attitude many have towards any sort of density in their neighborhood, which is at odds with the UGB. So while Portland as a whole wants density, no one wants their neighborhood to change. San Francisco doesn't have a UGB (that I know of), as it's fully developed, but their prices are skyrocketing because it is very hard to add units with density. Plop a Streetview dealio down on Google around San Francisco, the density is a joke outside of downtown.

Additionally, building affordable housing is a different matter and a different problem. The reality is that cheap housing is usually older. But since we took decades off from building dense neighborhoods--really we sorta just forgot how to, or you could argue we were ordered not to by big government--there isn't enough affordable housing in these cities to cover the new demand by this urban renaissance. New units are more expensive, so when developers add new units to get at that demand, they usually have less of an impact on price than we'd like to see.

It's also worth admitting that a UGB in practice does have an artificial impact on housing prices, but so does the highway down in Los Angeles. If the development isn't paying for the cost of the billion-dollar freeway extension/widening and it's left to the federal government, that is artificially cheap. The whole is subsidizing the periphery, a periphery that will suck the life out of the central city if left unmitigated. I'd rather be Portland than most American cities.

Bluto
01-29-2017, 09:16 PM
It is not the UGB per se but the UGB paired with a lack of development within the UGB. The UGB has a meaningless effect on prices if there are available units. Portland wants density, not sprawl. And it's been that way for 44 years, so it doesn't explain the spike fully.

Part of what has happened is a cultural shift to favor walkable communities (among Millennials and others) which made Portland an extremely popular destination. Demand has skyrocketed and the developers haven't responded fast enough. There are plenty of cranes south of downtown though, or at least there were last May when I was there.

Part of the problem is the power neighborhoods have with stopping development. Far worse than a UGB is the NIMBY attitude many have towards any sort of density in their neighborhood, which is at odds with the UGB. So while Portland as a whole wants density, no one wants their neighborhood to change. San Francisco doesn't have a UGB (that I know of), as it's fully developed, but their prices are skyrocketing because it is very hard to add units with density. Plop a Streetview dealio down on Google around San Francisco, the density is a joke outside of downtown.

Additionally, building affordable housing is a different matter and a different problem. The reality is that cheap housing is usually older. But since we took decades off from building dense neighborhoods--really we sorta just forgot how to, or you could argue we were ordered not to by big government--there isn't enough affordable housing in these cities to cover the new demand by this urban renaissance. New units are more expensive, so when developers add new units to get at that demand, they usually have less of an impact on price than we'd like to see.

It's also worth admitting that a UGB in practice does have an artificial impact on housing prices, but so does the highway down in Los Angeles. If the development isn't paying for the cost of the billion-dollar freeway extension/widening and it's left to the federal government, that is artificially cheap. The whole is subsidizing the periphery, a periphery that will suck the life out of the central city if left unmitigated. I'd rather be Portland than most American cities.

San Francisco has natural boundaries on three side and is built out to its southern border so in a sense it has a natural UGB. To whit, you are absolutely right about San Francisco. It's major problem is everyone wants to live in a 3 story Victorian flat circa 1968. If done correctly UGB's are a great idea particularly when coupled with things like Ag preservation and open space districts/land trusts.

Legacy
01-30-2017, 02:07 PM
Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, on the Executive Order on Refugees and Migrants (https://www.archchicago.org/statements/-/asset_publisher/a2jOvEeHcvDT/content/statement-statement-of-cardinal-blase-j-cupich-archbishop-of-chicago-on-the-executive-order-on-refugees-and-migrants?inheritRedirect=false&amp;redirect=https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.archchicago.org%2Fstatements%3Fp_p_id%3D10 1_INSTANCE_a2jOvEeHcvDT%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_ state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dco lumn-3%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2)

This weekend proved to be a dark moment in U.S. history. The executive order to turn away refugees and to close our nation to those, particularly Muslims, fleeing violence, oppression and persecution is contrary to both Catholic and American values. Have we not repeated the disastrous decisions of those in the past who turned away other people fleeing violence, leaving certain ethnicities and religions marginalized and excluded? We Catholics know that history well, for, like others, we have been on the other side of such decisions.

These actions impose a sweeping and immediate halt on migrants and refugees from several countries, people who are suffering, fleeing for their lives. Their design and implementation have been rushed, chaotic, cruel and oblivious to the realities that will produce enduring security for the United States. They have left people holding valid visas and other proper documents detained in our airports, sent back to the places some were fleeing or not allowed to board planes headed here. Only at the eleventh hour did a federal judge intervene to suspend this unjust action.....

Legacy
02-02-2017, 01:47 PM
Donald Trump to uphold asylum deal, Australia says (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38792411) (BBC) (Jan 30,2017)

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has thanked US President Donald Trump for upholding an agreement to resettle asylum seekers in the US.

The deal, struck with the Obama administration, applies to people held in Australia's offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

The Australian leader on Monday confirmed he had spoken to Mr Trump, and the agreement would go ahead.
(after the executive order travel ban)

Donald Trump, Malcolm Turnbull phone call: What now for US-Australia relations, refugees? (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-phone-call-what-now-for-usaustralia-relations-refugees/news-story/22ed73c05f15e862cef9b5054b7264be) (news.com.au)

DONALD Trump reportedly blasting Malcolm Turnbull before abruptly hanging up on him showed there would be no more “mates rates” between the two countries.
Mr Turnbull later denied the exchange ended in a bad way: “The report that the President hung up is not correct, the call ended courteously.”

The ensuing fallout from the 25-minute phone call also indicates the refugee deal between Australia and the US hangs in the balance.

That is the view of Dougal Robinson, research fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, who was commenting on the implications of the tense call between the two leaders.

As revealed by the Washington Post, the US President reportedly blasted Mr Turnbull during their conversation which took place last Saturday saying “this was the worst call by far”.