WWTBAM Bored

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

So what happens, bob-tel, when the economy cycles down, as it always does? Do we kick them out then? Did you think of that when you paraphrased that talking point?
We need to have and abide by a set of immigration laws that protect the citizens of this country as their first priority and enforce them. And it is the sole responsibility of the Congress to define those laws and the responsibility of the President to enforce those laws as Congress intended. And enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
PERIOD.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

So what happens, bob-tel, when the economy cycles down, as it always does? Do we kick them out then? Did you think of that when you paraphrased that talking point?
We need to have and abide by a set of immigration laws that protect the citizens of this country as their first priority and enforce them. And it is the sole responsibility of the Congress to define those laws and the responsibility of the President to enforce those laws as Congress intended. And enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
PERIOD.

Actually that was spock's comment and was a jibe directed toward Bob#####.

That said, there will always be a need for workers to do jobs that most people don't want to do, even in a downward economy. Harvesting crops comes immediately to mind.

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Spock wrote:
IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

So what happens, bob-tel, when the economy cycles down, as it always does? Do we kick them out then? Did you think of that when you paraphrased that talking point?
We need to have and abide by a set of immigration laws that protect the citizens of this country as their first priority and enforce them. And it is the sole responsibility of the Congress to define those laws and the responsibility of the President to enforce those laws as Congress intended. And enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
PERIOD.

Actually that was spock's comment and was a jibe directed toward Bob#####.

That said, there will always be a need for workers to do jobs that most people don't want to do, even in a downward economy. Harvesting crops comes immediately to mind.

I know, I just didn't want to go back to find the original talking point paraphrase.

OK, I don't buy the idea that we need to close our eyes to the law so that illegal aliens can pick crops. I think that it is a liberal meme that 'there are some jobs Americans won't do", and not true. But that's my opinion, I don't know. Create a law that takes that into account. And enforce it. Don't skirt the law because it's inconvenient. Congress rates itself on how many laws it passes. Here's a situation that requires a law that's actually in their purview. Let them do their frickin job for a change rather than point fingers at each other and the President.

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

Another thought. I wonder how much Social Security surplus comes out of places like the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and California's Central Valley. I doubt those places will be paying much of Bob's Social Security.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

So what happens, bob-tel, when the economy cycles down, as it always does? Do we kick them out then? Did you think of that when you paraphrased that talking point?
We need to have and abide by a set of immigration laws that protect the citizens of this country as their first priority and enforce them. And it is the sole responsibility of the Congress to define those laws and the responsibility of the President to enforce those laws as Congress intended. And enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
PERIOD.

If you think Mexico is sending only drug dealers and rapists but also worry that Mexicans are trying to take your job, what the fuck do you do for a living?

Bob Juch wrote: If you think Mexico is sending only drug dealers and rapists but also worry that Mexicans are trying to take your job, what the fuck do you do for a living?

Where did Flock indicate he thought Mexico was sending people?
Where did Flock indicate he thought (if they WERE sending people) they were sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists?
Where did Flock indicate he was afraid they were taking his job?

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Spock wrote:
IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.

So what happens, bob-tel, when the economy cycles down, as it always does? Do we kick them out then? Did you think of that when you paraphrased that talking point?
We need to have and abide by a set of immigration laws that protect the citizens of this country as their first priority and enforce them. And it is the sole responsibility of the Congress to define those laws and the responsibility of the President to enforce those laws as Congress intended. And enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
PERIOD.

If you think Mexico is sending only drug dealers and rapists but also worry that Mexicans are trying to take your job, what the fuck do you do for a living?

I don't. The question you should be asking yourself is "Why do you think I think that?". If you ever figure out the answer to that, you will earn my respect.

PS: Just to be clear, the question you should ask yourself should be "Why do I think Flock thinks that?". Don't want you to be confused....

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If you think Mexico is sending only drug dealers and rapists but also worry that Mexicans are trying to take your job, what the fuck do you do for a living?

Where did Flock indicate he thought Mexico was sending people?
Where did Flock indicate he thought (if they WERE sending people) they were sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists?
Where did Flock indicate he was afraid they were taking his job?

That was an impersonal you.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If you think Mexico is sending only drug dealers and rapists but also worry that Mexicans are trying to take your job, what the fuck do you do for a living?

Where did Flock indicate he thought Mexico was sending people?
Where did Flock indicate he thought (if they WERE sending people) they were sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists?
Where did Flock indicate he was afraid they were taking his job?

That was an impersonal you.

It would still be worth it to you to try and answer my question impersonally.

Also, if you think anyone actually thinks Mexico is sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists (including trump), why do you think that? Wouldn't anyone have to be really crazy to actually believe that? And isn't it even more crazy for anyone to believe that a whole group of people believe that ALL illegal aliens are drug pushers or rapists? But that is what I hear on the news media and from 'respected' democrat leaders all the time.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Where did Flock indicate he thought Mexico was sending people?
Where did Flock indicate he thought (if they WERE sending people) they were sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists?
Where did Flock indicate he was afraid they were taking his job?

That was an impersonal you.

It would still be worth it to you to try and answer my question impersonally.

Also, if you think anyone actually thinks Mexico is sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists (including trump), why do you think that? Wouldn't anyone have to be really crazy to actually believe that? And isn't it even more crazy for anyone to believe that a whole group of people believe that ALL illegal aliens are drug pushers or rapists? But that is what I hear on the news media and from 'respected' democrat leaders all the time.

Yes, a lot of people think that's true because that what trump said, and yes, they're crazy. Such is the cult of trump.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: That was an impersonal you.

It would still be worth it to you to try and answer my question impersonally.

Also, if you think anyone actually thinks Mexico is sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists (including trump), why do you think that? Wouldn't anyone have to be really crazy to actually believe that? And isn't it even more crazy for anyone to believe that a whole group of people believe that ALL illegal aliens are drug pushers or rapists? But that is what I hear on the news media and from 'respected' democrat leaders all the time.

Yes, a lot of people think that's true because that what trump said, and yes, they're crazy. Such is the cult of trump.

Trump never said such a thing. Quit it.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It would still be worth it to you to try and answer my question impersonally.

Also, if you think anyone actually thinks Mexico is sending ONLY drug dealers and rapists (including trump), why do you think that? Wouldn't anyone have to be really crazy to actually believe that? And isn't it even more crazy for anyone to believe that a whole group of people believe that ALL illegal aliens are drug pushers or rapists? But that is what I hear on the news media and from 'respected' democrat leaders all the time.

Yes, a lot of people think that's true because that what trump said, and yes, they're crazy. Such is the cult of trump.

Trump never said such a thing. Quit it.

I guess you disagree with him:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Yes, a lot of people think that's true because that what trump said, and yes, they're crazy. Such is the cult of trump.

Trump never said such a thing. Quit it.

I guess you disagree with him:

I agree with him because he's right (we can debate the percentage), and because I know the difference between the word 'some' and 'all'. You should check it out.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Trump never said such a thing. Quit it.

I guess you disagree with him:

I agree with him because he's right (we can debate the percentage), and because I know the difference between the word 'some' and 'all'. You should check it out.

But some of his cult do not:

Here's an interesting article by a reporter who has actually spent considerable time covering MS-13. The gist of it is that that the gang is very brutal in its limited environment, usually around high schools or other areas with a large teenage immigrant population. But they are nowhere near as large as many of the other gangs, including Crips, Bloods, and Latin Kings and, more important, their numbers are not growing. Further, there is no link between them and the immigrants looking to come into this country or to the international narcotics trade. They are just a convenient dark skinned boogeyman for Trump and his followers to trot out to scare people into backing his immigration policy.

Putting a stop to gangs like MS-13 might be difficult (they've been around for over a decade), but it's a laudable goal for law enforcement. However, claiming that increasing border security is a good way to go about this is, at best, ridiculously naïve and at worst yet another racially based scare tactic from Trump (and if you don't think that's what it is, take a look at some of the commercials that are airing that show long black and white montages of scary looking, heavily tattooed gang members with an ominous musical accompaniment.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ms-1 ... gets-wrong

silverscreenselect wrote:Here's an interesting article by a reporter who has actually spent considerable time covering MS-13. The gist of it is that that the gang is very brutal in its limited environment, usually around high schools or other areas with a large teenage immigrant population. But they are nowhere near as large as many of the other gangs, including Crips, Bloods, and Latin Kings and, more important, their numbers are not growing. Further, there is no link between them and the immigrants looking to come into this country or to the international narcotics trade. They are just a convenient dark skinned boogeyman for Trump and his followers to trot out to scare people into backing his immigration policy.

Putting a stop to gangs like MS-13 might be difficult (they've been around for over a decade), but it's a laudable goal for law enforcement. However, claiming that increasing border security is a good way to go about this is, at best, ridiculously naïve and at worst yet another racially based scare tactic from Trump (and if you don't think that's what it is, take a look at some of the commercials that are airing that show long black and white montages of scary looking, heavily tattooed gang members with an ominous musical accompaniment.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ms-1 ... gets-wrong

OK, now that you've proven everybody is racist but you, since that seems to be your goal in life, we'll go from there.
What is your solution? Anybody and everybody who wants to live here can just come over the border? I asked bob-tel for his solution and he punted and said we should just do what obama did, which was to ignore the current laws and do what he wanted through selective enforcement and executive order. What do you want to do?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: What is your solution?

What we should stop doing is going after "solutions" that only pander to the base and don't address any real problems. Our enforcement efforts at the borders should be directed at preventing contraband from entering the country (drugs, weaponry, etc.). If we are serious about eliminating undocumented aliens in the US as opposed to simply engaging in posturing and pandering, then we should go after the more frequent problem, the people who overstay visas or other permits.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: What is your solution?

What we should stop doing is going after "solutions" that only pander to the base and don't address any real problems. Our enforcement efforts at the borders should be directed at preventing contraband from entering the country (drugs, weaponry, etc.). If we are serious about eliminating undocumented aliens in the US as opposed to simply engaging in posturing and pandering, then we should go after the more frequent problem, the people who overstay visas or other permits.

Ok, why are we not doing that now? Would it be racist to do that?

So, if I understand you correctly we should just let anyone over the border, as long as they don't have drugs or guns and concentrate on deporting everyone who has overstayed their visa? How do we do that?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So, if I understand you correctly we should just let anyone over the border, as long as they don't have drugs or guns and concentrate on deporting everyone who has overstayed their visa? How do we do that?

I didn't say we should do that. I said that if we were serious about stopping illegal immigration as opposed to merely putting on a show, that would be the logical thing to do. You are the one who is convinced that illegal immigration is a major law enforcement problem that needs the sort of expense and negative results that we have seen the last two years, but I've never seen you offer a reason why we should be devoting that much of our law enforcement effort and budget towards that, other than the mere fact that it's illegal (as is jaywalking in many areas). In fact, as the article I cited mentions, typical bugaboos like hardcore MS-13'ers sneaking into the country are just scare tactics employed by those who don't have any valid arguments on their behalf.

Why do you feel it's such a major problem that it demands immediate solutions, as opposed to say, spending money on fighting real crime or rebuilding our infrastructure?

I may have just hit on a solution to the illegal alien problem.

Any person or persons who are picked up crossing illegally will have their vitals and fingerprints recorded on a database, and transported to any of a number of cities who have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities'. I would start with San Francisco. They will be instructed, in their native language, that they can live freely in America, and they can vote in their local elections, just not for any national office, just so long as they stay within the jurisdiction of their sanctuary city. If they are detained for any offense outside that city, they will be checked against the database of illegals, and if found to be one of them, will be immediately deported.

I think that's fair for everyone, it will not break up any families and will provide a motivation for more cities to declare themselves sanctuaries, so they can get the benefit of more labor to fill all the unfilled jobs.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I may have just hit on a solution to the illegal alien problem.

Any person or persons who are picked up crossing illegally will have their vitals and fingerprints recorded on a database, and transported to any of a number of cities who have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities'. I would start with San Francisco. They will be instructed, in their native language, that they can live freely in America, and they can vote in their local elections, just not for any national office, just so long as they stay within the jurisdiction of their sanctuary city. If they are detained for any offense outside that city, they will be checked against the database of illegals, and if found to be one of them, will be immediately deported.

I think that's fair for everyone, it will not break up any families and will provide a motivation for more cities to declare themselves sanctuaries, so they can get the benefit of more labor to fill all the unfilled jobs.

On a related note, my daughter and her husband had a 10 hour layover in San Francisco on the way back from their honeymoon. They Uber'd around the city, out to the GGB, and such. She said SF is the most disgusting city she's seen. Naked homeless people sleeping everywhere, trash ever where, mattresses (assumed for the homeless) strewn about, filth everywhere. I told her I was not surprised. That is what a uber-liberal agenda will get you. Maybe the illegals can work as clean up crews. It seems no one in SF wants to do it. A match made in heaven.

BackInTex wrote:On a related note, my daughter and her husband had a 10 hour layover in San Francisco on the way back from their honeymoon. They Uber'd around the city, out to the GGB, and such. She said SF is the most disgusting city she's seen. Naked homeless people sleeping everywhere, trash ever where, mattresses (assumed for the homeless) strewn about, filth everywhere. I told her I was not surprised. That is what a uber-liberal agenda will get you. Maybe the illegals can work as clean up crews. It seems no one in SF wants to do it. A match made in heaven.

Well if you take an Uber, what else will you see but a uber-liberal point of view?

Going back to the original topic of this thread, the summit with North Korea, we get this completely unsurprising tidbit of information:

Satellite images from last week show that North Korea is making numerous improvements to the infrastructure at a nuclear research facility, according to a new study. The satellite photos indicate that North Korea is quickly progressing on several adjustments to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The improvements include a new cooling water pump house, multiple new buildings, completed construction on a cooling water reservoir and an apparently active radiochemical laboratory. It is unclear whether the reactor is still in operation, the report said. 38 North notes that North Korean nuclear officials are expected to proceed with “business as usual” until Kim orders official changes to procedure.

http://thehill.com/policy/international ... h-facility

They made a big show of destroying their already damaged and non-functional testing facility. But the North Koreans are as busy as ever, spending millions of dollars (or the North Korean equivalent), working on a facility that will produce more weaponized plutonium, which doesn't quite jibe with a commitment to "denuclearize" the Korean peninsula. Anyone want to place any bets as to whether they are working on a new test facility as well.

I'm just waiting to see how many big diplomatic victories Trump will pull off in his upcoming summit meeting with his good buddy Putin. Russian news networks are already having a field day on the way Putin keeps putting things over on Trump. I hope Trump at least draws the line at replacing the Statue of Liberty with a Statue of Putin.

silverscreenselect wrote:Going back to the original topic of this thread, the summit with North Korea, we get this completely unsurprising tidbit of information:

Satellite images from last week show that North Korea is making numerous improvements to the infrastructure at a nuclear research facility, according to a new study. The satellite photos indicate that North Korea is quickly progressing on several adjustments to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The improvements include a new cooling water pump house, multiple new buildings, completed construction on a cooling water reservoir and an apparently active radiochemical laboratory. It is unclear whether the reactor is still in operation, the report said. 38 North notes that North Korean nuclear officials are expected to proceed with “business as usual” until Kim orders official changes to procedure.

http://thehill.com/policy/international ... h-facility

They made a big show of destroying their already damaged and non-functional testing facility. But the North Koreans are as busy as ever, spending millions of dollars (or the North Korean equivalent), working on a facility that will produce more weaponized plutonium, which doesn't quite jibe with a commitment to "denuclearize" the Korean peninsula. Anyone want to place any bets as to whether they are working on a new test facility as well.

I'm just waiting to see how many big diplomatic victories Trump will pull off in his upcoming summit meeting with his good buddy Putin. Russian news networks are already having a field day on the way Putin keeps putting things over on Trump. I hope Trump at least draws the line at replacing the Statue of Liberty with a Statue of Putin.

No, he wants to replace the Statue of Liberty with one of himself holding a sign reading, "Go back to where you came from."

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Going back to the original topic of this thread, the summit with North Korea, we get this completely unsurprising tidbit of information:

Satellite images from last week show that North Korea is making numerous improvements to the infrastructure at a nuclear research facility, according to a new study. The satellite photos indicate that North Korea is quickly progressing on several adjustments to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The improvements include a new cooling water pump house, multiple new buildings, completed construction on a cooling water reservoir and an apparently active radiochemical laboratory. It is unclear whether the reactor is still in operation, the report said. 38 North notes that North Korean nuclear officials are expected to proceed with “business as usual” until Kim orders official changes to procedure.

http://thehill.com/policy/international ... h-facility

They made a big show of destroying their already damaged and non-functional testing facility. But the North Koreans are as busy as ever, spending millions of dollars (or the North Korean equivalent), working on a facility that will produce more weaponized plutonium, which doesn't quite jibe with a commitment to "denuclearize" the Korean peninsula. Anyone want to place any bets as to whether they are working on a new test facility as well.

I'm just waiting to see how many big diplomatic victories Trump will pull off in his upcoming summit meeting with his good buddy Putin. Russian news networks are already having a field day on the way Putin keeps putting things over on Trump. I hope Trump at least draws the line at replacing the Statue of Liberty with a Statue of Putin.

No, he wants to replace the Statue of Liberty with one of himself holding a sign reading, "Go back to where you came from."

BJ, go peddle your bigotry somewhere else. It is not amusing.