My solution for illegal immigration

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

[silverscreenselect]

You must have read the first half of the Grinch many many times over the holidays, Flock.

[flockofseagulls104]

You must have read the first half of the Grinch many many times over the holidays, Flock.

What is your objection, other than having a chance to take a juvenile swipe at me?

[Bob78164]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

How much of your Social Security are you willing to lose because American citizens don't have enough kids to fill out our work force? How many crops are you willing to see rotting on the ground because no Americans will accept jobs picking them?

As far as I'm concerned, in the current economy there is no economic justification for refusing to accept anyone who is willing to work, especially when there are employers who cannot fill positions. What is your issue with that? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

How much of your Social Security are you willing to lose because American citizens don't have enough kids to fill out our work force? How many crops are you willing to see rotting on the ground because no Americans will accept jobs picking them?

As far as I'm concerned, in the current economy there is no economic justification for refusing to accept anyone who is willing to work, especially when there are employers who cannot fill positions. What is your issue with that? --Bob

Oh, so now the bat-phone tells you it's about Social Security and the low birthrate? I doubt crops will rot in the ground in California, which is a sanctuary domain.

So, bob-tel, under my plan EVERYBODY who wants to come here can live in California, NYC, Seattle, etc... All you have to do is elect idiots who decide they are not going to obey the laws they don't like. You've got loads of them in your home state. So knock yourself out. Take in all the illegal immigrants and be compassionate to them on your own dime.

[Bob78164]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

How much of your Social Security are you willing to lose because American citizens don't have enough kids to fill out our work force? How many crops are you willing to see rotting on the ground because no Americans will accept jobs picking them?

As far as I'm concerned, in the current economy there is no economic justification for refusing to accept anyone who is willing to work, especially when there are employers who cannot fill positions. What is your issue with that? --Bob

Oh, so now the bat-phone tells you it's about Social Security and the low birthrate? I doubt crops will rot in the ground in California, which is a sanctuary domain.

So, bob-tel, under my plan EVERYBODY who wants to come here can live in California, NYC, Seattle, etc... All you have to do is elect idiots who decide they are not going to obey the laws they don't like. You've got loads of them in your home state. So knock yourself out. Take in all the illegal immigrants and be compassionate to them on your own dime.

Your caricature of California law notwithstanding, people who want to live and work here already do, except for when the federal government goes out of its way to find workers and break up families by throwing parents out of the country. That's probably part of the reason we have the world's fifth largest economy. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

How much of your Social Security are you willing to lose because American citizens don't have enough kids to fill out our work force? How many crops are you willing to see rotting on the ground because no Americans will accept jobs picking them?

As far as I'm concerned, in the current economy there is no economic justification for refusing to accept anyone who is willing to work, especially when there are employers who cannot fill positions. What is your issue with that? --Bob

Oh, so now the bat-phone tells you it's about Social Security and the low birthrate? I doubt crops will rot in the ground in California, which is a sanctuary domain.

So, bob-tel, under my plan EVERYBODY who wants to come here can live in California, NYC, Seattle, etc... All you have to do is elect idiots who decide they are not going to obey the laws they don't like. You've got loads of them in your home state. So knock yourself out. Take in all the illegal immigrants and be compassionate to them on your own dime.

Your caricature of California law notwithstanding, people who want to live and work here already do, except for when the federal government goes out of its way to find workers and break up families by throwing parents out of the country. That's probably part of the reason we have the world's fifth largest economy. --Bob

The ICE people are people just like you and me and are doing their jobs. They do not go out of their way to break up families. They act according to the LAW. Of course to you, and the mainstream media and the sites you go to in order to feed your never-ending outrage, they are nazis. You have no problem demonizing them. It must be so easy for you, knowing what group of people are safe to demonize and which are all noble and above contempt.

If the illegal aliens came into this country the LEGAL way, like millions did before them, they would have no problems. If you don't like the LAW, elect some people who will agree to change it for the better, instead of ignoring it and doing what they want and perpetually making it their campaign issue. You are a self-proclaimed above average ethical lawyer. You should understand that the law is the law, and the consequences when a city or state chooses to unilaterally invalidate laws they don't like. My solution just takes them up on it.

As for California, here's one opinion. One that I agree with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb ... 118b393a23

[Bob78164]

Oh, so now the bat-phone tells you it's about Social Security and the low birthrate? I doubt crops will rot in the ground in California, which is a sanctuary domain.

So, bob-tel, under my plan EVERYBODY who wants to come here can live in California, NYC, Seattle, etc... All you have to do is elect idiots who decide they are not going to obey the laws they don't like. You've got loads of them in your home state. So knock yourself out. Take in all the illegal immigrants and be compassionate to them on your own dime.

Your caricature of California law notwithstanding, people who want to live and work here already do, except for when the federal government goes out of its way to find workers and break up families by throwing parents out of the country. That's probably part of the reason we have the world's fifth largest economy. --Bob

The ICE people are people just like you and me and are doing their jobs. They do not go out of their way to break up families. They act according to the LAW. Of course to you, and the mainstream media and the sites you go to in order to feed your never-ending outrage, they are nazis. You have no problem demonizing them. It must be so easy for you, knowing what group of people are safe to demonize and which are all noble and above contempt.

If the illegal aliens came into this country the LEGAL way, like millions did before them, they would have no problems. If you don't like the LAW, elect some people who will agree to change it for the better, instead of ignoring it and doing what they want and perpetually making it their campaign issue. You are a self-proclaimed above average ethical lawyer. You should understand that the law is the law, and the consequences when a city or state chooses to unilaterally invalidate laws they don't like. My solution just takes them up on it.

As for California, here's one opinion. One that I agree with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb ... 118b393a23

The evidence is to the contrary. California just beat back an effort to repeal the increase in its gas tax, specifically so that the money could be used on infrastructure repair. Republicans pushed the repeal. Democrats generally opposed it. So did the electorate.

California started digging itself out of its budget hole when, after the election of Governor Brown, we voted to increase our taxes. We think we're a worthwhile investment and we're willing to invest in ourselves. If you really want to see failure at the level of state government, take a look at Kansas, which is about to welcome a Democratic Governor to the statehouse.

But California's dysfunction really was solved a little before that. Until fairly recently, it required a two-third majority to pass a state budget. Republicans used their leverage (back then, unlike now, they still had more than one third of each House of the Legislature) to hold out for policies that were generally unpopular. Since Republicans were not responsibly using their power, the people took it away from them by passing an initiative measure lowering the threshold for passing a state budget to a simple majority. Ever since then, we've passed budgets on time.

We're adding jobs from new businesses at a faster rate than almost anywhere else in the country. That's why we'e now the world's fifth largest economy. When Governor Brown was reelected in 2014, we were still sixth. We're growing.

We certainly have problems. Housing prices are far too high and I don't see any near-term solutions that are likely to occur. But businesses will continue to locate here simply because the educated and skilled workers that they need like living here. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

If the illegal aliens came into this country the LEGAL way, like millions did before them, they would have no problems.

Of course, for much of our nation's history, for all practical purposes, there were no restrictions on immigration. Those of us of European descent who arrived a hundred years ago or earlier pretty much had no limits. The reason, of course, was that employers needed cheap labor, same as now, to do the jobs that people who have been around a while don't want or don't have to do.

[silverscreenselect]

And while we're on the subject of illegal immigration, here in Georgia, State Senator Michael Williams, who ran for governor and ran commercials promoting a "deportation bus," that he wanted to fill with illegals to "send them back to where they came from," got a bus ride himself, after he was arrested on various fraud charges. Williams is currently in residence at the Hall County Jail until he makes bail.

So, instead of spending our tax dollars rounding up "illegal" immigrants, perhaps we should be spending more effort on rounding up white collar criminals like Williams.

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politic ... baxfC2jjO/

[Spock]

If the illegal aliens came into this country the LEGAL way, like millions did before them, they would have no problems.

[wbtravis007]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Didn't you post this same thing some time back?

What is your problem?

[Spock]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Didn't you post this same thing some time back?

What is your problem?

Yes, Flock is the only person to repeat himself in the years of political threads here.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Didn't you post this same thing some time back?

What is your problem?

I did post my idea several months ago. It's interesting that neither bob-tel nor Assshole picked up on that. And neither of them addressed the point of the post then or now. bob-tel went on about how great his state is, and Assshole brought up some bat-phone article about how some republican jerk got in trouble.
Detroit used to be a great metropolis. That is where California is heading, in my opinion. What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

[silverscreenselect]

What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

Well, he might be out of a job.

San Francisco’s homicide count may sink to level not seen in 50 years

[flockofseagulls104]

What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

Well, he might be out of a job.

San Francisco’s homicide count may sink to level not seen in 50 years

Yeah, they're killing themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/health/d ... index.html

The same thing in the streets of Seattle.
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/seat ... day-report

[Spock]

What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

Well, he might be out of a job.

San Francisco’s homicide count may sink to level not seen in 50 years

Yeah, they're killing themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/health/d ... index.html

The same thing in the streets of Seattle.
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/seat ... day-report

Or he could be put on human feces patrol.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... melessness

Gee Flock, don't you understand-you need to get with it. Human feces on the streets are a hallmark of great cities in the modern age.

Mogadishiu, Lagos, Kinshasa, San Francisco -etc etc

As public defecation is most often tied to the homeless, I got a kick out of a statistic in the following story that says there are about 7,500 homeless in San Fran.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/S ... 56431.html

>>>"San Francisco is slated to spend nearly $280 million this year on housing and services for the homeless — a roughly 40 percent increase compared to just five years ago"<<<

That is $37,333 per homeless person per year and they are still pooping all over the city.

I guess that is your super-duper California Democrat leadership in action. I suspect there are quite a few public employees drawing north of 6 figure salaries out of that $280,000,000 slush fund.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, he might be out of a job.

San Francisco’s homicide count may sink to level not seen in 50 years

Yeah, they're killing themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/health/d ... index.html

The same thing in the streets of Seattle.
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/seat ... day-report

Or he could be put on human feces patrol.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... melessness

Gee Flock, don't you understand-you need to get with it. Human feces on the streets are a hallmark of great cities in the modern age.

Mogadishiu, Lagos, Kinshasa, San Francisco -etc etc

As public defecation is most often tied to the homeless, I got a kick out of a statistic in the following story that says there are about 7,500 homeless in San Fran.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/S ... 56431.html

>>>"San Francisco is slated to spend nearly $280 million this year on housing and services for the homeless — a roughly 40 percent increase compared to just five years ago"<<<

That is $37,333 per homeless person per year and they are still pooping all over the city.

I guess that is your super-duper California Democrat leadership in action. I suspect there are quite a few public employees drawing north of 6 figure salaries out of that $280,000,000 slush fund.

The funny part is that the prestigious Seattle City Council and the Mayor have a wonderful idea: They want to open taxpayer-funded clinics where addicts can shoot up in the presence of trained medical personnel. If I were a drug dealer, I know where I'd set up shop. I suppose they will put them in the neighborhoods where the city council members and the Mayor live, right?. And, to top it off, the Washington Supreme Court decided the voters are not smart enough to decide whether they can do it or not, or even where they can or can't be located. This is what one-party rule gives you on the left coast, where the aging hippies rule.


http://mynorthwest.com/1093100/seattle- ... on-study/?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... ion-sites/

[silverscreenselect]

Flock, I congratulate you for hitting a new high or low as the case may be.

You are citing to an article that is based on a study that the article itself says has been retracted. So, basically, a conservative talk radio station publishes a hit piece based on a bogus study and they are forced to admit that the study has been retracted, but you cite it anyway.

[wbtravis007]

Here's a solution that even bob-tel should accept, assuming he is consistent with his 'values'.

Any person who comes to the southern border expressing a wish to enter the United States will, after their vital information like name, fingerprints, etc are obtained and put on a database, be given a choice of what 'sanctuary' domain (city, state, whatever) they want to go to. Then they will board a bus or plane (paid for by the selected sanctuary domain). They will be promised that as long as they remain in the legal borders of that sanctuary domain, they are in no danger of being deported. Their legal status becomes the responsibility of the sanctuary domain. However, if they are detained for any reason outside the border of that sanctuary domain and identified on the database of the sanctuary refugees, they will be immediately be deported and not allowed back in again.
If the sanctuary domain lets them vote in any election in their domain, so be it. But they will not be allowed to vote in any election outside their domain.

They will not be eligible for any federal welfare or assistance, but the sanctuary domain can support them any way they want to.

I think this is fair. I also think the sanctuary domains will soon rethink their stance on illegal immigration. But as the percentage of their population that depends on sanctuary status grows, the chances they will be able to rescind sanctuary status will shrink. For bob-tel, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Didn't you post this same thing some time back?

What is your problem?

I did post my idea several months ago. It's interesting that neither bob-tel nor Assshole picked up on that. And neither of them addressed the point of the post then or now. bob-tel went on about how great his state is, and Assshole brought up some bat-phone article about how some republican jerk got in trouble.
Detroit used to be a great metropolis. That is where California is heading, in my opinion. What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

You didn't answer my second question.

No surprise there. It's obvious that self awareness isn't your long suit.

[wbtravis007]

Didn't you post this same thing some time back?

What is your problem?

I did post my idea several months ago. It's interesting that neither bob-tel nor Assshole picked up on that. And neither of them addressed the point of the post then or now. bob-tel went on about how great his state is, and Assshole brought up some bat-phone article about how some republican jerk got in trouble.
Detroit used to be a great metropolis. That is where California is heading, in my opinion. What would Karl Malden think of The Streets of San Francisco today?

You didn't answer my second question.

No surprise there. It's obvious that self awareness isn't your long suit.

And it wasn't several months ago. It was November 27.

[SportsFan68]

If the illegal aliens came into this country the LEGAL way, like millions did before them, they would have no problems.

Of course, for much of our nation's history, for all practical purposes, there were no restrictions on immigration. Those of us of European descent who arrived a hundred years ago or earlier pretty much had no limits. The reason, of course, was that employers needed cheap labor, same as now, to do the jobs that people who have been around a while don't want or don't have to do.

I fit this bill. One of my paternal great-grandfathers showed up around 1860 to work on a farm near what is now the local airport. On the other side, about the same time, someone bought the services of a maternal great-grandfather to fight for the Confederacy. This was in Georgia, if I recall correctly. I don't know how he got to Colorado.

So, despite being descended from people who would have been illegal aliens based on today's restrictions, I have no problems declaring myself a United States citizen. I'm trying to get my head around this, but it's difficult. Probably the only two points on which I agreed with President George W. Bush were his guest worker program and gun safety. He was excoriated on both points by his follow Republicans. So instead of a guest worker program that works for everybody, we have an illegal aliens program that kills children. There must be an answer somewhere, but I can't figure it out.

[Estonut]

So, despite being descended from people who would have been illegal aliens based on today's restrictions, ...

Why would you presume that your ancestors would have defied the laws, had there been any in place at the time?

[SportsFan68]

So, despite being descended from people who would have been illegal aliens based on today's restrictions, ...

Why would you presume that your ancestors would have defied the laws, had there been any in place at the time?

I didn't say that.

[littlebeast13]

So, despite being descended from people who would have been illegal aliens based on today's restrictions, ...

Why would you presume that your ancestors would have defied the laws, had there been any in place at the time?

I didn't say that.

You also forgot to mention the rodents in your family tree...

lb13