US "Government Shutdown" (1 Viewer)

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,396
You've had 8 long years to make that argument, the left has squandered their many chances.

Somebody needs to take care of these folks before importing more misery!

I have? How? Who's the left? Certainly not me.

I'm confused by your response. Are you saying immigrant children shouldn't receive food because we have other starving children in this country?

It's YOUR response that is tired and old and never makes sense. Saying we need to feed our own homeless children before feeding immigrant homeless children. What is the current administration doing for American starving children, then? What has the Republican party done for them besides trying to take away their benefits as well?

How much can $5B help non-immigrant children? What about the full $30B cost?
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
1,398
It's YOUR response that is tired and old and never makes sense. Saying we need to feed our own homeless children before feeding immigrant homeless children. What is the current administration doing for American starving children, then? What has the Republican party done for them besides trying to take away their benefits as well?

How much can $5B help non-immigrant children? What about the full $30B cost?
Refugees from South America who do not apply for refugee status at the first point of entry by definition have circumvented the system.

I appreciate your passion for these refugees, I really do. I just wish the liberals in this country cared as much about the average Joe, as they for people who walk 2500 miles past the first point of entry just because El Norte offers more.

According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, as of 2017 there were around 554,000 homeless people in the United States on a given night.
Lets fix one problem before compounding the next.....
 

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,396
Refugees from South America who do not apply for refugee status at the first point of entry by definition have circumvented the system.

I appreciate your passion for these refugees, I really do. I just wish the liberals in this country cared as much about the average Joe, as they for people who walk 2500 miles past the first point of entry just because El Norte offers more.

Lets fix one problem before compounding the next.....
Liberals? Since when do conservatives care about the homeless Americans in this country?

I care about both. I just wish the politicians, liberal and conservative, cared more about both, or even at all. If it doesn't serve their self-serving or corporate sponsor desires, they really don't care. Homeless people can't complete with big oil, big pharma, or the media.

I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Above all else, I'm a humanitarian and personal rights advocate. You have to understand that the people that are trying to come here are in survival mode. It's easy to tell people to "follow the law" when we aren't fighting to survive.

Think of it like this... if the zombie apocalypse started tomorrow, would you be concerned about laws? What about 3 years later when all government collapses? Would laws mean anything to you? You'd be fighting for survival. It's not much different for them.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,170
I get the impression there are a lot of homeless people in America.

Are these homeless people compounded by the illegal immigration of people from Mexico?
We have a growing homeless problem in the UK, but whilst some are genuine, many are "professional" homeless people who do it as a job and have a nice house and car etc all paid for by people who have sympathy.
Whilst I do have a little sympathy, I can't help but wonder if my donation to their little box pays for some petrol for their BMW so I don't bother to give to street beggars, I give to registered charities where my money is skimmed off by the so called volunteers and spent on prostitutes.

Same in the USA?
Will the wall cut down on homelessness ?

Col
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,533
Col,

Unfortunately, a lot of what you describe as occurring in the UK also occurs in the USA but I don't have ready statistics for it. Yes, there are the "professional" homeless who will unabashedly reveal that they beg because they get more than they would get on a day job and it is "off the books" i.e. not subject to tax withholding. And probably is also totally not reported or is severely underreported.

We have those charities that end up having over 66% of their haul going towards support of a profligate lifestyle by the charity's executives, though there ARE some sites that rate the efficiency of given charities. My wife and I donate after consulting such sites. If they don't put at least 75% towards their focus group then they don't get a dime from us.

To be honest, I don't think the wall will cut down that much on homelessness because I am under the impression (possibly incorrect but it is what I have heard) that the illegals get together and pool their resources so that they have a roof over their heads but they probably exceed any reasonable level of the number of families living together. What I have heard is that a very large percentage of our "true" homeless people are borderline psychotic or at least extremely neurotic. I.e. to be a bit indelicate about it, mental cases.

Then again, I was not in favor of the wall anyway. I favor border control, yes. I favor action on illegal immigration. But I feel that the wall is the wrong answer. Static walls have not been effective throughout history. What makes them effective is the number of people patrolling the wall. Reduce that and you open the floodgates. If we are not going to increase the number of border patrol agents, then I think the wall is going to be a monument to governmental waste.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,795
Ready for round #2.

The Democrats have contend that they want enhanced border security. They do not believe that a wall is necessary as the border can be secured by today's marvels of technology.

Now emerging, as a concern, the Democrats want to limit the number of illegal immigrants that can be held in detentions centers. This has some obvious concerns.

  1. Limited capacity means that some people will essentially have a free pass should facilities be "full". That does not enhance border security.
  2. Limited capacity will mean that all those fancy tech gadgets that the Democrats pompously "sell" as the solution will be useless, just like the wall that the Democrats mock. If the detention facilities are "full", then all the border patrol people would be able to do, is watch (from their drones) the people wave to them as they cross the border.
  3. Playing the limited capacity card means that the Democrats are not truly interested in enhanced border security as identified in point #1. Democrats are proposing to create a loophole to circumvent immigration law.

The Washington Times in an article: Democrats' cut to immigrant detention centers derails talks to avoid shutdown. The article states:

ICE is currently holding about 49,000 migrants in detention, and Mr. Trump has asked for 52,000 beds total. Democrats want to cut that number to about 34,000 beds — with an additional limit of 16,500 beds for people ICE arrests in the interior.
If the Democrats were truly interested in enhanced border security they would be promoting the ability of immigration officials to identify illegal immigrants, to house them, and to then deport those in this country illegally. Not frustrating the ability of immigration officials to manage the US border.

Of course negotiations are still underway. If a compromise is reached, what is achieved may be quite different.
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
1,398
Will the wall cut down on homelessness ?

Col
Maybe not, but why add to it.

A proper census of the homeless in Los Angeles, I believe would reveal a certain percentage of homeless are latino migrants. Los Angeles is a destination for latino migrants, California pays some of the highest benefits in the country and to add insult to injury "we" are a sanctuary state. Not to mention the mild climate.

Obviously California has solved all of it's internal issues like infrastructure, high taxes, homelessness and the Veteran's issues. I guess the California taxpayers have the extra money to solve Latin Americas problems. Oops, what's left of the middle class just moved to Nevada, Arizona and Texas.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,533
I've got a GREAT idea. Let's ship all of the illegals to Illinois. We can speed up the demise of that state, which is already on the way to bankruptcy anyway. Maybe California WON'T be the next state to try to secede from the USA. Maybe Illinois will be unable to withstand court challenges to their state constitution's "No Bankruptcy of a government" law. In terms of the entertainment value, it would make for MARVELOUS "theater of the absurd."

If the illegal border crossers thought they got a cold reception in the southernmost tier of states, they would LOVE Illinois in the winter.

Fortunately, since I don't speak the words that I type, I can type with tongue in cheek.
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
1,398
I don't fault these folks for wanting a better life, I would do the exact same thing. I do fault the two countries however.

The US is to blame for our drug addictions and our dependence on low wage workers, essentially slave labor.

Mexico has the same natural resources as the US and Canada, but they have chosen to mismanage it. Forcing their own countrymen to seek work elsewhere. This is an artificial crises created by mismanagement.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom