Are sanctuary cities really sanctuary cities?

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 06:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Also, the wall was approved by Congress, but yet the material either sits on the ground or is being scrapped. The completion of the wall would have deterred illegals.

Evidence of this? Including the effectiveness of the wall.

(08-18-2023, 06:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Some say Biden has Trump immigration policy is not accurate. Biden changed the law to allow illegal immigrants to enter our country, surrender and then be dispersed around the country. They are given a court date but unlikely to ever show up.

Trump sent illegal immigrants back to Mexico to await their hearing. Agin, you can close your eyes and ignore the damage Biden has done with immigration or you can look at the sheer numbers under Biden and under Trump. 

The only change has been Title 42's end which, well, if you care anything about the rule of law you should have been in favor of. With the end of a public health emergency the justification for Title 42 had ended and the government did not have the authority to continue the policy.

[Dill]

(08-18-2023, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All I need to see is the "Biden open borders" line and my bullshit meter immediately goes off and I stop reading. It would be great if people could just stop lying.

It's NOT lying.*



*Costanza defense. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-18-2023, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Evidence of this? Including the effectiveness of the wall.


The only change has been Title 42's end which, well, if you care anything about the rule of law you should have been in favor of. With the end of a public health emergency the justification for Title 42 had ended and the government did not have the authority to continue the policy.

Effectiveness

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/border-wall-system-deployed-effective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers

[Belsnickel]

(08-19-2023, 10:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Effectiveness

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/border-wall-system-deployed-effective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers

Man, I hate seeing agency webpages deployed for partisan talking points. Anyway, as to the effectiveness. What they state here is exactly what I have been saying. Border walls are effective in those urban areas, which is where we already have walls. They don't say anything about walls in the uninhabited areas.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-20-2023, 06:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Man, I hate seeing agency webpages deployed for partisan talking points. Anyway, as to the effectiveness. What they state here is exactly what I have been saying. Border walls are effective in those urban areas, which is where we already have walls. They don't say anything about walls in the uninhabited areas.

Sorry didn't see you talking about that in this thread when you were asking for Effectiveness. I simply provided that they are effective and i tried to chose a non-partisan bias to provide you the info. Figured if i did that then there would be little room for arguing it's from FOX NEWS or where ever even if it said the same thing. 

If they are that effective in urban areas, then they would be a deterrent in non-urban areas as well. Not as effective as the the higher populated areas, but still would slow it down. The goal is two-fold, use the walls to deter drug traffickers and funnel the people seeking asylum to certain check points so we have better control over those coming in. 

Also not all Urban areas along the border have walls, and in some cases it's nothing more than poles in the ground to deter vehicles, which does nothing to prevent people from passing right on thru. 

Also we do have some natural barriers as well, but there's nothing from stopping people from making a raft and floating across the Rio Grande and then entering the US. Put a wall there as well on the US side and well... where do they go now? 

We could spend days arguing this, but point blank, I have family and friends that come here the right way and because of all of these Illegal immigrants the line is exceptionally long and wait time can take several years to get a Green Card. Coming here legally shouldn't take that long. Those trying to get Green Cards are unable to legally work for several years. They need to be able to work and feed their family legally as well. The ones coming here legally shouldn't be punished because of those coming here illegally and clogging up the system.

[KillerGoose]

(08-23-2023, 09:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry didn't see you talking about that in this thread when you were asking for Effectiveness. I simply provided that they are effective and i tried to chose a non-partisan bias to provide you the info. Figured if i did that then there would be little room for arguing it's from FOX NEWS or where ever even if it said the same thing. 

If they are that effective in urban areas, then they would be a deterrent in non-urban areas as well. Not as effective as the the higher populated areas, but still would slow it down. The goal is two-fold, use the walls to deter drug traffickers and funnel the people seeking asylum to certain check points so we have better control over those coming in. 

Also not all Urban areas along the border have walls, and in some cases it's nothing more than poles in the ground to deter vehicles, which does nothing to prevent people from passing right on thru. 

Also we do have some natural barriers as well, but there's nothing from stopping people from making a raft and floating across the Rio Grande and then entering the US. Put a wall there as well on the US side and well... where do they go now? 

We could spend days arguing this, but point blank, I have family and friends that come here the right way and because of all of these Illegal immigrants the line is exceptionally long and wait time can take several years to get a Green Card. Coming here legally shouldn't take that long. Those trying to get Green Cards are unable to legally work for several years. They need to be able to work and feed their family legally as well. The ones coming here legally shouldn't be punished because of those coming here illegally and clogging up the system.

The wall is only going to be a band-aid and is not going to be a solution. May it slow things down some? Sure, maybe somewhat. The cartels make quite a bit of money funneling people into the U.S., though, and with a wall it is likely they will build more tunnels to go underneath it. These people are desperate and they are going to find a way, even if it is slower or more dangerous. 

If we are really wanting to discuss a solution, then it needs to be treated as a humanitarian crisis. These people are fleeing their countries for various reasons - extreme poverty, violence, you name it. The U.S. would need to work with its southern neighbors in order to solve those problems and then you would see the illegal immigration numbers dwindle. That is, genuinely, the only solution. I know several people who immigrated here illegally from my travels throughout South America. In those occasions, they simply bought a flight and "missed" their return. This is a very large chunk of the undocumented population, roughly 45%. The rest of them were either smuggled in via a point of entry, or, yes, crossed via the Rio Grande or through the desert or some other manner.

The effectiveness of a wall is going to be spotty and is not a long-term solution to the issue. That doesn't necessarily mean I am saying "don't build it" but I also think many people have unrealistic ideas of what the wall would do. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-23-2023, 10:54 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: The wall is only going to be a band-aid and is not going to be a solution. May it slow things down some? Sure, maybe somewhat. The cartels make quite a bit of money funneling people into the U.S., though, and with a wall it is likely they will build more tunnels to go underneath it. These people are desperate and they are going to find a way, even if it is slower or more dangerous. 

If we are really wanting to discuss a solution, then it needs to be treated as a humanitarian crisis. These people are fleeing their countries for various reasons - extreme poverty, violence, you name it. The U.S. would need to work with its southern neighbors in order to solve those problems and then you would see the illegal immigration numbers dwindle. That is, genuinely, the only solution. I know several people who immigrated here illegally from my travels throughout South America. In those occasions, they simply bought a flight and "missed" their return. This is a very large chunk of the undocumented population, roughly 45%. The rest of them were either smuggled in via a point of entry, or, yes, crossed via the Rio Grande or through the desert or some other manner.

The effectiveness of a wall is going to be spotty and is not a long-term solution to the issue. That doesn't necessarily mean I am saying "don't build it" but I also think many people have unrealistic ideas of what the wall would do. 

Gotta start somewhere right? Having that attitude just defeats the whole purpose as there is NOT a one answer to solve the problem, it's a cumulation of things that will need to be done, and nothing we do will ever be 100%. The amount saved in the long run will pay for itself via people that come here illegally and have kids here, which makes those kids USC's and since their parents can't report an income, makes them a eligible for government assistance. It will take several years to start feeling/seeing some good results from this one move. Once the wall is done, people (from other countries that were willing to risk coming here illegally) will hear about it, and it will become a psychological deterrent as well.

Going over or under is not a valid reason to cancel the wall, make them go over or under, the point is don't make it so easy they can walk or swim across. It will take them time to go under and we can use our drones to spot where they appear to be exiting and then get after those spots to shut them down. That's just part of an on going process that will have to be done to keep up with it.  It's not like we are incapable of finding tunnels and then sealing them off. There will still be drones in the air monitoring if they start going over. If they are targeting certain areas then we can put up a facility nearby to allow for faster deployment. 

We have been sending money to those other countries and tried developing them as well. It's not enough OR their own is corrupted and it's not getting to the people that need it via jobs etc. We might be a top Dog in the world, but just how much we can do effectively IS limited til we get what we can do running effectively. 

The system is also not always correct on those that leave the country. Not all airlines report names properly. So that system needs an overhaul as well, but things take money and time. Once it's overhauled, we can start making harsh penalties on those that overstay, ie Perma-Bans so they can never come back once they leave or get caught (unless they can prove they left in the slotted time frame). There's also legislation that can be done, such as change Jos Soli to Jus Sanguinis. That alone will is a major deterrent and should start seeing results immediately after it's done.

I don't have an unrealistic view to the wall being the only thing we do and then we do no more. It's an ongoing dynamic that we will need to keep updating and changing over time. But it's a good start.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

No — and it’s obvious. It’s all about virtue signaling and being more woke than thou.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 05:20 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: No — and it’s obvious.  It’s all about virtue signaling and being more woke than thou.

And I see this at my work every. single. day.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Always seems to drive me bonkers on this subject as when i address alot of the issues, it's always the same after..
.......crickets

[KillerGoose]

(08-23-2023, 01:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Gotta start somewhere right? Having that attitude just defeats the whole purpose as there is NOT a one answer to solve the problem, it's a cumulation of things that will need to be done, and nothing we do will ever be 100%. The amount saved in the long run will pay for itself via people that come here illegally and have kids here, which makes those kids USC's and since their parents can't report an income, makes them a eligible for government assistance. It will take several years to start feeling/seeing some good results from this one move. Once the wall is done, people (from other countries that were willing to risk coming here illegally) will hear about it, and it will become a psychological deterrent as well.

Going over or under is not a valid reason to cancel the wall, make them go over or under, the point is don't make it so easy they can walk or swim across. It will take them time to go under and we can use our drones to spot where they appear to be exiting and then get after those spots to shut them down. That's just part of an on going process that will have to be done to keep up with it.  It's not like we are incapable of finding tunnels and then sealing them off. There will still be drones in the air monitoring if they start going over. If they are targeting certain areas then we can put up a facility nearby to allow for faster deployment. 

We have been sending money to those other countries and tried developing them as well. It's not enough OR their own is corrupted and it's not getting to the people that need it via jobs etc. We might be a top Dog in the world, but just how much we can do effectively IS limited til we get what we can do running effectively. 

The system is also not always correct on those that leave the country. Not all airlines report names properly. So that system needs an overhaul as well, but things take money and time. Once it's overhauled, we can start making harsh penalties on those that overstay, ie Perma-Bans so they can never come back once they leave or get caught (unless they can prove they left in the slotted time frame). There's also legislation that can be done, such as change Jos Soli to Jus Sanguinis. That alone will is a major deterrent and should start seeing results immediately after it's done.

I don't have an unrealistic view to the wall being the only thing we do and then we do no more. It's an ongoing dynamic that we will need to keep updating and changing over time. But it's a good start.

 To be clear, I am not advocating to cancel the wall. I am moreso claiming that I have doubts it is going to be as effective as many have claimed it to be. This isn't necessarily pointed at you, but is more of a general statement. I also want to say that by "going over", I am not claiming that they wall climb it, though there are certainly those who would. I am meaning flying. My hunch is that cartels would start utilizing planes to smuggle people into the U.S. or more people would purchase flights and not return. I don't really have any issues with your view personally. You seem to understand that a wall isn't the end all, be all (which is certainly a view I encounter often) and that the issue is complex. That's really all I can ask for as I am not an expert in this area and only know enough to understand that it isn't a simple issue to counter. 

 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-24-2023, 10:13 AM)KillerGoose Wrote:  To be clear, I am not advocating to cancel the wall. I am moreso claiming that I have doubts it is going to be as effective as many have claimed it to be. This isn't necessarily pointed at you, but is more of a general statement. I also want to say that by "going over", I am not claiming that they wall climb it, though there are certainly those who would. I am meaning flying. My hunch is that cartels would start utilizing planes to smuggle people into the U.S. or more people would purchase flights and not return. I don't really have any issues with your view personally. You seem to understand that a wall isn't the end all, be all (which is certainly a view I encounter often) and that the issue is complex. That's really all I can ask for as I am not an expert in this area and only know enough to understand that it isn't a simple issue to counter. 

 

Understood, but i think getting a wall approved would be easier than getting a Majority vote to ratify an Amendment (the Jus Sanguinis part) especially under the current Political landscape. Whatever one side wants, the other says Bloody Hell!