Immigration...Thoughts Out Loud

[pismoe]

Back to the topic at hand...

I agree that there is room for wall or fencing construction, especially in extremely remote areas (I don't believe in eminent domain, however) and I do agree that even though slight in comparison with drugs entering at ports of entry that drugs do come across the border illegally by other means so in some cases a structural barricade would be advantageous but we need to make sure we are not interfering with citizens property rights or indigenous species migration. I had also thought maybe a joint effort in constructing facilities could be obtained by working with Mexico wherein we could build and maintain facilities on both sides of the border working in unison. Last, maybe every fifty miles is too much too soon. Perhaps every one hundred miles which would break facilities down to twenty communities instead of forty.

As regards asylum seekers and illegal entries see: https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...iles/research/asylum_in_the_united_states.pdf

Asylum seekers are granted certain rights and privileges and one is to be able to have a hearing on their request for asylum but as regards criminal entry into the United States their rights are limited because they give up those rights by breaking a national law but there are still rights attached of which due process is paramount, even to illegal aliens.

Seeking ideas.

(I don't believe in eminent domain, however)

It's in the US Constitution.

See: New Bill Would Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Along the Border
ED is a pickle but it is challengable and especially so if the federal courts rule that the need is either unconstitutional or unwarranted. Trump's request for a wall via an emergency order is under federal scrutiny as we write and if it is found unwarranted then ED will be out of the question but if the court grants Trump's wall emergency status then the feds can do what is called a "quick grab" and pay the owner later. A bit unfair if you ask me because the owner will probably have to wait years before he or she receives payments but there it is, our loopholes for a land grab in America are strong indeed.

------------------------------------------------- I think that the TRUMP has the Eminent Domain issue all sewed up as well as challenges by Enviros and 'butterffy sanctuary' people plus there is the Roosevelt Reservation in all border states excluding Texas Felex .

 

[pismoe]

Roosevelt reservation info . --- Roosevelt Reservation - Wikipedia --- I think its Federally owned land and the Feds can use it anyway the like Felex .

 

[Felex Sanders]

Back to the topic at hand...

I agree that there is room for wall or fencing construction, especially in extremely remote areas (I don't believe in eminent domain, however) and I do agree that even though slight in comparison with drugs entering at ports of entry that drugs do come across the border illegally by other means so in some cases a structural barricade would be advantageous but we need to make sure we are not interfering with citizens property rights or indigenous species migration. I had also thought maybe a joint effort in constructing facilities could be obtained by working with Mexico wherein we could build and maintain facilities on both sides of the border working in unison. Last, maybe every fifty miles is too much too soon. Perhaps every one hundred miles which would break facilities down to twenty communities instead of forty.

As regards asylum seekers and illegal entries see: https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...iles/research/asylum_in_the_united_states.pdf

Asylum seekers are granted certain rights and privileges and one is to be able to have a hearing on their request for asylum but as regards criminal entry into the United States their rights are limited because they give up those rights by breaking a national law but there are still rights attached of which due process is paramount, even to illegal aliens.

Seeking ideas.

(I don't believe in eminent domain, however)

It's in the US Constitution.

See: New Bill Would Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Along the Border
ED is a pickle but it is challengable and especially so if the federal courts rule that the need is either unconstitutional or unwarranted. Trump's request for a wall via an emergency order is under federal scrutiny as we write and if it is found unwarranted then ED will be out of the question but if the court grants Trump's wall emergency status then the feds can do what is called a "quick grab" and pay the owner later. A bit unfair if you ask me because the owner will probably have to wait years before he or she receives payments but there it is, our loopholes for a land grab in America are strong indeed.

They can take land for a good reason.

Defense is one of the best reasons.

Ok, defense it is. Before I begin I refer to the law Of War Manual found at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/D...pdated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 which identifies hostile combatants for the use of identifying a national emergency in order to utilize the United States military and its branches which has already been done just recently. The law sets out to identify lawful and unlawful combatants within the manual. It specificly states in part that lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. During the so called border emegency not once have I heard these legal terms used in order to utilize the military or its departments. Further, the asylum seekers and alleged illegal aliens are not classified as combatants, they are classified as alleged criminals who allegedly violated United States law but not United States military law. The use of the military or its funding without a call to arms for the purpose of engaging combatants of war is unconstitutional and illegal when done so to combat civil strife. Further, to misappropriate funding from military to engage in a civil matter is as well illegal and unconstituional. All such diversion of funds must go through the appropriate congressional appropriations committees.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc... before the military or its funds can be used legally. But, a federal court of law is deciding that right now. We shall see soon how matters lie before the SCOTUS. I'm confident the measures will fail and the emergency will be struck down.

So, using defense as a measure to appropriate lands from American citizens it must first be proven as a defense need and second as an actual emergency. None of these has been supported yet.

Just my opinion with a few facts thrown in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Back to the topic at hand...

I agree that there is room for wall or fencing construction, especially in extremely remote areas (I don't believe in eminent domain, however) and I do agree that even though slight in comparison with drugs entering at ports of entry that drugs do come across the border illegally by other means so in some cases a structural barricade would be advantageous but we need to make sure we are not interfering with citizens property rights or indigenous species migration. I had also thought maybe a joint effort in constructing facilities could be obtained by working with Mexico wherein we could build and maintain facilities on both sides of the border working in unison. Last, maybe every fifty miles is too much too soon. Perhaps every one hundred miles which would break facilities down to twenty communities instead of forty.

As regards asylum seekers and illegal entries see: https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...iles/research/asylum_in_the_united_states.pdf

Asylum seekers are granted certain rights and privileges and one is to be able to have a hearing on their request for asylum but as regards criminal entry into the United States their rights are limited because they give up those rights by breaking a national law but there are still rights attached of which due process is paramount, even to illegal aliens.

Seeking ideas.

(I don't believe in eminent domain, however)

It's in the US Constitution.

See: New Bill Would Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Along the Border
ED is a pickle but it is challengable and especially so if the federal courts rule that the need is either unconstitutional or unwarranted. Trump's request for a wall via an emergency order is under federal scrutiny as we write and if it is found unwarranted then ED will be out of the question but if the court grants Trump's wall emergency status then the feds can do what is called a "quick grab" and pay the owner later. A bit unfair if you ask me because the owner will probably have to wait years before he or she receives payments but there it is, our loopholes for a land grab in America are strong indeed.

They can take land for a good reason.

Defense is one of the best reasons.

Ok, defense it is. Before I begin I refer to the law Of War Manual found at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 which identifies hostile combatants for the use of identifying a national emergency in order to utilize the United States military and its branches which has already been done just recently. The law sets out to identify lawful and unlawful combatants within the manual. It specificly states in part that lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. During the so called border emegency not once have I heard these legal terms used in order to utilize the military or its departments. Further, the asylum seekers and alleged illegal aliens are not classified as combatants, they are classified as alleged criminals who allegedly violated United States law but not United States military law. The use of the military or its funding without a call to arms for the purpose of engaging combatants of war is unconstitutional and illegal when done so to combat civil strife. Further, to misappropriate funding from military to engage in a civil matter is as well illegal and unconstituional. All such diversion of funds must go through the appropriate congressional appropriations committees.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc... before the military or its funds can be used legally. But, a federal court of law is deciding that right now. We shall see soon how matters lie before the SCOTUS. I'm confident the measures will fail and the emergency will be struck down.

So, using defense as a measure to appropriate lands from American citizens it must first be proven as a defense need and second as an actual emergency. None of these has been supported yet.

Just my opinion with a few facts thrown in.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc...

You're wrong. You don't need a declaration of war or a hostile combatant to defend the border.

 

[Felex Sanders]

pismoe
Actually, anyone physically on American soil becomes the responsibility of the United States whether we like it or not. That is the law. Further, anyone found guilty of any crime in this nation regardless of their citizenship status is entitled to the full measure of the law including but not limited to Due Process. As to aren't they supposed to seek asylum in Mexico question, well, if I had to choose between seeking asylum in America or Mexico I think I'd have to go with America.

 

[Felex Sanders]

pismoe
I think that is found at Proclamation 758 and refers to federally owned lands and not lands as of yet not owned by the United States government. The US would still need to procure appropriate legal rights from the legal landowners of private land not part of public land parcels. That could be in court for years thanks to the ACLU, NAACP, and other such worthwhile organizations.

 

[Felex Sanders]

Back to the topic at hand...

I agree that there is room for wall or fencing construction, especially in extremely remote areas (I don't believe in eminent domain, however) and I do agree that even though slight in comparison with drugs entering at ports of entry that drugs do come across the border illegally by other means so in some cases a structural barricade would be advantageous but we need to make sure we are not interfering with citizens property rights or indigenous species migration. I had also thought maybe a joint effort in constructing facilities could be obtained by working with Mexico wherein we could build and maintain facilities on both sides of the border working in unison. Last, maybe every fifty miles is too much too soon. Perhaps every one hundred miles which would break facilities down to twenty communities instead of forty.

As regards asylum seekers and illegal entries see: https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...iles/research/asylum_in_the_united_states.pdf

Asylum seekers are granted certain rights and privileges and one is to be able to have a hearing on their request for asylum but as regards criminal entry into the United States their rights are limited because they give up those rights by breaking a national law but there are still rights attached of which due process is paramount, even to illegal aliens.

Seeking ideas.

(I don't believe in eminent domain, however)

It's in the US Constitution.

See: New Bill Would Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Along the Border
ED is a pickle but it is challengable and especially so if the federal courts rule that the need is either unconstitutional or unwarranted. Trump's request for a wall via an emergency order is under federal scrutiny as we write and if it is found unwarranted then ED will be out of the question but if the court grants Trump's wall emergency status then the feds can do what is called a "quick grab" and pay the owner later. A bit unfair if you ask me because the owner will probably have to wait years before he or she receives payments but there it is, our loopholes for a land grab in America are strong indeed.

They can take land for a good reason.

Defense is one of the best reasons.

Ok, defense it is. Before I begin I refer to the law Of War Manual found at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 which identifies hostile combatants for the use of identifying a national emergency in order to utilize the United States military and its branches which has already been done just recently. The law sets out to identify lawful and unlawful combatants within the manual. It specificly states in part that lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. During the so called border emegency not once have I heard these legal terms used in order to utilize the military or its departments. Further, the asylum seekers and alleged illegal aliens are not classified as combatants, they are classified as alleged criminals who allegedly violated United States law but not United States military law. The use of the military or its funding without a call to arms for the purpose of engaging combatants of war is unconstitutional and illegal when done so to combat civil strife. Further, to misappropriate funding from military to engage in a civil matter is as well illegal and unconstituional. All such diversion of funds must go through the appropriate congressional appropriations committees.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc... before the military or its funds can be used legally. But, a federal court of law is deciding that right now. We shall see soon how matters lie before the SCOTUS. I'm confident the measures will fail and the emergency will be struck down.

So, using defense as a measure to appropriate lands from American citizens it must first be proven as a defense need and second as an actual emergency. None of these has been supported yet.

Just my opinion with a few facts thrown in.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc...

You're wrong. You don't need a declaration of war or a hostile combatant to defend the border.

You are correct. You do not need a declaration of war to defend the border but you do if you want to use the United States military and its firepower against an onslaught from unknown or known combatants.

 

[Felex Sanders]

(I don't believe in eminent domain, however)

It's in the US Constitution.

See: New Bill Would Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Along the Border
ED is a pickle but it is challengable and especially so if the federal courts rule that the need is either unconstitutional or unwarranted. Trump's request for a wall via an emergency order is under federal scrutiny as we write and if it is found unwarranted then ED will be out of the question but if the court grants Trump's wall emergency status then the feds can do what is called a "quick grab" and pay the owner later. A bit unfair if you ask me because the owner will probably have to wait years before he or she receives payments but there it is, our loopholes for a land grab in America are strong indeed.

They can take land for a good reason.

Defense is one of the best reasons.

Ok, defense it is. Before I begin I refer to the law Of War Manual found at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 which identifies hostile combatants for the use of identifying a national emergency in order to utilize the United States military and its branches which has already been done just recently. The law sets out to identify lawful and unlawful combatants within the manual. It specificly states in part that lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. During the so called border emegency not once have I heard these legal terms used in order to utilize the military or its departments. Further, the asylum seekers and alleged illegal aliens are not classified as combatants, they are classified as alleged criminals who allegedly violated United States law but not United States military law. The use of the military or its funding without a call to arms for the purpose of engaging combatants of war is unconstitutional and illegal when done so to combat civil strife. Further, to misappropriate funding from military to engage in a civil matter is as well illegal and unconstituional. All such diversion of funds must go through the appropriate congressional appropriations committees.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc... before the military or its funds can be used legally. But, a federal court of law is deciding that right now. We shall see soon how matters lie before the SCOTUS. I'm confident the measures will fail and the emergency will be struck down.

So, using defense as a measure to appropriate lands from American citizens it must first be proven as a defense need and second as an actual emergency. None of these has been supported yet.

Just my opinion with a few facts thrown in.

So, in order for a claim of defense against a hostile combatant as Trump has often referred to the refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal aliens the United States must declare war on the illegal aliens, etc...

You're wrong. You don't need a declaration of war or a hostile combatant to defend the border.

You are correct. You do not need a declaration of war to defend the border but you do if you want to use the United States military and its firepower against an onslaught from unknown or known combatants.

Further, I should clarify. The United States military and the Pentagon Defense systems are an entirely different branch. The individual states can utilize their militias and Guard units but the POTUS in order to use the US Military and the US Pentagon defense systems (including their funds) a real emergency and a real call to arms must be identified and then it must be approved by Congress first. The guard can be called out for anything that is the Governor's privilege but not the US Armed Forces.

 

[pismoe]

pismoe
Actually, anyone physically on American soil becomes the responsibility of the United States whether we like it or not. That is the law. Further, anyone found guilty of any crime in this nation regardless of their citizenship status is entitled to the full measure of the law including but not limited to Due Process. As to aren't they supposed to seek asylum in Mexico question, well, if I had to choose between seeking asylum in America or Mexico I think I'd have to go with America.

------------------------- I don't think that its supposed to be a choice between 'mexico' OR the USA . I think that asylum is supposed to be Claimed in the first place that the asylum seeker comes to hat is deemed to be acceptable and safe . I think that mexico is supposed to be deemed to be SAFE Felex .

 

[pismoe]

and I suppose that that why keeping them off USA Soil is important Felex .

 

[Felex Sanders]

and I suppose that that why keeping them off USA Soil is important Felex .

You are right. I have only been to Tiajuana and Alcopulco when I was in the Navy stationed at San Diego and that was back in the early 70s but I will assume it is still as safe as ever if one conducts themselves accordingly. As a matter of fact, I'd like to go back one day just for a vacation but as far as opportunity and financial security and wealth growth go you can't beat America. It's a matter of opinion I suppose and you have yours and I have mine so I guess we can agree to disagree. But that still doesn't answer the question about what the best policy for the immigration situation should be. Just having a wall doesn't stop the need for immigration reform. So, what do ya think?

 

[pismoe]

my constant urging is to stop ALL Importation of All . This Includes ALL first worlder to third worlders and ALL people . A big issue with me is guns and with 'brits' and or any gun controllers and we have a muslim 'moroccan' gun controller of the board and so to me both are unsuitable for the USA . That my reasoning for excluding first worlder and 3rd worlder plus , why does the USA with a 2010 Census population of 310 million need more people of any kind . As regards religious exclusion , in my opinion the First Amendment applies to unsuitable [for Western Civ] religious people that sadly are already in the USA but the protection does not apply to those looking to get into the USA Felex .

 

[beautress]

View attachment 253399
Immigration the right way, not the Trump way, the crisis is humanitarian and is not a threat to national security. That is unless you consider starving and frightened moms and children a security risk to America then you’d be a Republican I suppose.


I have listened to and watched and read for several years now how there is a crisis on the border and lately, it has been toted as a “National Emergency” by the Trump administration.


To quote Trump:


“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friends, believe me. But they're killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.


It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.


But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.


It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.


I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively; I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”


So, I ask you are these the responsible humane ways in which to treat our brothers and sisters to the south of our nation? I think not.


Look, politicians would have everyone think that Immigration is an impossible problem and one that requires massive thought because it is so complicated when in reality the immigration question is not complicated at all and is not so massive it cannot be managed both professionally and ethically. Immigration is not a problem so much as it is a challenge to be managed and directed. That being said I have a few suggestions for our lawmakers, the first of which being ignore any and all of Trump's statements and ideas. They are rife with racism and fear mongering and do way more harm than good and second stop the divisive “it’s my way or the highway” bullying between parties and come together like grown-ups and put constructive ideas together to resolve the problems in managing the border rather than simply criticizing the other persons idea but giving no useful idea of your own and further come at the issue with a managerial perspective making decisions that behoove one and all. Mostly I see it as logistical in nature. Controlling the border is not the answer, managing the border is.


Here are some facts that describe the state of immigration in 2019.


Two-thirds of the recent unauthorized immigrant population entered the U.S. on valid visas and then stayed in the country.


Only about one-third of the recently unauthorized immigration population got to the U.S. by sneaking across the southern border, which means a wall would not have prevented two-thirds of the country's recently undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S.


Between 10.7 and 11.3 million displaced and honest immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2016, the most recent year for which data is available.


According to Pew, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States hit a 12-year low in 2016. The Migration Policy Institute estimates there were 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016.


396,579 people were caught illegally crossing the border in the year ending September 30, 2018.


Illegal border crossings began to fall significantly in the mid-2000s after hitting record-highs through the 1980s and 1990s. In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents apprehended just over 1.17 million migrants. Since then, arrests for illegal border crossings have fallen every year.


Is asylum a form of illegal immigration?


No. "If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States."


Asylum is an immigration process reserved for people who have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.


Being granted asylum is not an easy feat. It's a multi-year process that involves likely detainment, multiple interviews, extensive documentation of an immigrant's prior suffering, and less than stellar odds.


Last year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processed about 100,000 "credible fear" claims, the first step in an immigrant's asylum proceedings.


But asylum denials also hit a record high last year. Immigration judges rejected 65 percent of the asylum claims they ruled on in 2018 which can be directly attributed to the Trump administrations policies and tweets.


Asylum seekers showed up to their court dates 90 percent of the time in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, the most recent year for which data is available.


The Trump Administration has based a handful of its new immigration policies, like the recently implemented "Remain in Mexico" policy, based on the assertion that immigrants don't show up to their court hearings, an idea the White House views as a "loophole."


Secretary of Homeland Security Kirsten Nielsen, lying, said during a Congressional testimony late last year that asylum seekers "more than not" fail to appear for their hearings. And in January, Trump said only two percent of asylum seekers make their court dates, another extreme lie.


The vast majority of illegal drugs — like heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl — entered the country through legal entry points, known officially as ports of entry.


Only a "small percentage" of the heroin seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents was found along the land border between Ports of Entry.


As for cocaine, it was uncommon to see very large shipments of cocaine headed toward to U.S.-Mexico border, and that instead the drug is transported on boats and amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles.


Fentanyl enters the country from China via mail and by way of the southern border, according to the DEA; though it noted that fentanyl seizures occur at legal ports of entry in Southern California."


Undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than American-born citizens. Undocumented immigrants are also less likely to commit serious criminal offenses. Using government-supplied data from the Texas Department of Safety, the think tank concluded that in Texas the murder arrest rate for native-born Americans was higher than the illegal immigrant rate. Another study, performed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, found that "increased concentrations of undocumented immigrants are associated with statistically significant decreases in violent crime."


Last, will Mexico pay for the wall? The answer is a positive NO! Trump has stated in his campaign rally events over and over again until it sounded like a broken record that “Mexico Would Pay for the Wall”, this was a lie and he knew it at the time he said it but it confused, frightened and riled up his base so he stuck with it, he never intended for Mexico to pay for the wall at all it was just a ploy to boost his campaign and drive his hateful speech and get him elected.


The truth of the matter is Trump always intended for the American people to pay for the wall and the proof is in the pudding so to speak what with the diverting of funds without congressional approval from Americas Department of Defense programs such as military construction wherein Trump will attempt to access billions in military construction money which in turn will harm military personnel drastically and he says he will seize asset forfeiture funds at the Department of Treasury, money used by the Attorney Generals office for investigation and operational costs of ongoing cases. Seizure of these funds would curtail and hamper the asset forfeiture arm of the AG tremendously and then there is the money already authorized by Congress in the billions which Trump doesn’t think is enough.


Bottom-line is a wall is not the answer at all but there are ways to manage border security and immigration challenges. The answer lies in professional management, infrastructure, and logistics, not in more walls and fences and guns. When we address the question of what to do about all of the people seeking asylum in America rather than focusing on some vile racists attitude of isolationism then we will be able to move forward.


The present administration would by hook or crook beg, borrow and steal money in the billions to fund a border wall when building the infrastructure to house, feed, clothe, counsel and hear immigration cases as well as provide additional security and advanced technology would behoove one and all so much better and cost less to construct and maintain.


I propose that along the entire stretch of the southern border which is 1,954 miles long that every fifty miles the means to house and conduct immigration business be constructed which would figure out to about 40 construction sites from end to end.


At each site, there would be twenty housing facilities or units constructed consisting of twenty-five apartments per unit. This would house 250 families, couples and/or singles per unit. Single and couple unit buildings would be separate from family unit buildings. These would be temporary housing for those awaiting hearings before immigration courts.


In addition to these twenty housing units at every location along the border, the following would be constructed.


Buildings for immigration court, social services, chaplain services (non-denominational), clinical and medical facilities, legal services, security, and government access buildings to include both state and federal resources, food outlets and other personal necessities outlets, and recreational and educational facilities.


As to staffing these facilities, I would suggest hiring on temporary magistrates for the courts until the overflow had been contained and then place permanent magistrates on a term basis or rotation basis. The later could be recently graduated law students trained by immigrant judges and magistrates wanting practical experience in immigration and refugee law and etc… The same principle could be used for additional security staff such as border patrols and local security.


As to staffing the counseling positions, I am sure that there will be no end to volunteers from across the nation to assist in those areas as well as in the areas of education, religious needs, recreational needs, legal services, medical needs and so forth. A very good organization for such needs is the Salvation Army, World Health, Red Cross, etc...


A consideration for facilities and staff for the number of underage children crossing the border would be of utmost concern and would require a separate facility and staff for processing, housing and so forth. (Bringing Child Welfare into this mix would not be advantageous. Creating a separate program for these immigrant children would be the best way to go. Our present Child Welfare program leaves something to be desired and is the topic for a whole new editorial.)


All children arriving with parents would be left with their parents and any child crossing the border that had relatives within the United States would be allowed to go to those relatives immediately after being processed. Further, any person crossing the border without criminal felony charges would be allowed to go to relatives and/or friends within the United States after being processed.


One might also consider enlisting religious organizations nationwide. You will find that nearly every such organization would be willing to jump in with both hands and feet for such a worthwhile project and for all you greedy Republicans they would volunteer their services and not charge the precious treasury.


Further consideration regarding staffing could be the immediate availability of immigrants and refugees. Hire, train and pay them at minimum federal wage and you would have a workforce of a phenomenal size, as a matter of fact, such a practice of hiring and training the resident immigrants and refugees could become common practice until at some point the entire project from California to Texas could be operated and staffed by its residents with minimal state and federal employees. Plus it would put tax money back into the system.


As to security along the border, each location would have its own security force made up of Homeland Security personnel to meet the needs in between each location, in other words, a force of agents numerically sufficient and efficiently equipped to cover the fifty-mile space between each post and location. These security post officials would act as both local securities within the post as well as security for monitoring and maintaining the span of the border between each location. Here again, it might not be a bad idea to enlist and train the immigrant and refugee population for these appointments as well.


As regards monitoring the expanse between each post I would suggest a combination of technological security and physical hands-on security. In other words, the activity of physically cruising and inspecting the border would continue but not be as arduous as in the past. Each security detail would travel twenty-five miles both east and west of their posts and there be met by security from the adjacent posts who are as well maintaining such eyes and hands-on of the border. The traveling would be cut down tremendously and the ability to maintain border security enhanced a thousandfold.


As regards technological surveillance I would suggest a drone force that operates twenty-four hours a day which could be maintained by a hired and trained force of residents from the post but managed by a small team of Homeland Security officials coupled with well-placed camera surveillance and ground detection technology the border could become impregnable and all using the workforce of hired and trained resident refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers.


As to the cost to build such a project and this is taking into consideration a building for each necessary government and social requirement as well as residential and educational needs the total cost would be between twenty and thirty billion dollars but that is a cost that would pay for itself time and time again because the infrastructure would now be in place and operational the only cost after that is maintenance cost and as we’ve seen staffing would be no problem and I foresee the structural maintenance being handled in the same fashion.


Overall on a yearly basis paying staff and government officials to run and maintain these facilities and posts would be far less than what we are spending right now to maintain a system that is broken and a humanitarian disaster.


Trump wanted nearly twenty billion for a wall, this project would be far saner and humane plus cost less to operate annually than we are now spending doing little to nothing but spinning our wheels.


When a person is treated with kindness and humanity that person will become a productive part of our society and building the infrastructure as I have suggested would give a high level of humanity to what is now an inhumane and unconstitutional crisis created by the United States government and the Trump administration.


Last but not least the idea of posts every fifty miles is very plausible and any suggestion that it can’t be done is party affiliated hogwash.


Further, each post could be built and well operated and maintained with alternative energy sources.


A wall would cost twenty or thirty billion, this project of humane decency would cost half that and would eventually pay for itself. Trump's wall would not give anything and eventually, Trump's wall would be breached and become ineffective. Trump's wall is nothing more than a dictator’s dream of total isolationism. We need to manage the situation with compassion and professionalism, not try to rule it with racism and hate.


Tell Trump to “TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!” and build caring loving dreams instead of nightmares.

Nightmares? Do you know what it is like to be the administrator of a school on the border? You get the same money you got before for twice the student roll. The state laws along the border say you have to get the same results from kids whose parents' crossed the border, and you get 2 years to get a child starting in the fifth grade who can't speak English to passing everything with flying colors by the end of the sixth grade. AND they have to know 6th grade level English by then too. That means on the border, you have to replace teachers who can't speak Spanish with those who can, which makes trouble in the district, because they lose some of their best teachers who've been doing a great job for years but are now jobless until they pay for their own Spanish classes and can speak it fluently. The kids who lose out are handicapped American kids. They lose the attention from an adult their illness requires and that was furnished to them earlier. School taxes here are based on county taxes, so poor farmers have to pay double school taxes, and they're already scrambling just to stay alive. Border state children in America are losing because other states have people like you who have no tolerance for American children. Who are you true blue to? American kids? No way, hosea.

 

[beautress]

and I suppose that that why keeping them off USA Soil is important Felex .

You are right. I have only been to Tiajuana and Alcopulco when I was in the Navy stationed at San Diego and that was back in the early 70s but I will assume it is still as safe as ever if one conducts themselves accordingly. As a matter of fact, I'd like to go back one day just for a vacation but as far as opportunity and financial security and wealth growth go you can't beat America. It's a matter of opinion I suppose and you have yours and I have mine so I guess we can agree to disagree. But that still doesn't answer the question about what the best policy for the immigration situation should be. Just having a wall doesn't stop the need for immigration reform. So, what do ya think?

I think Mexico is leaning on us based on faulty memory. They're still pissed off about having Texas removed by the Texicans and getting the few Mexicans who still lived there fighting them along with the Texans.

We're still pissed off at the Mexicans because they killed every American at the Alamo in San Antonio including Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and 167 Texicans who couldn't stand up to 8,000 troops, although they felled many of them trying to take over the Alamo. You call that scorched earth stuff. Now Mexico is siting back while their planted citizens are sending them 20 million a year so their parents can pump the money right back into the pockets of the wealthy in Mexico who hike taxes and make a fortune on. They don't even educate the "pisano" kids. Their rich people are skinflints. I see people crying crocodile tears for the Mexicans and ignore that they're picking the pockets of ours through our own taxes being hiked so we can educate their throwaway people.

By golly, if they're that incompetent, they should become a state. At least we'd have a place to put new landfills when we're running out of landfills for free for their throwaway people. We have to turn over several thousand acres a year to accommodate the 4 million a year they're sending over here with no border restraints whatsoever. You payin' double taxes for having your nephew killed with over the border bad drugs yet?

 

[harmonica]

the OP is a little long
we should've cut immigration LONG ago
this is not 1850 or 1950 anymore

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

View attachment 253399
Immigration the right way, not the Trump way, the crisis is humanitarian and is not a threat to national security. That is unless you consider starving and frightened moms and children a security risk to America then you’d be a Republican I suppose.


I have listened to and watched and read for several years now how there is a crisis on the border and lately, it has been toted as a “National Emergency” by the Trump administration.


To quote Trump:


“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friends, believe me. But they're killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.


It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.


But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.


It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.


I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively; I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”


So, I ask you are these the responsible humane ways in which to treat our brothers and sisters to the south of our nation? I think not.


Look, politicians would have everyone think that Immigration is an impossible problem and one that requires massive thought because it is so complicated when in reality the immigration question is not complicated at all and is not so massive it cannot be managed both professionally and ethically. Immigration is not a problem so much as it is a challenge to be managed and directed. That being said I have a few suggestions for our lawmakers, the first of which being ignore any and all of Trump's statements and ideas. They are rife with racism and fear mongering and do way more harm than good and second stop the divisive “it’s my way or the highway” bullying between parties and come together like grown-ups and put constructive ideas together to resolve the problems in managing the border rather than simply criticizing the other persons idea but giving no useful idea of your own and further come at the issue with a managerial perspective making decisions that behoove one and all. Mostly I see it as logistical in nature. Controlling the border is not the answer, managing the border is.


Here are some facts that describe the state of immigration in 2019.


Two-thirds of the recent unauthorized immigrant population entered the U.S. on valid visas and then stayed in the country.


Only about one-third of the recently unauthorized immigration population got to the U.S. by sneaking across the southern border, which means a wall would not have prevented two-thirds of the country's recently undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S.


Between 10.7 and 11.3 million displaced and honest immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2016, the most recent year for which data is available.


According to Pew, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States hit a 12-year low in 2016. The Migration Policy Institute estimates there were 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016.


396,579 people were caught illegally crossing the border in the year ending September 30, 2018.


Illegal border crossings began to fall significantly in the mid-2000s after hitting record-highs through the 1980s and 1990s. In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents apprehended just over 1.17 million migrants. Since then, arrests for illegal border crossings have fallen every year.


Is asylum a form of illegal immigration?


No. "If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States."


Asylum is an immigration process reserved for people who have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.


Being granted asylum is not an easy feat. It's a multi-year process that involves likely detainment, multiple interviews, extensive documentation of an immigrant's prior suffering, and less than stellar odds.


Last year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processed about 100,000 "credible fear" claims, the first step in an immigrant's asylum proceedings.


But asylum denials also hit a record high last year. Immigration judges rejected 65 percent of the asylum claims they ruled on in 2018 which can be directly attributed to the Trump administrations policies and tweets.


Asylum seekers showed up to their court dates 90 percent of the time in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, the most recent year for which data is available.


The Trump Administration has based a handful of its new immigration policies, like the recently implemented "Remain in Mexico" policy, based on the assertion that immigrants don't show up to their court hearings, an idea the White House views as a "loophole."


Secretary of Homeland Security Kirsten Nielsen, lying, said during a Congressional testimony late last year that asylum seekers "more than not" fail to appear for their hearings. And in January, Trump said only two percent of asylum seekers make their court dates, another extreme lie.


The vast majority of illegal drugs — like heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl — entered the country through legal entry points, known officially as ports of entry.


Only a "small percentage" of the heroin seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents was found along the land border between Ports of Entry.


As for cocaine, it was uncommon to see very large shipments of cocaine headed toward to U.S.-Mexico border, and that instead the drug is transported on boats and amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles.


Fentanyl enters the country from China via mail and by way of the southern border, according to the DEA; though it noted that fentanyl seizures occur at legal ports of entry in Southern California."


Undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than American-born citizens. Undocumented immigrants are also less likely to commit serious criminal offenses. Using government-supplied data from the Texas Department of Safety, the think tank concluded that in Texas the murder arrest rate for native-born Americans was higher than the illegal immigrant rate. Another study, performed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, found that "increased concentrations of undocumented immigrants are associated with statistically significant decreases in violent crime."


Last, will Mexico pay for the wall? The answer is a positive NO! Trump has stated in his campaign rally events over and over again until it sounded like a broken record that “Mexico Would Pay for the Wall”, this was a lie and he knew it at the time he said it but it confused, frightened and riled up his base so he stuck with it, he never intended for Mexico to pay for the wall at all it was just a ploy to boost his campaign and drive his hateful speech and get him elected.


The truth of the matter is Trump always intended for the American people to pay for the wall and the proof is in the pudding so to speak what with the diverting of funds without congressional approval from Americas Department of Defense programs such as military construction wherein Trump will attempt to access billions in military construction money which in turn will harm military personnel drastically and he says he will seize asset forfeiture funds at the Department of Treasury, money used by the Attorney Generals office for investigation and operational costs of ongoing cases. Seizure of these funds would curtail and hamper the asset forfeiture arm of the AG tremendously and then there is the money already authorized by Congress in the billions which Trump doesn’t think is enough.


Bottom-line is a wall is not the answer at all but there are ways to manage border security and immigration challenges. The answer lies in professional management, infrastructure, and logistics, not in more walls and fences and guns. When we address the question of what to do about all of the people seeking asylum in America rather than focusing on some vile racists attitude of isolationism then we will be able to move forward.


The present administration would by hook or crook beg, borrow and steal money in the billions to fund a border wall when building the infrastructure to house, feed, clothe, counsel and hear immigration cases as well as provide additional security and advanced technology would behoove one and all so much better and cost less to construct and maintain.


I propose that along the entire stretch of the southern border which is 1,954 miles long that every fifty miles the means to house and conduct immigration business be constructed which would figure out to about 40 construction sites from end to end.


At each site, there would be twenty housing facilities or units constructed consisting of twenty-five apartments per unit. This would house 250 families, couples and/or singles per unit. Single and couple unit buildings would be separate from family unit buildings. These would be temporary housing for those awaiting hearings before immigration courts.


In addition to these twenty housing units at every location along the border, the following would be constructed.


Buildings for immigration court, social services, chaplain services (non-denominational), clinical and medical facilities, legal services, security, and government access buildings to include both state and federal resources, food outlets and other personal necessities outlets, and recreational and educational facilities.


As to staffing these facilities, I would suggest hiring on temporary magistrates for the courts until the overflow had been contained and then place permanent magistrates on a term basis or rotation basis. The later could be recently graduated law students trained by immigrant judges and magistrates wanting practical experience in immigration and refugee law and etc… The same principle could be used for additional security staff such as border patrols and local security.


As to staffing the counseling positions, I am sure that there will be no end to volunteers from across the nation to assist in those areas as well as in the areas of education, religious needs, recreational needs, legal services, medical needs and so forth. A very good organization for such needs is the Salvation Army, World Health, Red Cross, etc...


A consideration for facilities and staff for the number of underage children crossing the border would be of utmost concern and would require a separate facility and staff for processing, housing and so forth. (Bringing Child Welfare into this mix would not be advantageous. Creating a separate program for these immigrant children would be the best way to go. Our present Child Welfare program leaves something to be desired and is the topic for a whole new editorial.)


All children arriving with parents would be left with their parents and any child crossing the border that had relatives within the United States would be allowed to go to those relatives immediately after being processed. Further, any person crossing the border without criminal felony charges would be allowed to go to relatives and/or friends within the United States after being processed.


One might also consider enlisting religious organizations nationwide. You will find that nearly every such organization would be willing to jump in with both hands and feet for such a worthwhile project and for all you greedy Republicans they would volunteer their services and not charge the precious treasury.


Further consideration regarding staffing could be the immediate availability of immigrants and refugees. Hire, train and pay them at minimum federal wage and you would have a workforce of a phenomenal size, as a matter of fact, such a practice of hiring and training the resident immigrants and refugees could become common practice until at some point the entire project from California to Texas could be operated and staffed by its residents with minimal state and federal employees. Plus it would put tax money back into the system.


As to security along the border, each location would have its own security force made up of Homeland Security personnel to meet the needs in between each location, in other words, a force of agents numerically sufficient and efficiently equipped to cover the fifty-mile space between each post and location. These security post officials would act as both local securities within the post as well as security for monitoring and maintaining the span of the border between each location. Here again, it might not be a bad idea to enlist and train the immigrant and refugee population for these appointments as well.


As regards monitoring the expanse between each post I would suggest a combination of technological security and physical hands-on security. In other words, the activity of physically cruising and inspecting the border would continue but not be as arduous as in the past. Each security detail would travel twenty-five miles both east and west of their posts and there be met by security from the adjacent posts who are as well maintaining such eyes and hands-on of the border. The traveling would be cut down tremendously and the ability to maintain border security enhanced a thousandfold.


As regards technological surveillance I would suggest a drone force that operates twenty-four hours a day which could be maintained by a hired and trained force of residents from the post but managed by a small team of Homeland Security officials coupled with well-placed camera surveillance and ground detection technology the border could become impregnable and all using the workforce of hired and trained resident refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers.


As to the cost to build such a project and this is taking into consideration a building for each necessary government and social requirement as well as residential and educational needs the total cost would be between twenty and thirty billion dollars but that is a cost that would pay for itself time and time again because the infrastructure would now be in place and operational the only cost after that is maintenance cost and as we’ve seen staffing would be no problem and I foresee the structural maintenance being handled in the same fashion.


Overall on a yearly basis paying staff and government officials to run and maintain these facilities and posts would be far less than what we are spending right now to maintain a system that is broken and a humanitarian disaster.


Trump wanted nearly twenty billion for a wall, this project would be far saner and humane plus cost less to operate annually than we are now spending doing little to nothing but spinning our wheels.


When a person is treated with kindness and humanity that person will become a productive part of our society and building the infrastructure as I have suggested would give a high level of humanity to what is now an inhumane and unconstitutional crisis created by the United States government and the Trump administration.


Last but not least the idea of posts every fifty miles is very plausible and any suggestion that it can’t be done is party affiliated hogwash.


Further, each post could be built and well operated and maintained with alternative energy sources.


A wall would cost twenty or thirty billion, this project of humane decency would cost half that and would eventually pay for itself. Trump's wall would not give anything and eventually, Trump's wall would be breached and become ineffective. Trump's wall is nothing more than a dictator’s dream of total isolationism. We need to manage the situation with compassion and professionalism, not try to rule it with racism and hate.


Tell Trump to “TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!” and build caring loving dreams instead of nightmares.

The Left has a very long history of being anti-American bigots.
The Dems are not truly compassionate, they are truly racist
Millions of Democrat Voters are racist who do not accept that America is a soverign country.
In recent years the racist Democrats have become more and more anti-Anglo.
We have the same right to control our border crossings and immigration as all of the other countries on our planet do.
Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers $billions$, but the worst part is the cost in human lives.
American citizens of all races have the right to complain without being branded bigots by the unreasonable Left Wingers.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The truth is that the Democrats profits from illegal immigration and the American citizens suffer from illegal immigration. They aren't compassionate, they are greedy.