sorry , i agree 100%, i have no wurtel
with what obama
did. ok?

now, faced with a massive increase in the number of
migrant families with kids, and zero infrastructure to deal with it, what is trump supposed to do.

we caught 100,000 people
in march. most are decent people, a small number are not, and the bad ones don’t wear signs. so should we put all the men , women, and children in a big pen together? if we do that, and a couple of those men are oedipbiles andbatta k the kids, are you going to blame trump for that?

it’s a mess. it’s not the fault ifmobama or trump. i told you i think obama handle it well. what should trump be doing? should
be build a federal disney world
and put the families there wh
we figure out what to do with them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't blame Trump for the problem at the border - ie the amount of people trying to get into the US, only for trying to cause pain by separating families.

I actually agreed with what Sessions said at one point and it was something like asylum is not supposed to be bc you fear violence or your spouse is threatening you, it should only be for actual violence committed by a govern (he might have said gangs also).

"Show me the study proving the percentage of crossings by fake family units, I know it happens, but I don’t believe it’s anywhere "

well, what you believe doesn't matter a fig. What matters, is what is actually happening. Watch the news, and listen to what border patrol agents are saying.

There are a million articles you could google, here is an article in the right wing, pro-Trump New York Times.

Here is a pull out quote...

"Traveling with children is helping migrants avoid detention"

Now, since you have clearly concluded that there was no logidtical reason for the increased separation of kids, and that Trump was just doing it because he's cruel, I'd love to ask you, do you feel like you've been duped, and lied to, by whoever you get your news from?

Huge numbers of kids showed up that weren't there before. American law doesn't allow for quick deportation when children are present. Those two things together, have created a huge logistical challenge. Add to that, the raw numbers of immigrants are surging, as poor people from Central America (as opposed to just Mexico) are making the trip.

So I'll ask you what I asked Paul...if you were president, and huge numbers of children starting showing up, and American law said that you can't just deport them as easily as you can single males, and you have zero infrastructure to deal with it, what would you do?

Trump separated the children while figuring out what to do. He is attacked for that (even though no one cared when Obama did it on a smaller scale). If Trump put everyone in one huge area, and kids were raped by a couple of pedophiles, he'd get attacked for that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/u...tics.html?te=1

Foreign aid has not helped. The mess continued and got worse in spite of foreign aid. The "aid" may well have helped to maintain the mess. Ultimately, the only "meaningful" solution is for those people and their governments to solve their own problem. Foreign aid helps to put off the hard, even revolutionary, work that needs to be done.

Economists disagree whether or how much an influx of immigrants depresses wages. Some have found that new immigrants depress wages for certain groups, such as teenagers or workers with a high school diploma or less. Others say the overall effect on the economy is tiny, and an influx of immigrant workers vitalizes the economy overall.

Either way, the forces driving wage reductions for blue-collar workers go far beyond immigration.

Another strawman argument from the right if the pay was better Americans would do it total BS

Impressive.

"Economists disagree whether or how much an influx of immigrants depresses wages"

They don't disagree, at least the honest ones, on the fact that they are a huge drain on the economy, and a huge drain on local resources (they need places to live, schools, medical care, police protection, etc). And they don't pay sufficient taxes to fund these things.

If I was born in Mexico or Central America I'd come here, no question. But we can't afford huge numbers of penniless, unskilled immigrants. And the more who come illegally, the fewer spots there are for people playing by the rules, waiting to come legally. That's grotesquely unfair to them. I have a friend who waited in Albania for 2+ years for his chance to come here, and we look the other way while people essentially cut him in line? It's not close to fair.

Jim if you pay only rent do you pay enought taxes for school police? you speak as if they don't work spend money any place most states get the majority from sales and property tax my town has kids in its school from other towns who get dropped off at grandma's.


Homeland Security raised the cap on H-2B visas for foreign guest workers from 66,000 visas per year to 81,000.

On Thursday — just three days later — Trump’s properties told the Department of Labor that they wanted approval to hire 76 guest workers us

Ask those who live on the cape about H 2B there's a brazillian of the working in the summer

So again they are not stealing jobs of depressing wages .. a 20cent hike in gas prices do more damage the avacodo and landscapers

There is no fair system comprehensive immigration may help but Republicans will never give up something that motivates their base
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, people
who only pay a modest rent, probably aren’t paying their own way. heck, i have three kids in public school, which costs my town $42,000 a year, i don’t pay anywhere near that.

so you might say i’m as big a leech as the illegals. but there’s a slight difference. i’m an american citizen. and over time, the town will recoup most of that.

i never said they don’t work or spend money ( hearing voices again). i said they are a huge drain. and obviously i’m right.

You say republicans won’t compromise? they offered a compromise
on daca in return for the wall ( the wall which democrats supported until Trump came along). neither side is in a compromising mood, sonlittle gets done. Trump had two years to do whatever he wanted, and he blew it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Their base wants LEGAL immigrants. It doesn't want millions of ILLEGAL immigrants. It doesn't want illegal immigrants rewarded, nor given citizenship and voting rights. Why is that difficult to accomplish?

it’s difficult because the left has astutely turned this into a wedge issue for votes. that, and there are a lot of powerful people who get cheap labor from illegal immigration, and don’t want the spigot turned off. that happens on both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump says he may release immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, contradicting his own White House

True Clown

more lack of understanding what sanctuary cities means ....

it means we are not going to enforce or assist ICE when the Government won't pay the cities or states for that assistance

yea the left wants the vote from those who can't vote another fantasy told to their base before bed..


totals dont equal a win Clinton received 2.87 million more votes nationwide (the largest margin ever for a candidate who lost the electoral college

the left wants to convince their base that i’m a racist. i’m aware that popular vote isn’t a guarantee, but if you’re implying that both sides don’t aspire to get as
many bites as possible, you are wrong.

so, sanctuary cities and states will cooperate with ICE, if the feds compensate them
for doing so? are you certain about that? do you have an article or link which states that? i was unaware of that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've never seen a serious study indicate they are a huge drain, in fact it's just the opposite.

Where does your "obviously" come from? Please vet your sources.

President told McAleenan, since named the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, that he "would pardon him if he ever went to jail for denying US entry to migrants," as one of the officials

But I am sure his supporter's won't have an issue with such a promise

Yes cost is just one of the many reasons they choose not to assist ice the other reasons are easily outlined in those cities

The right sees , sanctuary cities as homeomegrown equivalent of the myth of “no-go zones” in Europe

the idea that Democratic local officials are attempting to undermine “real” America by sheltering masses of unauthorized immigrants and allowing them to terrorize Americans.
That's what Trumps selling

Here's some good reading https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...obile&ie=UTF-8

What is the cost to state and local law enforcement agencies?

o The total cost of immigration detainers in the United States is unknown because they vary
considerably across jurisdiction. However, the cost of compliance can be quite high. The
state of California, for example, spends approximately $65 million tax dollars each year
detaining individuals for ICE.
• Does the federal government reimburse state and local governments for the cost
of holding someone under an ICE detainer?
o No, ICE does not reimburse the cost of holding individuals under a detainer. (Renting jail
space to ICE is not the same as detaining someone on an ICE detainer.) Additionally, ICE
is not liable and will not indemnify localities for any liability incurred while housing
these detainees. Several counties have faced legal action as a result of rights violations
that occurred while detaining individuals for ICE. The Sheriff’s Office in Jefferson
County, Colorado recently paid a $40,000 settlement to a man who was wrongfully
imprisoned due to an ICE detainer.
• Are state and local law enforcement agencies required to participate?
o No, ICE detainers are not criminal warrants; they are merely voluntary requests. Law
enforcement agencies can choose whether to comply.

It's a way of cost sharing for a common goal. If the Federal Government did not share the cost, even most of it, of catching and deporting illegal aliens, the states would have to take on the full cost. If some states are not willing to share the cost, and if they were not willing to take on any cost at all, then it could be assumed that they are not concerned about illegal aliens, even large numbers of them, in their community. I assume creating a sanctuary city is a statement of exactly that. So those states should not be averse to accepting large numbers of aliens since they're not willing to participate in catching, holding, and deporting illegal aliens. States which are willing to cooperate and share the cost with the Federal government, or take on the full job and cost on their own, deserve not to have a bunch of illegals dumped into their community, especially when the lack of cooperation by the others helps to create a draw for aliens to illegally cross the border.

lack of cooperation by the others helps to create a draw for aliens to illegally cross the border. (another bedtime story ) how do you explain why them came before there were things called sanctuary cities ?


Trump "Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws,

haven't seen any suggestions from the Potus on this topic




Funny theory l send those we dont want to sanctuary cities I'll show them

These people just walked some 2,269 mi what Makes Trump or you think they'll stay in the sanctuary cities and not just walk to their friend or family live or where there is work..

Simple solution from not simple problems Trumps 2020 slogan

Shhh dont let Trumps base know

The Trump administration has agreed to settle a lawsuit with a dozen Central American families who challenged the government's cancellation of a program that was designed to reunite children in that region with their parents living in the U.S.

If you think these women and children just walked 2 thousand miles you may just be a snowflake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if you think it was easy you my be in denial


I am sure they walked farther than the both of us have ever had to walk ..

I bet it was a relaxing 2 thousand mile trip

Again, simply irrelevant to my post. Maybe you just wandered off and replied to some other post with one of your simple bedtime stories.

Who said sanctuary cities are why they come here?

If you think I said it is easy you are making things up again.

If you think they had to walk you are mistaken again.

If you think the majority of immigrants who came to this country had a relaxing trip you are delusional. Again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You...


especially when the lack of cooperation by the others helps to create a draw for aliens to illegally cross the border.

oh well

I am simply suggesting that they didn’t have to leave their country to begin with.

Wayne, you gobble up all the propaganda and swallow before you chew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sanctuary cities are not mentioned in that last sentence that you quote me. Nor is that sentence referring to them as the reason why illegals come here.

What it refers to, if you read the whole paragraph which that sentence ends, is the ENTIRE lack of cooperation with ICE and the federal government (including the notion of not willing to foot the cost of holding aliens--the subject of your post to which my post was mainly responding, and to which you avoided rebutting). And all of that "helps" to create "a" draw, not "the" draw.

You don't seem to understand the different implications between definite articles "a" and "the." "A draw" is different in meaning than "the draw." "A" draw signifies one among others. But "the" draw denotes that there is only one. There are other reasons why they come which are helped to be realized by a draw that I mentioned,

Nowhere did I say that sanctuary cities are "the" reason they come here. Nor, even, "a" reason. I said that if cities "are not concerned about illegal aliens, even large numbers of them, in their community. . . I assume creating a sanctuary city is a statement of exactly that." And I added later that sanctuary cities are a "bonus" (not the reason).

I could consider that you're being dishonest when you twist and misconstrue as you're doing here, and have done many times before. But I think you are an honest person. So I assume that you either don't pay strict attention to what I've said (sloppy reading), or that you just don't understand it.

That's why I often say your posts are incoherent or illogical.

Trumps brilliant idea to put out the cathedral fire was classic, how can we possibly question the plans coming out via Twitter from such a mind. I’m surprised he didn’t use that strategy on the dreaded caravan, he’d have put that Mexican fire out with just a couple passes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct. His Water Tankers tweet was beyond effing stupid.

You could say he Acted Stupidly

And yet it had the desired effect on those who hang by his every tweet :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think many people were just waiting to see how he could 'eff it up...and in his brilliance he managed just that.

were you expecting something different?

"many people" are constantly just waiting to see how he can 'eff it up. TDS