Can We Secure Our Borders Now?

I dunno why we should expend any energy aguing an obvious fact.

Anyone who illegally enters or remains in the country is, by definition, a criminal.

 

That's a fair point.

Many do go uncaught. Many others, who get caught, claim asylum and then disappear.

 

Don't forget that during the Obama administration, illegal immigration was cut to the lowest level in two generations. Trump got into trouble when he unilaterally ditched Obama's successful system & replaced it with his own dysfunctional one. Now it's a big political issue again because of Trump. America doesn't need more problems. But Trump is only good at creating new problems. He never solves anything. Due to that, Trump is bad for America, & America's voters need to recognize that & replace him.

 

That has not been the historic or traditional interpretation held by most Americans or their leaders. For most of the twentieth century, farmers used illegals for farm work because of their cheap labor. That kept food prices down in markets--a boon to most American families. Republicans supported keeping borders relatively open to maintain that cheap labor pool. Those illegals were doing work no American citizen wants to do. It's too hard, too hot & too low on wages. I've personally watched food prices escalate since Trump took office. That makes feeding families harder & more expensive for most Americans. How is that "making America great again"?

 

I stand by my statement.

 

Actually, in legal terms, your post is inaccurate. Entering the U.S. illegally is not regarded as a "criminal" act, but a misdemeanor, which doesn't rise to the level of a "crime." in legal terms, illegally entering the U.S. is equivalent to breaking the speed limit when driving a car, or running a stop sign. While I share your concern for illegal "criminals" entering our country, I know the vast majority of illegals are NOT criminals & pose no threat to our country in any way. I am at a loss to understand the level of intense hatred being expressed by so many Americans today toward immigrants generally. In America, we are ALL descendants of immigrants.

 

When someone, anyone, who can provide anything deemed worthwhile for the American citizens without taking it from someone else, then they will be given due consideration. No such person has been presented as of yet, and highly unlikely will be.

Review the platforms of any of the candidates currently presented, and find one that doesn't promote the idea that give-aways and taking other people's money is not a part of it.

As nice as your idea may be, seriously look at the alternatives.

 

How does one of these not-quite-criminal individuals get a job?

 

Your point is taken, but over time, what any society regards as important or valuable, changes. What we today value is quite different from what was valued 25 years ago, or 50 years ago, & it makes perfect sense that money can be taken from those things in society declining in value, to be used in support of building up those things that are growing in value. Forty years ago, it was generally believed that if the country did everything possible to help the wealthy to start new or grow old businesses, wealth would trickle down to benefit everyone. But that belief has not withstood the test of time, & many Americans, including myself, feel it is largely responsible for the current extreme disparity of wealth existing in the U.S. today. That would indicate it served the wealthy exclusively, at the total expense of the working classes, & that, it turns out, is very bad for the country & its inhabitants. As a result, many of us have transferred what we value from continuing to enrich the wealthiest in our society, to valuing government supported services that benefit those in the working classes. Of course someone has to pay for those services, but everyone in America has given freely to enrich the wealthy for decades, & in harmony with American fairness, it's ok to ask those who benefited to return the favor.

 

Before we address that question, we should have a program in place that works with these individuals to determine whether they would be allowed to remain here. If no, they they should be returned to their place of origin, & employment disappears as an issue. If yes, then we should have programs & institutions in place to help them in any way possible to start their new lives here.

 

And let's not forget trickle-up economics. They had the right idea but the arrow was backwards.

I was a huge Reagan fan. But you are right. It [supply-side economics] created wealth disparity and is what started the debt crisis. And I sat and watched as Greenspan admitted that market discipline failed and led to the crash of 08. Henry Paulson said the same thing. So much for Ayn Rand Libertarianism. It utterly failed.

But republicans go on their merry way preaching the same old lies.

PS Greenspan was basically Ayn Rand's protege.

 

Well, you didn't address my question at all, which in and of itself, is a response. Just for the record, there are ways to immigrate properly, and ways to immigrate improperly. I have two recent immigrants in my family, both who took the time to do it properly, so I am well armed for that argument.

The part I bolded.... I disagree, strongly. It is exactly that thought that has people coming here, with nothing, and thinking it won't matter. Do not construe that statement that some do not work hard and make their way, but to provide all the bells and whistles to someone who has not yet contributed to the societal pool, while ignoring people who are already here, and not eligible for the same bells and whistles, is not only short sighted, but damaging to the country and society as a whole.

While I do not believe in discriminatory taxation based on a over-inflated noblesse oblige theory, dollar for dollar, we already know who pays more per capita then most. The problem lies within the actual tax structure*. Taxation must be equitable across the board.

*Spending is the other problem, but way off topic

Back to point- your first sentence concludes that individuals will be 'allowed to stay here' until such judgement is rendered of aye or nay. Really? If someone would be undisireable, do you think they are going to just stand around, waiting for the word? Highly unlikely, as they already know their position when they come here. While some of the detention facilities are overpacked, exactly why is that? To prevent them from 'wandering' away, never to be found, to do what was undesirable in their home country, here.

 

1. Yes, there are legal ways to immigrate, & they should be pursued whenever possible. Right now, those are closed down by Trump, forcing even those who are eligible for legal immigration to use illegal means to get in. Trump often takes actions that have the effect of shooting himself in the foot.
2. You are interpreting my comment in the most extreme way possible--something all Republicans seem to be doing more of lately. I'm not saying those who are accepted for immigration should become wards of the state. I'm simply saying we should provide the basic necessities for them until they can do those things necessary to fend for themselves. That might include clean housing, clothing, food, access to medical care, & a stipend to survive on until they can find employment, etc on their own. I'm suggesting this help for from 1 to 6 months. I hope Republicans aren't so heartless as to oppose that.
3. Your bold print can have many interpretations. According to Eliz Warren (in our last debate), middle class Americans are paying about 7.5% of their income in taxes, while the wealthiest families in America are paying an average of about 3.5%. I agree with her, that the wealthiest families are a valid resource we can tap for help.
4. Deficits used to be a favorite issue with Republicans. Trump has killed that topic for Republicans by creating the larges deficits in American history, & refusing to even discuss it. Part of the Trump deficit was for passing his tax cut for the wealthy. Democrats want to use those moneys to create programs to aid the impoverished. I stand with the Democrats.
5. My position here is simply that we need to devise a way to deal with this problem that protects national security & respects human rights. It CAN BE DONE. We just have to work together across the aisle to make it happen. I don't know the final right answer, but I have confidence that, working together, we can find it.

 

The 'legal' way is not presenting one's self and demanding entry, and then asking permission. One does not 'illegally' enter a premises and claim innocence, they wait until someone invites them in, such as my two family members did.

I'll start with a small hint: I'm not a Republican. You did not clarify your statement, but now that you have, I could pick it apart. They are getting housing, clothing, food, access to medical care. It seems you just don't like the level they are receiving, or where. Have you ever paid a visit to Co-Op City in the Bronx, NY? It's an education in low income/subsidized housing en mass. A 'stipend', i.e., assistance. How much would that be? Vague doesn't cut it in these discussions, I've learned... if one allows for a 'stipend', one usually cannot control how it is used.

Valid 'resource'??? You are talking about taking money that a person has earned, which is not a 'resource' for you to take. That is the problem with situations like this, so very easy to spend and/or take someone else's money to satisfy what 'you' decree as necessary and 'worthwhile'.

My tax liability dropped by roughly $900 for the year, and I would call myself 'middle class'. I am business oriented, and the positive impacts can be seen in sales numbers (dollars) and consumer activity (volume of transactions) on a ongoing basis. The business I deal in, are low to middle class goods and rarely would we be seeing anyone from the 'wealthy' category.

It will take bi-partisan cooperation, but unfortunately, that is in short supply, and being agitated on a regular basis.

 

And you are probably correct. Most people want to avoid the BS labeling of people now conforming to the progressive demands of language- the intolerance of beliefs by those claiming to be "liberal'.
It's a matter of avoiding the confrontation.

Lots of people who own MAGA hats don't wear them in public places because they know some half-wit will take it as a challenge to his personal opinion and use it to justify him acting like a jackass.
Some of us want a respectful society; we know that everybody has a right to their own opinion.

 

1. the "legal" way is more complex than your post. Showing up at the border & asking to be accepted in the "legal" immigration system, certainly is one way to do it, & always has been--until Trump. Your personal situation sounds like family members paving the way for other family members to immigrate here also. That's always been an important part of the American immigration system too, but Trump has made public statements that he wants to end that part of the system. In at least some states, like Texas, he may have already done so.
2. Based on the way Republicans are acting these days, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you're not a Republican. Good. That gives me hope for you. I thought Trump had stopped all aid to immigrants nationwide, but I guess some states have kept it going. I'm happy to hear it.
3. OK, let's take your point here & apply it verbatim to the poor & middle classes in America who are paying double the rate of the wealthiest class families in taxes. You defend the right of the wealthy to avoid those taxes & claim we have no right to impose on them, but why don't you use that same argument in defense of the poor & middle classes who pay more?
4. The portion of Trump's tax law governing middle class taxes goes down for a year or two, then gradually climbs back up to where they were before the bill was enacted. The whole process will take about a decade. But that's not true for the wealthier families. For them, the cut is permanent.
5. As a Democrat, I can tell you, I've felt most of that agitation & lack of cooperation, coming from the Republican side. I would very much like to see a return to civility & cooperation across the aisle, & I'd gladly be the first to stop my criticism if the same respect would be shown in reverse. My faith in that happening has been badly damaged, but I still retain some hope--after Trump.

 

We need barriers but we also need a large force on the borders.There is 7479 miles of borders and less than 22000 people working the ports of entry. I assume some percentage of the border is protected by terrain obstacles but that must still leave a large chunk accessible to anyone who wants to come in without too much difficulty. It seems like 22000 is spreading things pretty thin, why isn't there say a quarter million people protecting the border? Whatever that would cost would be much less than what the total cost of this illegal invasion has cost America. I think a large heavily armed force, given reasonable discretion to enforce border protection is a better solution than unguarded barriers. I think understanding the stakes would deter most illegals from trying. Right now there is zero consequences for coming here illegally even after multiple deportations. Every time an American citizen becomes a victim of an illegal our government just looks the other way because if the illegal wasn't a criminal he could be harvesting crops for $50 dollars a day.

 

Yes, it took one family member 18 months to be granted their visa, and the other came across the southern border about 10 years ago 'under duress'. The first came under her own recognition, even though she had a sister here already. I don't know the details on the second one, but his oldest son has also come, both of which are going through all that is necessary to gain their citizenship, not just a green card that some don't even bother with.

Why do you think Republicans are acting the way they do? Not to say that some are just bottom dwellers, as are some Democrats, but in general, why is there such friction? I have my reasoning, but it would be interesting to know why you view Republicans as the center point of discord.

And you are moving aside several key points: Who uses the services the tax money is funding, and dollar for dollar, who is paying more? The issue should be with the tax code, not the people who make use of every available way to reduce their liability. Do you take the deductions you are eligible for? Why should you be eligible, and someone else not be? In addition, you are marginalizing the fact that most are not working 9-5 jobs, and carry responsibility loads we could only have nightmares about. But you feel for some reason, an observer could place a value on what they do, and take away from them to give to someone 'more deserving'? Do you understand that once you open that door, that the same will be applied to you?

And you do understand that a new administration will be in place, and likely renew it and not let it sunset, unless the economy is so robust that the creep up will not be felt.

Unfortunately, the DNC hasn't put up a reality based candidate as of yet, and my hopes are not high that they will. I foresee another 4 years of Trump, which we will survive, just as we did Obama. Personally, I would like to see an end to the duopoly.

 

Yeah, what law is that?

Does it apply to southerners?

 

https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/public-charge-fact-sheet

 

1. My feelings toward immigrants is different from the current Republican view. Historically speaking, immigrants have been a far more positive influence on American than a negative one. I believe our current hostility toward immigrants is atypical. I also see it as a manufactured issue, created by Republicans, but one man in particular--Trump--for political purposes. Trump sensed he could use that issue for his own advantage, & he did. I believe legal immigration is good for the country. I don't support what Trump & his Republicans like to call "open borders." I'm a liberal Democrat, & I don't know of anyone personally who does support "open borders." That's just another lie used by Trump & his Republicans to create fear in voters for their own political benefit.
2. I agree, there are bottom dwellers in BOTH parties. I view Republicans as the source of our current discord because starting in 1994, Republicans under then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, developed a hard line policy of "My Way or the Highway," where they insisted on getting their way, & never compromising. The polarization of America became a Republican policy. Compromise became a dirty word. It grew gradually over the years, until in 2010, the first election after our first black President was elected, a Republican backlash took control of Congress, & closed down its functionality. The Tea Party of 2010, were extremists who were even more hard core than previous ones under Gingrich. Once in power, they refused to work with the President on anything, dividing the nation even more. That continued for the remaining six years of Obama's term. Trump grabbed the discontent he saw across America & used it to his own advantage to become elected. But Trump is both a symptom of the awesome division of Americans, & its most prominent promoter. Trump & his sycophants turn every issue into a Republican vs Democrat, right wing vs left wing, red vs blue war. Trump & McConnell have turned Congress into a dysfunctional institution, & the Republican party has become the first American party to abandon its support of the Constitution in favor of support of authoritarian rule under one man--Trump. America was never a true democracy, but throughout history since its founding, America has consistently sought ways to increase democracy within the country--until Gingrich, McConnell & Trump. Trump made it clear from the beginning of his campaign, when he repeatedly announced, "Only I can do it." America has never before responded favorably to any candidate who promoted authoritarianism. Many Americans, including myself, are deeply concerned by this new trend.
3. Equal taxation based on percentage, is grossly unfair to the lower classes, because for them, what's left after taxation has a larger impact on their standard of living. But, according to Eliz Warren, the middle class average taxation is running at 7.5%, while the average taxation for the wealthiest families is running about 3.5%. There's nothing fair in these statistics, & nothing for average Americans to support with their votes. There have been times when American capitalism has worked & times it hasn't. Since the Reagan Presidency, it hasn't. The mess we're in right now, with <2% of American families owning & controlling over 98% of our national wealth, is grossly unfair & economically irresponsible. We're in this mess BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM to share the wealth with the workers who actually produced it. America becomes "great again" when & only when the majority of Americans share in that wealth produced by America. Trump will never "make America great again," because he's committed to continuing the same system that got us where we are now, rather than fixing it.
4. Trump's tax cut was primarily designed to benefit the wealthiest among us. If Trump & Republicans retain control of American politics, you may be right--it may be extended. But, in reality, who does that really benefit?
5. Of the more than 20 Democratic candidates, some are more interesting than others. For me, a liberal Democrat, Eliz. Warren & Bernie Sanders are my personal favorites. However, I recognize that most Americans are somewhat less liberal than myself, & someone like Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris or Booker might fit better. I will support the more liberal candidates in the Primaries, but I'll vote for the nominee, whoever that may be.

 

Your continued use of Elizabeth Warren as a source of information, plus your response #5 pretty much clarifies your position, and preferred candidate. Fortunately, I take taxation and it's use a little more seriously, and to make an assumption, while disregarding any understanding of legalities, that 'the rich can afford to pay more shows an entire lack of understanding how the tax system currently works.

Let's make life simple: what overall impact will come from arbitrary taxation of any particular economic group?

 

I get your point, but did anyone foresee the impact of our present system as it has been inflicted on America since the Reagan administration? It's fine to consider the impact of taxing the rich & super rich now, after decades of having all the national wealth funneled into their bank coffers. But why didn't anyone foresee the damage done to mainstream Americans by the disastrous trickle down policies that sucked the life blood from the American middle class?

So, in your best economic wisdom, what do YOU see as the answer to this complex, highly negative economic disparity between the few, ultra-wealthy owners of America & all the rest of us? I'm curious.

 

Tax policy didn't hurt the middle and lower classes. Trade policies did.

 

You, by your words, seem to think what someone else has, or earns, is an indicator that should be used to measure all others, without taking into consideration what was invested by that individual to earn that income. Since 'money' is an infinite pool, and not stagnant as some believe, every able bodied person has the capability to expand their position monetarily. How far, usually depends on them. It is not a matter of 'they have more than 'me', but 'what can I do to earn more?'.

This is something that seems to have faded under the guise of 'economic inequality', which I see as being the epitome of wealth redistribution. Times and economies change. While factory line work that helped build 'the middle class' 50 some-odd years ago, for which most progressives have no use other than as a dart board to support their 'this has been taken away from you', progressives don't seem to understand that society 'progressed' and their use of an antiquated society as a pin up really defeats their idea that 'things have changed so we need to tax more people more money to support those the wealthy has subjugated.'

Why you feel that the wealthy are not entitled to what they have, and there is no 'trickle down', exactly how would you foresee wealth 'trickling up' working? Do you work for someone who can pay you or do you work for someone who has no money and cannot pay you? I know my preference.

Since the monetary pool isn't stagnant, if you believe you 'deserve' more of it, then how do you go about getting it? You make yourself worth more in the employment marketplace. And since you would normally work for someone who can ford to pay you, you can buy more stuff, which supports those who produce it, and they can buy more stuff, and on....

You have never clarified why you believe that anyone has a right to 'take' more money from someone, just because they feel they 'have enough'? Exactly who is anyone to judge what someone else should have? And to discriminate against one particular group, says it even clearer.