Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Jul 28, 2016.
He’s right, you know.
They don’t have wire cutters or carpet remnants south of the border.
How long does it take to do that though? If climbers are stalled there's a good chance they will be caught. No, the wall isn't ever to be 100% effective but that shouldn't stop us from having one. Most guys wear a condom during sex and it sure isn't 100% effective against pregnancy/STDs.
Two things. The wall will slow down border crossings. It doesn’t have to be 100% effective. Second, those that do climb it will be filtered from the remaining horde. At least those who can do it will be fit for any job. Only a TDS-addled brain would say the wall isn’t worth it.
Or someone who cares about fiscal responsibility, take your pick.
I’m guessing the supply of illegal coconut pickers is going to balloon once the wall is finished. This will drive coconut prices down so short those suckers!
The overly sensitive should probably not watch this
So we can spend a few billion to build a wall to keep illegals out, or we can spend countless billions on health benefits for illegals once they're in the country illegally - seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. That would fit the definition of "fiscal responsibility."
It's not just a few billion, it's several billion and that doesn't include the ongoing maintenance costs. If it guaranteed a stop to illegal immigration I'd support it but there is no chance that it will ne anything other than a very costly hindrance to that effort. The vast majority of illegal immigrants overstay their visas and the wall will have no impact on them as they come into the country legally and don't leave. If anyone really cared about illegal immigration they'd focus on universal e-verify. That would eliminate the demand of border crossers coming here to get jobs and a portion of those overstaying their visas.
e-verify seems like a pretty obvious choice to you as well, I imagine. But Texas GOP won’t pass it. Why?
? L H
I thought that Texas requires e verify
Did something change?
Only public employers per this 2018 article.
I posed this exact question to my Texas Senator a couple of weeks ago. His response...He's been told that it will devastate our economy. I have no doubt that there will be economic ramifications if we start curtailing illegal immigration. In my opinion the good will outweigh the bad and it is worth the price. I think what he really means is....it will devastate the business model of a few well placed donors.
Some businesses will certainly loose in a big way because they've been cheating in a big way. I'm ok with them taking it in the shorts.
I've personally implemented e-verify with 3 national employers. Aside from a small setup fee depending on business size and type of engagement, it's a nominal cost per applicant. For a ~75k emoloyee company we paid a 1-time $12k fee to setup an automated integration between our HR system and e-Verify. From memory, there was a ~$5k annual maintenance fee. I don't believe there was per applicant charge for that setup since it was 100% automated. At another employer a single HR Rep spent ~50% of her job manually submitting and tracking e-verify and subsequent I-9s for 3K US employees.
Yes, there is a cost but it's cheaper than any background check service employers probably already use.
I looked up where states stand on e verify. This was a 2016 site.
Texas does require it for state bids and for contractors doing work for state
I was surprised that states like Calif. Ny IIl Washington do not require everify at all
In fact Ca and Ill forbid local everify
Maybe it has changed since 2016 but could not find a more updated complete map
With their sanctuary status why would Ca surprise you? Just curious.
Good question and I guess I thought the leftist states would care more for the union people who contribute so much to the Dem coffers.
I guess that is naïve??
Well there’s your error, thinking they ‘care’.
I can't speak to state requirements but nearly every Tech and large company I'm familiar with uses e-Verify, including retail companies Nordstrom and Starbucks.
So, if I understand the story correctly (and I concede only a cursory glance), the Mexican Army/Los Federalis captured one of El Chapo's sons (or maybe his only son, I dunno) and so the cartel sent in a hundred sicarios who started blowing the town up, so the Army then set the son loose, just so they could get out of their alive and save the rest of the town?
But you still dont believe in the idea of a Wall?
and this is why I think the "devastate our economy" thing is an excuse. It is already being done by a substantial portion of the economy. I'm sure there are certain industries and certain employers that will see their margins impacted quite a bit if we implemented E-Verify, but honestly I just don't give a D___. They've been cheating the systems for who knows how long. It's time we put a stop to the draw factor.
It will certainly add some expense to some products we consume...but so what. It is way past time for us to do the single most impactful thing we could do to stop illegal immigration. Mandate E-verify...everywhere, all the time.
A wall sucks. It has negative consequences that E-Verify does not. I do believe it would be "effective" at stopping most people, but it comes at substantial costs. Only after we implement E-verify fully, and it has shown to be ineffective, would I ever support a wall.
It is a ruse. If anything the cost of using e-verify is not the cost anyone is worried about but rather eliminating labor options for industries that take advantage of the system. We're talking manufacturing, home building, food processing, etc. These industries, especially in TX, rely heavily on migrant labor and they know they'd be hardpressed to fill their labor needs without access to migrant labor.
^And that could be remedied with a Guest Worker program (similar to the old Bracero program).
What is Warren thinking? She wants transgenders admitted now .
"Trans migrants and asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable.
We must end unnecessary detention and enforce strict standards to keep trans migrants and asylum seekers safe—and I'll continue holding our government accountable when they fail to do so. https://www.out.com/transgender/2019/10/17/elizabeth-warren-and-tammy-baldwin-demand-trump-protect-trans-migrants …"
And of course taxpayers should pay for all medical including surgery to whack talleys off or build talleys for WtM
Considering everyone was for a wall not that long ago (pre-Trump) I’m not buying the cost issue. Think about this, it cost more to set up Obamacare’s website than the estimated cost to fund the wall. We know how much money was wasted on that program.
Also consider how well the wall will work and how much we save for those that get government assistance not able to enter. That in itself will pay for the wall. Also the fair trades we have with Mex are saving also funds it.
Another factor is it will prevent illegals or discourage them to make the long track to the border which is very dangerous for many reasons. So that’s the biggest humanitarian reason right there.
I’m curious to what you consider the negative consequences of a wall are?
The proper medical term for that procedure is an "addadictomy"
The sharpie was a nice touch.
Will the wall in Colorado be a new wall or replacing existing border fence?
Trump: ‘We’re building a wall in Colorado’
Border Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
It is good that you understand walls work. Now if you could understand that it is the government's job, not employers', to control immigration, you would be enlightened. Much like your inheritance tax argument, you once again want to curtail the freedoms of American citizens, and mostly ignore the government's failure to do its job. SH, naturally, continues his deep dive into cognitive dissonance.
“Building the wall and all the infrastructure is an investment; it’s not just an expenditure ,” Scott said, pointing out that the improvements made over the years just in the San Diego sector free up more than 150 Border Patrol agents every 24 hours to do their jobs, also making the Border Patrol less reactive and more proactive.
Wall, agents and technology have since proven most effective when used in the right combination to improve border security. Today, the area along the border near San Diego has a second layer of woven wire fence about 100 to 200 yards from that first fence to provide an enforcement zone for agents patrolling the border. With lighting, a state-of-the-art surveillance system, and a paved road that gives access to Border Patrol vehicles, agents respond more quickly and the flow of illegal aliens decreased even more. The same sector that annually caught more than 500,000 illegal aliens now apprehends about 27,000 illegal aliens each year. Similar efforts along the Arizona-Mexico border in the last 18 years saw corresponding success rates of cutting illegal crossings by 90-plus percent.
“We have proven that a wall system – that actually has impedance and denial, physical barriers, combined with access roads so agents can move east and west, laterally along the border, and the latest technology and personnel – can secure the border,” said Scott.
With such a high success rate – along with a much lower volume even trying to cross illegally – some might ask why a new border wall is needed. Scott said while the barriers are effective, the latest designs will be engineered make them harder for bad actors to damage or defeat. The proliferation of battery powered tools allow smugglers to cut holes through the current secondary fence in a matter of seconds, faster than Border Patrol agents can respond to that location, even with the improved roads. Too many of those getting through these days are bringing deadly drugs, such as opioids, into American communities.
“We have proven [the concept of having a primary and secondary fence, along with the infrastructure and high-tech surveillance equipment] works, now it’s time to upgrade it with sustaining and enduring materials,” he said. “We need to replace that old, dilapidated, dated material with something that matches the threat of 2018.”