All Sonic staff quits after wages slashed in half.

[piezoe]

We all need good government. And we all know government is just as imperfect as people are, because government is made up of people. But ya'll are responsible for your problems when you trash your government instead of working to improve it and make it work better and more efficiently. The idea that the way to solve problems is to cut government to the bone, or worse yet, throw a monkey wrench into its midst, is nuts. Yes, it is as exciting and energizing as a bunch of hooligans at a soccer match, but its still nuts and a very dangerous thing to do.

And now, some of you, not referring to any one individual here, have got the idea that putting a criminal with a severe personality disorder at the top of our U.S. government is somehow going to improve things!!! The way complex problems get solved is via accurate information, careful analysis, informed decisions, and hard work. We have the exact opposite of that at the top of our U.S. government today; yet Government is not the problem.

You and I are the problem if we don't take the time to inform ourselves of facts rather than fiction before we vote. Now, because of the internet, on balance a wonderful thing for humanity, we have, for the first time in our lives, fiction almost level with fact. We had better get very good at distinguishing fact from fiction, and soon!

Some of us think a "wall" is a good idea because there has been a recent large increase in the number of persons seeking asylum in the U.S. In our minds, we have attached the idea of a "Wall" to the recent increase in asylum seekers and bought, subconsciously perhaps, into demagogic rhetoric of rapists and murderers "invading." We seem to have forgotten, however, the many-years-long practice of the U.S. failing to enforce immigration law and overlooking those who overstayed their visas, because U.S. employers wanted low wage illegal workers and were happy, and remain happy, to give them jobs.

I ask those of you who think a "wall" is a good idea to examine the source of this idea and ask yourselves if its an idea born of accurate information, careful analysis, informed decisions, and hard work. Or is it an idea born of spur of the moment demagogic, political rhetoric coming from a man of highly questionable mental acuity?

 

[JSOP]

Some of us think a "wall" is a good idea because there has been a recent large increase in the number of persons seeking asylum in the U.S. In our minds, we have attached the idea of a "Wall" to the recent increase in asylum seekers and bought, subconsciously perhaps, into demagogic rhetoric of rapists and murderers "invading." We seem to have forgotten, however, the many-years-long practice of the U.S. failing to enforce immigration law and overlooking those who overstayed their visas, because U.S. employers wanted low wage illegal workers and were happy, and remain happy, to give them jobs.

Now it's TOO MUCH. The large influx of illegals are now putting a heavy burden on social infrastructure, social infrastructure that you and I are paying for in our tax dollars. Yes we are saving money on cheap goods (assuming the quality stayed the same) the economy is getting a boost from increased productivity but that saving and the productivity is offset by the increase in the cost of maintaining these illegals. These illegals are not robots; they are human too and need to be cared for and that incur cost. When they get sick, they need to get to hospital. Their children need to go to school..., all those are cost to the taxpayers and they are now more than the savings from lower cost and the boost to the economy.

I ask those of you who think a "wall" is a good idea to examine the source of this idea and ask yourselves if its an idea born of accurate information, careful analysis, informed decisions, and hard work. Or is it an idea born of spur of the moment demagogic, political rhetoric coming from a man of highly questionable mental acuity?

the wall and all of the illegal removal process are all ideas born of accurate information, careful analysis, informed decisions, and hard work. Is your idea of unlimited illegals an idea born of spur of the moment demagogic, political rhetoric coming from highly questionable mental acuity?

 

[piezoe]

Now it's TOO MUCH. The large influx of illegals are now putting a heavy burden on social infrastructure, social infrastructure that you and I are paying for in our tax dollars. Yes we are saving money on cheap goods (assuming the quality stayed the same) the economy is getting a boost from increased productivity but that saving and the productivity is offset by the increase in the cost of maintaining these illegals. These illegals are not robots; they are human too and need to be cared for and that incur cost. When they get sick, they need to get to hospital. Their children need to go to school..., all those are cost to the taxpayers and they are now more than the savings from lower cost and the boost to the economy.



the wall and all of the illegal removal process are all ideas born of accurate information, careful analysis, informed decisions, and hard work. Is your idea of unlimited illegals an idea born of spur of the moment demagogic, political rhetoric coming from highly questionable mental acuity?

Here is my thinking, and I'd be interested in your on thoughts on this. What is the logical connection between those large numbers of refugees voluntarily presenting themselves at border crossings, and "The as yet to be realized Trump Wall" that will be built, if ever, far away from border crossings ? What logic connects the mythical, three stories higher than originally conceived , "Wall" that Mexico will pay for, to the thousands presenting themselves to immigration officials at the border crossings?

 

[Sig]

At the expense of USA citizens. False identities, they know our government assistance better than we do, women know it better to have many children by many fathers as their subsistence increases somehow? And if having multiple "wives",
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-men-can-4-wives-welfare-michigan/

California has incredible amount of illegals, this is few years old...
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/the-top-10-us-states-invaded-by-illegal-immigrants-104371/11/

Part of reason CA is so deep in debt?

It use to be they came over to pick crops, not any more. They doing skilled high paying jobs and our citizens can't get work as illegals willing to do it for much less.

For fucks sake, you posted a snopes that debunked the idea that some morons apparently have that somehow muslim men are getting more welfare with 4 wives....to support the idea that some morons apparently have that muslim men are getting more welfare with 4 wives! You can't even make this level of stupid up.

 

[JSOP]

Here is my thinking, and I'd be interested in your on thoughts on this. What is the logical connection between those large numbers of refugees voluntarily presenting themselves at border crossings, and "The as yet to be realized Trump Wall" that will be built, if ever, far away from border crossings ? What logic connects the mythical, three stories higher than originally conceived , "Wall" that Mexico will pay for, to the thousands presenting themselves to immigration officials at the border crossings?

Not having enough money does not make one a refugee, first of all. I don't have enough money for me to buy that mega mansion, does that make a refugee? Second you can voluntarily present yourself as a whatever all you want at another country's border but entering that country by crossing that border without receiving that country's permission first is wrong. Just like you have walls that are three stories high for your house to keep the unwanted intruders out, a country should too. Walls = stopping unwanted, unlawful entrants out. That's the logic.

 

[piezoe]

Not having enough money does not make one a refugee, first of all. I don't have enough money for me to buy that mega mansion, does that make a refugee? Second you can voluntarily present yourself as a whatever all you want at another country's border but entering that country by crossing that border without receiving that country's permission first is wrong. Just like you have walls that are three stories high for your house to keep the unwanted intruders out, a country should too. Walls = stopping unwanted, unlawful entrants out. That's the logic.

You side-stepped questions. You did not give your opinion on anything relevant to what I posted. You answered questions that were not asked.

 

[JSOP]

You side-stepped questions. You did not give your opinion on anything relevant to what I posted. You answered questions that were not asked.

I answered your question fair and square. You asked for logic, I gave you logic. Walls = stopping unwanted illegals. You can't understand it or don't appreciate it, that's your problem. My conversation with you on this topic is over.

 

[piezoe]

Did you answer this question? :

"What is the logical connection between those large numbers of refugees voluntarily presenting themselves at border crossings, and "The as yet to be realized Trump Wall" that will be built, if ever, far away from border crossings ?"​

 

[Sig]

Walls = stopping unwanted, unlawful entrants out. That's the logic.

So I have to agree with @piezoe that you're avoiding the question, but I think it might be a common and reasonable misunderstanding on your part that much of the country shares on how immigration law and asylum works. International law says that anyone who claims "credible fear" can request asylum, either at the border or once inside a country. That country then has to evaluate the asylum request and if it is spurious, the person can be denied entry or deported. Economic reasons alone are not sufficient to allow for asylum, but until someone has gone through the asylum evaluation process, it's impossible for you, me, or anyone to say that they're here for economic reasons only. The folks that the right wingers are railing against are primarily stuck here because they asked for asylum and we haven't put the resources forward to rapidly evaluate those requests. A wall does nothing for this class of folks, they can simply come up to the wall and request asylum and we have to evaluate it which requires housing them until we can do the evaluation or letting them free in the country. We can't deny them entry, wall or no wall. The solution to that is to throw just a few million at more immigration courts, not a billion at a wall that does zero, zich, nada, nothing to address this problem. This is the very specific class of migrants @piezoe was asking about, understandably those who favor a simplistic approach to this problem may not understand the complexities of international asylum law.

So, there's a huge slew of folks who a wall does nothing to stop. Then there is the inconvenient fact that nearly 50% of illegal migrants came to the U.S. legally and overstayed visas, again nothing a wall does to help that is there? And the fact that 20% of people came in illegally by sea (Trump's budget calls to cut the Coast Guard's budget, FYI) or at existing border crossing checkpoints. Again, how does a wall help there? So we're left with what, 30% of all crossings coming at areas where a wall even has any potential at all to stop migrants. Oh, and those numbers have fallen 90% in the last 15 years absent "the wall".

So what was the logic we were supposed to be using again here? Looks a whole lot like a solution looking for a problem to me. Don't forget, "common sense" logic says the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and "build the wall" keeps illegal migrants out.

 

[JSOP]

So I have to agree with @piezoe that you're avoiding the question, but I think it might be a common and reasonable misunderstanding on your part that much of the country shares on how immigration law and asylum works. International law says that anyone who claims "credible fear" can request asylum, either at the border or once inside a country. That country then has to evaluate the asylum request and if it is spurious, the person can be denied entry or deported. Economic reasons alone are not sufficient to allow for asylum, but until someone has gone through the asylum evaluation process, it's impossible for you, me, or anyone to say that they're here for economic reasons only. The folks that the right wingers are railing against are primarily stuck here because they asked for asylum and we haven't put the resources forward to rapidly evaluate those requests. A wall does nothing for this class of folks, they can simply come up to the wall and request asylum and we have to evaluate it which requires housing them until we can do the evaluation or letting them free in the country. We can't deny them entry, wall or no wall. The solution to that is to throw just a few million at more immigration courts, not a billion at a wall that does zero, zich, nada, nothing to address this problem. This is the very specific class of migrants @piezoe was asking about, understandably those who favor a simplistic approach to this problem may not understand the complexities of international asylum law.

All of the Liberals seem to forget that 90% of the people who show up at the border trying to enter illegally are NOT asylum seekers but are there for economic reasons. And for asylum seekers, besides "credible fear", there is a criteria of other alternative countries that could also be safe haven. As much as US hates Canada for supplying US its own "illegals", Canada is considered an alternative country that's also a safe haven and US does dump majority of migrants asylum seekers onto Canada like what Trump did at the beginning of his term when he signed the Executive Order to ban the entry of people from 50 countries And there is also other European countries that are also considered safe haven so "credible fear" along is not enough for an asylum seeker to be automatically granted asylum in America and US can and is well within its reason to deny asylum seekers entry, other factors aside.

So, there's a huge slew of folks who a wall does nothing to stop. Then there is the inconvenient fact that nearly 50% of illegal migrants came to the U.S. legally and overstayed visas, again nothing a wall does to help that is there? And the fact that 20% of people came in illegally by sea (Trump's budget calls to cut the Coast Guard's budget, FYI) or at existing border crossing checkpoints. Again, how does a wall help there? So we're left with what, 30% of all crossings coming at areas where a wall even has any potential at all to stop migrants. Oh, and those numbers have fallen 90% in the last 15 years absent "the wall".

This is why I said:

Looks like the wall is a good idea but it's not enough... 2) there should be more effective and efficient removal of illegals once they have permeated through the wall and the border control. No wall is 100% infallible; there would always be somebody who falls through the cracks. What is important is catch those illegals who have fell through. America is better at blocking the illegals but once the illegals enter the country and settles in, America is not that great in catching them and sending them back really. And to catch and deport the illegals, relying on one agency ICE is really not enough. US should immobilize its citizens to assist in ICE's efforts in enforcing its immigration policy, perhaps by offering rewards to citizens for tips IF the government really wants to do something about ensuring all entrants to USA are legally permitted to enter.

So what was the logic we were supposed to be using again here? Looks a whole lot like a solution looking for a problem to me. Don't forget, "common sense" logic says the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and "build the wall" keeps illegal migrants out.

A well-built wall still contributes to effective management of immigration and is still needed; it's just not the whole solution. But just because it's not the whole solution doesn't mean we have to ditch it. And btw "the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it" is not "common sense" logic. It's fallacies. I am not talking about fallacies. I am talking about real solutions that could work.