Immigrant caravan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aunt Bea how does wanting secure borders translate into waging war on the poor?


With 4 borders. East coast, west coast, northern & southern entry points not caring about borders would mean access for the entire world of poor to come to America. How many of the world's poor could America care for? I hope you weren't limiting your caring to only those from south of the border. Is there a point where mass entry into America by the poor from poverty stricken countries that helped their poor to enter America would cause you concern?

Like law you can't have it both ways.
 

fmdog44 said:
s

So, you're saying they are STILL coming and that is unacceptable. I wonder ho many Americans that believe in open borders have South Americans and Mexicans in their homes for social tea & chat?
Click to expand...


Good one, FMDOG. Probably not. However,they are delighted to spend the taxpayers money.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I don't see temporary benefits as an expense as much I see it as an investment in people and our future as a nation.

I would rather see my tax dollars go towards feeding educating and providing healthcare to folks, until they get on their feet, than live with the consequences of not providing such basic human services.

Imagine the loss of our own personal freedom if we have to produce proof of citizenship each time we have a problem. How many people legal and illegal would have to die on the side of the road because they cannot produce proof of citizenship papers to ensure proper medical care.

Imagine the increase in crime that would occur if poor people are deprived of access to basic human services in the greatest nation on earth.

Imagine the vast sums of money wasted fighting the poor instead of helping them.

It really doesn't matter to me which side of the border these people are on, I just don't have the stomach for waging war on the poor and if that is unAmerican then so be it.
Click to expand...


Since I’m not American , I have been staying out of this conversation but I have to state what a wise woman you are.:heart:
 

Knight said:
Aunt Bea how does wanting secure borders translate into waging war on the poor?


With 4 borders. East coast, west coast, northern & southern entry points not caring about borders would mean access for the entire world of poor to come to America. How many of the world's poor could America care for? I hope you weren't limiting your caring to only those from south of the border. Is there a point where mass entry into America by the poor from poverty stricken countries that helped their poor to enter America would cause you concern?

Like law you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I'm all in favor of having secure borders, of registering immigrants that come into the country and of punishing people that commit crimes once they are here. If we allowed immigrants to come into the country in an orderly fashion and issued work permits to them I don't believe that honest people would risk their lives and the lives of their families by attempting to enter illegally.

I don't know what the number is but we can support millions of new people in this country if they are willing to work and contribute to our future.

The notion that all of the people entering the country will attempt to live off of the taxpayers for the rest of their lives is IMO nonsense.

As far as the law goes, we elected people to write them and if those laws are not working in a way that benefits us we can elect some folks to change them.

IMO it all boils down to doing what is right and helping these people feels right to me.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I don't see temporary benefits as an expense as much I see it as an investment in people and our future as a nation.

_What kind of nation?-

I would rather see my tax dollars go towards feeding educating and providing healthcare to folks, until they get on their feet, than live with the consequences of not providing such basic human services.

-Our education system is broke in every way especially finances for our American born kids and isn't basic human services a very, very long running problem in America?-

-Imagine the loss of our own personal freedom if we have to produce proof of citizenship each time we have a problem. How many people legal and illegal would have to die on the side of the road because they cannot produce proof of citizenship papers to ensure proper medical care.

-Proof of citizenship. like a Social Security card? Is that a big hassle? "...die on the side of the road?" Isn't that a little overdramatic?-

Imagine the increase in crime that would occur if poor people are deprived of access to basic human services in the greatest nation on earth.

-You mean like our poor and hungry today, right now? If the "new" poor were not permitted to live here we would not have to worry about their new crimes would we?-

Imagine the vast sums of money wasted fighting the poor instead of helping them.

-Imagine the current cost to us taxpayers to feed criminals that refuse to obey our laws by sneaking in illegally and having a bucket of kids that automatically eat up our tax dollars automatically even before birth? Who pays their hospital bills?-

It really doesn't matter to me which side of the border these people are on, I just don't have the stomach for waging war on the poor and if that is unAmerican then so be it.
Click to expand...

-Waging war on poor people? If America wages war on poor people why are poor people from all over the world dyeing to get here? Please list the charities for the poor you and your angel-like friends are currently active in.-
 
Tax and spend will never change. Strange how some Americans care more about foreigners than they do about other Americans. I can't help but wonder if they are the same people who spit on returning Vietnam Vets and called them "baby killers".
 
We need THE WALL and we need it NOW ! We once had a wonderful country but those days are long passed.

In my opinion we also need to set up special camps for anyone caught entering illegally. 60 days incarceration for 1st offenders, 6 months for 2nd offenders and 10 years in Federal maximum security prison for 3rd offenders. No more "catch and release".

Children could be flown back to the country they came from and handed over to their relatives.

We need to send the message that breaking Federal law is not acceptable. The camps I have in mind would serve nutritious food BUT food they do not enjoy. Health would be guarded BUT it would not be a pleasant experience. No cigarettes, no drinks except water.

If that STILL did not get the message across then the ante could be upped. Our current government is too waaay liberal and we desperately need to toughen up.

 
Traveler said:
We need THE WALL and we need it NOW ! We once had a wonderful country but those days are long passed.

In my opinion we also need to set up special camps for anyone caught entering illegally. 60 days incarceration for 1st offenders, 6 months for 2nd offenders and 10 years in Federal maximum security prison for 3rd offenders. No more "catch and release".

Children could be flown back to the country they came from and handed over to their relatives.

We need to send the message that breaking Federal law is not acceptable. The camps I have in mind would serve nutritious food BUT food they do not enjoy. Health would be guarded BUT it would not be a pleasant experience. No cigarettes, no drinks except water.

If that STILL did not get the message across then the ante could be upped. Our current government is too waaay liberal and we desperately need to toughen up.

Click to expand...

Gee, wonder where the money would come from for all that.....

'Children could be flown back to the country they came from and handed over to their relatives.'
.....and just how do you propose that should be done?
(this should be interesting)
 
Lara said:
Welfare Reform was good for 5 years (1996-2001) then expired. TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) is in effect today but also needs reforming. Changes have been made regarding restorations and programs (since welfare reform of 1996) but non-citizen eligibility hasn't changed. An executive order was signed in 2017 for more changes but is still awaiting congressional attention.

"In the years since the implementation of the [welfare reform] law, Congress has made several important federal restorations for noncitizens in the Food Stamp and Supplemental Security Income Programs but noncitizen eligibility rules for TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) and Medicaid remain as they were legislated by PRWORA. However, because the law has expired (5 years) and must be reauthorized, the possibility for future changes in the eligibility of noncitizens is in the hands of federal policymakers. As they continue to hash over issues of welfare eligibility, "Congress will debate how to balance fairness with necessary budget considerations. This chapter details the changes in immigrant eligibility for welfare benefits, situates the changes in a broad political and social context, and addresses future policy concerns."
https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-reform-and-immigrants/
Click to expand...

I believe you will find, upon further research, that it was the block grants of money (for years through 2002)to states that expired, not the whole legislation, and your own quotation above states that non-citizen eligibility has NOT changed.
 
Gary O' said:
Gee, wonder where the money would come from for all that.....

'Children could be flown back to the country they came from and handed over to their relatives.'
.....and just how do you propose that should be done?
(this should be interesting)
Click to expand...

Traveler said:
Think on it awhile. Maybe you'll figure it out. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Gary O' said:
Can't
need yer wisdom in regard to the handing over to relatives part

what/which relatives?

drop 'em off on the porch?

leave 'em at the airport?
Click to expand...

Traveler said:
Keep thinkin'
Click to expand...

Gary O' said:
No sir

I see too many difficulties to make that feasible

Need yer thoughts, mine are no good
Click to expand...

Keep thinkin'. You'll get there.
 
There are many way to accomplish that. One of them is The International Red Cross. They already have the infrastructure to handle this kind of effort. They have an office/etc in every nation that I am aware of (except for The Red Crescent in Muslim nations).
They could take the children under their wing and see to it that the kids were returned to their relatives in the country they came from. This has the tremendous advantage that no-one could claim the kids were being neglected.

Barring that, there is The United Nations.

There are ALWAYS ways to accomplish anything. But. we must be willing to look for those ways.

Without the will, nothing is possible.
 
Traveler said:
There are many way to accomplish that. One of them is The International Red Cross. They already have the infrastructure to handle this kind of effort. They have an office/etc in every nation that I am aware of (except for The Red Crescent in Muslim nations).
They could take the children under their wing and see to it that the kids were returned to their relatives in the country they came from. This has the tremendous advantage that no-one could claim the kids were being neglected.

Barring that, there is The United Nations.

There are ALWAYS ways to accomplish anything. But. we must be willing to look for those ways.

Without the will, nothing is possible.
Click to expand...

See, this is where things get a bit foggy for me

Let's say I'm willing

How does one employ an international entity to remove children from their parents here in the US, and 'see to it' they were returned(?) to their relatives...which relatives?
Would the relatives have a say?
Would Mexico have a say?

Do these questions seem unreasonable?
 
First answer:

The International Red Cross would not take the child from the parents. The U.S. government would just continue what it is already doing.
Which relatives ? Does that matter? Grandma, sister, Aunt etc. If the relatives refused to accept their own blood kin then the duty would fall on that nation (El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua or India if that's where they came from.)

And, no, that nation has no say in the matter. If that nation refused to house and feed their own citizen then the onus falls on them.

2nd answer. The United States does not "employ" The International Red Cross. It is already their mission to help the needy.
If The International Red Cross refused, I suspect that they could be convinced to do the right thing.

The United States can no longer be a dumping ground for the hordes of humanity. We MUST act and act NOW.

A few years of action like I describe, and the word would very, very quickly spread. Thus, the tsunami of people would slow to a trickle.
 
Traveler said:
First answer:

The International Red Cross would not take the child from the parents. The U.S. government would just continue what it is already doing.
Which relatives ? Does that matter? Grandma, sister, Aunt etc. If the relatives refused to accept their own blood kin then the duty would fall on that nation (El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua or India if that's where they came from.)

And, no, that nation has no say in the matter. If that nation refused to house and feed their own citizen then the onus falls on them.

2nd answer. The United States does not "employ" The International Red Cross. It is already their mission to help the needy.
If The International Red Cross refused, I suspect that they could be convinced to do the right thing.

The United States can no longer be a dumping ground for the hordes of humanity. We MUST act and act NOW.

A few years of action like I describe, and the word would very, very quickly spread. Thus, the tsunami of people would slow to a trickle.
Click to expand...

See, we're not quite 'there' are we?

'And, no, that nation has no say in the matter'
Please explain why

'If The International Red Cross refused, I suspect that they could be convinced to do the right thing'
Please explain 'convinced'
 
No, of course we are not there yet. We, The United States is being forced to deal with a problem that rightly belongs to other nations.

Every nation has a basic responsibility for its own own citizens. That is why they have no say in the matter. If I were president, (laughing)I'd say, "Your citizens, your problem. Deal with it"

As far as The International Red Cross is concerned, we do have some leverage. The United States is a source of funding, both private and governmental. Those financial resources can speak loudly. You know what they say, money talks. Money convinces people and organizations to do almost anything.

If it did not work out with the International Red Cross, we could turn to the United Nations.

There are thousands of ways to raise funds. All we have to do is have the will to do so.

If all else fails, we, The United States, can do the job. If we have the ability to move a dozen military divisions AND all their heavy equipment, half way around the world, we surely would have no problem moving a few hundred thousand children back to where they came from.

Lets look at the raw numbers, last year there were 312,311 thousand arrests of illegals who had crossed the border. That breaks down to 855/day. Lets say that 33% of them were children. That would be 282 children returning to Central America/day. One single plane load /day. An easy task.
 
Something calls to me. In need to be in the big trees. I need to breathe air that has not been breathed before. So, I'm off to The Redwoods. Gone by dawn and well north of L.A. before the sun rises. :D Catch you on the flip side.

21404-hiking-redwood-national-forest-northern-california-c.jpg20160620-Redwoods-Trail.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top