New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#26 2018-07-09 20:49:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

Of the nearly 3,000 migrant minors who were separated from their parents
Trump Administration Will Miss Deadline To Reunite Migrant Kids Under 5 With Parents

Trump administration says at least 102 are under 5 years old with Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian told a federal court in San Diego that at least 54 children — and as many as 59 — will be reunited with their families in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Which would be contempt of court.

Here is another Army recruit promised pathway to citizenship faces uncertain future

They were part of a program called "MAVNI" -- military accessions vital to the national interest. It had brought more than 10,000 non-citizens into the military. The program was abruptly suspended in 2016, leaving more than 1,000 recruits in limbo.

Private First Class Alina Kaliuzhna is a medic stationed at Camp Bullis, and she's in the country legally, just like everyone in that recruitment program. She told us she enlisted because she didn't just want to get her U.S. citizenship. She wanted to earn it, and do it honorably,

Here legally and still be treated as if she was not.....

It can take more time than one would think to do a full back ground check in this day and age since most of the data bases have been hacked and can not be trusted....

Offline

#27 2018-07-12 09:06:49

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,982
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

One question needing asking is why the background check to sign up is different from the background check to stay in.  THAT is what has gone wrong here!  That and reneging on promises made. 

Rigging the system to abuse who you want.  Reneging on promises made.  Other stuff like chronic lying and rabble-rousing.  Remind you of any historical groups?  Say,  the Nazis and the Bolsheviks?

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#28 2018-07-13 01:23:43

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

GW,

Crime:
Your claims about crimes committed by illegal aliens conveniently ignores the fact that crossing the border without permission is illegal here, in Mexico, and everywhere else in the world that I can think of.  I guess you're talking about other additional crimes committed after crossing a national border without the permission of the host government.  Any additional crimes they commit afterwards is the justification we use for kicking them out for the trouble they've caused us.  If we already have other criminals here that we must deal with, then why do we need to add to that problem by importing more?

Open Borders:
Your claim / personal belief about open borders not increasing crime was already tried by the "rainbows and unicorns" mentality of the Europeans and that hasn't ended well for the "deep thinkers" across the pond.  Closer to home, the crime statistics collected by Texas Department of Justice don't support your assertion, either.  If they don't know who they jail and where they came from, then I'm not sure who does.

All nations have borders.  It's in the dictionary.  Anyone who isn't hopelessly lost in their own partisan political ideation can look it up.  If the US doesn't have borders, then we can just annex Mexico and be done with this charade since their government is clearly incapable of taking care of their own people.

Do you ever cross into Mexico without the permission of the Mexican government?  If not, then why not?

That is not a rhetorical question.  I want to know if you violate Mexico's sovereignty because you feel you have the right to do so or if you respect their laws, and thus the people of Mexico, and abide by their laws accordingly.

I want to know when I can simply drive into Canada or Mexico without presenting identification to their government.  If it's not legal for me to do that, then you're never going to have my support for people coming here as they please without presenting identification to our government.  If we all want to change our laws to travel through North America as we please, then I'm good with that, too, but let's do that first instead of claiming there are no borders when the laws say otherwise.  I don't care what process other governments use for identification of their own citizens versus illegal aliens.  Here in America we have minimum documentation standards set by our government that our citizens must abide by when they cross national borders.  It may not be the best system in the world, but it's the one we have.  If you want some sort of North American Union to compete on the world stage, then we can certainly do that, but change the laws first.

Jobs Americans Won't Do:
SpaceNut is here saying that he's having problems finding stable work and so are lots of other legal American citizens.  If we truly are having problems employing our own people, then why are we importing labor to compete with jobs that Americans could fill?  I don't want to hear any hogwash about jobs Americans won't do, either.  I don't particularly like doing yard work, but after work you can find me outside pulling up weeds, trimming hedges or trees, moving rocks, planting, etc.  That's like claiming I'm too good to do what I need to do to pay the bills and live indoors.  Whether or not I have to clean toilets or write statistical analysis software to get paid, I'm going to do whatever is required to get that paycheck.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration:
$25B is way too much to spend for a border wall, but we already spend $135B per year on illegal immigrants without any real border wall.  I find it interesting that you think you know how much it would cost the government to construct a wall.  It could cost 5 times as much.  Even if it was, it'd just be what we already spend to feed / clothe / house people who have no business being here to begin with.  I think the only real and unspoken objection to a border wall is how would be how effective it would be at stopping illegal immigrants long enough for law enforcement to meet them as they come over the wall to send them back.

Final Analysis:
Farmers here are already moving towards automation of fruit and vegetable picking using robots.  When there's no more jobs for those people to fill because robots are cheaper and faster, then what?  What's the plan when, not if, that happens?

After automation destroys the market for low-skill jobs for people who don't speak the native language, which is already increasingly the generalized case for people who do speak the language and were educated here, and the vast majority of people coming here are not aspiring rocket scientists, how do you intend to employ them?  Is a fruit picker who can't read the instruction manual (in English, Spanish, or any other language) for the fruit picking robot going to learn how to write code to tell his or her robot which fruits to pick?

Offline

#29 2018-07-13 14:20:12

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,982
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

I never said anything about open borders.  I said we need to deal properly with the guest worker problem,  we need to restore proper procedures for refugees seeking asylum,  and we need to deal with the DACA kids in limbo that the guest worker and refugee problems have created. 

At the border,  we already have fences,  surveillance,  patrols,  and officials doing paperwork at the designated crossings.  That is exactly as it should be,  except when things get abused,  for whatever reason. We don’t need a $25B wall that wouldn’t really work any better than what we already have.

The vast majority of guest workers are illegal precisely because of our idiotically-low quota limits:  ~120,000 when the size of the job market they fill up here is 4+ million.  These people get screwed into slave labor wages precisely because they are vulnerable,  in turn because of their illegality being here. Those low slave labor wages are why essentially no Americans will take those jobs.

These guest workers are desperate.  In order to eat and live,  they must come here and take those jobs.  That is not our fault,  it simply is.  So deal with it.  Their desperation factor is so high that they risk death in the desert,  and death or abuse by traffickers,  smugglers,  and drug runners to get here,  away from those designated crossings. 

These guest workers may deal with criminals to get here,  but they are not themselves criminals (same holds for the refugees).  If you leave the right wing echo chambers,  you find out that this population of people is actually less prone to criminal activity than Americans at large. 

If they were instead granted the guest worker visas to come legally,  they (and we) would prefer to do it that way.  Pay in their job market would rise,  so that less welfare is needed.  And as some Americans take the jobs with better pay,  the size (and cost of tracking) of the guest worker population drops a little.  Notice that a path to citizenship is not involved here.  But they should be free to apply if they wish.

If they were legal,  any kids they bring with them also are legal.  These guest worker visas get issued for families to come up here,  a year at a time,  for seasonal work.  Their component of the DACA problem thus goes away in about a generation.  And their component is the dominant component.

As for the refugees,  the courts have long held that refugees have the right to come and ask for asylum.  There are no guarantees about getting it,  but they definitely have the right to ask.  The events of 9-11 did not change this.  Those who get asylum are legal resident aliens.  They should be free to apply for citizenship,  if they wish.

Because the officials they must ask are on our side of the border,  there is an implied right to step across the border in order to ask for asylum,  without being criminalized for just stepping across the border.  This is to be done at the designated crossing points,  where the appropriate officials are located.  The events of 9-11 did not change this,  either. 

This year,  that policy got changed by criminalizing stepping over the border,  even at a designated crossing,  for any purpose,  including to ask for asylum.  Being thus criminalized is the excuse to separate children from parents.   And the vast majority of these refugees in the news of late did indeed come to the designated crossing points,  just as they were supposed to do.

This abuse was done for the express purpose of taking away the kids for internment or fostering-out,  while summarily deporting the adults without even a hearing.  It was to deter others from even coming here to ask for asylum,  in spite of their having the right to do so. 

Administration officials have actually said all of these things on TV piecemeal,  although not all at once in order to form this complete picture of intent.  The proof is two-fold:  (1) inability to reunite per court order,  precisely because they never intended any reunifications,  and did not keep adequate records or adequately communicate between agencies.  (2) Some refugee adults have already been deported. 

These aren’t guest workers,  these are refugees trying to exercise their right to ask for asylum.  What our government did to them was very wrong,  very wrong indeed.  Don’t try to hide behind the argument that they have no legal right to be here,  because in point of fact,  they do.

This is a far,  far smaller population compared to the guest workers.  Like them,  they ran terrible risks to get here at all,  and had to risk abuse by traffickers,  smugglers,  and druggies.  Like the guest workers,  this population has fewer in it that are prone to real criminal activity,  than Americans at large.  You can pretty much tell whether a family is real,  by whether the kids cling or must be restrained.

There’s another piece of policy abuse here that predates this current administration.  Congress has mandated that only certain threats warrant granting asylum.  However,  death is just death,  regardless of who does the killing.  The desperation factor is very high or these people would not have taken the enormous risks to get here.  That should be justification enough for any lethal threat back home to qualify.

Being much smaller,  this population’s children is a far smaller proportion of the DACA problem.  But if these folks are properly dealt with instead of being abused the way they are right now,  their portion of the DACA problem also disappears in about a generation. 

We did create the DACA problem for ourselves,  by not properly dealing with the guest worker problem for decades now,  and we have made it a bit worse by not dealing properly with the refugee problem.  Now those kids are here,  and they generally know no other culture. 

It’s easy enough to tell in an interview or two who the rare bad actors are.  The majority work and pay various taxes,  and are exactly what we say we want in citizens.  It’s past time to do exactly that.

Once all this is done,  and running normally,  about the only illegal crossers you will still have,  really are the smugglers,  traffickers,  and druggies.  And the fences,  patrols,  surveillance,  and guards that we already have are quite adequate to keep a lid on that.

Why is this so difficult to understand?  Just because it doesn’t match your favorite political propaganda,  you don’t want to believe the real facts?  You’re entitled to your various opinions,  and maybe there are other ways besides my suggestions for how to fix this.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.  Come out of your echo chambers,  and look upon the actual facts for once!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-07-13 14:24:35)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#30 2018-07-13 16:50:14

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

GW,

This logical fallacy that Americans can't be troubled to go pick their own fruit is bunk.  I somehow manage to get up off my rear end to go tend to the yard and I will certainly get up and go to the farm to get my food, if required.  If we have so many out-of-work people here, as SpaceNut claims we do, then those people need jobs if the government is going to start handing out money.  This something for nothing stupidity doesn't work.  When there's no more food for the land whales to graze on at the local buffet, trust me, they'll "get it".  If not, then maybe they'll lose a few pounds.  That certainly won't kill anyone here.

I would prefer Americans troubled themselves with obtaining their own food.  I would prefer all the Central and South American countries didn't make life a living hell for their own people.  They can't seem to do that because most of them are run by socialists, communists, or similar ineffectual dimwits who don't know their heads from a hole in the ground.  You wanna find real national socialism and bolshevism?  Go visit some places south of our border and tell me what you learned about how they live, or don't, sadly, in many cases.

People caught in the middle of the desert at night are not trying to exercise their right to asylum.  Let's stop pretending that's not happening.

These people who are coming here aren't being threatened by anything in their own countries other than their own egregiously poor decision making skills regarding who to elect to represent them.

I don't care about the DACA kids.  Let's make them citizens and be done with it.  That's what President Trump asked Congress to do and they stuck their thumbs up their butts.  I don't know why we even pay them.  We could get robots that bounce off each other and accomplish nothing and at least that might be mildly entertaining.

Speaking of people who feel entitled to their own facts, GW, a majority of Texans voted for President Trump and I presume they want that wall since he promised to build it about a million times on national TV.  You don't like the cost?  I don't like the cost of putting up with this charade every year.  That "fact", which is not something I made up for sake of argument, was disseminated by all major news networks.  Honestly though, I'm thinking we should build a wall around California, but that bunch of utopianists are already running for the exits.

The US government couldn't keep a lid on running a whore house that sells booze.  You'll have to forgive me if I don't automatically trust that they're up to the task of securing our borders.  The evidence there clearly doesn't support your version of the facts, which I liken to partisan political dogma.

Offline

#31 2018-07-13 19:09:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

Jobs to have are full time 30 plus hours a week and not what is the now hiring signs posted which are all less than 20 hours to keep from paying out any benefits at all.

Any country that has zero value for land ownership and life of its peoples should be invaded as what happened to Panama to get it back on the right track.

Even the people of Puerto Rico live with land titles in question as they do not value the paper to get deeds registered.

Many of the in the middle of the night crossing were headed to exisitng family in the states already and assylum gave them the excuse to get in but if they had gone to a border entry point the disgust by border guards of those trying to get a better life not living in fear are turned away rather than protected.

Maybe a 10 mile wide border zone for them to reside in while seeking assylum is an answer.

Even Trump wants guest workers for his properties....so a piece of paper really matters...not really as the same desperation is still going on withg those workers too.

Well due to the recent children being removed from parents/guardians when entering means we now after the return of those approved will be now a new label simular to Daca....

So only the border states would care about a wall in voting for Trump? Not really as some wanted only to remove Obamacare mandate for requiring them to get insurance and cared nothing about the wall with there vote...

I had to laugh, on the US government running of the whore house as they were the one's that were in it....

Offline

#32 2018-07-14 04:16:57

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,286
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

kbd512,

If immigration is curtailed, then farmers will have to pay more, causing prices to rise. Sure, wages will also rise, but don't consumers matter more than workers?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#33 2018-07-14 07:36:14

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

Sure some food will go bad but the food that is needed here will still make it to market for consumption and in the long run we will pinch the pennies to find the money to still eat. Those that would get a higher wage from picking will be able to feed themselves as well and not feel like they are dirt. So the extra profits from the excess may not happen as the export tariffs will take care of ever selling it. So turn that into bio fuels with baterial help and make methane from it to sell.

Now that the Mexican elections are over there is a chance to improve the situation. U.S. Delegation and Mexico’s Next President Aim to Reset Relations

So how will this be fixed?

The president-elect, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a leftist who has pledged to fight corruption and tackle Mexico’s entrenched poverty, was ready for the delegation. He handed Mr. Pompeo a series of proposals on trade, development, security and migration — the issues that are at the heart of the relationship and the source of much of the friction.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo led a high-level cabinet delegation to Mexico City on Friday to gauge how Mexico’s president-elect intends to reset the fractious relationship between the two countries. Mr. Pompeo has a series of proposals on trade, development, security and migration — the issues that are at the heart of the relationship and the source of much of the friction.

The trump administration has failed to reunite those under 5 with there parents and or guadians when they crossed the border in part to unusual regimen of sceening via DNA and a back ground check to which some of those that were here got deported before reunification while other deemed unfit to be returned to those that they came here with. So welcome to a new foster care DACA program all of which they can be deported any time without any safety net.....

The federal government is in a race to reunite those 2000 plus in less than 2 weeks.

Judge Orders 12-Hour Notice to Reunite Immigrant Families for when and where immigrant families would be reunited to avoid the chaos that has hampered the process so far. The Trump administration was directed to provide the location and time for reunifications of children and families who were separated after crossing into the U.S.

The administration said Thursday that it had reunited 57 immigrant infants and toddlers with their parents. Immigration officials said 46 other children under 5 years old weren’t placed with their parents after authorities deemed they weren’t eligible for one or more reasons.

The government has until July 26 to complete reunifications of the more than 2,000 older immigrant children who have been separated from their families.

Offline

#34 2018-07-14 08:27:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

It has been said that the seperations were illegal but thats due to walking in the grey area of the laws that apply. It is a false claim of seperation for child endangerment as not all enetered in the extreme areas of the deserts to which thats bunk to as we live in deserts. The next false claim in sending those that came with them are in a prison to which they should have been in an intake process and put into a general interment camp until a decision was rendered on there claims for assylum.

The Trump administration kidnapped children. Someone should go to jail.

So whom should be punished for the crime? We know that the twisting of the arms is to hold them hostage to getting the wall built.

46 others were deemed “ineligible,” meaning they remain in government custody which means contempt of court oders so whom should that charge go to?

Here is the plan going forward Government says it will reunite up to 200 migrant children a day with their parents

Offline

#35 2018-07-14 11:56:00

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,286
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

"Kidnapped." Is that what we're calling taking kids into care now?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#36 2018-07-14 12:44:09

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

The background checks are not of a US charged crime so keeping the children from those that they came with is sort of holding them for ransom which is kidnapping in one sense and that is a stretch for lack of another word to use. As its still an illegal detention of them as children that young can not knowingly commit a crime and usually thats not until near teenage years that even a trial judge can infer a crime as being that of an adult was commited.
Get the kid back now is also taking another twist in that they are going to be held in the detention camps for some without a date of release to seek out the assylum that they are claiming which is also skating the law for child detention past 20 days..

Trump administration lays out plan to reunite 2,500 immigrant children with their families between the ages of 5 and 17 in their custody who could potentially be reunited with their families.

The government said it was using "truncated" procedures to verify parentage and perform background checks involving 2,551 children.

Officials said they were concerned the process threatened child safety but noted it was adopting the shorter procedure to comply with court orders.

The judge said the administration must provide a list of names of parents in immigration custody and their children by Monday and complete background checks for them by Thursday in the efforts to return them by the July 26 deadline.

Sabraw directed the government to pay for all DNA testing and for the goverment to pay for the travel expenses for the reunification, saying one parent was told to wire $1,900 to Western Union to pay for reunification.

Offline

#37 2018-07-14 21:21:42

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

SpaceNut,

I would like to focus on providing decent jobs for all of our own citizens, feeding all of our own children, and providing affordable health care to our own people first.  After that, we can concern ourselves with being the saviors of the world.  There's pretty good evidence that we've not accomplished those first three tasks and the only people the rest of the world need to be saved from are themselves.  Unfortunately, we do not have an unlimited ability to absorb displaced foreign nationals because we do not have unlimited resources.  Furthermore, governments should cease activities that displace millions of starving people.

If we're spending $135B on illegal immigration every year, then building a $25B wall to stop most of it is eminently affordable by way of comparison.  Whether or not someone somewhere can dig under it, pole vault over it, swim across the Gulf of Mexico, or circumnavigate the globe and come in through the porous border between the US and Canada is irrelevant to the fact that a wall would stop most illegal immigrants who enter this country on foot and force them to come to an actual port of entry.

If the socialist / communist / dictatorial governments where these fled from decided to take care of their own people, there'd be no need for any of this wall building.  Somehow, that's never happened.  There will always be poor people in this world.  Anyone who wants to take care of the poor may do that at any time that pleases them, but America should probably take care of Americans, Mexico should take care of Mexicans, and so on.  Their governments created these problems, thus their governments will not solve them.

It is my fervent desire that the US refrain from invading any more countries than it already has, but if these Central and South American countries refuse to provide for their own people and instead choose to dump their helpless citizens en masse on our doorstep, then at some point we need to step in and reestablish functional government.  People like Rob can scream bloody murder over the fact that it's necessary to kill a few people from time to time to accomplish that, but every so often it must be done.  He'll piss and moan about every war we've ever been involved in, and no doubt tell us how terrible America is and how great Canada is in the process, yet all that food we send to Africa every year typically goes to a warlord's stockpile while the people those goons terrorize slowly starve to death.

Wars are but a tiny fraction of the misery that humanity suffers through.  American involvement in wars is smaller still.  I think the South Koreans, Taiwanese, South Vietnamese (while we decided to stay there), Panamanians, Iraqis, and Afghanis lived better lives with American troops on their soil (even if they despised us) for the express purpose of preventing them from murdering each other.  Some innocent people were inevitably killed in that process.

Offline

#38 2018-07-15 06:39:18

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

Created new topic America Since WWI history and actions

Kbd512 is there a link to the money spent on illegals

US judge criticizes plan to reunify families split at border

The Justice Department on Friday filed a plan to reunify more than 2,500 children age 5 and older by a court-imposed deadline of July 26 using "truncated" procedures to verify parentage and perform background checks, which exclude DNA testing and

the abbreviated vetting puts children at significant safety risk but is needed to meet the deadline0.

The background checks are the long straw in the vetting.

"It is clear from Mr. Meekins's declaration that HHS either does not understand the court's orders or is acting in defiance of them," the judge wrote late Friday. "At a minimum, it appears he is attempting to provide cover to defendants for their own conduct in the practice of family separation, and the lack of foresight and infrastructure necessary to remedy the harms caused by that practice."

Willful shielding in the line of doing the job is what the government does....

We will need to see if they meet the goals or will fault others for what they did in seperation.

Offline

#39 2018-07-15 09:30:42

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

How is that different from what I said?

You still don't get it, do you?  We have a policy, not written anywhere because it's universally understood and believed by everyone in our government (even if they're a card carrying member of the Communist Party), that our enemies will not win, now or ever.  We don't care where we have to send our people, how many of our people or their people we have to kill, or what something costs.

Your belief system about what we actually believe is so far off base it's not even in the ballpark.  I keep trying to explain what those of us who were actually part of the military actually believe, but it's like explaining the color of the sky to a blind person.

RobertDyck wrote:

Correct response would be to withdraw any operatives who would be compromised by revealing intelligence, then give requested evidence to the Taliban. If they still refused, then invade. That's called "calling their bluff". But George W. didn't. His failure is a failure of character. You Americans like to obsess about character, this a major character flaw of Bush Jr.

In the real world, there are no flying unicorns to spirit away our spies and their families.  If we did what you just suggested then we just revealed all of our sources, likely methods as well, and then have no more sources when the time comes to invade.  You're worse than an amateur at national defense.  You seem to think you understand how military operations work, all evidence to the contrary from what you write.

RobertDyck wrote:

Really? You obsessed over UN orders regarding weapons of mass destruction when justifying the second Iraq war. I could go on.

We obsessed over the fact that Saddam persisted in sending people out trying to acquire them.  Tell you what, though, the next time we have a cease fire agreement with another nation and they start shooting at us again, we need not trouble ourselves with explaining why we did what we did to the UN or any other nation.

RobertDyck wrote:

Really? That seems awfully subserviant to your allies. Since when was the US so subservient to the British?

Yes, really, and since we've been Britain's ally.  Any other questions about that point?  They still think of America as one of their colonies and so do we.  You can believe whatever pleases you, but that's the plain truth of the matter.  That's only changed ever so slightly since President Trump has been in office.

RobertDyck wrote:

Why the hell do you think it's your authority to make that decision, or to intervene in some other country? Frankly, PM Mo (to use your contraction) had policies to ensure domestic control of industry that dominated their economy. Why is that bad? Iran was a modern western civilization before overthrowing that government. Everything has been down-hill since.

It wasn't our idea.  It's even written in that article you posted a link to, but I guess you failed to read that and understand it.

RobertDyck wrote:

Excuse me!?!?! The British sent a series of 7 Vulcan bombers in operation Black Buck, to drop bombs on Argentina. Those bombers normally carry nuclear bombs. This was the longest bombing run of any aircraft ever in history. The fact they could do it sent a message to Argentina. The message is Britain could drop nuclear bombs on them at any time. They dropped convention ordinance, but the message was received. The US always sends way too much to any conflict. British response to the Falklands was strong and appropriate.

Why would the British drop nukes near their own property while their citizens were there?

Did you read what actually happened during Operation Black Buck?

From your article:

The raids did minimal damage to the runway and damage to radars was quickly repaired. A single crater was produced on the runway, rendering it impossible for the airfield to be used by fast jets. Argentine ground crew repaired the runway within twenty-four hours, to a level of quality suitable for C-130 Hercules transports. The British were aware that the runway remained in use. Dismissed in some quarters as post-war propaganda, Argentine sources originally claimed that the Vulcan raids influenced Argentina to withdraw some of their Dassault Mirage III fighter aircraft from the Southern Argentina Defence Zone to the Buenos Aires Defence Zone. This dissuasive effect was watered down when British officials made clear that there would be no strikes on air bases in Argentina. It has been suggested that the Black Buck raids were pressed home by the Royal Air Force because the British armed forces had been cut in the late seventies and the RAF may have desired a greater role in the conflict to prevent further cuts.

We always send "way too much"?  How much is "enough"?  Have you consulted with the soldiers on the ground getting shot at?

Here's what "avoiding civilian casualties" lead to, in Canada's case:

Dieppe Raid

There was pressure from the Canadian government to ensure that Canadian troops were put into action.[44] The Dieppe Raid (Operation Jubilee) of 19 August 1942, landed nearly 5,000 soldiers of the inexperienced Second Canadian Division and 1,000 British commandos on the coast of occupied France, in the only major combined forces assault on France prior to the Normandy invasion. While a large number of aircraft flew in support, naval gunfire was deliberately limited to avoid damage to the town and civilian casualties. As a result, the Canadian forces assaulted a heavily defended coast line with no supportive bombardment. Of the 6,086 men who made it ashore, 3,367 (60%) were killed, wounded, or captured.[45] The Royal Air Force failed to lure the Luftwaffe into open battle, and lost 106 aircraft (at least 32 to flak or accidents), compared to 48 lost by the Luftwaffe.[46] The Royal Navy lost 33 landing craft and one destroyer. Two Canadians received the Victoria Cross for actions at Dieppe: Lieutenant Colonel "Cec" Merritt of the South Saskatchewan Regiment and Honorary Captain John Foote, military chaplain of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry.

The lessons learned at Dieppe became the textbook of "what not to do" in amphibious operations, and laid the framework for the later (Operation Torch) landings in North Africa and the Normandy landings in France. Most notably, Dieppe highlighted:

the need for preliminary artillery support, including aerial bombardment;[47]
the need for a sustained element of surprise;
the need for proper intelligence concerning enemy fortifications;
the avoidance of a direct frontal attack on a defended port city; and,
the need for proper re-embarkation craft.[48]

The Dieppe Raid was an Allied assault on the German-occupied port of Dieppe, France on 19 August 1942, during the Second World War. The main assault lasted less than six hours until strong German defenses and mounting Allied losses forced its commanders to call a retreat.

Over 6,000 infantrymen, predominantly Canadian, were supported by The Calgary Regiment of the 1st Canadian Tank Brigade and a strong force of Royal Navy and smaller Royal Air Force landing contingents. It involved 5,000 Canadians, 1,000 British troops, and 50 United States Army Rangers.

Objectives included seizing and holding a major port for a short period, both to prove that it was possible and to gather intelligence. Upon retreat, the Allies also wanted to destroy coastal defences, port structures and all strategic buildings. The raid had the added objectives of boosting morale and demonstrating the firm commitment of the United Kingdom to open a western front in Europe.

Virtually none of these objectives were met. Allied fire support was grossly inadequate and the raiding force was largely trapped on the beach by obstacles and German fire. Less than 10 hours after the first landings, the last Allied troops had all been either killed, evacuated, or left behind to be captured by the Germans. Instead of a demonstration of resolve, the bloody fiasco showed the world that the Allies could not hope to invade France for a long time. Some intelligence successes were achieved, including electronic intelligence.

Some of the sophomoric stuff you write makes me glad you never were in the military.

RobertDyck wrote:

I could make various disparaging remarks about George W.

You already did.  So what?

RobertDyck wrote:

Note I didn't say enemy combatants, I said civilians. This is why America has enemies.

Is a guy in civilian clothes shooting mortars at your soldiers from a school, mosque, or hospital a civilian or enemy combatant?

Your child-like understanding of what modern war involves is absurdly naive.

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada joined World War 1 long before America. Again for World War 2. Do you want me to look up dates? The reason America joined the battle is if Nazi or Bolsheviks won, they would have conquered America too. Don't act "holier than thou", America acted in its own self interest.

Hooray for Canada!

There's no holiness here, internet boss.

America "joined the battle" because the Japanese attacked the US and then the Germans declared war on the US.  December 7th, 1941.  There's a date for you.  I didn't have to look it up, either.  And yes, after we were attacked by the Japanese we "acted in our own self-interest."  Did the Canadians who fought in WWI and WWII act in their own self-interest?

Since you love Wikipedia history so much...

Military history of Canada during World War II

From the link above:

Approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.

Offline

#40 2018-07-15 09:35:32

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

So what are these children doing while here seemingly awaiting a deportation fate? Only part of the story....
Migrant children in New York face a day-to-day struggle

AAzQr1x.img?h=533&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=980&y=525

Looks like any group of children going to school

The ordeal of separation continues to play out across the country, perhaps no place more so than in New York City and its suburbs, where 350 to 600 children have been sent, according to estimates by city and consular officials.

New York was probably chosen as a destination for children because of its existing infrastructure for migrant short-term foster care, public officials and migrant advocates said. The Cayuga Centers site is one of several shelters in the area.

The effort to provide stability is built around routine. The children spend hours in classroom-like settings, where they receive lessons, take naps in dimly lit rooms with soft music, and create arts and crafts that they give away.

"Siempre hay un camino de esperanza" — there is always a path of hope — reads one poster by the children that hangs at the Guatemalan consulate.

Offline

#41 2018-07-15 09:37:27

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,982
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

Please re-read what I said in posts 24 and 29 above. 

The arguments against what I said depend upon (1) conflating the refugee and guest worker problems, when in point of fact they are separate,  with different solutions (2) ignoring actual facts in favor of an ideology that falsely says all immigrants are criminals in the sense of things like rape,  murder,  and robbery,  and (3) defining coming here even at a designated crossing as illegal,  and then using that definitional illegality as an excuse to deport them all,  which is nothing but circular reasoning,  something quite common in ideology-driven thinking.

When ideology outweighs actual facts in the making of public policy,  that country is on the way to disaster historically.  The rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930's is but one example.  Bolshevism in Russia is another.  There are many more.  That is what I see going in in America,  which greatly alarms me.  This manufactured border crisis is but one manifestation.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-07-15 09:38:22)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#42 2018-07-15 10:31:04

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

SpaceNut wrote:

Kbd512 is there a link to the money spent on illegals

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration On United States Taxpayers in 2017

Sources for the data are provided in the footnotes.  If you want to dispute the report, then cite what you dispute.  President Trump claimed that illegal immigrants cost $300B ($296B is the actual figure), but that doesn't take things like taxes paid and other economic benefits into account and, as such, was rated by Politifact as half-true.  I'd say it's completely false.  The report from FAIR provides the closest dollars-and-cents figure on a per capita, per state basis that I've seen.

That report takes taxes paid by illegal immigrants into account.  IRS only cares about their money.  They don't care at all where it comes from, as long as Uncle Sam gets his money.  They know full well that illegal aliens pay taxes, which they dutifully collect, but their databases of where people live and who they are have never deliberately been shared with anyone, apart from any breaches from hacking, and for good reason.  Border enforcement isn't their responsibility and they've never taken it upon themselves to report anything to ICE.

When I worked in health care services ten years ago, we had pools of money set aside by the states to pay for illegal alien health care services.  I wrote EDI applications for the company I worked for to check massive government databases for eligibility for reimbursement to the hospitals for care provided.  We had similar pools for victims of violent crimes, residents / citizens who were unable to pay for various reasons, and our company had a legal arm to represent these people in court before judges.  It's less money than you'd think, on a per-person basis, but the cost is always there and, in the end, it's a lot of money.

We have students at the public school my daughter and son attend who are not legal citizens, like their parents.  However, we don't care about that.  We have children of age for attendance, legal residency disputes are the purview of federal agencies, not public schools, they're here in Texas, Texas law mandate education, they need to be educated, and the other parents pay for the school supplies to make sure all the kids have food, child care (before / after school), and school supplies.  That's what our fund drives, an example of true charity to solve the problems that government creates, are about.

That $150B figure I quoted several times for overseas military bases wasn't something I pulled out of my rear end, either.  Anyone who wants this data can go fetch it from our own government because they post it on their websites.  It's "not there" for people who aren't looking for it, but intellectual laziness is not an acceptable excuse for ignorance.  All of this stuff can be calculated, a lot of it is actually recorded by law (especially as it relates to taxation and government services rendered), and some of it has to be extrapolated from available data.

Offline

#43 2018-07-15 13:18:42

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

I see your search was on fiscal burden of the illegal population and you are probably right in that it is half true or very blurred with the numbers used to figure it out with. Thanks for the link as I will read through as much as I can and respond later to what it says.

As far as whom is counted under what category that is an issue as you note when the IRS will collect there taxes but do not care what the sources of them are as this falls on them to report illegal activity and not ignore it.

I would agree with you on the school age children but the college levels are now in contention for some states with regards to having them in the student population, Arizona comes to mind. To which this was the issue within Daca as to what we will be doing as to are they or are they not US citizens or are they more like second rate colonies of the US in being a partial something.

As for hacking I can say that its a big problem since my own data was gotten into as stored in the Office of Personnel Management, All 3 Credit Bureaus now cross contaminated and a store credit account or 2 violated. None were caught for the intrusion and no data base is safe so long as email spear and malware can be entered into the system creating a back door for the control of the hackers. All of which we have a topic for this.

Offline

#44 2018-07-15 16:32:23

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

This story is about those which came either under the refugee intake, illegally or from assylum seeking but it covers what happens with just the right inner strength is present. It would also be what we would want if Daca people are also given the boot would do as well but this is not the norm as meany are killed by what they did flee so long ago.

After being deported, two former Maryland soccer stars started over in El Salvador; "I spent a long time fighting for something — something I deserved. And they took it away from me," said Lizandro Claros Saravia, 19.


180713-saravia-brothers-deported-njs-1526_2f5244be2acb2a20b7c1de8b8d95888b.fit-2000w.jpg

Diego Claros Saravia, 23, and Lizandro Claros Saravia, 19, in El Cantón El Nispero, Jucuapa, El Salvador, on Jan. 28, 2018.

“I felt very sad and devastated because I spent a long time fighting for something — something I deserved. And they took it away from me," Lizandro Claros, 19, said recently in Spanish, referring to the scholarship he'd won to Louisburg College in North Carolina shortly before being deported.

Nicely done young man to gain the level of education to get a scholarship.

The brothers' case is just one example of the Trump administration's policy of deporting immigrants who have not committed a crime after arriving in the U.S. Other recent cases of people detained by ICE include a pizza delivery man and father to two young girls; a man who called police for help; and a Michigan father who had lived in the U.S. for three decades.

I thought the bad guy's were whom we were trying to rid the nation of, guess I got that wrong....as they were not of the warring transnational gangs MS-13 and Barrio 18 that Trump included all in which were the bad guy's.

To stay connected to their former lives and dreams in America, the brothers tried out for local soccer teams, but they had little success without any connections. Then, an unexpected opportunity arose. After hearing the brothers’ story, Keiser University, based in Florida, offered them a scholarship at its Latin American campus in San Marcos, southwest Nicaragua.

“This told us that life was not over, that we have to keep going,” Diego said.

Last fall, the brothers moved to Nicaragua to attend classes and play for the school’s soccer team.

Its good that the chance to live out the dream is still happening for them and that they are safe to follow what America started a decade ago for them with the chance to live in a safe Nurturing enviroment..

Offline

#45 2018-07-15 17:00:09

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

SpaceNut,

My over-arching point is that between illegal immigration and an excessive number of overseas military bases, the money that our government currently spends that it doesn't take in from taxation would cover the budget deficit.  It wouldn't do anything to service the debt, but these fiscal issues are coming to a head.  There's also a very real synergistic effect between economic growth and curtailment of excessive government spending on contrived problems.

When will someone in our government demand that other countries stop dumping people on our doorstep and take care of their people?

They all have lots of their own resources and capabilities, largely unused, as a function of their ineptitude or lack of accountability for their activities.

As far as further military spending cuts are concerned, existing capabilities need to be provided through better integration of capabilities and tools appropriate for the intended use.  I can foresee another 1/3rd in defense spending savings, as compared to current military budgets, from implementing the recommendations below.  None of these changes require fundamentally new technology or F-35 scale development programs, just the application of what we already know that's been proven to work well.

Within our Air Force, the myriad of types needs to be drastically reduced.  We don't need a new B-21 bomber to replace or complement our existing B-2's, for example.  Most major types need to use the same engines and avionics so maintenance and training remain the same across the major types.  The F-22's, F-35's, B-1's, and B-2's all need to use the same F-135 turbofan engine or a suitable variable cycle replacement.  We need each of the 50 B-2's that were originally promised, but never delivered for budgetary reasons.  The upgrades from the B-21 program should be incorporated into the B-2 program.  Mostly, the stealth technology from the F-35 program drastically reduces the time and cost associated with maintenance of the stealth characteristics of an airframe.  The incorporation of F-35 tech (radar, EW, DAS, IRST, stealth) into the F-22 must be completed.

Within our Army, this "medium wheeled combat vehicle" stupidity needs to be squashed like the brain bug it is.  Apart from school buses and ATV's, the US Army shouldn't have any other wheeled vehicles in the inventory because wheeled vehicles confer no usable advantages in modern combat.  This branch of the service needs to embrace the "light-heavy" concept.  Light tracked vehicles, like the German Wiesel series, are for offensive use in seizing ground from the enemy and heavy tracked vehicles are for defensive using in holding ground.  There is no such thing as an APC/IFV on this planet capable of surviving a hit from a modern ATGM or MBT main gun round that does not also weigh as much as a real MBT.  The M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, and M109 Paladin are all too heavy for air transport in significant numbers, as is the new BAE AMPV replacement for the Bradley.  The modernized M113 is similarly too heavy for air transport in combat configuration.  The solution, of course, is to stop trying to make a single vehicle all things to all threat scenarios.  In the real world, we don't send singular vehicles into combat.  Therefore, we must use complementary capabilities to provide an effective fighting force.  Any vehicle that can't be air-dropped may as well be a paperweight when hostilities kick off, because the war will probably be over by the time a heavy armored brigade can be delivered to theater.

Within our Navy, the defensive capabilities of destroyers and cruisers must be combined with the offensive capabilities of aircraft carriers and amphibious ships.  If the US Navy had a mere 36 assault carriers, that would provide more real capability than what the bulk of our fleet is currently capable of providing.  The destroyers and cruisers only exist to protect the aircraft carriers and amphibious ships.  There are no battle groups that set sail without air support and there are no aircraft carriers that operate without a defensive screen.  However, there are no technical reasons why those capabilities can't be combined into a single ship and the Russians did so in a primitive manner.  The frigates are suitable for use in less demanding operational environments where destroyers and cruisers are overkill.  The anti-piracy operations immediately come to mind, in that regard.

Offline

#46 2018-07-15 17:51:18

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

There is another aspect of all the items meantioned and more in that the upgrade and maintanence cost could be rolled in as when the work is done the parts and pieces are disposed of and not put into future work needs.

The new submarines ya they are cool from the technology but they are being built on the old cost contracting methods and are over priced and have the same issue as the old stuff does in that they are not lasting as long as they should before needing care to keep them in top operating condition.

Oversea bases are another issue for keeping forces at a close proximity to the trouble spots of the world. So those that are not close to the condition should be down sized, consolidated with others that are and or relocated to new problem areas.

Offline

#47 2018-07-15 19:36:19

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

SpaceNut,

The primary problem with current military spending is the ridiculous policy of coming up with every imaginable excuse not to upgrade existing equipment on the never-achieved promise of something better.  A tank is still a tank, an APC/IFV is still an APC/IFV, a missile system aboard a ship doesn't care what it's mounted to (battleship or container ship, the vessel it's mounted to is still every bit as lethal to the missile's intended target), etc.  At least special operations has started using container ships for transport and mobile off-shore bases, as they did during Viet Nam, at fantastic cost savings to the tax payer.

The Stryker was my favorite expensive failure.  It's Canada's wheeled APC with more stuff bolted to it than the suspension system was designed to handle.  It was supposed to be lighter and faster than the M113 and air-transportable in a C-130, but turned out to be virtually impossible to transport in a C-130 and was even heavier than the up-armored M113A3 in its base configuration.  In reality, Stryker's on-road speeds were/are restricted due to suspension and braking system limitations that resulted in vehicles no faster than the M113's they were intended to replace.  If you put the same engine in the M113, then it would be just as fast as an empty Stryker on-road for less weight, cost, and a smaller profile for the enemy to shoot at.  The M113 chassis was already paid for and cost $250K per copy.  The new Stryker chassis cost $4M.  If I had the same amount of money to spend on a new light APC/IFV and wanted more capable vehicles, I would've purchased better engines and electronics and rubber band tracks for the M-113's.  This is exactly what the Russians have done and would do because they can't afford to manufacture entirely new vehicles every time a better engine or computer becomes available.

For whatever reason a new tank is so stupendously expensive, as if the Stryker or AMPV wasn't, that we just refurbish our old tanks by tearing them apart and rebuilding them with new electronics and weapons.  It's so much less costly and more sustainable to use that vehicle capability improvement model that it should be applied to all of our tracked military vehicles.  Unless some fundamentally new technology comes along that mandates purchase of an entirely different vehicle (like stealth technology), then existing vehicles should be upgraded or repaired as circumstances and technology dictate.

Here's another great and fabulously expensive example:
The V-280 was part of what the V-22 was originally supposed to be.  Namely, a VTOL transport with fixed orientation gas turbines using gear boxes to rotate the props for a vertical takeoff and transition to forward flight using wings for aerodynamic lift and greater speed as a result.  Unfortunately, V-280 still can't take off like an airplane because they didn't use contra-rotating props.  That means they're still restricted in weight to what the engines can lift vertically, which requires an inordinate amount of power / cost / complexity relative to normal flight.  A short takeoff run is possible, but the wing doesn't start "flying" until the vehicle has already transitioned to forward flight.  Even if a runway is available, neither V-280 nor V-22 can use it because the props won't clear the ground except in the vertical position.

In the real world, aircraft capable of generating enough aerodynamic lift from horizontal flight still lift more than helicopters of equivalent power and weight, no matter the cost differential.  Compare the V-22 Osprey with the C-27J Spartan.  The C-27 is half the cost of the V-22 and bests the V-22 in every performance category, except vertical takeoff.  It's a fundamental physics problem that no amount of money will change, unless we figure out how to use electromagnetism to make an aircraft hover like a helicopter.

Typically, when you're making deliveries in a combat zone you incur far less additional ventilation not provided by the manufacturer when you don't stop to make the delivery.  That's why LAPES was designed.  More recently, we've used robotically-controlled powered parachute-assisted delivery methods in combat zones.

Along with lots of other people in the Navy, I've tried to make the case as to why overseas military bases are undesirable, to little effect.  Most of America and the governments of our allies (not necessarily their people) seem intent on keeping our overseas bases.  If the cost becomes too much to bear, then there are acceptable alternatives.

Offline

#48 2018-07-23 20:51:06

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,868

Re: South of the Border Politics

Congratulations, You Are Now a U.S. Citizen. Unless Someone Decides Later You’re Not.

Ya thanks for wasting my time to actually become American and to follow my dreams to be one.... Oh wait aminute maybe Trump will start removing real americans that were born here of real american parent too....

Offline

#49 2018-07-24 09:17:39

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,982
Website

Re: South of the Border Politics

Spacenut:

That's already happened,  and more times than anyone wants to admit.  US citizens of Mexican heritage have actually been wrongly deported as illegal aliens.  US citizens are NOT (yet,  anyway) required to carry proof of citizenship.  Aliens are required to carry proper identification papers. 

The US citizens were detained for what they looked like,  and deported because they had no papers.  Nobody bothered to check for citizenship stuff,  like birth certificates,  they just loaded them on the deportation bus.   This got reported,  but nobody has effectively been held accountable for the bad decision-making process.  This problem predates Trump by several years,  but his administration is making it worse. 

When US citizens get required to carry papers proving they are US citizens,  it's time for a new government,  one way or the other.  That is a part of the way Germany became Nazi. Part of the way Russia became Bolshevik.  Part of the way nearly all dictatorships get started.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-07-24 09:20:32)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#50 2018-07-24 10:48:45

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: South of the Border Politics

GW,

When you cross national borders you need proof of citizenship, period.  This has always been the law of the land, in every land, so it's not in any way unique to America.  How and why this became controversial in recent years is purely based in politics.  Some here believe in open borders, whether they explicitly say so or not.  If you want to annex Mexico, I'll remove all objections to Mexican Nationals coming here because they'll become American Nationals.  See how that works?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB