Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schumer rejects GOP proposal to address border crisis.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by At ease View Post

    Here are some tentative costings and numbers dealing with the illegals problem:





    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1JI2Z7



    Accordingly, and just in round figures for clarity and discussion purposes, that approaches $10,000 per illegal - paid for by US taxpayer citizens.

    A one-way Greyhound bus ticket to Tijuana or similar border crossing point would be a much better, and vastly more cost effective, idea.

    Furthermore, it seems that the US Navy is now in the business of allocating planning resources to cover "non core" activities, rather than concentrating on what should be it's primary task.

    Of course, if it was the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) I could understand that such diversion of resources would be just another day at the office considering that they have mainly been conducting a taxi service for illegals for a number of years now and little else.....at least until a few weeks ago.
    Unfortunately, you cannot just issue a one way ticket to Tijuana. All these people have to go to court before they are deported or accepted as refugees. And this is where the bottleneck is created which in turn creates a need to shelter people who entered the US illegally for many months. We are STILL a country of laws, so let's not forget that whenever it does not fit our plans or pockets. Needless to say that the cheapest solution is to let all the "Arpaio" type cops we have near the border to arrest brown people and issue them a one way ticket to Tijuana. It is illegal, but by far the cheapest solution of all, including the one we have now when we pay "nonprofit" organizations to shelter the kids.

    And speaking about the current cost,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-for-nonprofit

    The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data.

    The nonprofit, Southwest Key Programs Inc., is to be paid more than $458 million in fiscal 2018
    ...
    ..The contract was increased on May 4 to provide beds for as many as 1,000 children, and will pay the company as much as $31 million...
    At this rate, and even though we do not know the actual details, the navy deal for 25,000 kids @ 233 million sounds like a much better deal!

    Also, from the same link as is the usual case with all this npo "altruism"

    Southwest Key rapidly increased the compensation of its CEO, Juan Sanchez, from about $269,000 in 2010 to more than $786,000 in 2015, the most recent year for which its tax returns are available through the website Guidestar.org. His compensation nearly doubled to $1.5 million in 2016, according to tax records for an Austin charter school he founded.
    And this is just one "nonprofit" among the many that operate in different states. Of course, such information does not play well in the conservative press because it is not about the Clinton Foundation...
    Last edited by pamak; 23 Jun 18, 04:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • At ease
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post


    Bold mine!

    YES!

    This is the issue: We can do it just like the EU did it. In fact, we have done it many times in the past when there was some natural catastrophe and we had to house temporarily thousand of people together with their children. And now, the shelter needs are much smaller than the ones we have faced in natural disasters. Having a need to house 2,000 immigrant children as is the case now,, together with one of their parents (which is at most an addition of 2,000 more people at the most and probably is closer to less than 1,000 considering that we certainly have immigrant families with multiple children) gives an overall number of about 3,000 people. Notice that the other parent can stay in a jail as is the case now. And yes, being humane has a cost. Moreover, right now we DO pay for keeping the children in basically centers which act as detention ones. So, having a least one parent for each family be with the children of the family while the other parent is detained in the jails we use now sounds a feasible solution and not much more expensive than the current situation.
    Here are some tentative costings and numbers dealing with the illegals problem:


    June 23, 2018 / 9:28 AM / Updated 2 hours ago
    U.S. Navy drafts plans to house 25,000 immigrants at cost of $233 million

    Idrees Ali

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border, a U.S. official said on Friday.
    The Navy has not so far been asked to provide accommodation for migrants who have entered the United States illegally. The official, who asked not to be named, stressed that the draft memo, which looks at setting up housing on Navy airfields in Alabama, was for planning purposes only.
    The news was first reported by Time Magazine.
    [.....]



    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1JI2Z7



    Accordingly, and just in round figures for clarity and discussion purposes, that approaches $10,000 per illegal - paid for by US taxpayer citizens.

    A one-way Greyhound bus ticket to Tijuana or similar border crossing point would be a much better, and vastly more cost effective, idea.

    Furthermore, it seems that the US Navy is now in the business of allocating planning resources to cover "non core" activities, rather than concentrating on what should be it's primary task.

    Of course, if it was the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) I could understand that such diversion of resources would be just another day at the office considering that they have mainly been conducting a taxi service for illegals for a number of years now and little else.....at least until a few weeks ago.
    Last edited by At ease; 22 Jun 18, 23:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    The relationship between the US and Mexico is unique, our histories are intertwined, perhaps more so than any other nation. Like it or not we are connected at the hip, as much as we are with Canada, but in many ways we are more reliant on each other, us for labor, them for opportunities not available to Mexicans within their own country.
    No two nations could be so close geographically and different socially.
    How did we get here?
    Mexico is rich in resources, both in human and natural sources. Oil, natural gas, minerals, intellectual capital,
    so why are the two nations such polar opposites?

    Mexico is a pressure cooker which has been at the point of failure for more than a century, the release valve for the cooker is our Southern border.
    What would happen without the infusion of US cash going south for drugs and cheap labor?
    Mexicans would be forced to take on the task of becoming a first world nation.
    Because Mexico had the great bad luck to be colonized by Spain, while the US had the good luck to be colonized by England.

    Spain gave Mexico a rigid class structure based on race and inbred social status. Spanish rule favored dictators and strong arm military leaders. They had for most of their history a strong military and tight control of the country and economy by the government. Throw in the rigid doctrines of the Catholic Church on top of that.
    So, you get rule by dictator. Big government control of the economy. Religious control of society and social norms. A stratified race and class conscious society. A lack of economic opportunity and social mobility.
    All of that leads to government corruption, a repression of the majority of the population, economic stagnation, and constant internal strife.

    Mexico has Spain and continental European values to thank or damn for their being the messed up second-world state they are. That won't get fixed any time soon any more than Spain itself, an economic basket case in Europe, will.

    Quite frankly, if the US was the imperialist power the Left claims it was and is, it would have benefited Mexico and Central America greatly if the America had just kept their countries. After all, the US has invaded most of them-- some more than once-- and taken them over lock, stock, and barrel. As an imperialist power the US could have said, "Guess what? Y'all are states 51 to 70! Welcome to the United States! Now learn English!."

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    The relationship between the US and Mexico is unique, our histories are intertwined, perhaps more so than any other nation. Like it or not we are connected at the hip, as much as we are with Canada, but in many ways we are more reliant on each other, us for labor, them for opportunities not available to Mexicans within their own country.
    No two nations could be so close geographically and different socially.
    How did we get here?
    Mexico is rich in resources, both in human and natural sources. Oil, natural gas, minerals, intellectual capital,
    so why are the two nations such polar opposites?

    Mexico is a pressure cooker which has been at the point of failure for more than a century, the release valve for the cooker is our Southern border.
    What would happen without the infusion of US cash going south for drugs and cheap labor?
    Mexicans would be forced to take on the task of becoming a first world nation.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Slick Meister said:

    I worked in the Denver ICE regional detention center for six years. The detainees were better cared for than a lot of American veterans and homeless people.
    I can add the following about "paisia" as non-US Hispanic inmates are generally called in federal prisons:

    They almost to a person refuse education programs when they can. GED is mandatory for all inmates except those with a deportation order or pending order. Those with such an order almost always refuse, even though GED is offered in Spanish.

    Depending on which set they are in, they will willingly and quickly join prison gangs.

    Many send all the money they make from prison jobs home and consider their "employment" even at maintenance pay (about $6.00 a month) to be a good paying job. If they can manage to get a graded job at anything up to about $1 an hour tops, they see this as being well off, even rich, by their standards.

    So, for most illegals, prison is an improvement over their conditions at home. They have incentive to stay in prison, even commit more crimes to get there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Slick Meister said:
    Once again, they are detained, in some kind of facility, a jail or similar facility, that is manifestly unfit for children. (Probably unfit for most adults as well, but that's a story for another thread.)
    I worked in the Denver ICE regional detention center for six years. The detainees were better cared for than a lot of American veterans and homeless people.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Not if they're incarcerated, either pretrial or post. Then the parent has to arrange for someone else to act as the child's guardian, otherwise the state will have to step in.

    And if I'm reading TAG's previous post correctly, illegal border crossing is analogous to a Class-B misdemeanor. Yes, a suspect can be detained, and/or sentenced to a period of incarceration upon conviction. There again the disposition of any children is fraught with uncertainty, for obvious reasons.



    Unlike other misdemeanors, where probably most pre-trial suspects are released on their own recognizance (ROR'ed) given the nature of the crime, suspected illegal immigrants cannot be ROR'ed. Once again, they are detained, in some kind of facility, a jail or similar facility, that is manifestly unfit for children. (Probably unfit for most adults as well, but that's a story for another thread.)



    That sounds so nice, like something out of a Walt Disney production. Who should be held financially liable for the establishment and maintenance of such facilities -- the US taxpayer? Why should I be punished for the choices of others? These people chose the dangerous act of crossing an international border illegally with their children in tow. I didn't make that choice. I didn't make that choice for them. Why should the US Gov't pay for that? Why aren't people out protesting the coyotes whom we know murder hundreds of immigrants and leave their bodies out to rot annually? Where are all the supposed do-gooders then? Are they too busy doing what's politically expedient?

    Regarding Trump's gutless reversal, guess he was faced with both legal and political realities, but truth be known, having started with this policy in the first place, he should have seen it through to the end. Now he's lost a ton of face, as well as a good deal of political capital. This thing was lose-lose right from the start.

    Just out of curiosity, what was the policy under Obama? I've heard some claim that it was similar, but honestly I do not know.

    Bold mine!

    YES!

    This is the issue: We can do it just like the EU did it. In fact, we have done it many times in the past when there was some natural catastrophe and we had to house temporarily thousand of people together with their children. And now, the shelter needs are much smaller than the ones we have faced in natural disasters. Having a need to house 2,000 immigrant children as is the case now,, together with one of their parents (which is at most an addition of 2,000 more people at the most and probably is closer to less than 1,000 considering that we certainly have immigrant families with multiple children) gives an overall number of about 3,000 people. Notice that the other parent can stay in a jail as is the case now. And yes, being humane has a cost. Moreover, right now we DO pay for keeping the children in basically centers which act as detention ones. So, having a least one parent for each family be with the children of the family while the other parent is detained in the jails we use now sounds a feasible solution and not much more expensive than the current situation.
    Last edited by pamak; 22 Jun 18, 19:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The policy under Obama is less clear.

    The Obama administration's general policy was catch and release. That is the majority of illegals would be arraigned given an appearance date for court then released into the US until that appearance date. Yes, that is insane, but that is how the Obama administration did things. Families might be separated, but that largely depended on the time involved for arraignment. If it was less that 72 to 96 hours, they likely wouldn't be separated.

    Repeat offenders (about half) were generally held longer and the children separated.

    In both Obama's and Trump's administration, the number of unaccompanied child border crossings is massively up. The cartels and others, including even families, have figured out and the word's gotten around, that minors get preferential treatment compared to adults. A child crossing caught muling drugs gets almost nothing for a sentence that would be a massive felony and years in prison for an adult. The cartels know that so now they use kids as mules.

    Somewhere around two-thirds of the children apprehended for illegal entry are unaccompanied now. Be it that they are working for a criminal enterprise, or that the parents sent them over separately because of knowledge of preferential treatment. That fact doesn't come out in the MSM because it works against their intended narrative.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    And no, criminals for misdemeanors are treated as fit guardians. A lot of times, they do not even go to prison.
    Not if they're incarcerated, either pretrial or post. Then the parent has to arrange for someone else to act as the child's guardian, otherwise the state will have to step in.

    And if I'm reading TAG's previous post correctly, illegal border crossing is analogous to a Class-B misdemeanor. Yes, a suspect can be detained, and/or sentenced to a period of incarceration upon conviction. There again the disposition of any children is fraught with uncertainty, for obvious reasons.

    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    The are released and are free until the day of the trial, as I showed in another thread with Giuliani's daughter who was arrested and charged for shoplifting.
    Unlike other misdemeanors, where probably most pre-trial suspects are released on their own recognizance (ROR'ed) given the nature of the crime, suspected illegal immigrants cannot be ROR'ed. Once again, they are detained, in some kind of facility, a jail or similar facility, that is manifestly unfit for children. (Probably unfit for most adults as well, but that's a story for another thread.)

    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    In the case of illegal entry (which is a misdemeanor and perfectly understandable choice for parents who try to give their children a better life) detention centers may be the appropriate choice. As I said in my conversation with TAG just two days ago, this is the solution for handling the problem of illegal entry without ignoring the law and without separating families. Have detention centers (not prisons or jails) to keep the families together until they are deported.
    That sounds so nice, like something out of a Walt Disney production. Who should be held financially liable for the establishment and maintenance of such facilities -- the US taxpayer? Why should I be punished for the choices of others? These people chose the dangerous act of crossing an international border illegally with their children in tow. I didn't make that choice. I didn't make that choice for them. Why should the US Gov't pay for that? Why aren't people out protesting the coyotes whom we know murder hundreds of immigrants and leave their bodies out to rot annually? Where are all the supposed do-gooders then? Are they too busy doing what's politically expedient?

    Regarding Trump's gutless reversal, guess he was faced with both legal and political realities, but truth be known, having started with this policy in the first place, he should have seen it through to the end. Now he's lost a ton of face, as well as a good deal of political capital. This thing was lose-lose right from the start.

    Just out of curiosity, what was the policy under Obama? I've heard some claim that it was similar, but honestly I do not know.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post

    I would highly contest that "most" in the US view the law that way, and how it's viewed doesn't matter, it's how it's actually written and implemented in practice.

    It's also a showcase for media bias. Hyperbole abounds right now in even the MSM. Trot out some kids in cages pictures, toss out hot button terms like Internment camps and "ripped from Mother's arms" in an op-ed or 7pm roundtable and you can get people to believe the worst.
    they do if you look at how they want it enforce or how it enforced. But with that they do want it enforced and strictly.

    you need to look at it holisticly not just through a small window.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackhat
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Bod mine

    Well,

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/polit...ion/index.html




    And no, criminals for misdemeanors are treated as fit guardians......

    As I said in my conversation with TAG just two days ago, this is the solution for handling the problem of illegal entry without ignoring the law and without separating families. Have detention centers (not prisons or jails) to keep the families together until they are deported.

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...04#post5040604
    I disagree agree with respect to their level of criminality. As I read the law, they're closer to felony status.

    This, however, I can agree with in general principle. As always, the Devil's in the details and there's some pretty big ones. Coyotes, child traffickers, and the likes are a very real and well known problem. Failure to sort these types of issues out correctly from the start could prove disastrous. In an open form detention center such as in WW2, or worse like you see in Europe, things could get near barbaric. Heartless as it may sound, from a Spock like logic stance, seperating the children may be the only way to guarantee their safety since you know these real and present dangers exist in a sizeable measure. There are no absolute rights and wrongs in this problem. Or rather, a one size fits all approach doesn't apply. A thoughtful, balanced approach is required. Hysterics and hyperbole won't solve anything. You can't just turn them loose. You can't just throw them all in a nice open housing camp, you have to know who the bad guys are and you have to know pretty quickly. Europe has shown us the dangers of that. Reason must sooner or later apply,or this question will eat us alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post

    I would highly contest that "most" in the US view the law that way, and how it's viewed doesn't matter, it's how it's actually written and implemented in practice.

    It's also a showcase for media bias. Hyperbole abounds right now in even the MSM. Trot out some kids in cages pictures, toss out hot button terms like Internment camps and "ripped from Mother's arms" in an op-ed or 7pm roundtable and you can get people to believe the worst.
    Only some, a lot of people still have some common sense and recognize BS when they see it, remember the 2016 Election.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackhat
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    and your point is

    that not how it viewed by most of the US in this case which was the question

    But keep up ensuring the dems win in 18 and 20


    Your acting like the Dems post passing Obama care and enjoying being in your bubble and we see how that turned out. which was a good thing
    I would highly contest that "most" in the US view the law that way, and how it's viewed doesn't matter, it's how it's actually written and implemented in practice.

    It's also a showcase for media bias. Hyperbole abounds right now in even the MSM. Trot out some kids in cages pictures, toss out hot button terms like Internment camps and "ripped from Mother's arms" in an op-ed or 7pm roundtable and you can get people to believe the worst.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Where is Obama's face painted on internment camps for children? The optics of this are absolutely horrible and run extremely akin to what's seen under dictatorships. Keep deflecting though, I don't ever expect you to accept any accountability.
    Bullshit, they were in better conditions then the ones the left behind.
    You seriously think these children were only exposed to danger when they were in the custody of children services?
    they just walked across deserts and jungles and areas controlled by human traffickers and drug cartels.
    What are the BP agents supposed to do when they find a child stuffed in the trunk of a car? It happens every day, all day, those children are at risk just getting here!
    and that is not our fault nor is it Trumps! Itís been happening for decades and neither party has done a damn thing to stop it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    I didn't vote for Trump, and I'm usually pretty critical of him, but on this particular issue the opposition is manifestly full of doo-doo. If a parent brought a child along on a bank robbery, would any reasonable person even suggest housing the child with the incarcerated parent? Of course not. The very notion is laughable. NYS recently enacted a law mandating that minor children found in a vehicle driven by an intoxicated parent are to be immediately taking into the state's custody. Not only is the intent to ensure the child's safety, but it's also a declaration of society's determination that criminals are not viewed as fit guardians. So are Trump's opponents viewing illegal border crossing as an okay crime, different from other crimes on the books? Sorry, but Trump's opponents' current protestations reek of political opportunism, and frankly can't be taken seriously.
    Bod mine

    Well,

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/polit...ion/index.html


    Trump reverses course, signs order to keep families together

    ...
    In the executive order he signed on Wednesday, Trump declared it is his administration's policy to "maintain family unity," including by detaining entire families together "where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources."
    And no, criminals for misdemeanors are treated as fit guardians. A lot of times, they do not even go to prison. The are released and are free until the day of the trial, as I showed in another thread with Giuliani's daughter who was arrested and charged for shoplifting. In the case of illegal entry (which is a misdemeanor and perfectly understandable choice for parents who try to give their children a better life) detention centers may be the appropriate choice. As I said in my conversation with TAG just two days ago, this is the solution for handling the problem of illegal entry without ignoring the law and without separating families. Have detention centers (not prisons or jails) to keep the families together until they are deported.

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...04#post5040604
    Last edited by pamak; 20 Jun 18, 19:56.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X