15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Educating you is such a tiring process.

In what way?

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/10/14471304/trump-border-wall-animals

 

It is only dubious to the left.

Gee, I wasn't aware that the Cato Institute was left wing. I don't think that they are either. You might want to let them know:

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work

 

Do you think the officers at the border do nothing? As I remember they check documents and vehicles and whatnot. More officers would allow more of this could be done. 

Is there a shortage of officers at legal checkpoints now?

 

Is what about illegal drugs? I thought were talking about illegal aliens. But yes, given they occasionally catch people at the boarder with drugs, more searches should result in more people being caught. 

"Occasionally" Wow. So insignificant it's nearly impressive.

 

No. How about we handle it like you suggest we handle illegal immigration? Rather than wasting time trying to stop drugs from coming into the country, we focus on punishing the users to reduce the demand?  

This has got to be one of the most clueless statements of all time in this forum. You think criminalizing drug use has been a success in the USA? Do you really need me to cite sources to show how ridiculous that assertion is? Maybe you meant it as a joke?

EDIT: I misunderstood your last comment. If you mean punish employers, yes. But the punishment has to be strong. Imprisonment.  You refuse to specify punishment.

 

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They pleaded guilty and negotiated a fine, just like Hillary, yes? 

That's more than a yes no answer. You seriously want to take this off topic and start discussing Hilary Clinton on a Trump thread.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Is it your position that that General Milley and others did not your contemptuous words against the President? 

 

Hey, you didn't answer my question. What were the contemptuous words that General Milley used?

33 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's clearly you who are being evasive. I asked you to specify what "penalize" means in this context and you just ignore it. What specifically do you mean by "penalize"? Does that mean imprisonment?

You are pretending to not understand what penalize means, and it's me being evasive?

 

Okay, I think the penalty would vary greatly depending on the situation. If Joe Bagadonuts gets a couple guys from in front of Home Depot to help paint his house, I think a fine is in order. 

 

If someone owns a string of massager parlors and is working with traffickers to smuggle underage girls in to work as prostitutes, I think they should be executed. 

 

If someone operates a packing house, and knowingly is hires illegal aliens, has been fined for it once or twice and continues to disregard the law, I think they should be convicted and incarcerated. 

 

But in all three of the above, the offenders are penalized. 

 

So again, 

1. Do you support penalizing all employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens?

2. Do you support mandating every employee be E-Verified regardless of position or years of service? 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Hey, you didn't answer my question. What were the contemptuous words that General Milley used?

Yeah, I wasn't talking to you. 

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's more than a yes no answer. You seriously want to take this off topic and start discussing Hilary Clinton on a Trump thread.

Sorry, they pleaded guilty and negotiated a fine, yes?

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Are you under the misapprehension that the imported drugs mainly come across the border, smuggled in by illegal immigrants?

Nope.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, they pleaded guilty and negotiated a fine, yes?

I thought I had already acknowledged that, how many times would you like to repeat it? & how many times would you like me to point out the hypocrisy of Trump in the matter?

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Why too late? Why couldn't it be started later?

As for imported drugs. as has been noted in this forum many times, imported drugs mostly cross the border at government controlled crossings. The fact is that there is a huge amount of manufactured goods crossing daily from Mexico. The drugs are packes in with them. Not feasible to subject most of them to thorough inspections. And little to do with human trafficking.

The fact is that open borders means security is diluted. If death by fentanyl continues, then checks will have to become feasible.

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are pretending to not understand what penalize means, and it's me being evasive?

 

Okay, I think the penalty would vary greatly depending on the situation. If Joe Bagadonuts gets a couple guys from in front of Home Depot to help paint his house, I think a fine is in order. 

 

If someone owns a string of massager parlors and is working with traffickers to smuggle underage girls in to work as prostitutes, I think they should be executed. 

 

If someone operates a packing house, and knowingly is hires illegal aliens, has been fined for it once or twice and continues to disregard the law, I think they should be convicted and incarcerated. 

 

But in all three of the above, the offenders are penalized. 

 

So again, 

1. Do you support penalizing all employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens?

2. Do you support mandating every employee be E-Verified regardless of position or years of service? 

 

I support harshly penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. And by harshly I mean imprisonment.

I support universal E-verification.

Of course, if employers truly are cracked down on , there won't be much of a rush of undocumented aliens across the border.

And you may think you mean it when you talk of universal e-verification. But given your easily caricatured mistrust of big government, do you and other like minded people really want the government to have a database that includes every working person in the United States? I doubt it.

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I thought I had already acknowledged that, how many times would you like to repeat it?

Sorry, I thought you asked me again. 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

& how many times would you like me to point out the hypocrisy of Trump in the matter?

I don't know enough about his hiring practices to call him a hypocrite. Was he intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees?

 

As far as I know, he was trying to stop the flood of illegals flooding across the border and wanted to deport illegal aliens involved in criminal activity, are you against that? 

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are pretending to not understand what penalize means, and it's me being evasive? service? 

I forgot to address this piece of  B.S.

Yes I know what "penalize" means. And if I didn't, I could look it up. What I didn't know, because you repeatedly ignored my attempts, is what "penalize" means to you in this context. Now I know. Not nearly enough.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I thought you asked me again. 

I don't know enough about his hiring practices to call him a hypocrite. Was he intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees?

You may want to refer to my link where that's clearly laid out. Have you deliberately ignored it?

On 3/18/2023 at 11:35 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Haven't you heard the news about Trump being acquitted of attempted coup charges ?

   Or are you just ignoring the legal process and the judiciary findings and finding him to be guilty anyway ?

   You are behaving similar to Russia, China and North Korea and nay dictator : Ignore the legal process and the facts and just keep repeating the same old made up things .

  The so called coup is just in your imagination , it isn't a fact 

The legal process in question, today,  is that of straightforward tax misrepresentation/evasion.

 

Do you have a problem with wealthy people being prosecuted for such?

 

It might be worth mentioning that Al Capone actually got put away for tax evasion......not his murderous activities.

 

There is a parallel.

 

 

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The fact is that open borders means security is diluted. If death by fentanyl continues, then checks will have to become feasible.

Golly gee they will just have to. Even if it means paralysing the U.S. economy.  Why didn't they think of that before? Such a great plan. , We'll call it the "Have To Plan That In No Way Resembles Wishful Thinking"

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

 

I support harshly penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. And by harshly I mean imprisonment.

I generally agree, but how do you decide who goes to jail? 

 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I support universal E-verification.

Mandated, for all employees, correct?

 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Of course, if employers truly are cracked down on , there won't be much of a rush of undocumented aliens across the border.

Free schools, medical housing assistance and any number of other benefits make it pretty attractive.  Beig poor in the US is way better than being poor in most places. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And you may think you mean it when you talk of universal e-verification. But given your easily caricatured mistrust of big government, do you and other like minded people really want the government to have a database that includes every working person in the United States? I doubt it.

Really? I'm 65 years old and my mistrust of the government is fairly new. 

 

In any event, the government already has a database that included all the people working legally in the US so that's a bit silly. 

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You may want to refer to my link where that's clearly laid out. Have you deliberately ignored it?

Or, as you claim to know what it says you could just tell me in a sentence of two. 

 

I looked at what you linked to. It did not seem clearly laid out to me. 

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I forgot to address this piece of  B.S.

Yes I know what "penalize" means. And if I didn't, I could look it up. What I didn't know, because you repeatedly ignored my attempts, is what "penalize" means to you in this context. Now I know. Not nearly enough.

This is what I said: 

Okay, I think the penalty would vary greatly depending on the situation. If Joe Bagadonuts gets a couple guys from in front of Home Depot to help paint his house, I think a fine is in order. 

 

If someone owns a string of massager parlors and is working with traffickers to smuggle underage girls in to work as prostitutes, I think they should be executed. 

 

If someone operates a packing house, and knowingly is hires illegal aliens, has been fined for it once or twice and continues to disregard the law, I think they should be convicted and incarcerated. 

 

What is it you think is too lenient about this? 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Or, as you claim to know what it says you could just tell me in a sentence of two. 

 

I looked at what you linked to. It did not seem clearly laid out to me. 

The Washington Post does not seem clearly laid out to you? My quote from it is not clear to you?

 

You asked: Was he intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees?

 

 

What part of this is not laid out well?

"Using them brought a double advantage: Trump could reap the financial benefit of undocumented labor — the ability to pay his employees lower wages and fewer benefits — and the political benefit of attacking it."

 

As for the rest of the article read it and tell me which paragraph is not clear to you?

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The fact is that open borders means security is diluted. If death by fentanyl continues, then checks will have to become feasible.

You admit most of it doesn't even come across the border. You are you suggesting this isn't all about immigrants?

i hope they put him in a cell with a big illegal dark man/who says who do you want to play /mummy or daddy 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 man

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The Washington Post does not seem clearly laid out to you? My quote from it is not clear to you?

 

You asked: Was he intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees?

 

 

What part of this is not laid out well?

"Using them brought a double advantage: Trump could reap the financial benefit of undocumented labor — the ability to pay his employees lower wages and fewer benefits — and the political benefit of attacking it."

 

As for the rest of the article read it and tell me which paragraph is not clear to you?

Yes, the author's opinion was clearly laid out. The facts not so much. 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the author's opinion was clearly laid out. The facts not so much. 

Which facts are not clear to you?

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

This is what I said: 

Okay, I think the penalty would vary greatly depending on the situation. If Joe Bagadonuts gets a couple guys from in front of Home Depot to help paint his house, I think a fine is in order. 

 

If someone owns a string of massager parlors and is working with traffickers to smuggle underage girls in to work as prostitutes, I think they should be executed. 

 

If someone operates a packing house, and knowingly is hires illegal aliens, has been fined for it once or twice and continues to disregard the law, I think they should be convicted and incarcerated. 

 

What is it you think is too lenient about this? 

No fines once or twice. Imprisonment.

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I generally agree, but how do you decide who goes to jail? 

 

 

Via the justice system. How else?

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Which facts are not clear to you?

The facts that how he was intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees.

 

Again, as far as I know, he was trying to stop the flood of illegals flooding across the border and wanted to deport illegal aliens involved in criminal activity, are you against that? 

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Mandated, for all employees, correct?

 

 

What does universal mean? Does it mean excluding anybody?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The facts that how he was intentionally hiring illegals and paying them less or treating them worse than his other employees.

 

The quote has already stated that and its not an opinion piece as you claimed. You obviously haven't read it. Why claim its an opinion piece from the author

 

"48 current and former Trump workers interviewed by The Washington Post"

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

No fines once or twice. Imprisonment.

Okay, how long does the homeowner go to jail for hiring guys to help paint their house? 

 

How long does someone operating a packing house go to jail for, and is it just the operator, or the HR and owners as well? 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What does universal mean? Does it mean excluding anybody?

It could mean all new hires.