r_u_scared?

[Michael74]

...about 2-in-3 Americans, or 66 percent, said they oppose the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) releasing border crossers into the U.S. while they await their asylum claims process. Instead, voters said border crossers should be immediately turned back to Mexico while awaiting their asylum hearing.

863,000 people are expected to be caught and released this year. ICE said that 87% of those released into general population don't show up for their hearings. Another 500,000 are expected to get across without being caught/released. There does not seem to be any effective action being taken. Its all just making statements that don't accomplish anything (like building a few miles of wall).

Americans want immigrants to be vetted so that criminals and terrorists are kept out. Only peaceful, honest, hard working people are welcome. All Christians should be legally allowed in, if they want to come. They are our brothers and sisters.

 

[Nathan12]

There does not seem to be any effective action being taken

Correct. And that is what is so tragic and so bizarre. Mr. Trump evidently does not have one single person in his administration who is capable of actually enforcing existing immigration laws (which make no allowance for illegal entry). He has clearly sabotaged himself. Over two years have gone by with idle talk about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, but nothing concrete has been accomplished.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

863,000 people are expected to be caught and released this year. ICE said that 87% of those released into general population don't show up for their hearings. Another 500,000 are expected to get across without being caught/released. There does not seem to be any effective action being taken. Its all just making statements that don't accomplish anything (like building a few miles of wall).

Americans want immigrants to be vetted so that criminals and terrorists are kept out. Only peaceful, honest, hard working people are welcome. All Christians should be legally allowed in, if they want to come. They are our brothers and sisters.

I am the skeptical type. 1.36 million people (863,000 + 500,000) is a LOT of people. I wonder if it's not to someone's benefit to compile these in a way to get them as high as possible. Maybe they are counting border "crossings" so if a person comes across and works a month, goes home for a couple days and sneaks across again they may be counted twice. Maybe five or six times in a year.

 

[Nathan12]

I wonder if it's not to someone's benefit to compile these in a way to get them as high as possible.

If anything, the opposite is more likely. The fact is that nobody really knows how many illegals have entered surreptitiously through the porous border. So it is actually UNDER REPORTING that is happening.

 

[Michael74]

Maybe they are counting border "crossings" so if a person comes across and works a month, goes home for a couple days and sneaks across again they may be counted twice. Maybe five or six times in a year.

Getting caught a 2nd time elevates the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. Once they are caught, they are risking hard time by doing it twice. Once caught, they need to go to their hearing to keep it in the misdemeanor category. 2nd offenders are kept separate, along with anyone who has a criminal history in their home country.

If they are not caught, they can cross the border as many times as they can get away with it. The uncaught numbers are just estimates. Take your best guess.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Maybe if we put a bit more of our economic power and influence positively into those countries people would not need to head north. Not just outright gifts of aid, but helping establish money making businesses there. Incentives to our private corporations to invest and things like that.
It's not much different to me from a guy in a poor neighborhood who is really rich. He can't expect complete peace and quiet and influence in his area without reaching out. It's actually to his benefit.

 

[Corn Pop]

New Zealand and Australia have a good relationship and open boarder, no visa is needed to work and live for citizens of either country, yet everyone still needs to go through boarder security. It's not racist.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

So, Trump says you don't have a country without borders and you don't have a border without a wall.
How often has Trump demanded a wall on the US-Canadian border?

 

[Corn Pop]

A wall is border security.

 

[Michael74]

Maybe if we put a bit more of our economic power and influence positively into those countries people would not need to head north. Not just outright gifts of aid, but helping establish money making businesses there. Incentives to our private corporations to invest and things like that.

The US gives maybe $34 billion in foreign aid per year, half economic aid and half security aid. An example of security aid would be funding Afghanistan's military, since they don't have the resources to fully fund it themselves. China spends maybe $350 billion per year on projects in other countries to improve their infrastructure. They expect to be repaid though in natural resources, so its not strictly speaking aid. An example would be fixing Venezuela's oil mining infrastructure, expecting oil to be shipped to China in return. Still, building useful stuff in third world countries does help them develop jobs and such. They call it the belt and road initiative.

Encouraging private companies to invest. Security would be a major concern, as well as the possibility of private comapnies' property being "nationalized" by other countries. Providing security for facilities could be quite expensive, and the US rich have rebelled against supporting the US military. Basically, the entire defense budget is being borrowed. This is not a sensible long run situation, even without the extra responsibility of providing security for private facilities in foreign lands. Does the US have the resources to do this?

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I guess it's a matter of whether the US wants to help people in other countries or not. Christians like to call the US a "Christian Nation". Surprisingly these days many of them don't feel that requires much compassion for citizens of other countries.

 

[Corn Pop]

I guess it's a matter of whether the US wants to help people in other countries or not. Christians like to call the US a "Christian Nation". Surprisingly these days many of them don't feel that requires much compassion for citizens of other countries.

And think of the foreign aid that goes to Pakistan. Whos hands does it get into, and how is it spent.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Countries impact one another. More so today than ever. It's impossible to be independent of the countries of the world economically and in other ways. The question is whether we want to positively influence the world to our benefit and theirs or not. You can't do that with twitter.

 

[Michael74]

I guess it's a matter of whether the US wants to help people in other countries or not. Christians like to call the US a "Christian Nation". Surprisingly these days many of them don't feel that requires much compassion for citizens of other countries.

Helping people is good. Here's the thing though, most people in the USA are not rich. The majority are just getting by. Only the top few percent are rich, and they have just demanded a tax trim that will result in a considerable future trim to the military. It took many years and about a trillion dollars just to partially pacify armed rebels in Iraq, and there are still armed rebels there. If you can't convince the rich to pay for an elaborate military, security can't be provided to private companies in foreign lands.

The non rich can afford to send a few missionaries and food packages. That's about it. Dealing with armed combatants in other countries is beyond their means.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

You realize the very average American is rich compared to the majority of people in many countries?

 

[Michael74]

You realize the very average American is rich compared to the majority of people in many countries?

I realize that American dollars will buy quite a bit in other countries, but that doesn't help Americans who have to pay megabucks for items in the USA. Indians might subsist quite comfortably on $1670 per year in India, but no one can get by comfortably on $1670 per year in the USA. With that income in the USA they pretty much have to dwell in a cardboard box in an alley, and eat out of garbage bins behind restaurants.

The per capita income in India is $1670 per year. They can survive on that because things are so inexpensive there. Tell me how an American can survive on $1670 per year in the USA?

Americans have to pay $38,892 for a vial of the medicine Acthar, compared to $8 in Europe. Lobbyists and bankers have done a real number on Americans, making things needlessly expensive. Vote for an honest dollar in the USA to eliminate inflation, and tame the lobbyists if you want Americans to have additional resources to work with.

An F-35 costs about $100 million dollars. The non rich can't afford to buy such things, which are needed to to provide security for private factories in other countries.

The non rich do what they can. They send food and missionaries to help others. The non rich can't afford to buy 100 million dollar airplanes to deal with foreign armed rebels. In many cases, security from armed combatants is what they need to be able to start building a better place. In many cases, even the food charity sent is siphoned off by armed combatants, and doesn't even reach those it was intended to help.

 

[Nathan12]

And think of the foreign aid that goes to Pakistan. Whos hands does it get into, and how is it spent.

Multi-billions (around 80 billion) have gone to Pakistan from the US government over the last 70 years, and they have been used to (1) enrich the corrupt politicians, generals, gangsters and bureaucrats (2) support the jihadists, (3) support animosity against India and (4) garner hatred for America. And yet the spigot has not been shut off.

And this is true for all foreign aid. The poorest and the most destitute have not seen anything, but it is still private foundations and missionaries who have contributed something. And every country hates America.

Yet you will never find the mainstream media addressing any serious issues (such as this) seriously and in-depth. They prefer fear-mongering, propaganda, lies, and sleaze.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I realize that American dollars will buy quite a bit in other countries, but that doesn't help Americans who have to pay megabucks for items in the USA. Indians might subsist quite comfortably on $1670 per year in India, but no one can get by comfortably on $1670 per year in the USA. With that income in the USA they pretty much have to dwell in a cardboard box in an alley, and eat out of garbage bins behind restaurants.

The per capita income in India is $1670 per year. They can survive on that because things are so inexpensive there. Tell me how an American can survive on $1670 per year in the USA?

Americans have to pay $38,892 for a vial of the medicine Acthar, compared to $8 in Europe. Lobbyists and bankers have done a real number on Americans, making things needlessly expensive. Vote for an honest dollar in the USA to eliminate inflation, and tame the lobbyists if you want Americans to have additional resources to work with.

An F-35 costs about $100 million dollars. The non rich can't afford to buy such things, which are needed to to provide security for private factories in other countries.

The non rich do what they can. They send food and missionaries to help others. The non rich can't afford to buy 100 million dollar airplanes to deal with foreign armed rebels. In many cases, security from armed combatants is what they need to be able to start building a better place. In many cases, even the food charity sent is siphoned off by armed combatants, and doesn't even reach those it was intended to help.

I thought America spends on foreign aid via taxes, and that lower income people pay less taxes.

 

[Michael74]

I thought America spends on foreign aid via taxes, and that lower income people pay less taxes.

That used to be the way it worked, but recently the rich demanded a significant tax trim. The poor just don't have the resources to make up the difference. Expect future military capabilities to be a fraction of what they were. Defending private factories in foreign lands will be beyond their resources. The military barely has enough fuel and ammo to defend a few farmers and goat herders in Afghanistan now.

The American poor can send a bit of food, and hope that foreign armed combatants don't confiscate too much of it.

The official Indian poverty level is Rs 32 per day, or about $168 per year. The official US poverty level is about $12,000 per year. So yes, by Indian standards, a US citizen in poverty is wealthy beyond all reason, making almost 100 times what an Indian poor person makes. However, they can't buy much of anything with that in the USA. They are barely getting by. They are fortunate if they can buy food, and rent a tiny apartment for $12k in the USA. $168 per year in the USA? Forget about it. You might rent an apartment for a week for that, leaving them in a cardboard box in an alley for the rest of the year.

Only the rich are rich in America. A few percent of the population.

 

[Corn Pop]

The people in Haiti are probably still waiting for there donations.