Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

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

  • Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

    Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

    There’s little point to any immigration legislation unless we’re able to reasonably secure our national borders. I'm aware of only four proposed methods for border security that may somewhat reduce illegal entry into the USA.

    (1) Drone surveillance aircraft with infra red heat sensors could patrol our more desolate border areas day and night in almost all weather at feasible cost. They would augment, not replace our current border patrols. I think such drone aircraft will also soon be adopted worldwide for search and rescue missions.

    (2) Our border fence is expensive to build, maintain, and repair holes made by border crossers; but we may have to keep at least some of it.

    (3) I regret that we may need to adopt a national ID cards required by law to be presented by EVERY prospective employee. I feel that our lack of such an ID card is among our nation’s admirable attributes; but this may be among the most effective methods to secure our borders.

    (4) Applicant entrepreneurs seeking to import and employ foreign temporary labor must attest such qualified labor is unavailable in the USA. I’d be more willing to believe such an affidavit if the employers stated qualification requirement reasonably fit the tasks to be performed and the employer had previously made a sincere effort to recruit such labor from our nation’s labor pool. In a capitalist economy, offering more money and improved conditions are indications of sincerity.

    Did the applicant widely offer 5/4 the greater of the median or mean average pay for temporary work at the given task? What was done for how long a duration to recruit USA’s existing labor?

    For comparison purposes, if such tasks are not generally performed in the USA, we’ll use 5/4 the pay scales of labor requiring the most similar skills, study, training and practice. The pay rate of those workers should not be less than that 5/4 rate. We do not intend to encourage import of labor to undermine USA pay rates.

    Each temporary laborer must be bonded for an amount equal to the greater of USA’s annual median or mean average wage. The bonds are forfeited and arrest orders are issued for those who overstay within the USA.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  • #2
    Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

    Ah, if you really implemented number 3 and 4, you would not need 1 and 2.

    But I can see that both the liberals and the cons would disagree with different parts of your solution. For instance I don't think cons would agree to number 4, while perhaps agreeing with 1, 2, and 3. The cons want voter ID cards but not sure if they would want a national ID which would prove to an employer that the applicant was legal. They might only agree with 1 and 2.

    The liberals now that I think about it might not want any of these remedies. The far left wouldn't for sure, and I will leave it up to their replies here on this thread to determine if they would agree with any of your remedies. But I like them.

    The truth is, we could actually stop this illegal traffic if congress really wanted to. And of course if the president really wanted too as he would have to sign it. The only reason it has not been stopped is because neither side has really wanted to, with each having a different reason for the inaction.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      The truth is, we could actually stop this illegal traffic if congress really wanted to. And of course if the president really wanted too as he would have to sign it. The only reason it has not been stopped is because neither side has really wanted to, with each having a different reason for the inaction.
      That's the Real problem - The self-servants we have in public office and the people too timid or ignorant to vote them out. Until that is addressed, all the rest of this is hot air. But seeing as I had already written the rest of this post, I guess I'll do my part to finish melting the global warming off my front yard...


      One doesn't need expensive militarized fences and drones, or a police state where people are stopped and asked to show their papers.
      - Step up enforcement of current efforts until the new policies are implemented
      - Move the budget that currently tells illegals how to steal from us via welfare benefits etc to telling them of our new border plans
      - Provide artists, graffiti and otherwise, opportunity to paint what walls and fences we do have to reinforce that message
      - Hire roughly 3000 snipers (roughly 1/km) with shoot-to-kill authorization and put them on random schedules
      - Put them on duty as they become available, not on a given date, to avoid a mad dash of illegals before that date
      - Inform the Mexican government that we are also authorizing the snipers to shoot across the border in cases of active pursuit of perpetrators of more significant crimes; perhaps then they'll Discourage their people from braking our laws rather then Encourage it
      - Very few people will want to take a roughly 1/3 chance of dying just to get a (by their standards) good job
      - Hmm... depending on cost effectiveness, may the drones are not a bad idea after all, either to supplement target acquisition or as sniper-alternates

      Assuming one considers 'effective' to be the biggest consideration in 'sensible', this or something like it is the most sensible course.
      Last edited by Evil_inKarlate; 04-01-2013, 05:47 AM.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

        Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform

        As the immigration reform Gang of Eight inside the Beltway prepares to announce a deal later this week, claiming border security will come before a path to citizenship for millions of illegals, Border Patrol agents have seen illegal border crossings double and warn the cutting of agent work hours will only result in less border security, not more.
        Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform - Katie Pavlich

        So, what will happen is we will suddenly have a huge influx of illegal aliens who will suddenly become citizens of the United States by political fiat.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

          Originally posted by Evil_inKarlate View Post
          That's the Real problem - The self-servants we have in public office and the people too timid or ignorant to vote them out. Until that is addressed, all the rest of this is hot air. But seeing as I had already written the rest of this post, I guess I'll do my part to finish melting the global warming off my front yard...


          One doesn't need expensive militarized fences and drones, or a police state where people are stopped and asked to show their papers.
          - Step up enforcement of current efforts until the new policies are implemented
          - Move the budget that currently tells illegals how to steal from us via welfare benefits etc to telling them of our new border plans
          - Provide artists, graffiti and otherwise, opportunity to paint what walls and fences we do have to reinforce that message
          - Hire roughly 3000 snipers (roughly 1/km) with shoot-to-kill authorization and put them on random schedules
          - Put them on duty as they become available, not on a given date, to avoid a mad dash of illegals before that date
          - Inform the Mexican government that we are also authorizing the snipers to shoot across the border in cases of active pursuit of perpetrators of more significant crimes; perhaps then they'll Discourage their people from braking our laws rather then Encourage it
          - Very few people will want to take a roughly 1/3 chance of dying just to get a (by their standards) good job
          - Hmm... depending on cost effectiveness, may the drones are not a bad idea after all, either to supplement target acquisition or as sniper-alternates

          Assuming one considers 'effective' to be the biggest consideration in 'sensible', this or something like it is the most sensible course.
          I think you would have to be uniformed to think that a new immigration law would actually change much. With the gov't does not enforce existing laws, creating new ones that will not be enforced is silly. All this talk of a new immigration policy amounts to is a way to make the ones already here legal, as it is painfully obvious congress nor the president really are serious about controlling immigration.

          These guys in DC if employed by the private sector would be fired in short order for willfully, intentionally refusing to do their jobs. Only in DC can you get away with sloth and irresponsibility in the refusal to do your job. And frankly I am sick of it. That is why I voted against everyone in power in the last election and will continue to do so even if my vote is wasted. Because regardless of which party wins, it will make no difference whatsoever in regards to controlling immigration. But it isn't just immigration, it is a whole list of other things. We need to vote everyone of these jackwagons out of office, and keep doing that until we get men in office that will actually fulfill their responsibility and do their damn jobs!

          Yet until the voters start caring about our problems, forget about it!
          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 04-01-2013, 09:28 AM.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform



            Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform - Katie Pavlich

            So, what will happen is we will suddenly have a huge influx of illegal aliens who will suddenly become citizens of the United States by political fiat.
            Nobody has proposed that Dan, except you....

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

              Originally posted by goober View Post
              Nobody has proposed that Dan, except you....
              And your President and a bunch of other Democrats.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                ahoy Supposn, and welcome to USPO!
                matey, i think the third option be the best way to go 'bout it. ...
                ...Thar would be checkpoints or what have you, and ye would have to present yer papers upon request from a Government official or be penalized and possibly deported.

                - MeadHallPirate
                Mead Hall Pirate, I would prefer less intrusive regulation. I regret that there seems to be a need for a national ID card. A prospective employee must show the card to employer.

                If the cards lost, your local Social security office can provide a copy (if you match the picture and can properly answer some personal questions (which answers do not appear on the card). Police officers could confirm your ID if they have your name but a warrant would be required to obtain any other personal information.

                No one need ALWAYS carry their card. I prefer to the extent feasible, that we refrain from becoming an extreme police state. Although I certainly am not a libertarian, I fully value liberty but not to the extent of completely ignoring other rights such as some extent of safety, freedom from minimal want or unreasonable and/or unnecessary indignities.

                The difficulty of Supreme Court Justices is not determining right from wrong, but rather they must parse the law when conflicting parties are both correct. Judges also make human errors but we havent found a better method to make those determinations.

                Respectfully, Supposn

                ?


                • #9
                  National ID cards

                  Blue Doggy, I sympathize with liberals objections to a national ID card. Refer to post #9 for more details regarding the ID card.

                  Im completely indifferent to conservatives objecting thats due to their reduction of labor that can be treated more harshly, have less recourse to legal protection and be underpaid.
                  If the ID is necessary to secure our borders but it would terminate USAs production of lettuce, I choose Mexican lettuce. The net consequences would be more advantageous to both USA and Mexico.

                  I would hope that we would in the future adopt the Import Certificate trade policy;
                  refer to http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...dian-wage.html .

                  In that in that case possibly the trucked lettuce might then be washed and packaged within the USA (but I doubt it unless the FDA or the large volume purchasers insisted upon it).

                  Respectfully, Supposn

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    And your President and a bunch of other Democrats.
                    No one has proposed making a huge influx of people instant citizens.

                    (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

                    Originally posted by Supposn View Post
                    Blue Doggy, I sympathize with liberals’ objections to a national ID card. Refer to post #9 for more details regarding the ID card.

                    I’m completely indifferent to conservatives objecting that’s due to their reduction of labor that can be treated more harshly, have less recourse to legal protection and be underpaid.
                    If the ID is necessary to secure our borders but it would terminate USA’s production of lettuce, I choose Mexican lettuce. The net consequences would be more advantageous to both USA and Mexico.

                    I would hope that we would in the future adopt the Import Certificate trade policy;
                    refer to http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...dian-wage.html .

                    In that in that case possibly the trucked lettuce might then be washed and packaged within the USA (but I doubt it unless the FDA or the large volume purchasers insisted upon it).

                    Respectfully, Supposn
                    It's just that a national ID card is a prerequisite for a fascist state, which explains the Republican interest in making it a reality, and the Democrats objections.....

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

                      Originally posted by goober View Post
                      It's just that a national ID card is a prerequisite for a fascist state, which explains the Republican interest in making it a reality, and the Democrats objections.....
                      Perhaps the only bit fascism the left ever turned it's back on.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: National ID cards

                        Blue Doggy, I suspect that drone surveillance all weather aircraft with infra red heat sensors patrolling our more desolate border areas day and night and augment, not replace our current border patrols is among the best benefit/cost options and would be among the least invasive of our liberty. No one has a constitutional right to complete privacy wild lands or desserts at our borders.

                        I think such drone aircraft will also soon be adopted worldwide for search and rescue missions which is a desirable fringe benefit for using them.

                        The disadvantage and advantage of drones is that they are useful where there are miles of desolate buffers at the borders, (but those are the border locations that I suspect we are now doing less well and/or getting the least value for the money were now spending.

                        I have less confidence in our current and the proposed guest workers policies. I dont know how many of such workers are here due to fraudulent applications? I dont know how many of them overstay and blend into our population of undocumented residents? The bonding of guest workers put them at the mercy of the bonder. I would consider that if the bonder wishes to withdraw the bond, the guest worker be given some time to seek another bonder; but that presents an additional problem. A bonders money is at risk while the guest worker is traveling who knows where while seeking another bonder?

                        On the other hand the risks that a bonder must assume is a strong incentive to only recruit reliable and well qualified people into the USA. The cost of the Bond and the presumption that guest workers must paid no less the greater of 5/4 of USAs median wage or ray rates for USA workers with equivalent extents of training and ability and successful experience, is expensive assurance that guest workers do not undermine USAs median wage or wage rates for the tasks they are performing.
                        The fee for accepting an application must cover the cost of background checking, the fee if the applicant is deemed qualified to enter the USA must cover the cost of federal monitoring the guest workers gross and net compensation, accommodations and their general treatment.

                        Respectfully, Supposn

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

                          The border wall has proven to be the most effective way to reduce crossings and we know from international use that it's effective. It's also the least intrusive to our liberties, since all it does is put a wall on a border we're not free to cross whenever want anyway. All the other methods infringe on our liberties and are of dubious effectiveness.

                          We already have a national ID card, it's called the Social Security card.

                          The other most effective way to keep illegals out is to deny them and their children public services. What we have now is a system where we "compassionately" give illegals access to public services, but we don't let them work. That's not compassionate, that's stupid. If we are going to tolerate their presence, they should be allowed to work.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            I have no problems with people who want to immigrate to this great nation. This is what we are about. But doing so illegally just causes all sorts of problems.

                            My mom came to this country on a green card, learned a trade, learned our language, studied hard and got her citizenship. And never once did she collect welfare or was a strain on our system. That my friends, is the right way to immigrate.

                            These illegals have no business coming here, taking free handouts and not have a stake in our society. And when I have to give medical treatment and they don't speak English..it ticks me off. I think they should be deported and made to immigrate the right way.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Reducing illegal entry into the USA.

                              I would prefer that we station the National Guard along our borders, with orders to repel, however necessary, any invasion (which is exactly what we've been experiencing). If that results in the deaths of those illegally crossing into our country, I don't care.

                              We should give illegal aliens nothing. Not a damn thing. They're not deserving of it. We shouldn't give them health care, an education, government assistance, nothing. Maybe we give them a map and a compass and point them towards the border.

                              Our current President, like Presidents before him, doesn't have the balls to truly protect the country what has proven to be its greatest threat.
                              Last edited by The Islander; 04-06-2013, 07:39 AM.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X