Sanctuary city opposes housing illegal aliens


#1

A ‘sanctuary city’ … until it’s not!:joy:


#2

Oh, this is excellent! President Trump at his best. A comedian, but with solid logic and ramifications that make a crucial point.

The kneejerk opposition to illegal aliens is hilariously hypocritical.

Exactly.


#3

No… they’re saying you can’t force people into what amounts to an internment camp.

They’re not objecting to having them, they’re objecting to how you’re treating them.

For God sakes, read your own article.


#4

Oh good grief, Alaska. Take a step back and try to see the big picture.

Idiots say criminals are welcome in their county. So President Trump say, OK, we’ll house LOTS of criminals in your county! The idiots say HEY, you can’t do that!

President Trump’s reaction reminded me of something King Solomon did. When presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of one child, he ordered the baby cut in two so each woman could have half. The real mother of course was horrified and gave up her half to keep the baby alive. That called the bluff of the pretender so the real mother was awarded her baby.

Face it. President Trump called the bluff of the idiots of Contra Costa County. Quibbling over how he would be “treating” the criminals totally misses the big point and the big laugh.


#5

In an internment camp

Read it & weep Ken:

This is not a solution, but evil policy," said East Bay Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord.) "It reminds me of WWII, Japanese put in internment camps. We don’t want that.

They’re completely fine with the people being in the County, it’s how they’re being held.

You can’t arbitrarily criminalize natural human behavior. Efficacy is a thing, and if you write a law that ignores it, you reap what you so, and it’s the lawmakers fault.

Whose to blame when Food trucks eschew trans fat bans? The lawmaker.

Whose to blame when the number of “illegal” firearms explodes because 2/3 of owners didn’t conform to your assault weapons ban? The lawmaker.

Whose to blame when the number of black market gasoline dealers explode during a citywide anti-price gouging spree? The lawmaker.

You shouldn’t write laws people broadly don’t accept, and which you cannot fully enforce. You just erode rule of law pulling that crap.


#6

By saying that, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) displayed his ignorance. The Democrat’s internment camps of WWII housed American Citizens who were of Japanese descent. Democrats focus on race. They saw those citizens as the same race as the enemy who was attacking us, and race is crucially important in Democrat eyes, so they disgracefully imprisoned the citizens in camps even though they had broken no law.

But the people crossing our southern border become criminals when they cross, regardless of race. They’re lawbreakers. We should incarcerate them appropriate to the crime, then send them home.

There’s absolutely nothing arbitrary about enforcing the border to our country. And yes you can. For example, it’s human nature to steal, which we have many laws against and enforce regularly.

Do you believe people are inherently good, not inclined to steal or hurt other people? Why are you so naive? Are you young?

On another topic, I might agree with you wholeheartedly. But the citizens DO want our borders to be secure. (And the ones who don’t are mostly victims of leftist propaganda.) This is President Trump’s signature issue. It’s the reason we elected him. And his approval rating is creeping upward.

Your attempt to parallel laws against trans fat, guns and black market gasoline with laws against unchecked foreigners entering our country just doesn’t wash.

Build the Wall!


#7

You’re not enforcing just a border Ken; you’re enforcing a broken immigration system.

You can’t fix one, without first fixing the other.

Because efficacy. No one wants their own things stolen, so people will report their things being stolen.

But hardly anyone reports seeing an illegal. So long as they aren’t bothered by them, they just ignore them.

Further, police departments across the country are in open rebellion against Federal reporting laws, because they need to establish working relationships with the communities these immigrants live in.

If they detain & deport people, the community becomes tight-lipped, and police are left blind and deaf trying to enforce laws there, creating enforcement dead zones, making their jobs harder and more dangerous.

It’s miserable, brutish human nature you’re up against. It’s natural everyday behavior you’re trying to criminalize, and that’s a foolish move if you want law respected. Might as well try to outlaw drinking again.

Law is a two-way-street, you cannot write any law you want. There are practical limits to what law can do.

Just like with music downloads; you could rant about it all you want, but you’re not ever going to stop it. That’s what lack of efficacy is.

*You know this Ken**, so you can’t tell me that you’re ignorant about there being practical limits to law.

And it doesn’t matter what law were talking about, practical limits, are practical limits. They don’t go away because you don’t like them being there, that’s not how reality works.

Oh, I can find plenty of border towns & tribes who don’t want this. They’re reliant on the foot traffic immigrants bring to survive, so they’ll fight you tooth & nail to allow it to continue. And in their position, would you do any differently?

Also, one of the cross-border tribes allowed Bush jr to try to set up auto-barricades… only for workers to dig up burial grounds by mistake, so they’ve been miffed & uncooperative ever since.

Regardless, their existence, is a veto on draconian border security working. Truth is, you won’t have border security, until you fix the original issue.

Do you know what the original issue is Ken? Do you know when illegal immigration first began to uptick?

I do, and it shows a clear relationship of cause & effect. Something in our laws, has given us the result we have today.


#8

I think President Trump agrees with you. He keeps asking Congress for a comprehensive fix including funds to build the wall. But Democrats in Congress are all obstructionist. Democrats are the problem. So we struggle along with the laws we have.

There’s some truth to what you say. Which is all the more reason to build the wall! But I think you’ll find the police departments in rebellion are in Democrat-controlled areas of the country. Democrats are the problem.

To solve this we must build the wall!

Do tell.


#9

No, the wall addresses a symptom, not a cause.

Dwight Eisenhower lowered the illegal immigration rate in the late 50’s by 95%, while keeping the number of border agents flat for years, much less building a wall.

First his INS director, Joseph Swing, organized Operation Wetback to send people back by force.

But that didn’t work; illegal immigration only increased to replace the “1 million” they deported (and at least 400,000 were court-ordered self-deportees, most who likely stayed regardless.)

So Eisenhower and Swing came up with a different tact; get the farmers on board. Swing sent agents out to farms, asking for names of people these farmers wanted to have in the next planting season.

Further, they put “sign up” applications in places around Mexico for people who wanted entry. Thus, INS worked to match farmers to workers, instead of standing in the way of them working together. Farmers, instead of being motivated lawbreakers, became motivated reinforcers of the system.

Additionally, rather than a wall, they used existing assets as a funnel. See people approaching the border, or just coming across it? Take them back to the border line, ask them to step over, step back, initiate them into the Bracero program, then go match them to a farmer/rancher-employer. (This was called the “walk-around statute.”)

Migrants started willingly approaching border agents once this became common knowledge.

Eisenhower additionally used executive order, twice, to raise the limit for migrants, to ensure they could continue accessing the system.

And this is was the result:

Illegal immigration fell (again, by 95%), replaced by legal immigration; the Braceros.

The Congressional Evaluation of this period in 1980s, fully credited public law 78 for the result.

However, a border agent in the 1950s was quoted in that report, who had offered a warning:

Should Public law 78 be repealed or a restriction placed on the number of braceros allowed to enter the United States, we can look forward to a large increase in the number of illegal alien entrants into the United States"

And in 1964, with the repeal of Bracero, the far more convoluted H-2 Visa put in its place, and New DOL wage regulations and labor certification raising the costs for farmers and migrants, this is precisely what happened:

We’ve been riding along this trend ever since.

Turns out, politicians, and Unions, who wrote & fought for the new system, are worse managers of migrant labor supply, than the economy itself. To the surprise of no one.

You can’t pick the number of migrants arbitrarily, you can’t make the system to hire them obtrusive and hard to use; you have to respect economic realities that have underlined this issue for over a century now, or you’re asking for people to find ways to avoid the law.

Get Farmers and other employers on board again; that’s what Barry Goldwater wanted with his plan instead of amnesty in the 1980s. We should have listened to him then, and we should start doing so now. It’s the only policy proven to work.


#10

Nonsense. 75% of CURRENT illegals have NOTHING to do with “farming” or “ranching.”


#11

So why don’t you reform farming visas, and leave farmers & their workers be?

BTW, I think you missed this part:

Get Farmers and other employers on board again;


#12

Alaska, I’m not familiar with what President Eisenhower did, but you’ve described a guest worker program. Surely he didn’t allow workers in without documenting who they were, giving them ID cards and keeping track of them. Why doesn’t our do-nothing Congress pass such a law today?

But you’ve ignored MS-13 and the drugs pouring across the border, and the possibility of psycho-murderous jihadists getting through. Also illegals put a burden on the system–hospitals and welfare.

Most of my life, hospital emergency rooms have been HORRIBLE. You have to wait for HOURS. Why? It’s done on purpose because they’re not allowed to ask patients up front if they have insurance or can otherwise pay for treatment. But hospitals have to pay their staff, so they winnow the emergencies down the only way they can.

In many parts of the country, illegals don’t add a significant burden, but where they do, they add a big one.

We have a problem with illegals pouring across the border. It’s not a simple case of people looking for work. We haven’t been successful at physically stopping them without a wall. So let’s build the wall. It’s not an ideal solution, but walls work. Walls make good neighbors.


#13

I think you missed the point; the identification under Bracero was the I-100 program, which was credited for properly tracking immigrants.

But it was replaced with H-2; which is far more expensive, and obstructive for people to use.

Not to mention ill-responsive; farmers have to file them 3 months in advance, when that can be too soon before they actually know how many workers they’ll need.

Actually I haven’t, you can’t properly deal with that problem, until you separate them from migrant workers.

Until that happens, you’re giving the gangbangers a forest to hide in. They get to hide against the others, who are again, not being reported.

But If you instead gave the migrants accessibility, and no reason to fear being deported, they would self-report the gangbangers, because they have no reason to love them anymore than we do.

Ergo, this is a policing problem, solved, by not antagonizing the people we need on our side.

It’s cause & effect Ken, you can’t deal with the symptoms, until you first deal with the original problem. A problem that amounts to over-regulation, and dysfunctional bureaucracy.

Ergo, everything you’re pointing out, is a consequence of forcing labor, to operate as a black market. As As everyone knows Black Markets answer demands the White Market won’t, while creating undesirable social costs.

Because of not giving them an easy, straightforward, legal system to use that creates reasonable expectations of if and when they can get in. When people don’t have those expectations, many will choose not to bother with the system. Because they know it’s rigged.

The demand for the labor of migrants isn’t going away, so you need to create a way for them to co-exist. Just like Eisenhower did.

The law isn’t absolute in power Ken, it relies on diffused human elements to function properly, and you can’t ignore those elements. Not without creating generators of the very dysfunction you claim to want to fix.

I mean, do you want me to walk you through what precisely any prohibition policy needs, in order to work?

You can give me all of the reasons you want for control of the border, but that doesn’t change what the constraints on a policy like this are.


#14

Nonsense. There’s no WAY to “separate migrant workers” from gangbangers–if the gangbangers want to hide amongst migrant workers for however long it takes to gain entry into the country.


#15

Yes there is; quit antagonizing the migrants, they’ll point out to you who the gangbangers are.

The primary victim of gang violence is other immigrants, they have no love for them. Heck, many of them left their original country just to get away.

Give them a fair system to work through, give them no reason to fear law enforcement, they’ll gladly help us pinpoint who the offenders are.


#16

BS. You don’t know much about dealing with illegals, do you?


#17

I work alongside them; I know what happens to them as they try to navigate our byzantine system.

And yes, I will stand by what i said; when they’re not threatened by law enforcement, they help law enforcement find the bad people.

This is absolutely true. And it’s part to why you should give the Goldwater plan a chance.


#18

And I dealt with them for over a decade and illegals do NOT tend to turn in fellow illegals–even knowing that they are criminals. Why? Could it be that because they know THEY are criminals themselves, they fear exposure?


#19

Because they’re afraid of being turned in themselves.

Take that fear away, they’re willing to work with police. hence why police departments refuse to report people to INS. This is the stated reason they give.

It’s self-evident Dave; for Police enforcement to work, you need community cooperation. Police can’t do their job on their own. That’s why urban black neighborhoods fall apart; no trust for law enforcement.