![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
DUH
Guess that is why the US gives vaccinations before sending them (kids) to Obama administration INCREASE mandatory bedcount "facilities", just in case.
Yup, it's still daytime.
I agree. Vaccines are worthless.runrussellrun wrote:Since the caravan is mostly young children, does Honduras have a mandatory vaccination program like the USA
DUH
Guess that is why the US gives vaccinations before sending them (kids) to Obama administration INCREASE mandatory bedcount "facilities", just in case.
Yup, it's still daytime.
Actually, that's twice as many as we have in Iraq & Syria fighting ISIS.foreverlax wrote:5000 of our best serving meals at the border.....same number we have fighting ISIS.
Scary, all these pox ridden MS-13 and ME terrorits coming to put in Sharia. Scary.
But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
If pigs had wings... There's nothing stopping illegals from voluntarily departing via a port of entry.ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Douglas Massey of Princeton University attributes roughly zero credit to changing immigration enforcement. He claims that more border security actually “locked in” illegal immigrants by restricting their cross-border movement. Since the workers could not move back and forth due to the new border patrol, they sent for their families to come north. Massey estimates that there would be 5.3 million fewer illegal immigrants in the United States if immigration enforcement had not expanded since 1986.
That's the classic open borders argument. It is not enforceable. It's impossible to control who comes & goes.Typical Lax Dad wrote:Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
I have not seen any data to support this but the concept of increased security leading to this result has been echoed by others.
Douglas Massey of Princeton University attributes roughly zero credit to changing immigration enforcement. He claims that more border security actually “locked in” illegal immigrants by restricting their cross-border movement. Since the workers could not move back and forth due to the new border patrol, they sent for their families to come north. Massey estimates that there would be 5.3 million fewer illegal immigrants in the United States if immigration enforcement had not expanded since 1986.
ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
don't let logic get in the way of this debate.... 3:) bang1 bootys1ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.jhu72 wrote:ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Yup. It is that easy. This has been a topic of this forum nearly since LaxPower inception. The solution is the same now as then. You don't need a wall. e-verify addresses 98% of the problem.
That's just an excuse for doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, & letting the underground undocumented population grow from 11 to 22 million & beyond.jhu72 wrote:Yup. It is that easy. This has been a topic of this forum nearly since LaxPower inception. The solution is the same now as then. You don't need a wall. e-verify addresses 98% of the problem.ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
The beauty of e-verify is that it does actually address the millions here already. They aren't going to be able to get a job, so many will leave on their own. You'll still have a good number staying due to having kids here, working on the black market, etc, but it will have a big impact.old salt wrote:That's just an excuse for doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, & letting the underground undocumented population grow from 11 to 22 million & beyond.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
Let 'em keep dying in the desert or packed into tractor trailers, while wasting millions on catch & release ankle bracelets & overwhelmed immigration courts.
Eveify is only one part of the solution. It does not address what to do about the 11 - 22 million already here.
How is turning on E Verify the perfect being the enemy of the good?old salt wrote: That's just an excuse for doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, & letting the underground undocumented population grow from 11 to 22 million & beyond.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
youthathletics wrote:Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.jhu72 wrote:ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Yup. It is that easy. This has been a topic of this forum nearly since LaxPower inception. The solution is the same now as then. You don't need a wall. e-verify addresses 98% of the problem.
- E-Verify Has 50% Failure Rate, Throws Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Workers Out of a Job
Compelling but dated.youthathletics wrote:Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.jhu72 wrote:ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Yup. It is that easy. This has been a topic of this forum nearly since LaxPower inception. The solution is the same now as then. You don't need a wall. e-verify addresses 98% of the problem.
- E-Verify Has 50% Failure Rate, Throws Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Workers Out of a Job
old salt wrote:That's just an excuse for doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, & letting the underground undocumented population grow from 11 to 22 million & beyond.jhu72 wrote:Yup. It is that easy. This has been a topic of this forum nearly since LaxPower inception. The solution is the same now as then. You don't need a wall. e-verify addresses 98% of the problem.ggait wrote:But if you had mandatory e-verify backed by employer penalties, you wouldn't need the wall because people would not come in the first place.If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
Let 'em keep dying in the desert or packed into tractor trailers, while wasting millions on catch & release ankle bracelets & overwhelmed immigration courts.
Eveify is only one part of the solution. It does not address what to do about the 11 - 22 million already here.