LaxPower Back-Up Stick

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.

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.

I agree. Vaccines are worthless.

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.

Actually, that's twice as many as we have in Iraq & Syria fighting ISIS.
(in reality, the SDF & ISF are fighting ISIS. We're enabling them)
It's an indicator of success in countering ISIS that we now have the flexibility to do this.
These aren't combat units. They're HQ & support units.

If the caravans fizzle out & don't show, the troops drive back to their bases. NORTHCOM logs a successful mobility deployment exercise to reinforce our southern border, done with stateside active duty troops, who'd be in the field anyway, training in KY, KS, or elsewhere in TX, rather than on the TX & AZ borders. All done without further requiring additional National Guardsmen to leave their regular jobs. The ongoing 2000 National Guard requirement is burdensome enough. This is a temporary surge to act as a deterrent to the caravans & to apprehend more who enter illegally, between entry points.

Tent city refugee camps, done to UNHCR spec, are a great idea. It's the same thing that was proposed for Syrian refugees. Paint the helmets blue & invite Canada & Germany to send peacekeepers. The ACLU can distribute diapers. Detain the migrants, as families when together, in humane conditions until their asylum applications are investigated & adjudicated, & the 90% who are declined are put on a bus to home.

The level of mocking, hysteria & high dudgeon on the Morning Joe War Council proves this is a political winner.
Trump is doing a flanking maneuver on the open borders asylum scam crowd.
If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.
Let's see if the number of apprehensions & drug seizures increases.
Imagine the recriminations if those images of migrants breaking through the Guat-Mex border are replicated on the US border.

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

In fact, the wall might get in the way of illegals departing the country once they were rendered incapable of making a living.

If pigs had wings... There's nothing stopping illegals from voluntarily departing via a port of entry.

Trump was for e-verify. Give him that & a wall (where it makes sense), & limit chain migration, Trump wouldn't have to do this & he'd continue DACA until Congress resolves it.

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

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.

"Trump was for e-verify"....seems that once he actually understood what it would mean to his peeps, its no longer such a good idea.

Right...he'd actually have to PAY the people grooming all his golf courses...

..

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

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.

That's the classic open borders argument. It is not enforceable. It's impossible to control who comes & goes.
We already have somewhere between 11-22 million undocumented foreign nationals in the US.

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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 bootys1

jhu72 wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.

- E-Verify Has 50% Failure Rate, Throws Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Workers Out of a Job

jhu72 wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

Heck, what about this for amnesty - anyone willing to self-deport gets their illegal entry expunged so they get to try again legally?

The wall isn't going to do anything except drain billions of dollars of tax revenue.

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.

How is turning on E Verify the perfect being the enemy of the good?

E Verify is plainly, clearly, under any and all circumstances, the end game. Walls, hugs, threats, etc. are all pointless if you don't make it so employers can make sure the person in front of you is who they say they are.

As for those already here, you have two choices: permanent work visa, or full citizenship. Pick one. Anything else is pointless because it would 'make pretend' these people aren't here. And for people need to run through E verify, too.

Turn the damn thing on, and fine and criminally prosecute employers for not following the protocol. Everything else is a total waste of time and money.

youthathletics wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.

- E-Verify Has 50% Failure Rate, Throws Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Workers Out of a Job

I suggest they get themselves better programmers, ones familiar with how you match individuals with computer records. Might want to try some folks from the medical informatics world. We have gotten really good at it, though not perfect. The worst that happens here is there is a challenge process that the worker can appeal to.

youthathletics wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.

Frank Sharry of Princeton University disagrees.

- E-Verify Has 50% Failure Rate, Throws Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Workers Out of a Job

Compelling but dated.

It has to be ready by now....Trump is tossing $23 million at it for '19.

Yea, immigration is high on the list of problems they want to solve.

old salt wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

ggait wrote:

If we had a wall, this would not be necessary to seal the illegal entry corridors.

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.

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.
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.

Non-sense. See Holmes' post.

Trolling.

..

Clearly those propping up e-verify have not worked in construction, farming, landscaping, hospitality cleaning, residential handyman, just name a handful. It’s like a contractor biding a job, having been awarded the project for low bid, he staffs the job with 1....yes 1 legal foreman and rest are filled with under the table, non english speaking, low wage labor. See it every day.

The only jobs that are clean, for the most part, are Davis-Bacon/certified payroll, and there even loopholes in that process. You all are assuming business owners/employers are ALL forthright and on the up&up....HA! It’s a mess out there.