LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:34 pm So your theory is that had we not supplied military aid to Ukraine, just sanctions, that Putin would have held back & not responded as Ukraine joined the EU & NATO ? Or do you think Putin could have done a bloodless takeover of Ukraine & absorbed it back into Russia without a fight ?

Asked and answered already. Several times. But naturally, since you're on hear to lecture and not to listen to others...you missed it every time.

It's not a theory. It's reality. You had two things that may have happened, had we done the above

1. Putin doesn't see the hurry to invade Ukraine because they are STILL unarmed and defenseless, so he doesn't invade. You know: the obvious reason why he didn't just take a right after invading Crimea. Or invade at some point in the last decade plus.

Or: 2. He does indeed invade based on YOUR theory that the promise of NATO membership coupled with the Presidency of Zelensky is what led to the invasion . America keeps the cash it has given Ukraine (and arms), the war is over in a matter of days, and casualties on both sides are a FRACTION of where they are today. You know: the outcome you CLAIM to want....minimal death and destruction.

That's it. Those are, BY FAR the most likely outcomes. Yep, it's possible there are other outcomes. But YOU are the one claiming that Trump's arms and training are what stopped Putin in his tracks. So......you share my view on #2. It's YOUR view.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:34 pm So your theory is that had we not supplied military aid to Ukraine, just sanctions, that Putin would have held back & not responded as Ukraine joined the EU & NATO ? Or do you think Putin could have done a bloodless takeover of Ukraine & absorbed it back into Russia without a fight ?

Asked and answered already. Several times. But naturally, since you're on hear to lecture and not to listen to others...you missed it every time.

It's not a theory. It's reality. You had two things that may have happened, had we done the above

1. Putin doesn't see the hurry to invade Ukraine because they are STILL unarmed and defenseless, so he doesn't invade. You know: the obvious reason why he didn't just take a right after invading Crimea. Or invade at some point in the last decade plus.

Or: 2. He does indeed invade based on YOUR theory that the promise of NATO membership coupled with the Presidency of Zelensky is what led to the invasion . America keeps the cash it has given Ukraine (and arms), the war is over in a matter of days, and casualties on both sides are a FRACTION of where they are today. You know: the outcome you CLAIM to want....minimal death and destruction.

That's it. Those are, BY FAR the most likely outcomes. Yep, it's possible there are other outcomes. But YOU are the one claiming that Trump's arms and training are what stopped Putin in his tracks. So......you share my view on #2. It's YOUR view.

Option 1 -- If Ukraine prepared to join NATO, they would not have been unarmed & defenseless AND they'd have allies committed to thier defense when in NATO. To join the EU, Ukraine would have to democratize & develop their economy enough to arm & help defend themselves.

Option 2 -- I agree that Zelensky's vow to join the EU & NATO prompted Putin to invade. I do not agree that it would have been a bloodless takeover.
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm Option 1 -- If Ukraine prepared to join NATO, they would not have been unarmed & defenseless AND they'd have allies committed to thier defense when in NATO. To join the EU, Ukraine would have to democratize & develop their economy enough to arm & help defend themselves.

Right. So that wasn't and isn't an option anytime soon. So that's out.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm Option 2 -- I agree that Zelensky's vow to join the EU & NATO prompted Putin to invade. I do not agree that it would have been a bloodless takeover.
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.


I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm Option 1 -- If Ukraine prepared to join NATO, they would not have been unarmed & defenseless AND they'd have allies committed to thier defense when in NATO. To join the EU, Ukraine would have to democratize & develop their economy enough to arm & help defend themselves.

Right. So that wasn't and isn't an option anytime soon. So that's out.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm Option 2 -- I agree that Zelensky's vow to join the EU & NATO prompted Putin to invade. I do not agree that it would have been a bloodless takeover.
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.


I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

Do you see the problems with running around just doing all bi-lats?

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

The war would have been over in 3 days to a week like you and Putin predicted. We're talking a few thousand dead vs. more than a million today because of a scant 2014 appeasement resistance force that would have capitulated quickly. Ukraine would be a defacto part of Russia again like Belarus. Russia would now have to react to many more more NATO states on their borders because they pushed the Russian border forward.

You can't keep your story straight from hour to hour, let alone day to day.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:49 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

The war would have been over in 3 days to a week like you and Putin predicted. We're talking a few thousand dead vs. more than a million today because of a scant 2014 appeasement resistance force that would have capitulated quickly. Ukraine would be a defacto part of Russia again like Belarus. Russia would now have to react to many more more NATO states on their borders because they pushed the Russian border forward.

You can't keep your story straight from hour to hour, let alone day to day.

Stop speaking on my behalf. You have no idea what you are talking about. When the invasion was launched, I made no predictions on how the invasion would go or how quickly it would conclude. Check my posts, they're all still there.

Again. You assume that the Ukrainians would not have resisted. Whatever else we say about the Ukrainians, unlike 2014, they proved that they were willing to fight & die to defend their country. At the time of the invasion, the US provided weapons were difference makers, but they were only a small fraction of the weapons the Ukrainians had at the outset of the war.

In different words, you are restating what I said about Russia's proximity to NATO, as if there is a difference.
You make no sense, in the way in you state it. Russia would not be more vulnerable if they controlled more, or all, of Ukraine.

The other day The World According to Lester Holt had a journalist do a report on the immigrant crisis in Denver, Colorado. I thought a Fan already reported that everything in Denver was clean and green and they had it all under control. Well Lester and not myself concluded at least 2 troubling problems. Denver Health is barely able to keep their heads above water trying to pay for taking care of 36 thousand new guests with no health care insurance. Those same 36 thousand new guests are overwhelming Denver schools. Apparently all of the new guests are forcing Denver schools over their max limit of 35 students per class. According to Lesters report, the Denver school district is juggling students around to different schools to abide by the rules of class size maximums. And I was under the impression that everything in Denver was all sunshine, lollypops and roses. Who knew? thank you Lester for shining the light on this problem.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 3:32 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:49 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

The war would have been over in 3 days to a week like you and Putin predicted. We're talking a few thousand dead vs. more than a million today because of a scant 2014 appeasement resistance force that would have capitulated quickly. Ukraine would be a defacto part of Russia again like Belarus. Russia would now have to react to many more more NATO states on their borders because they pushed the Russian border forward.

You can't keep your story straight from hour to hour, let alone day to day.

Stop speaking on my behalf. You have no idea what you are talking about. When the invasion was launched, I made no predictions on how the invasion would go or how quickly it would conclude. Check my posts, they're all still there.

Again. You assume that the Ukrainians would not have resisted. Whatever else we say about the Ukrainians, unlike 2014, they proved that they were willing to fight & die to defend their country. At the time of the invasion, the US provided weapons were difference makers, but they were only a small fraction of the weapons the Ukrainians had at the outset of the war.

In different words, you are restating what I said about Russia's proximity to NATO, as if there is a difference.
You make no sense, in the way in you state it. Russia would not be more vulnerable if they controlled more, or all, of Ukraine.

I'll restate it if you can't follow. You go on about Putin's concern about Ukraine joining the EU and NATO and having them next door. Yet by taking over Ukraine they would add 4 NATO countries to their border. So that whole argument makes no sense.

You did suggest at the start that there were plenty of people willing to submit to Russian rule rather than resist.

You also initially suggested the invasion made NATO more afraid, and not stronger or more committed. And yet the invasion indeed caused NATO to strengthen and re-commit like nothing in the past 50+ years.

John McCain's analysis of Putin's goals and motives was 100% spot-on back in 2014. The NATO thing is a red herring.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 11:22 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 3:32 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:49 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

The war would have been over in 3 days to a week like you and Putin predicted. We're talking a few thousand dead vs. more than a million today because of a scant 2014 appeasement resistance force that would have capitulated quickly. Ukraine would be a defacto part of Russia again like Belarus. Russia would now have to react to many more more NATO states on their borders because they pushed the Russian border forward.

You can't keep your story straight from hour to hour, let alone day to day.

Stop speaking on my behalf. You have no idea what you are talking about. When the invasion was launched, I made no predictions on how the invasion would go or how quickly it would conclude. Check my posts, they're all still there.

Again. You assume that the Ukrainians would not have resisted. Whatever else we say about the Ukrainians, unlike 2014, they proved that they were willing to fight & die to defend their country. At the time of the invasion, the US provided weapons were difference makers, but they were only a small fraction of the weapons the Ukrainians had at the outset of the war.

In different words, you are restating what I said about Russia's proximity to NATO, as if there is a difference.
You make no sense, in the way in you state it. Russia would not be more vulnerable if they controlled more, or all, of Ukraine.

I'll restate it if you can't follow. You go on about Putin's concern about Ukraine joining the EU and NATO and having them next door. Yet by taking over Ukraine they would add 4 NATO countries to their border. So that whole argument makes no sense.

You did suggest at the start that there were plenty of people willing to submit to Russian rule rather than resist.

You also initially suggested the invasion made NATO more afraid, and not stronger or more committed. And yet the invasion indeed caused NATO to strengthen and re-commit like nothing in the past 50+ years.

John McCain's analysis of Putin's goals and motives was 100% spot-on back in 2014. The NATO thing is a red herring.

As was Mitt Romney's assessment in 2014.

For those paying attention, Putin was saying aloud what his ambitions were throughout the second half of the 2000's. It was clear that he sought a reversal of what he saw as the humiliation of the Soviet empire.

And note, we've had on here those who have made the argument that Russian speaking areas and/or former territories of Soviet hegemony are rightfully part of Russia, or at best, rightfully vassal states. Parroting Putin's argument, not contradicting it.

The US tried various strategies of appeasement, but whether well intentioned or just kicking the can down the road, Putin saw weakness and vacillation in the democratic world and sought to exploit those weaknesses for Russia (his) benefit. And as the operative he's always been, he exploited the openness of our society, our very democracy, against us, with asymmetric campaigns of misinformation and division.

The invasion woke up the Western democracies to the reality of Putin's intentions.

And now, elements are again promoting appeasement and weakness....why? because strength and resolve is hard in a democracy when the threat isn't immediately on one's own doorstep. Stick the head in the sand, kick the can down the road...

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.

That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.

And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?

Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.

Better late than never.

I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.

You disagree, and that's fine.

You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.

A. You're assuming worst case to try and show that you're never wrong.

B. In what world would there be FEWER death and casualties if the US never gave Ukraine military aid? Come on. That's impossible. Weren't you just complaining that we're literally running out of munitions to give them? Unless they're using those munitions on squirrels, they're killing things that they could never have killed without those US armaments.

C. There is NO WAY there would be more death and destruction if we had followed Obama, my, and Brent Skowcroft's notion of playing the "Long Game" with Russia. Yep, Putin would be in Kyiv. But his headaches would just be starting....inheriting yet another unstable country with the WORST economy in the region, and a whole lot of corrupt hands out that Putin needs to pay off. Which means MORE misery and sh(ttiness for the Russian people.

... quoting that famous Jewish librul

In retrospect:

https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/17 ... 5095528512

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:53 am In retrospect:

https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/17 ... 5095528512

I like when any POTUS does an EO signing such as this. 3 EOs...3 different pens. Are these pens historical in nature?? Do they go to the Smithsonian? Are they special gifts to special friends?

“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:14 pm
“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... pplication.
To apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) based on your pending asylum application under the (c)(8) category, you may file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 150 days after you file your asylum application.Nov 15, 2023

https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/work-permits/
Poof

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:39 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:14 pm
“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... pplication.
To apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) based on your pending asylum application under the (c)(8) category, you may file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 150 days after you file your asylum application.Nov 15, 2023

https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/work-permits/
Poof

You can't possibly believe that it's simply a question of "filling out the right form".

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:52 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:39 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:14 pm
“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... pplication.
To apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) based on your pending asylum application under the (c)(8) category, you may file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 150 days after you file your asylum application.Nov 15, 2023

https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/work-permits/
Poof

You can't possibly believe that it's simply a question of "filling out the right form".

There are govt programs & NGO's to assist.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/06/dhs ... ork-permit

Support one or start one. Poof.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:52 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:39 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:14 pm
“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... pplication.
To apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) based on your pending asylum application under the (c)(8) category, you may file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 150 days after you file your asylum application.Nov 15, 2023

https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/work-permits/
Poof

You can't possibly believe that it's simply a question of "filling out the right form".

There are govt programs & NGO's to assist.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/06/dhs ... ork-permit

Support one or start one. Poof.

Stand corrected. You DO believe that millions here simply haven't filled out the right form.

You understand that this means we're all set, and there's no such thing as a "border crisis" or any problems with our immigration system, yes? And that your non-stop complaints about the border can be solved simply by these illegal workers "filling out the right form"...and that THAT is the problem?

Cool. Stop complaining then, we don't have an immigration problem. We have a very simple problem with filling out forms....easy to fix.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:50 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:52 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:39 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:14 pm
“You talk to people who say, ‘I walked 3,000 miles to get here, and all I want is a job. Can you help me find some place to work? I don’t need charity. I just want to be able to support myself. Can I work?’” Johnston said. “And at the same time, we got employers all over the city who call me every day and say, ‘Hey, I know you’ve got migrants who just arrived. I got open jobs. Can I please hire them?’”

All you have to do is give them work visas. And the problem is *poof*, gone.

We're a nation of idiots, led by idiots.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/us/denve ... index.html

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... pplication.
To apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) based on your pending asylum application under the (c)(8) category, you may file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 150 days after you file your asylum application.Nov 15, 2023

https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/work-permits/
Poof

You can't possibly believe that it's simply a question of "filling out the right form".

There are govt programs & NGO's to assist.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/06/dhs ... ork-permit

Support one or start one. Poof.

Stand corrected. You DO believe that millions here simply haven't filled out the right form.

You understand that this means we're all set, and there's no such thing as a "border crisis" or any problems with our immigration system, yes? And that your non-stop complaints about the border can be solved simply by these illegal workers "filling out the right form"...and that THAT is the problem?

Cool. Stop complaining then, we don't have an immigration problem. We have a very simple problem with filling out forms....easy to fix.

The crisis is that they are being allowed entry before they have been granted, or even applied for, work authorization.
Contact your Mayor & offer to support or start a NGO to help them apply & subsist until processed. Volunteer to be a culturally competent navigator.
Pres Biden did not need to grant a blanket parole allowing entry to all your new Venezuelan neighbors.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democra ... ly-show-up
Democrat hypocrites in sanctuary cities do this when migrants actually show up
Why declare yourself a sanctuary if you don't want the burden of migrants illegally crossing the border?
Published September 26, 2023

While the Biden administration still refuses to acknowledge the migrant crisis, it’s impossible for them to hide the impact their disastrous border crisis is having on Democrat-run sanctuary cities and states.

Customs and Border Protection sources confirmed to Fox News that the total migrant encounters for fiscal year to date 2023, at 2,388,350, have surpassed the 2022 total of 2,378,944, setting a new record. With fiscal years running from October to October, this puts migrant crossings at over 9,000 a day on average, according to Griff Jenkins, who is embedded at the border.

...New Yorkers – or Chicagoans, Denverites and others – who have to live with the crisis, voters hold some of the blame. They embrace radical left politicians who proudly signaled their support for asylum seekers. They just never thought anyone would take them up on their sanctuary offers.

During the Trump presidency, you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Democrat proudly declaring their city, county or state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, a safe haven for immigrants seeking a better life – an escape from poverty or conflict in their home countries. Some jurisdictions established laws or policies for the first time during the Trump administration, while others strengthened pre-​existing ones.

But they virtually all had the same effect: An influx of illegal immigrants took these sanctuaries up on their offers for shelter and freedom, putting a strain on local resources. Accepting so many unvetted illegal immigrants led to an increase in preventable crime and negatively impacted the quality of life for residents.

Denver codified its sanctuary status on Aug. 28, 2018, after community activists demanded protections against Trump’s immigration policies. The Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act prevented city employees from sharing information about a resident’s immigration status, prohibited the sharing of information for the purposes of immigration matters, and forbade law enforcement from detaining an illegal immigrant for the sole purposes of turning them over to federal immigration officials.

"Last year we watched as our new president called us rapists, drug dealers and criminals. Our children cried in fear as our new president threatened to separate their families and build a wall of deportation," Councilman Paul López, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained while holding back tears in a nearly 15‑minute self-aggrandizing speech ahead of the bill’s passage.
Lopez and the others extolled what they treated as the most historic civil rights bill in the city’s history....

Denver’s welcoming attitude toward illegal immigrants ended with the Trump presidency. While proudly proclaiming to be a sanctuary for immigrants while Trump was in office, the mood changed with President Biden’s porous southern border. The city saw a dramatic increase in illegal immigrants in December 2022, and local leaders were unprepared.

A steady stream of illegal immigrants was bused to Denver, and the city coped. But then came a much larger group of Venezuelans between the ages of 20 and 40. City leaders didn’t know who sent the group, but they were forced to scramble to provide emergency shelter. Despite initial statements from Democrat Mayor Michael Hancock that their No. 1 priority was the "health and safety of all our residents, including those who are migrants," their priorities quickly changed.

Less than a month after the surprise visit of Venezuelans, Democrat Gov. Jared Polis announced he was shipping the migrants elsewhere. In partnership with Denver, Polis’ office arranged for "culturally competent navigators" (whatever that is) to help ship the migrants "in the most humane possible way" to their final destination. Polis promised this would be done "in coordination with the receiving community."

Polis strained to portray his plan as compassionate, but his actions were almost identical to those coming from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, both Republican. Still, Polis got a pass from left-​wing national media.

Instead, Republican governors earned national headlines rebuking their so-called callous and uncompassionate stunts using vulnerable migrants as political pawns. Unwilling to continue to shoulder the burden of the costs and crimes associated with illegal border crossings, they bused and flew migrants to Democrat-​run sanctuary cities, just like Polis. New York Mayor Adams called this "unfair."

Sanctuary cities requesting help for influx of migrantsVideo

What’s unfair for local governments is to bear the burden of an open border and lax immigration policy. It is supposed to be the responsibility of the federal government. But is it unfair for local governments to take on the obligation when they touted their sanctuaries as beacons for immigrants? What was the point of designating itself a sanctuary city, county or state, if they were unwilling to help bear the burden of migrants illegally crossing the border?

The radical left didn’t think through their plans because their sanctuary declarations were acts of virtue signaling. Their real plan was to burden Republican-​led border states, while Democrats earned future voters in areas they haven’t yet been able to win. Their strategy came back to haunt them, and their residents paid a price.

Immigrants would see this as more of an incentive to make the dangerous journey into the United States. And that’s exactly what they did. The surge continued, as the Biden administration did next to nothing to stem the tide of migrants. And look where that’s got us.