One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
President Trump want's to boot i*****l a***ns from "Public Housing".
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
May 18, 2019 10:47:50   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
JIM BETHEA wrote:
Let's see now Left to Right ~~ Hillary has run a crime family that makes Capone's past look like an amateur and can no longer practice law ~~~

He/she in the middle had the option to have her attorney license forfeited or be charged with fraud and then have them revoked anyway ~~

The "elegant" and "eloquent" one on the right was a young seamstress ~ then clothes designer ~ and then an international model ~ she speaks 5 different languages, has a heart of gold ~ refused to even give Trump her phone number at a dinner party and it was 18 months later that she gave in and gave him her phone number ~ she enjoys home life much more than being in the public eyes anymore ~ She went through the proper channels of the INS to gain her green card, as did my Russian wife [lots of attorney fees, INS filing fees and 3 years of apprehensive waiting]
~ and had to prove that she had special talents [as do all of the LEGAL ONES DO] it's called ADDING SOME VALUE ~ No "freeloaders" if immigration is legally done by the book as it was intended to work!!
Let's see now Left to Right ~~ Hillary has run a c... (show quote)




HA HA HA... where in the heck do you get your lies?

Do you live in a comic book?

such rubbish.. only a decadent right winger can come up with this stuff..



Reply
May 18, 2019 10:56:34   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
MR Mister wrote:
I say deport every illegal. That action would save us $350 Billion a year. Plus, it would cut down on all the bugs and v***s they bring into America. Then look at all the muggings and rapes and break-in to homes that would end.

Are we so stupid as to not understand this?



In order to accomplish the fear part about mugging and rapes, you would have to include most of the right wingers who stalk the nation..

I base that opinion not on the right wingers that I know but on the reports on OPP which are near daily reporting the crime in the area they live in and knowing the right wingers safe place is with a group just like them, the logic is the criminals are right wingers..

I watched a farm report on the "African swine flu" which is endangering the entire worlds pork producers..
Not yet into the US, it is decimating the Chinese pork industry, has overcome Africa and pushing into Eastern Europe.. Only time will tell if we can keep it out of our nation.. coming via tourists and smugglers..

No cure and no v*****e..

But, maybe if China loses all their hogs, they will come back to the US for pork and our farmers will be saved..

always try and see the bright side..



Reply
May 18, 2019 11:01:07   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
permafrost wrote:
come on Smedley.. that is low even by right wing lie standards.


Michelle Obama
Former First Lady of the United States
Image result for michelle obama education
DescriptionMichelle LaVaughn Obama is an American lawyer, university administrator and writer, who was First Lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017. She is married to the 44th U.S. president, Barack Obama, and was the first African-American first lady. Wikipedia
Born: January 17, 1964 (age 55 years), Chicago, IL
Education: Harvard Law School (1985–1988), MORE
Siblings: Craig Robinson
Parents: Marian Shields Robinson, Fraser C. Robinson II
come on Smedley.. that is low even by right wing l... (show quote)


So where does it say she appeared in court as counsel of record even one time?

Reply
 
 
May 18, 2019 11:02:58   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
permafrost wrote:
In order to accomplish the fear part about mugging and rapes, you would have to include most of the right wingers who stalk the nation..

I base that opinion not on the right wingers that I know but on the reports on OPP which are near daily reporting the crime in the area they live in and knowing the right wingers safe place is with a group just like them, the logic is the criminals are right wingers..

I watched a farm report on the "African swine flu" which is endangering the entire worlds pork producers..
Not yet into the US, it is decimating the Chinese pork industry, has overcome Africa and pushing into Eastern Europe.. Only time will tell if we can keep it out of our nation.. coming via tourists and smugglers..

No cure and no v*****e..

But, maybe if China loses all their hogs, they will come back to the US for pork and our farmers will be saved..

always try and see the bright side..
In order to accomplish the fear part about mugging... (show quote)


Lawrence Tribe is another left wing shill with a degree.

Reply
May 18, 2019 13:17:55   #
Gatsby
 
permafrost wrote:
It is good, but against the law..


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Trump Administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy late Tuesday, reversing a lower court. The ruling allows the administration to send asylum seekers back to Mexico while they wait for court proceedings.

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/ninth-circuit-upholds-trump-administrations-remain-in-mexico-policy/

Reply
May 18, 2019 13:21:31   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Gatsby wrote:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Trump Administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy late Tuesday, reversing a lower court. The ruling allows the administration to send asylum seekers back to Mexico while they wait for court proceedings.

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/ninth-circuit-upholds-trump-administrations-remain-in-mexico-policy/




I missed that... last news I heard was some seekers were being moved to San Diego area due to overcrowding..

Reply
May 18, 2019 13:56:16   #
Gatsby
 
permafrost wrote:
I missed that... last news I heard was some seekers were being moved to San Diego area due to overcrowding..


It's my understanding that the ruling applies only to those immigrants who present themselves

at a port of entry, the "fence jumpers" remain exempt, thus they are being t***sported, primarily to

"sanctuary" jurisdictions.

Reply
 
 
May 18, 2019 20:15:31   #
JoyV
 
permafrost wrote:
Sorry, forgot about President Obama wall...Oh i mean fence.. originated under Bush.. applied by Presidnet Obama and ridiculed by the orange thing..


The fencing built under the 2006 act was not the first border fencing in the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol first began to erect physical barriers in its San Diego sector in 1990.[2] Fourteen miles of fencing were erected along the border of San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico.[3][4]

Passage and provisions
The Secure Fence Act (Bill H.R. 6061) was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 13, 2006, by Congressman Peter T. King, Republican of New York. The Act passed the House by a v**e of 283–138 on September 14, 2006.[5] It passed the Senate 80–19 on September 29, 2006.[6] The Act received bipartisan support.[7]

In 2006, at the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, George W. Bush's White House touted the fence as "an important step toward immigration reform."[1] The White House Office of the Press Secretary stated that the Act "Authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our Southern border; Authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally; Authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border."[1][better source needed]

2007 amendment
The Secure Fence Act provided for "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" to be built. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) successfully argued to Congress "that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense."[8] An amendment introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, was passed, amending the law to read: "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."[8]

Erection of the fence
By April 2009, DHS had erected about 613 miles (985 km) of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.[9] Delays frustrated some, such as Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who in 2010 introduced legislation seeking to require completion of the 700-mile-long, double-layered fence. (DHS had since 2007 begun "to shift its focus to erecting a 'virtual fence' along the 2,000-mile border, using sensors, cameras and other high-tech equipment to prevent illegal crossings".) DeMint's legislation was defeated in a 52–45 Senate v**e in 2010.[10]

By May 2011, DHS reported completing 649 miles of fencing (99.5% of the 652 miles planned). The barrier was made up of 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence.[8] The fencing includes a steel fence (varying in height between 18 and 26 feet) that divides the border towns of Nogales, Arizona in the U.S. and Nogales, Sonora in Mexico.[11] A 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office confirmed that the government had completed the fence by 2015.[12] A 2017 GAO report noted: "In addition to the 654 miles of primary fencing, CBP has also deployed additional layers of pedestrian fencing behind the primary border fencing, including 37 miles of secondary fencing and 14 miles of tertiary fencing."[13]

Cost
Although the 2006 law authorized construction of a fence, Congress initially did not fully appropriate funds for it (see authorization-appropriation process). "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time."[12]

A 2017 GAO report noted: "According to CBP, from fiscal year 2007 through 2015, it spent approximately $2.3 billion to deploy border fencing along the southwest border, and CBP will need to spend a substantial amount to sustain these investments over their lifetimes. CBP did not provide a current life-cycle costs estimate to maintain pedestrian and vehicle fencing, however, in 2009 CBP estimated that maintaining fencing would cost more than $1 billion over 20 years."[14]

Impact and effects
Illegal border-crossings
A report in May 2008 by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal border-crossers had simply found new routes.[15] A 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, found that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, the U.S.-Mexico border fence had been breached 9,287 times, at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair.[16] The same GAO report concluded that "CBP cannot measure the contribution of fencing to border security operations along the southwest border because it has not developed metrics for this assessment."[14] GAO noted that because the government lacked such data, it was unable to assess the effectiveness of border fencing, and therefore could not "identify the cost effectiveness of border fencing compared to other assets the agency deploys, including Border Patrol agents and various surveillance technologies."[17]

The fence is routinely climbed or otherwise circumvented.[11] The GAO reported in 2017 that both pedestrian and vehicle barriers have been defeated by various methods, including using ramps to drive vehicles "up and over" vehicle fencing in the sector; scaling, jumping over, or breaching pedestrian fencing; burrowing or tunneling underground; and even using small aircraft.[18] New York Times op-ed writer Lawrence Downes wrote in 2013: "A climber with a rope can hop it in less than half a minute. ... Smugglers with jackhammers tunnel under it. They throw drugs and rocks over it. The fence is breached not just by sunlight and shadows, but also the hooded gaze of drug-cartel lookouts, and by bullets. Border agents describe their job as an unending battle of wits, a cat-mouse game with the constant threat of violence."[11][19]

Economy
A 2018 paper by Dartmouth College and Stanford University economists found that "at a construction cost of $7 per person, the fence led to a small reduction in migration but had negligible effects on the economy, with high-sk**led US workers losing $4.60 per year in income, and low-sk**led US workers gaining just $0.36 per year."[20]
Sorry, forgot about President Obama wall...Oh i me... (show quote)


Yes the Secure Fence Act was passed by Bush and portions of fence barriers were built. But you missed the key points I made. Obama took the areas between POAs most in need of fencing and instead authorized totally inadequate vehicle barriers where frequent foot traffic was common, while taking an area where a fence or wall would be very impractical and spent $ billions while in the process taking land by imminent domain which often split peoples property to be on two sides of the wall, doing so in many cases required many gates so the land owners could access their property which creates many weal points where i******s might enter, and neglecting to settle the water rights for those properties. The cost is still not resolved because of ongoing lawsuits and water rights.

Ask CBP whether areas where fencing or wall has been installed has made a significant impact on illegal traffic. Why does CBP strongly support building more wall?

As for the virtual fence, it was tried along a section of Arizona border. It was signed in in 2006. It cost taxpayers $1 billion for only 53 miles of coverage. This is the distance which had been installed by 2010 when it was discontinued by DHS.

https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/01/14/dhs-cancels-rest-of-sbinet-and-plans-mix-of-new-technologies-at-border.aspx

So the cost argument against building a wall will cost a billion dollars in maintenance of several hundred miles of fencing over 20 years, how is a billion dollars for 53 miles of virtual fence which can't be made to work for even 1 mile better? And IF it could be made to work, maintenance of such a high tech solution would be far far more costly!

Reply
May 18, 2019 20:46:42   #
JIM BETHEA
 
You're correct ~ the "fence jumpers" are most "bad hombres" and "drug mules" ~~ The alleged f**e refugees and asylum seekers on the go directly to the Border Patrol agents because they have been trained and educated to say the "magic words" that will get the classified as a "refugee status"..

Along the CA border and around El Paso, TX the bad guys are "renting children" for $130 that will assure that these "military-age males" to be able to claim asylum ~~ However, it is now my understanding that Pres Trump has budgeted the funds for DNA sampling, that will easily detect these criminals and prove that they are not related to these "rental children"...

These Dems/Liberals/Socialist h**e Pres Trump so much and many with their eyes on e******n time 2020, they are blatantly breaching their duties of office by failing to protect the American people, in lieu of not allowing or blocking everything that Pres Trump is attempting to do to protect the American people!! We cannot provide these funds to provide for these over 100,000 i******s that are coming into our country each month now!! In 2016 the combined costs of supporting these [much less of a number] i******s in free food, free housing and free damn near everything else was over $132 BILLION....

Over 60% of these i******s are NOT from Mexico ~ Many are from Asia, the middle east and mostly Central America ~ Most of the ones from Central America CANNOT even read or write in their OWN language, so what kind of benefit do they add to our country???

Reply
May 18, 2019 20:49:27   #
JoyV
 
permafrost wrote:
No the only thing trump offered was a demand to fund his wall and then negotiate other problems..

The dems offered him more money the the 5.6 billion but with a solution to some of the problems..
the orange fool refused.. not once but twice..

the fault is, as always all on the orange nasty..


Trump offered 3 years protection of dreamers, expansion of who qualifies, and $800 for humanitarian aide (correction: $800 million) to prevent the need for central Americans to head to the US; for $5.7 for the wall.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/trump-offers-compromise-fund-wall-reopen-government/580867/

While Congress offered
* $1.4 billion for border security (NOT to be used to build a wall)
* A prohibition on the type of walls that can be built (from other funding sources).
* A priority given to Rio Grand wall/fence building with a minimum of 55% of any wall building must be along the Rio Grand (continuing Obama's policy.)
*A prohibition on DHS from detaining or deporting a sponsor, potential sponsor, or household member of an unaccompanied minor based on information shared with HHS.
* An increase funding for “alternatives to detention,” which typically include ankle bracelets and case management by telephone. The Democratic summary of the bill said funding increases would allow such monitoring for 100,000 migrants, up from 82,000, with no funding or authorization for ICE to deport violators.
* A prohibition on the use of any type of restraints on pregnant women.
* An increase in ICE and CBP oversight by increasing the number of inspections of detention facilities, and increasing the frequency and scope of reports on detentions so each person detained must have a complete report sent not only to DHS per month but to various oversight agencies and committees AND a report released to the public for each and every detainee per month.
*A 7% funding increase for ICE and CBP while the increase in apprehensions have gone up more than 1000%.
* A limit on the number of detention beds funded.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/funding-bill-limits-trump-immigration-1175455

So how did you come up with the conclusion Congress offered MORE than the $5.7 billion for wall construction he asked for? Please include link.

Reply
May 18, 2019 20:50:41   #
JoyV
 
permafrost wrote:
It is good, but against the law..


What law is it against? Until they are inside the US borders, US laws don't apply.

Reply
 
 
May 18, 2019 23:27:10   #
JIM BETHEA
 
LIKE A "BROKEN RECORD" ~~ Yep, Congress did offer to approve the money that Trump was asking for Last Year, however, remember what Princess Pelosi and Chuckles have been saying since Trump was elected NOT ONE PENNY FOR HIS WALL....he can buy toys drones and more border patrol trucks but No $$$ for a Wall...

Reply
May 20, 2019 10:26:53   #
MR Mister Loc: Washington DC
 
permafrost wrote:
come on Smedley.. that is low even by right wing lie standards.


Michelle Obama
Former First Lady of the United States
Image result for michelle obama education
DescriptionMichelle LaVaughn Obama is an American lawyer, university administrator and writer, who was First Lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017. She is married to the 44th U.S. president, Barack Obama, and was the first African-American first lady. Wikipedia
Born: January 17, 1964 (age 55 years), Chicago, IL
Education: Harvard Law School (1985–1988), MORE
Siblings: Craig Robinson
Parents: Marian Shields Robinson, Fraser C. Robinson II
come on Smedley.. that is low even by right wing l... (show quote)


I thought it's name was Mike!

Reply
May 20, 2019 10:45:45   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
JoyV wrote:
What law is it against? Until they are inside the US borders, US laws don't apply.




https://www.usatoday.com/news/

A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration's policy requiring Central American asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided in the U.S., ruling that Department of Homeland Security overstepped its legal authority.

That policy was one of the last attempts by outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to gain control of the southern border, which has seen such an increase in illegal crossings that she resigned from her post over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to allow the plaintiffs in the case — 11 migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — to enter the U.S. within two days. He issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that prevents the administration from forcing future asylum-seekers back into Mexico. The order goes into effect on Friday.

Seeborg, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the Trump policy was not properly implemented and violated both U.S. laws and the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, which the U.S. is a party to. The asylum-seekers, Seeborg ruled, were already fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries, only to be returned to Mexican border towns "where they face undue risk to their lives and freedom."

Reply
May 20, 2019 16:19:57   #
JoyV
 
permafrost wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/news/

A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration's policy requiring Central American asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided in the U.S., ruling that Department of Homeland Security overstepped its legal authority.

That policy was one of the last attempts by outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to gain control of the southern border, which has seen such an increase in illegal crossings that she resigned from her post over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to allow the plaintiffs in the case — 11 migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — to enter the U.S. within two days. He issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that prevents the administration from forcing future asylum-seekers back into Mexico. The order goes into effect on Friday.

Seeborg, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the Trump policy was not properly implemented and violated both U.S. laws and the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, which the U.S. is a party to. The asylum-seekers, Seeborg ruled, were already fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries, only to be returned to Mexican border towns "where they face undue risk to their lives and freedom."
https://www.usatoday.com/news/ br br A federal ju... (show quote)


So which US laws did it violate?

You can't order someone back into Mexico if you don't let them in first. As for United Nations Convention, THEY DO NOT SUPERSEDE OUR CONSTITUTION, no matter what Obama said!!!! That is why under Trump we withdrew from the UN refugee agreement.

Isn't saying they face undue risk to their lives and freedom in Mexico, r****t?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.