Leaderboard

Let's start with Emergency Medicaid. Also school meal programs. Pregnant women and young kids get WIC access. Free room and board in certain cities. You think a mother living in Haiti is more worried about rapists and murderers in Mexico than the rapists and murders she has to endure if she stays in Haiti? States seems to be struggling: https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/denver-hospital-system-may-collapse-due-to-migrant-crisis-we-are-turning-down-patients-southern-border-trump-biden-colorado-denver-health-post-donna-lynne-immigrants-illegal-migrants-asylum-seekers-resources What country do you live in that you think this is anything like the 1950s? And if the burden of illegal immigration is so low, why are the Blue Cities in the north melting down over 5-digit inflows of aliens being sent to them by Florida and Texas? What demand? There was demand for dirt cheap consumer goods from China, and that 30 year experiment decimated the American middle class and industrial base. The short term price suppression of cheap foreign labor is not worth the long term disruption to the economic balance of the society. And through all of this everyone ignores the effect on the originating country. What hope do these countries have of pulling out of the 3rd-world death spiral if their hardest workers and strongest men all flee to the US? Is cheaper lettuce and construction labor really worth the long term impact of having an entire continent of heavily populated, unstable countries perpetually feeding low/no skill workers to our southern border? Do you believe that the United States can handle the addition of... 100,000,000 low-skill immigrants? Because there are far more who wish to be here. Exactly how does that play out?

stoker you're missing the key word. ILLEGAL immigrants i'm all for immigration. just not illegal, unchecked immigration. illegal immigrants are getting WAY more welfare and support than the average poor american. 10k on credit cards in NY. free healthcare in CA. our country cannot afford to keep financing literally millions of illegal immigrants per year.

And here is your strawman. Who here doesn't want this? It's never been the issue. The issue is "how many." You will n.e.v.e.r. see a democrat (or for that matter, any conventional republican) come within 1,000 miles of that question, yet it is the single most important question in any discussion about immigration. How many, and who? I will submit that the answer should be something like: How many --> (2% - (Natural population growth rate)). So if Americans are having enough kids to give us 2% or more annual population growth, then no immigration. Otherwise, fill in the shortfall. Population growth needs to be high enough to keep the economy growing, but stable enough to avoid huge swings in generational size. You can't have absolute control over that, but immigration can be used as a buffering force. Adjust the 2% number to better fit desired growth patterns. Who --> Look at what skill class and income strata is trailing, and target that. We have a huge surplus of low-skilled Americans (and illegals already here). So the 50,000 lottery and family allowance is more than enough right now, as I said: Nonsense. This is another strawman. It was a swell idea when the American economy was overwhelmingly labor based, in addition to the realities of welfare and medical benefits that are free to anyone who exists within out borders. But we are now a services economy, and the need for young, uneducated, unskilled men is much, much lower than it was in the past. The easy answer to that is to only import immigrants with high-skill backgrounds, but as I asked before, what does that do to the countries we, the global police, want to advance into the modern world? They need doctors and engineers more than we do. Same as before, this is a throwaway question. How many, and who? We absolutely do not. "Crappy job" is a function of (Pay) / (Suck factor). Importing a metric shit ton of low skilled labor artificially depresses the wages of high-suck-factor jobs. The problem is that we have plenty of Americans who are only really capable of performing those jobs. If they are undercut by illegal immigrants, they simply don't work, and since we are a welfare-supportive country, that's another ward of the state we all get to pay for. If you can't find enough people willing to pick strawberries or build fences, you either need to pay more for the work or develop technology that eliminates the need for human labor. Digging ditches, for example; now a single excavator can do the work of hundreds of men with shovels. Using desperate Mexicans to do the work just distorts the usual economic pressures. When we have near-zero able-bodied Americans without jobs (voluntarily or involuntarily), then we can start importing unskilled labor en masse, because there will be a real, not an artificial need. All of this is economic based. This also ignores the reality that we should not allow anyone who can't speak English to immigrate in (unless they are a familial import). We can not build an integrated society if the new citizens are incapable of communicating with the "legacy Americans." It is bad socially, and it is bad functionally, when you have to waste resources on translation services at nearly every level of government. I don't want to pile on you specifically, because I find most people on both sides are making completely hollow arguments. But you have demonstrated quite well why the issue goes nowhere. You injected a ton of righteous morality into your responses, yet you have proposed nothing actionable. Your preferred solution is not clear from your posts, but it sounds like you want to simply formalize the in-processing of the people who are currently coming in illegally. That does zero to address the actual problem.

Stoker, I don't intend this in a mean way, but you sound like somebody talking about the idea of the border problem who hasn't been there since Biden took office. What is happening now is different than the border problem that has existed for several decades. When you go to the border right now, you will see 10,000 angry 20 year-old dudes. You will see them fighting, and you will see them interacting with each other, and eventually you'll realize that Venezuela and Haiti and Sierra Leone and Nicaragua have emptied their jails and sent them to us. I know there are still families and a draw for unskilled workers and all that stuff that has been going on for a long time. Congress is dysfunctional, got it. But there is a different thing happening right now on a scale we have not seen before and it is a serious threat to this nation. Millions of poor people in a three-year period looking for work would be bad enough, but mingled within that population group of illegal immigrants are hundreds of thousands of vicious gangsters. Are we so innocent and naïve that we cannot see what is obviously happening?

Shack. If we're ready to go back to letting people die of starvation and sickness if they have no money, consider me an open-borders supporter. Until then, zero low skilled immigration. We will get all the low-skilled immigrants we need from the families of the high-skilled workers we grant citizenship to, and the 20-30 million we have already let in.

I appreciate your honesty on the matter, but then why should someone argue with you on the details of immigration when you’re not supportive of the most basic immigration law being enforced?—ie don’t come into our country illegally. As your Christianity argument, spare me. Unless you’re also for banning prostitution, abortion, divorce, etc. Oh and Christianity doesn’t say anything about having a complete welfare state to anyone who wants to come here. As for your ancestors, did they come before the 1930s? If so, what kind of social programs at the state and federal level were available to immigrants then and earlier compared to today? You can’t have open immigration and a welfare state…even some of the most progressive western countries understand how this won’t work well.

Allah has the chutes!

Stoker. Ratner.

i've never heard one republican talking point that says this. your understanding of the republican position is incorrect.

( . )( . ) fixed it for you…I’ll see myself out.

I frequently hear the migrant bussing effort is a “political stunt;” the implication being said effort can be dismissed as unserious. The Texas program is highly organized with a cleaner ends-ways-means briefing than anything I saw in the military. It is staying on budget, has broad public support in Texas, and is visibly meeting original objectives: evidenced by the developing public rift between D federal authorities facilitating the immigration crisis and D big city mayors feeling pressure by residents to restrict the flow of incoming illegals. Previous to this effort there was no disagreement internal to the D party, thus allowing them to ignore red border state concerns. Why do you malign this strategy as a “political stunt?”

Just so we're clear, my proposal blocks out 90+ percent of the people illegally immigrating into the country right now. So the "landmines, shoot-on-sight, indefinite internment, light them on fire, whatever makes you happy and deters others" would be directed towards the unskilled immigrants coming from south of our border, who would realistically have no legal method of getting to the USA. Sorry, but there are more unskilled, uneducated people who wish to move here than we have room for (economically, not physically), and latin americans aren't the only poor people in the world. The millions of immigrants would have to be spread over a wide variety of countries and cultures, to ensure the disproportionate importation of one specific culture does not allow for creating critical-mass communities that are able to escape the forces of assimilation. The vast majority of those who wish to be here will simply never get to. That's what I thought. You are advocating for unlimited immigration with this statement. See above. Once again, comparing the social, political, and economic conditions of 1910 to 2024 is silly. Its a different world, and more importantly, a different USA with different needs. We weren't $34T in debt back then, and bringing in a bunch of low-income immigrants will not help that. And we don't need a bunch of raw labor. Your 20% additional income tax would bring them up to... 20%, since those making less than $40k pay no net federal taxes: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/who-pays-and-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-in-the-us/ Even the additional 20%, which you know will never happen, would not do anything to fix our budget. So aside from not being able to effectively join the American community if you can't speak to Americans, you will never see meaningful numbers of immigrants make enough money to make their admission to the country worthwhile if they can't speak English.

Maybe hard to believe, but I may have an unpopular opinion on this. Raising my kids was the most incredibly difficult thing I've done. I was working an airline job and guard job to include TDYs, deployments, etc while trying to be a decent father. The amount of thought and mental churning it took to anticipate, recognize, and mitigate all the potential pitfalls in a modern child's (especially girl's) life often seemed overwhelming. I have a very strong wife and immediate/exteneded family who live nearby. Fortunately, we were able to shape these young ones into an even better version of ourselves. Now there's another generation beginning and he's starting life with an even bigger advantage and more people to help guide him. You can't remove the danger from a child's life, but you can prepare them to confront it. That takes an extraordinary effort today. Those countless hours at the dinner table, sitting next to them on the bed talking, sitting on bleachers until my ass was numb, Googling calculus answers, etc, was painful, but a family legacy is the most important thing to me. I can't imagine attempting to concern myself the children of others to the extent that I care about mine. That's their job and so many are failing. If a family or society fails to produce mentally and physically fit young people who are wholly unable to produce the strong family dynamic required to go forth and multiply, those people eventually cease to exist. All I have to do is wait. I'lll help where I can, but I am under no obligation to drag the weak through life. If your child succumbs to these dangers, where does the responsibility lie? With the things you can't control (danger) or the things you can (preparation)? If you're someone who becomes conflicted about who you are and believe you need to change your body, I support whatever makes you happy. The chances of you outlasting my family and friends are slim.

A lot of people say this, but then you ask them about their knowledge of the legal immigration system and it's quite poor. Effectively the only way a not-exceptionally-skilled immigrant can legally migrate to the US outside of the asylum system is to either be related to an American citizen, or to win the Green Card lottery. That's 50,000 a year. You can come here on an H1B if you're theoretically impossible to find domestically, but depending on the country you're from you'll face a decades-long or lifetime wait to ever convert to permanent status, and until then you're an indentured servant for whatever corporation sponsored you. People in this thread are strawmanning me because they can't comprehend that I want immigration in an orderly manner. Do we need to reform the asylum system? Absolutely. Pass a bill. Appropriate funds such that we have immigration rocket dockets and hear cases in a week, not eight months, and everyone is interned until then. I'm totally fine with that! But I also want to have avenues for would-be Americans to come here legally. It's unjust for someone to think that open immigration was a swell idea for the first couple hundred years of our nation, ending sometime exactly when their last ancestor made it over. If I said I'd support an antipersonnel minefield 500 yards deep at the border, with troops every hundred yards armed with rifles and shoot-on-sight orders, would you in turn agree that our legal immigration needs to be massively revamped to actually provide avenues to come here in an orderly fashion? I'd strongly support an option for would-be immigrants to declaim any attempt at welfare - that was something my family had to do when they came here, and in theory it still applies via the public charge rule (although that's more about denying admission than deporting people here already). It's a strange world we live in where we desperately need people to work crappy jobs, provide a welfare state for people with crappy jobs, and then don't let people come here to take the crappy jobs because they might utilize the welfare state. That's not even taking into account that the only reason the US is relatively well positioned, economically and demographically speaking, compared to our competitors on the world stage, is because we have relatively high immigration. 1.6 births per woman is not going to cut it - that isn't China but it's not far off.

In staying with my theme of fake bands (but real musicians make it so..) this lady puts POWER in a power ballad when she belts out, "It takes my flesh from bone" and it takes off from there. I give you We All Die Young by Gabriela Gunčíková. Next, this is the greatest band you've never heard if, unless you spent time in Japan. Here is Art of Life by Japan X... hope you got 30 minutes for the listen.

My question is, how many of their personnel are actually Emiratis, and not just contractor expats?

I think the other guys have detailed what would have been my similar response, so need to add to it. It’s clear you don’t want to stop people from coming here illegally and it’s also clear you don’t want to make even an attempt at deporting people who are in the country illegally. We just have a huge difference of opinion when it comes to this issue.

He nails what I would call country meets the blues. Very talented. Tennessee Whiskey is my fav from him and his voice is very reminiscent to SRV. Speaking of SRV if you haven’t seen this you should. SRV and Albert King from the vault 1983 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inshallah we will land safely…green light!

bro that shit has some crazy spice to it. I swear, everytime I think ive heard the most intense rock, you always post a whole different level lol.

I know its kinda hit or miss, but any country lovers?

I heard the SEALs of the Sky were born there.

Pretty stupid to argue F-35s are useless because they aren't the answer to $500 grenade carrying drones at 200agl. It's like arguing SSBNs are obsolete because they can't take and hold a hilltop.

Wait, a Middle Easten Air Force showed itself to be tactically inept? Shocked I tell you, just shocked.

Weird way to say the Army can’t defend itself against quadcopters. They’ll respond the same way they always have, by shooting more Patriots at sky debris which will result in the death of friendly aircraft. The lesson that the US Army should be taking from Ukraine is that a poorly equipped but motivated army can defend itself in flat, featureless territory against an army 5x the size if that larger force is unable wield air power to attack strategic centers of gravity.

Heard it's slated for retirement....... in 2060

ww3 is not already on. if you think that you're a fool. the US killed the negotiated settlement at the start of the war thru our puppet boris johnson. the war hawks in this government WANT war with russia and they will do everything in their power to cause it. we are bumbling right into a disaster.

Perfectly sums up 90% of our NATO partners.

SS is whole other level of fuckery. I full expect that I won't receive SS in anything close to it's current form, or even at all. I'm not even factoring it into my retirement planning. If I get it, then sweet, more 100LL cash...if we're still allowed to use 100LL in 25 years.

I'm one of those weirdos who thinks our laws should usually be respected, but also thinks that generally free migration is a core tenet of this nation's collective soul, and denying any realistic avenue to come to America for billions of people who will literally risk life and limb to come here is downright unAmerican. I strongly believe in the rule of law, but in the end, an unjust law is no law at all. The "political stunt" I'm referring to is something along the lines of, why is it only the moralizing politicians who constantly tell us we need more Christianity in government, who are doing the most un-Christlike things to their fellow human beings. In the end, our immigration system is much like our Covid response - if we were actively trying to make it more destructive and less effective, what would we do differently? My ancestors wouldn't have been allowed into the US under the current system - I hope they'd have had the courage and American spirit to come here anyways.