20% Tax on Items from Mexico to pay for wall...

highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Well, you're the one who brought up visas. Most illegals entered through Mexico I haven't seen the particulars about the wall but in conjunction with robust enforcement I think it'll be effective. Not 100% but then neither are the doors and locks in your house.


I think a robust wall will provide a substantial impediment. So will ending catch and release. I like the Patton quote but it's not applicable in this situation. The pope doesn't like it but then Vatican City has a pretty substantial wall, metal detectors and guards at entrances. Obama doesn't like it but the house he moved into had higher fences put in and of course he hasSecret Service protection. Zuckerberg doesn't like it but he bought up all the properties around him where he lives. He's also looking to force out people in the several hundred acres he bought in Hawaii.
People come to the US through international airports with the intention of staying for reasons that are, technically, illegal. I found a series on NetFlix called 'Border Security- America's Front Line' and in every episode, people try to come in without a work visa, intending to get a job or do some kind of work. This series concentrates mainly on Detroit, the Pacific Coast Highway (Washington state into Canada), O'Hair and NYC.

I was working at a house away from where I normally operate and when we arrived one morning, I mentioned to one of the others that the garage door was unlocked and he replied "Locks are for honest people".
 
Last edited:
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Enforcement of laws is checked by constant judicial interpretation. I am very grateful for this arrangement. The enforcement of laws is not black and white.
Which is my point. Kinda like stop or slow down at a stop sign, slowing down gets you the ticket. Some laws require some interpretation, but illegal immigration seems clear by those who break it. Not the children born here as that is the interpretation part I can get. Consistent enforcement of laws limits judicial issues.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
So no laws are being enforced? Looks like plenty are being deported. BTW the chumpster changed the focus from prioritizing deportation of the most dangerous to have priority to just low lying fruit (to pump up the numbers? make it easier on Customs/ICE? or ? ).
You can't just take a snap shot in time and say that they are being enforced. This problem is historical not just current. It's not Trump, it's Congress' problem as they can never agree on reforms of the law. Try to cross into Mexico illegally and get caught, they don't mess around with their laws why do we? I'm all for legal immigration, just not illegal.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
You can't just take a snap shot in time and say that they are being enforced. This problem is historical not just current. It's not Trump, it's Congress' problem as they can never agree on reforms of the law. Try to cross into Mexico illegally and get caught, they don't mess around with their laws why do we? I'm all for legal immigration, just not illegal.
You can't say none are being enforced either, which is the only reason I added that. Mexico I doubt spends much time enforcing immigration rules on US people staying down there past limits. I'm fine with legal immigration, and enforcement thereof. That doesn't change that the wall is stupid and paying for it will cost more than it benefits.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
People come to the US through international airports with the intention of staying for reasons that are, technically, illegal. I found a series on NetFlix called 'Border Security- America's Front Line' and in every episode, people try to come in without a work visa, intending to get a job or do some kind of work. This series concentrates mainly on Detroit, the Pacific Coast Highway (Washington state into Canada), O'Hair and NYC.

I was working at a house away from where I normally operate and when we arrived one morning, I mentioned to one of the others that the garage door was unlocked and he replied "Locks are for honest people".
I don't disagree.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
You can't say none are being enforced either, which is the only reason I added that. Mexico I doubt spends much time enforcing immigration rules on US people staying down there past limits. I'm fine with legal immigration, and enforcement thereof. That doesn't change that the wall is stupid and paying for it will cost more than it benefits.
Just curious, have you seen the cost of incarcerating illegals, just in California? Do you see what's happening in Phoenix and Southern AZ? I have seen Phoenix referred to as the kidnapping capitol of America. What about gang activity? The cost for Police, Fire, EMS, hospital care, insurance claims AND losses? What about the hundreds of billions of dollars sent out of the country, never to return? How does that benefit the US economy, unless you have stats on how much they spend on US-produced goods?

Here's some of the details-

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-illegal-aliens-cost-the-u-s-plenty/
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Canada accepts a large number of immigrants per year ... far more as a % of the resident population than the US. Canada also accepts a large number of refugees in addition to the immigration intake ... not only more as a % of the resident population but more than the US in number each year. These immigrants and refugees must apply and be accepted from outside Canada; you cannot apply for immigration within Canada

Illegal immigration is not exclusive to the US and Canada deals with it today as it always has ... by deporting those found illegally in the Country. Mexico is the source of a large percentage of illegals in Canada, to the point where Canada banned Mexican nationals from entering without a Visa.

Those in the news recently, who are crossing the border in Quebec and Manitoba and asking to be admitted as refugees, are trying to avoid an agreement with the US whereby if someone wants to apply for refugee status they cannot do so from the other country. So if you are in the US, you cannot apply for status in Canada at a Border Crossing, and similarly if you were in Canada, you cannot apply to the US at any entry port. By crossing illegally they can attempt to circumvent this rule.

It should be noted that the majority of refugee applicants who apply from within Canada are rejected, and deported to their home country. In other words, these people are taking a huge risk, as they were already in the US and now may find themselves being escorted back in Pakistan, or whatever their passport says. In order to be accepted as a refugee you have to be a genuine refugee from a conflict area and likely to be persecuted in your home nation for political or some other human rights reason. In other words, if you're from Bermuda or Chile or Mexico, good luck with that.

With regard to highfigh's comment about felons amongst those found illegally in the US, he is absolutely correct.

The reason, however, is a matter of policy rather than a lack of enforcement. America has a choice with illegals ... they can charge them with an offence, jail them, then deport them on release. Or they can summarily deport them, which is what they do. They choose that option because it is expensive to keep someone in jail and they want to manage the cost of dealing with illegal immigrants.
 
Last edited:
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
There was an article in Newsweek about this situation in Canada. While the amount illegally entering is no where near the USA, it already seems to be raising concerns. Will be interesting as to what happens should the numbers crossing the border swell significantly.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
With regard to highfigh's comment about felons amongst those found illegally in the US, he is absolutely correct.
Another part of the equation is the number of illegals who were deported and those who are incarcerated before deportation, only to return several times.
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Another part of the equation is the number of illegals who were deported and those who are incarcerated before deportation, only to return several times.
It's an issue, but for the most part illegals aren't incarcerated in the US prison system when discovered. Should they commit a serious felony, they may end up in a US jail, but for minor offences, they just start the bus, or sentence the offender to time served (in detention awaiting trial) and then start the bus.

Those who are convicted of serious felonies and end up in the US prison system are then often sent back to their home country to serve out the remainder of their sentence, through cooperative agreements. The point being there is a consistent effort to avoid the cost of incarceration, one way or another.

In the US Federal Prison system, you're looking at about $55,000 a year per inmate.

You can't always use the agreements to send someone back to a foreign prison because there must be an equivalent offence in that home country; if not they would simply be released as soon as they entered the other jurisdiction. Illegally entering the US would not be a crime in Mexico, for example.
 
Last edited:
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
There was an article in Newsweek about this situation in Canada. While the amount illegally entering is no where near the USA, it already seems to be raising concerns. Will be interesting as to what happens should the numbers crossing the border swell significantly.
Yes, well if it were not raising concerns, that would be a serious problem with Canada's immigration management. The numbers are not particularly alarming ... Canada accepted more than 25,000 refugees from Syria alone last year, for example; those crossing from the US is nowhere near that number. The new issue is not crossing the US-Canada border illegally, it's an increase in the number so doing in the last 12 months.*

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a high risk strategy as your chances are less than 50:50 of being accepted if entering by this method (plus you are put into custody immediately), and if rejected, you go on an airplane to wherever your passport says you're from. A rather high price for someone who had already made it to North America.

* Between Jan. 1 and Feb. 21 this year, there were 290 illegal crossings in Quebec, 94 in Manitoba and 51 in British Columbia, totalling 435. In all of 2016, there were 2,464.

Canada accepts roughly 300,000 immigrants per year. Of those, approximately 3,800 were accepted under the category the border crossers would be under, with the majority of those being persons who applied at an official entry point.

Immigration Comparison: Immigrants per year / Total Population / % of Population
300,000 / 35 million (Canada) vs 1.4 million / 325 million (US) = 0.86% vs 0.23%

The "border crossers" are not applying at an official entry point; as such their acceptance rate is extremely low. They are first arrested and detained by the RCMP. They are then immediately issued a Deportation Order by the Courts (In Canada any arrest means you must be seen by a Judge immediately, usually this means less than 24 hours, but can be longer over a weekend if a magistrate is not immediately available). If they are accepted as refugees, the Deportation Order is cancelled. If not, they are deported immediately.

A little off-topic, but those US citizens who said they would "move to Canada" if Trump were elected hadn't done much research. Canada accepts about 8,500 US citizens as immigrants a year, from all eligible categories (marriage, business investment, students who choose to stay after attending and graduating from a Canadian institution, express application which is the category an "Anti-Trump" applicant would most likely be under).

At the time of the November election, no new applications for 2016 were being accepted as all available spaces were filled. The application takes 6 months and will cost you about $US 5000 in legal and other fees. You may or may not qualify, but you will be out the five grand. Parade, meet rain.

That last paragraph will tell you how many actually did "move to Canada" after Trump's Election.

If you marry a Canadian, it takes about three years before you will be accepted as an immigrant, during which time you cannot enter Canada (you may be allowed to stay if you married while in Canada. Or maybe not). After another three years, during which time you cannot leave Canada**, you can take the Citizenship Exam, or remain as Permanent Resident status.

** Technically, "should not leave Canada." You can leave, you may not be allowed to re-enter, and if you are, the three year clock starts ticking from day 1 again.

All immigrants are warned not to lie on any application documents or interviews. If you do, you are liable to be immediately deported. If you are ever awarded Citizenship based on false declarations, your Citizenship can be revoked at any time. Then you're deported.
 
Last edited:
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
My position is fairly straightforward.

If you are in a country illegally, you should be, when discovered, deported. Alternately, you could be jailed, then deported.

That an illegal contributes to the economy is irrelevant. Everyone needs to survive day-to-day, so everyone needs to support themselves. If the consequence of that is they support the economy, it's irrelevant.

Everyone who works supports the economy; in fact even those who live on the public purse support the economy ... the faster you turn over a dollar, the greater the wealth that is created (It's similar to how credit creates wealth). The poor (including working poor) typically will spend 100% of their income in the next 30 days, turning over each dollar they receive 12 times a year (the average for the economy as a whole is 7x). Economics 101.

If you somehow had children while illegally in another country, and those children somehow obtain citizenship as a result, that doesn't give you a ticket to remain. You should be deported. If your citizen children are too young to support themselves, they go with you. You've obtained a masterful benefit for your children who can at a later date return to the host country. That's a great achievement for a parent, and there is no reason why you should be disappointed with the result, as you carry on your life back wherever you were an actual citizen.

The world is a big place. There is no reason why you cannot live somewhere other than the US (or Canada, for that matter) that is not a better place than wherever you were born.

No-one is obligated to help you stay in their country illegally just because it's convenient for you; in fact they are obligated by the responsibilities that come with citizenship to help in every way they can to turf you out.

America accepts a large number of legal immigrants every year. Proportionally Canada accepts even more. If you want to live here, there's a way to live here. Use it.
 
Last edited:
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
" ...
There was an article in Newsweek about this situation in Canada. While the amount illegally entering is no where near the USA, it already seems to be raising concerns. Will be interesting as to what happens should the numbers crossing the border swell significantly.
..."

There have always been, and always will be, illegals entering every country. The numbers are high this year for Canada (but less than 2,000), but they are not higher than they have been at times in the past. For the last decade, you needed a Visa to enter Canada from Mexico for any reason, precisely because of people overstaying their tourist status. Any time there is a swell in people from some nation failing to return home Canada imposes a Visa requirement.

Of course it raises concerns when the trends rise; if it didn't you don't have a functioning government, which is a bigger problem that would need to be solved first. But your chances of avoiding deportation by entering this way into Canada and claiming refugee status are less than 50% (historical data). If you have a criminal record (about half of those crossing into Canada at this time do) your chances are zero, (in other words, you're an idiot to boot *) so the best that can be hoped for is 25% will somehow be allowed to stay. If you don't claim refugee status, your chances are also zero.

If you cannot prove genuine risk of persecution in your home country, you are ineligible for refugee status. Most Mexicans will not be able to offer such proof, as it's not considered a country without rule of law and minimal human rights (the ones crossing from the US now, are generally from some African or Middle Eastern nation, not the Americas).

In order to claim refugee status, you must report to a relevant police agency immediately upon entering Canadian territory. Then you are immediately jailed while the refugee application is processed.

Anyone who helps you cross illegally will be charged with Human Trafficking, a serious offence in Canada (20 years in jail). Two people have already been charged as of this month.

It is not quite as easy to "hide" in Canada as in the US, because our Social Insurance Number system (broadly similar to the US Social Security Number) is much more difficult to forge. It is not used as a form of ID. Because only employers and bank institutions that pay interest can even ask for your SIN number (it's an offence for anyone else to even ask for it **) it is tightly controlled.

The Government of Canada recommends you don't carry your SIN card with you at any time. You are issued one at age 16. Without one, you can't work. The number itself is an algorithm; so anyone with a pencil and three minutes time can tell if it's genuine, and the number also indicates which Province you were born in or if you were born outside the Country.

If you work "under the table" the employer is responsible for your Income Taxes and can be forced to pay them. Just like in America, you don't want to try to screw with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA); they can just take what you don't pay yourself, and can freeze all your bank accounts (ALL of it) until you do.

Birth Certificates are required to obtain any other form of ID. Again, it's not particularly easy to get one (say, your lost yours) even if you are born here; it's also tightly regulated and only obtainable from the Province you were born in. You are limited to essentially ID theft to obtain any documents.

Chances are if you try to obscure yourself by residing in a rural area, you will be under RCMP jurisdiction, and they don't miss much. Plus they are a national police force, across every Province and Territory, and have resources more similar to the US FBI than State or Local police would. Many cities use the RCMP as a local force (you can contract with them or build your own force, the civic government's choice).

* But not as big of an idiot as the two brothers who developed frostbite and had to have their limbs amputated. Which makes them ineligible for immigration into Canada, as you need a clean bill of health to be eligible. Pre-existing conditions make you eligible for deportation, not citizenship.

** I have never given my SIN to a Credit Card issuer or a Credit Reporting agency.
 
Last edited:
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
@Johnny2Bad

We're not deporting naturalized US citizens, at least while I draw a breath, and no political party will survive breaking up families that include naturalized citizens. Changing the former would have to involve a constitutional amendment which you'll never see.
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
@Johnny2Bad

We're not deporting naturalized US citizens, at least while I draw a breath, and no political party will survive breaking up families that include naturalized citizens. Changing the former would have to involve a constitutional amendment which you'll never see.
Who said anything about deporting naturalized citizens? If the parents are illegal, they get deported. Presumably they would take their naturalized children with them, but certainly they are not obligated to do so. Hard choices are part of the deal when you break the law.
 
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
Who said anything about deporting naturalized citizens? If the parents are illegal, they get deported. Presumably they would take their naturalized children with them, but certainly they are not obligated to do so. Hard choices are part of the deal when you break the law.
You should study constitutional law regarding the 14th amendment. It's very easy to see how your idea infringes on the minor child's 14th amendment protections.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
You should study constitutional law regarding the 14th amendment. It's very easy to see how your idea infringes on the minor child's 14th amendment protections.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Has there been a Supreme Court ruling? As far as what you said earlier about no political party surviving breaking up families, that's simply a perspective largely promulgated by left. It can also be looked at as the consequences for breaking the law. Consider for a moment that families are fractured when incarceration is involved. If instead of being incarcerated, you're presented with deportation that seems to me as the lesser of evils.
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
You should study constitutional law regarding the 14th amendment. It's very easy to see how your idea infringes on the minor child's 14th amendment protections.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Naah, I can see you will study it for the rest of us.

" ... My position is fairly straightforward. ..."

In other words, I am not Judge, Jury and Executioner. I am stating my OPINION as to what I think should happen. The courts decide what actually happens, always have, always will.

Last time I checked, and of course as an expert on the US Constitution, I'm sure you can confirm or deny, that until there is a Supreme Court ruling, or the same court refuses to hear the case and lower court rulings become precedent setting, no law or interpretation of the Constitution can be said to be involute. So the question is whether that particular example has made it to it's natural conclusion yet (requires researching case law, the necessary information is one where mere mortals are not privy to). Unless you know of one?
 
Last edited:
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
@Chu Gai

“Has there been a Supreme Court ruling?”

Birthright has been involved in numerous Supreme Court rulings. Since this particular example, which happens daily, hasn’t made it to the Supreme Court have you stopped to wonder why?

“As far as what you said earlier about no political party surviving breaking up families, that's simply a perspective largely promulgated by left.”

I find it interesting that neither political party has tried to do this while in power and with means to do so.

“It can also be looked at as the consequences for breaking the law.”

What law did the minor child, and naturalized citizen break?

“Consider for a moment that families are fractured when incarceration is involved.”

Oftentimes sentences are suspended due to the fact of only one parent being able to care for the children. This also brings up a good point, you’re arguing for punishment, in this case deportation, while not all crimes are adjudicated in sentencing the same either.

“If instead of being incarcerated, you're presented with deportation that seems to me as the lesser of evils.”

It’s one of several possible sentencings and still quite severe, many others are less of an impact.


@Johnny2Bad

“Naah, I can see you will study it for the rest of us.”

The constitution is a rather short document, you should give it a shot.

" ... My position is fairly straightforward. ... In other words, I am not Judge, Jury and Executioner. I am stating my OPINION as to what I think should happen. The courts decide what actually happens, always have, and always will.”

And I have no idea how a rational person could read the 14th amendment and not notice that your “OPINION” is in violation of the 14th amendment.

“Last time I checked, and of course as an expert on the US Constitution, I'm sure you can confirm or deny, that until there is a Supreme Court ruling, or the same court refuses to hear the case and lower court rulings become precedent setting, no law or interpretation of the Constitution can be said to be involute.”

This scenario happens all the time, In short, what you’re asking to happen can happen, but doesn’t. I’m trying to explain to you as to why.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top