Deranged Democrat

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

*hangs head* (figuratively)

Have you noticed the deafening silence from much of the MSM over this issue?  There are people who are making excuses for him AND going as far as to question the latest woman for being a Sanders supporter.  Remember -EVERY WOMAN must be believed?  It is rank hypocrisy.  How anyone can look at the treatment served to Kavanaugh over something no one had any proof, of compared to this sleaze with literally hundreds of pictures and video of women and children looking VERY uncomfortable while he's touching them and not see the hypocrisy is astounding to me.  

[Jerry Gallo]

Nothing to see at our border, which open-border liberals are taking these folks in?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5783204-Secretary-Nielsen-Letter-to-Members-of-Congress.html

[Gromdor]

48 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Nothing to see at our border, which open-border liberals are taking these folks in?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5783204-Secretary-Nielsen-Letter-to-Members-of-Congress.html

You are talking about the people claiming legal asylum?

Take them here:https://refugees.org/field-office/des-moines/

or here:https://dhs.iowa.gov/refugee-services

Iowa has been suffering from a lack of available man power for years before Trump.  It's gotten so bad that they want to bus in prisoners to factories to work:https://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/iowa-company-plans-hire-prisoners-while-theyre-still-prison#stream/0

We are also suffering from severe population loss from rural towns: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/05/29/map-shows-stark-reality-iowa-rural-population-loss-depopulation-metro-urban/652175002/

That void has been filled in the decades gone by with illegal immigrants.  No reason why we can't take in the asylum seekers flooding the border now.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

35 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You are talking about the people claiming legal asylum?

Take them here:https://refugees.org/field-office/des-moines/

or here:https://dhs.iowa.gov/refugee-services

Iowa has been suffering from a lack of available man power for years before Trump.  It's gotten so bad that they want to bus in prisoners to factories to work:https://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/iowa-company-plans-hire-prisoners-while-theyre-still-prison#stream/0

We are also suffering from severe population loss from rural towns: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/05/29/map-shows-stark-reality-iowa-rural-population-loss-depopulation-metro-urban/652175002/

That void has been filled in the decades gone by with illegal immigrants.  No reason why we can't take in the asylum seekers flooding the border now.

 

What's the number of people from other countries that our country can support? 325M = $22T in debt. We have plenty of poverty, homelessness, untreated veterans and the aged as is.

What is the burden required to claim asylum? How do they separate those claiming asylum from those needing asylum when dealing with 100K people per month? What does the background check look like on those folks?

Why is Iowa population dropping? Why are people fleeing to metro areas? Why aren't Iowans doing those jobs?

How long before illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, those on work visas and the like before they decide to be like American citizens who can get paid to stay home?

Not saying there isn't some level of necessity in this country, but before I bus a bunch of people to Iowa to do work they may not want to do or be capable of, I'd need to have more answers. And not making this personal, but I am curious, how many of these workers will the citizens of Iowa take into their own homes from day one with zero knowledge about them in order to staff factories and farms?

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

What's the number of people from other countries that our country can support? 325M = $22T in debt. We have plenty of poverty, homelessness, untreated veterans and the aged as is.

What is the burden required to claim asylum? How do they separate those claiming asylum from those needing asylum when dealing with 100K people per month? What does the background check look like on those folks?

Why is Iowa population dropping? Why are people fleeing to metro areas? Why aren't Iowans doing those jobs?

How long before illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, those on work visas and the like before they decide to be like American citizens who can get paid to stay home?

Not saying there isn't some level of necessity in this country, but before I bus a bunch of people to Iowa to do work they may not want to do or be capable of, I'd need to have more answers. And not making this personal, but I am curious, how many of these workers will the citizens of Iowa take into their own homes from day one with zero knowledge about them in order to staff factories and farms?

Historically we have taken entire ethnic groups- like the Tai Dam after the Vietnam war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_Dam_people

But to break down your complaints.

We can support millions.  We have housing and jobs.  We don't do anything about poverty, homeless, untreated veterans and the aged because we could care less about them.  They only exist as an excuse for why we can't take care of other people we don't like.  Heck, we like to put spike on benches so the homeless veterans can suffer.

The burden to claiming asylum?  That's pretty clearly stated in our asylum laws that our president swore to uphold but doesn't like.

Why is Iowa's population dropping?  Because liberal neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois pay more and have more things for younger generation people to do.  Growing corn and hogs is pretty boring for the average American.  For refugees it is heaven.

How long before they become worthless like the average US citizen?   One or two generations.  We complain about people not assimilating, but we really need to work on what it is we want them to assimilate to.  But that's an "us" problem not a "them" problem.

Iowans haven't had a problem housing or training people to work here.  Unfortunately the biggest worry is when some of the more unscrupulous ones do things like this: https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-awards-240-million-to-32-mentally-disabled-iowa-turkey-plant-workers-for-years-of-abuse

and this: https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/migrant-farm-workers-still-face-issues-in-iowa/article_587ab2e4-b96e-5948-9a01-3881aa98215e.html

I won't lie.  I don't think I have seen a residential house made in the last 10 years here that wasn't made by erhm, "immigrant" labor.  People seem fine living in them without much concern about the training of the guys who built them.  Pretty sure you regularly put food in your mouth that was handled by immigrants as well. 

[Jerry Gallo]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Historically we have taken entire ethnic groups- like the Tai Dam after the Vietnam war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_Dam_people

But to break down your complaints.

We can support millions.  We have housing and jobs.  We don't do anything about poverty, homeless, untreated veterans and the aged because we could care less about them.  They only exist as an excuse for why we can't take care of other people we don't like.  Heck, we like to put spike on benches so the homeless veterans can suffer.

The burden to claiming asylum?  That's pretty clearly stated in our asylum laws that our president swore to uphold but doesn't like.

Why is Iowa's population dropping?  Because liberal neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois pay more and have more things for younger generation people to do.  Growing corn and hogs is pretty boring for the average American.  For refugees it is heaven.

How long before they become worthless like the average US citizen?   One or two generations.  We complain about people not assimilating, but we really need to work on what it is we want them to assimilate to.  But that's an "us" problem not a "them" problem.

Iowans haven't had a problem housing or training people to work here.  Unfortunately the biggest worry is when some of the more unscrupulous ones do things like this: https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-awards-240-million-to-32-mentally-disabled-iowa-turkey-plant-workers-for-years-of-abuse

and this: https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/migrant-farm-workers-still-face-issues-in-iowa/article_587ab2e4-b96e-5948-9a01-3881aa98215e.html

I won't lie.  I don't think I have seen a residential house made in the last 10 years here that wasn't made by erhm, "immigrant" labor.  People seem fine living in them without much concern about the training of the guys who built them.  Pretty sure you regularly put food in your mouth that was handled by immigrants as well. 

in 1975, the US population was 216M, today it is 325M+. And an entire ethnic group amounted to what, 1500 people? Sorry, but the rhetoric won't hold up using those statistics.

Questions are complaints?

"We can support millions", "We don't like", "we don't care about"...gonna pass on commenting about those opinions.

What I am asking is how do 100K people from other countries know our asylum laws to claim asylum? Did they all meet at the library in Honduras and Venezuela and study our laws, along with those of say Panama and Costa Rica and determine that the trek to the US is the better move? Or is it an orchestrated attempt to flood the US with potential democrat voters? 

Heaven...in Iowa? That's twice I've heard that now!  Iowa is boring and can't match wages of neighboring states...we solve this by exploiting the indigent from other countries because they will work hard and do so for less? What's the difference between exploiting the disabled, prisoners or third world visitors, so long as the farms get the cheap labor?

One or two generations? I'd challenge only long enough for some left wing politician to grant them the rights of American citizens. If our people won't do those jobs and our government pacifies that with aide in exchange for votes, there is nothing preventing that from happening with non-citizens via amnesty. It's a problem likely to perpetuate itself into a country of 400M with more poverty, welfare and the like.

Must be careful not to conflate immigrants with illegals or exploited asylum seekers. Immigrants connote people who followed a process and became citizens the right way. Use of non-citizens who have little choice but to do jobs we won't do, for less than scale, that seems to say we'll solve a problem by enslaving them to a situation that may not want or like. So, when they are accepted and assigned to Iowa and hate their lives, what then? Canada? Back home?

I just don't see anything here that sways me to let 'em in unfettered. Be easier to simply outsource corn and pig farming to where the labor is coming from. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Jerry Gallo

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

in 1975, the US population was 216M, today it is 325M+. And an entire ethnic group amounted to what, 1500 people? Sorry, but the rhetoric won't hold up using those statistics.

Questions are complaints?

"We can support millions", "We don't like", "we don't care about"...gonna pass on commenting about those opinions.

What I am asking is how do 100K people from other countries know our asylum laws to claim asylum? Did they all meet at the library in Honduras and Venezuela and study our laws, along with those of say Panama and Costa Rica and determine that the trek to the US is the better move? Or is it an orchestrated attempt to flood the US with potential democrat voters? 

Heaven...in Iowa? That's twice I've heard that now!  Iowa is boring and can't match wages of neighboring states...we solve this by exploiting the indigent from other countries because they will work hard and do so for less? What's the difference between exploiting the disabled, prisoners or third world visitors, so long as the farms get the cheap labor?

One or two generations? I'd challenge only long enough for some left wing politician to grant them the rights of American citizens. If our people won't do those jobs and our government pacifies that with aide in exchange for votes, there is nothing preventing that from happening with non-citizens via amnesty. It's a problem likely to perpetuate itself into a country of 400M with more poverty, welfare and the like.

Must be careful not to conflate immigrants with illegals or exploited asylum seekers. Immigrants connote people who followed a process and became citizens the right way. Use of non-citizens who have little choice but to do jobs we won't do, for less than scale, that seems to say we'll solve a problem by enslaving them to a situation that may not want or like. So, when they are accepted and assigned to Iowa and hate their lives, what then? Canada? Back home?

I just don't see anything here that sways me to let 'em in unfettered. Be easier to simply outsource corn and pig farming to where the labor is coming from. 

I'm beginning to understand why you are unable to resolve issues like this and are forced to wallow in it's consequences.  You are more scared about what they might be than solving the problem itself.

You originally asked this:

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Nothing to see at our border, which open-border liberals are taking these folks in?

I gave you a clear concise answer and now you are waffling over it. 

[Jerry Gallo]

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I'm beginning to understand why you are unable to resolve issues like this and are forced to wallow in it's consequences.  You are more scared about what they might be than solving the problem itself.

You originally asked this:

I gave you a clear concise answer and now you are waffling over it. 

So, your doors are open for a family of five or six, no questions asked? 

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So, your doors are open for a family of five or six, no questions asked? 

Hell, I say send a few hundred thousand over.  I was thinking about investing in a rental property anyways.  They have a higher employment rate than the rest of us, commit less crime, and have an incentive to keep their nose clean for however many years it takes to process their court cases.

Edit to add:  And my company is hiring........

Edited April 2, 2019 by Gromdor

[Jerry Gallo]

21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Hell, I say send a few hundred thousand over.  I was thinking about investing in a rental property anyways.  They have a higher employment rate than the rest of us, commit less crime, and have an incentive to keep their nose clean for however many years it takes to process their court cases.

Edit to add:  And my company is hiring........

So much anecdotal certainty of immigrant fueled utopia, why not rent a bus, go pick up the first hundred and put them up in your rental property for free until their first check gets posted? Better look into the return on the rent though, working below scale, sending money home, not going to be much left over in heaven to pay the landlord. You'll let them go month to month, correct? 

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So much anecdotal certainty of immigrant fueled utopia, why not rent a bus, go pick up the first hundred and put them up in your rental property for free until their first check gets posted? Better look into the return on the rent though, working below scale, sending money home, not going to be much left over in heaven to pay the landlord. You'll let them go month to month, correct? 

Again, I answered your question and you are wishy-washing over imagined complications.

34 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So, your doors are open for a family of five or six, no questions asked? 

But considering I have free time, I will humor you by pointing out that currently many Iowans do just that.  If you read the abuse articles I posted earlier, you will see that there are examples in that.  What you are describing is almost exactly like how our migrant farm system has worked for the last 50 years.  It's even free for the permit: https://idph.iowa.gov/Environmental-Health-Services/Occupational-Health-and-Safety-Surveillance/Migrant-Labor-Camp-Program

[RavenHawk]

I have such a love/hate affair with your replies.  You bring up good points most of the time and challenge me and I love that but replies turn into novels very fast and I hate that.

10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yeah, I've been thinking about that in the history of conservatives.  That history is not about freedom, it is about opposition to change.

Actually, it’s probably both.  Unnecessary change brings loss of freedom and those are both main tendencies of government.

 

There were conservatives in 1776.  They were opposed to breaking away from England.  They supported the monarchy and nobility.   They wanted no change.

They supported the Crown because they were Englishmen.  But they wanted the same things those in the north wanted.  They wanted autonomy.  But still remain English.  If King George was reasonable, we would be part of the Commonwealth today.

 

"Constitution, Who needs one of those?  We have gotten along in England for  a thousand years without one."

You still had a defacto Constitution which developed over time.  From the Magna Carta, through the reforms by William of Orange (English Bill of Rights), to the Commonwealth.

 

"Bill of Rights, why do we need free speech of the right to bear arms? If we didn't have the king and the nobles to guide the lower classes, it would be anarchy."

Sounds like the stereotypical English mentality.  The right to bear arms wasn’t to overthrow the Crown for any reason.  It was in essence to defend against an overreaching Crown.  To allow Protestants to defend themselves and limit the King from having a standing army.  Between the English Bill of Rights and the Oath of Allegiance, provided a means of checks and balances (at least at home).

 

If conservatives had been stronger, the liberals of the day; Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and others would have been executed or rotting on prison ships like the Jacobites in Scotland.

And that nearly happened on several occasions.  That would be one way to look at it, but it wouldn’t have been if Conservatives had been stronger.  Both sides were strongly influenced by the writers of the Enlightenment.  They would have been executed if there were more staunch loyalists acting in a police state.  But all the taxation acts were beginning to wear on the most loyal of the Tories.

 

200 years later, conservatives kind of like the idea of freedom and practically worship the founding fathers as if they were their own. 

Conservatives today are not the same as they were then.  Our political parties have merged and morphed from then.  The Conservative is more like the Liberals of those days.  We owe everything to the Founding Fathers, but they should not be worshiped.  It is their words and intents that need to be venerated and continued.

 

Reminds me of Jesus, the liberal of his day, crucified by the conservatives and big government, yet worshiped now.  At least in name, to actually live life the way he said, well he couldn't have actually meant that could he?  That would disturb the established order.

The Establishment is now the Socialists.  And to think we should live our lives the way we see fit scares them to no end.  “How dare they do that without us to guide them”.

 

No nobility?  How do we know who is superior in society, how does everyone know his place?    Money of course.  A reasonable substitute.  Being born rich is just as good a measure as being born a lord.

There is no 'place' to know.  You are who you are.  It is up to you to be successful or not.  That includes building wealth as well as maintaining it.  If you are not successful, you will do neither.  Success is not a ratings game.  If you can support your family then you have a place at the table.

 

Now DHS has become 20 years old, getting close enough to be recognized as established order by conservatives. It continues to collect data and quietly grows. Doesn't seem to be a concern. 

I have mixed thoughts on this.  The purpose of DHS is to coordinate the actions of our intel agencies to defend this country.  Not to be weaponized against the people.  We need very clearly defined limitations to protect the rights of the individual.  I have no problem with surveillance provided it is not abused.  Trust is paramount.  What happened with Trump’s campaign has done a lot to destroy that trust.  I’m not sure what the government is going to have to do to regain that trust??  A good start would be to severely punish those responsible, including the very top (and working down) which would be Obama and Hilary.  We need a great purge.  Only then will trust be restored.  In a Socialist nation, these people would just disappear but we don’t do that in a free society and they will learn that for once.

 

From comments on this website, conservatives are not really sold on the liberal idea of separation of powers yet.   

Excuse me!?  That was not a liberal idea.  Even back when, separation of powers was foremost with both sides.  Conservatives would not have ratified the Constitution if there was no separation of powers.  It was the abuse of power by the Crown that brought them together.

 

They seem to favor a strong unitary executive who doesn't need to ask anything, just order actions for the good of the people. 

The President shouldn’t need to ask anything when performing his job.  We expect a President to act unilaterally when following the law.  And that is what Trump is doing.  I know there are those that don’t believe that, but they are just parroting what was told them.

 

Here is that concept again relying on a powerful leader to tell the people what to do. 

What do you think a leader is?  We have a representative government, where the will of the people is made law, then the leader enforces that.  One needs a powerful, strong leader to enforce the law.

 

I think it wouldn't be too far a stretch for conservatives to support a military dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, just as long as they didn't give medical care or a basic income to the underclass.

And you would be wrong.  You seem to be confusing a President that executes his Constitutional powers with a dictator.  Perhaps at times, there is no difference.  It is not the place of the government to *GIVE* medical care or basic income to a free people.  It is their place to take care of themselves and the government’s place to provide an environment so that the people are free to do so.  It is for that reason that a President acts unilaterally.

 

I think conservatives yearn for an established rank  and place in society with the benefits appertaining to that rank.  I think they like to know their place and feel better if they are a rung or two above the  hoi polloi.

And you think incorrectly.  It is in Socialism that deals in identity politics and ranking.

 

Well how about the Second Amendment and our right to own assault rifles that we so jealously guard?.  That must tell everyone that conservatives are willing to die for their freedom.  Nope.  You are willing to rise up and die against a government that wants to change the established order. 

If that established order is freedom, then it is the same.  But it is more likely that it is the government trying to enslave the people and Trump has been unilaterally fighting that.  He’s returning the government back to the people.  It is the people that need to remain vigilant against government and remind it from time to time where government’s place is.  The people can’t do that without the unlimited right to bear arms.

 

Deep down in your hearts, it is fear of and resistance to change not freedom that propels you. 

Nope.  It is an exciting new world out there.  It’s not resistance to change, it’s making unwise changes just for change sake (social programming).  Socialism fears real change.  Change that it cannot control.  The unknown requires innovation and creativity.  Socialism cannot afford the people these things because it then loses control, and there goes class and ranking.

[Tatetopa]

15 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So much anecdotal certainty of immigrant fueled utopia, why not rent a bus, go pick up the first hundred and put them up in your rental property for free until their first check gets posted? Better look into the return on the rent though, working below scale, sending money home, not going to be much left over in heaven to pay the landlord. You'll let them go month to month, correct? 

Capitalism pal.  You don't rent a bus when the ambitious people make their own way.  First month rent free?  Maybe a good investment for a hard working multi-year tenant.  People looking to make a good impression and stay trouble-free pay their bills first.  They do without to send money home.  Socialism seems to be the big fear here, give undeserving people a cut of our pie, something for nothing.  We lose. Not the case.  You bring people in and let them work. A man and woman each working 50 hours a week should earn enough to pay for  a modest two bedroom apartment, health insurance when they are sick, school for their kids and enough to eat  All of that comes out of their paychecks.  If they want to take the kids to McDonalds or buy Christmas presents, they work 55 hours a week instead of 50. If they push their kids hard to fit in and do well in school then they might be able to save a bit for college too.  If they tell their kids that hard work is the way to get ahead, they won't have to depend on their parents giving the school a million dollars or the school accepting them because a coach is willing to put them on a fake  rowing scholarship. .

[Tatetopa]

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I have such a love/hate affair with your replies.  You bring up good points most of the time and challenge me and I love that but replies turn into novels very fast and I hate that.

I love your responses too because some of what I say is definitely over the top to get a response.  I don't want the country to be like I say on every issue.  I want discussion and thought and intelligent decisions.  Liberals and conservatives should shake their own trees and examine why they believe what they do.

I don't like rapid or thoughtless change more than most people, so I think the liberal gas pedal and the conservative brake need to work together to give us  a course of slow change that perfects our system of government. 

I do appreciate the time you take to respond.  I don't think I have all of the answers so I do think about your points.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Capitalism pal.  You don't rent a bus when the ambitious people make their own way.  First month rent free?  Maybe a good investment for a hard working multi-year tenant.  People looking to make a good impression and stay trouble-free pay their bills first.  They do without to send money home.  Socialism seems to be the big fear here, give undeserving people a cut of our pie, something for nothing.  We lose. Not the case.  You bring people in and let them work. A man and woman each working 50 hours a week should earn enough to pay for  a modest two bedroom apartment, health insurance when they are sick, school for their kids and enough to eat  All of that comes out of their paychecks.  If they want to take the kids to McDonalds or buy Christmas presents, they work 55 hours a week instead of 50. If they push their kids hard to fit in and do well in school then they might be able to save a bit for college too.  If they tell their kids that hard work is the way to get ahead, they won't have to depend on their parents giving the school a million dollars or the school accepting them because a coach is willing to put them on a fake  rowing scholarship. .

If they come here to work, then I would be ok with an open border.  But they get no public aid of any kind.  But that’s not why people come here.  Someone fills their head that they can get free stuff … and don’t forget to vote a certain way.  Again, I would be for an open border but then we need strong voter ID laws so that only citizens can vote in national elections.  If we abided by these two things there wouldn’t be a rush for the border.

 

The drawback is that there is then no deterrent for drugs or terrorists.  We would still need a wall and 100% check at Ports of Entry.  We would need to insist that people looking for work must still come through Ports of Entry.  Register and go on their merry way.  Criminal aliens get adjudicated and deported to the border when their incarceration ends.  Non-citizens would then receive ward status instead of illegal, in which case are entitled to the protections this country offers, “…whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” (Geo. Washington)  That last part must be stressed to those coming in looking for work.

[Jerry Gallo]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Again, I answered your question and you are wishy-washing over imagined complications.

But considering I have free time, I will humor you by pointing out that currently many Iowans do just that.  If you read the abuse articles I posted earlier, you will see that there are examples in that.  What you are describing is almost exactly like how our migrant farm system has worked for the last 50 years.  It's even free for the permit: https://idph.iowa.gov/Environmental-Health-Services/Occupational-Health-and-Safety-Surveillance/Migrant-Labor-Camp-Program

Wishy-washing over imagined complications? You can't answer basic questions in detgail about your own premises, you offer pie-in-the-sky solutions by speaking for immigrants, describing their acclimation from tropical climate to the winters of Iowa, their wallowing in pig slop for $8/hr in the middle of a place even those born in the state can't stand, and you describe an issue that has been a thorn in the side for this country for decades and I am the issue? 

I didn't ask what many Iowans do. How many have YOU housed?

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Capitalism pal.  You don't rent a bus when the ambitious people make their own way.  First month rent free?  Maybe a good investment for a hard working multi-year tenant.  People looking to make a good impression and stay trouble-free pay their bills first.  They do without to send money home.  Socialism seems to be the big fear here, give undeserving people a cut of our pie, something for nothing.  We lose. Not the case.  You bring people in and let them work. A man and woman each working 50 hours a week should earn enough to pay for  a modest two bedroom apartment, health insurance when they are sick, school for their kids and enough to eat  All of that comes out of their paychecks.  If they want to take the kids to McDonalds or buy Christmas presents, they work 55 hours a week instead of 50. If they push their kids hard to fit in and do well in school then they might be able to save a bit for college too.  If they tell their kids that hard work is the way to get ahead, they won't have to depend on their parents giving the school a million dollars or the school accepting them because a coach is willing to put them on a fake  rowing scholarship. .

Not so quick there bud. Specific to capitalism, if immigrants were so great for Iowa farmers, the farmers wouldn't leave it to chance in a labor shortage. Sitting around and hoping isn't a remedy for success. If it was so great for the immigrants, they would be there in hordes for the jobs. The fact they have a labor crunch proves there are flaws in the theory. It's because we have people using anecdote to make their point. A whole lot of ifs, a whole lot of assumption based on a perceived ideal situation. Not one mention what happens when things go south. A bad winter, a market downturn, people aging out of working years. Who pays then? And if you could guarantee that each person would follow the ideal template you describe, with contingencies for worst case scenarios, I'd be willing to entertain the idea. All most ask is, do it the way the law prescribes. Become a citizen, do what you want, that's how the law works. It is impossible to vet 100K people a month to prove their plea for asylum is valid. Impossible to track that many to maintain expectation that folks are coming her for legitimate reasons. And there is not one stitch of evidence that says when a non-citizen is offered handouts that they will decline them.

Iowa has a Hispanic population of 6%. Growing for sure, but still not a hotbed. In 2017, they had an unemployment rate of 5.1, higher than the white and Asian population. Not what we heard upstream. The poverty rate for Hispanics in Iowa from 2013-2017 is 22.7%, more than double for whites. So, bring them from their poverty stricken country to be poverty stricken in ours, at least we'll get our ribs and corn on the cob cheaper. And the white farmers will be in good shape. And when things go belly up for the non-citizens, we'll just push aside some veterans who served the country. 

 

[Gromdor]

2 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Wishy-washing over imagined complications? You can't answer basic questions in detgail about your own premises, you offer pie-in-the-sky solutions by speaking for immigrants, describing their acclimation from tropical climate to the winters of Iowa, their wallowing in pig slop for $8/hr in the middle of a place even those born in the state can't stand, and you describe an issue that has been a thorn in the side for this country for decades and I am the issue? 

I didn't ask what many Iowans do. How many have YOU housed?

Now you are just being dumb.  The immigrants won't be housed in private citizens homes. We don't house homeless American vets in private homes either.

But truth be told I housed three non-citizens from South America for the last month.  The mother-in-law, sister-in-law and niece are up from Brazil for a visit.  They flew in on an airplane.  They don't seem to have interest in over staying their visas and becoming immigrants, though.

Again, you asked this: 

10 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Nothing to see at our border, which open-border liberals are taking these folks in?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5783204-Secretary-Nielsen-Letter-to-Members-of-Congress.html

I answered send them to Iowa.  Only to see you hum and hah over everything from paying them $8/hr to wanting private citizens to place them in their personal homes. 

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Now you are just being dumb.  The immigrants won't be housed in private citizens homes. We don't house homeless American vets in private homes either.

But truth be told I housed three non-citizens from South America for the last month.  The mother-in-law, sister-in-law and niece are up from Brazil for a visit.  They flew in on an airplane.  They don't seem to have interest in over staying their visas and becoming immigrants, though.

Again, you asked this: 

I answered send them to Iowa.  Only to see you hum and hah over everything from paying them $8/hr to wanting private citizens to place them in their personal homes. 

LOL, at least now we know why you stand where you do. The point is, some people are great with open borders, letting anyone come in without being vetted, at any time for any reason until it's their own home. Then, borders and security matter. Walls, fences, guns, wealth and sovereignty...all similarly great talking points where law abiding American citizens should give up something they earned and have a right to because it hurts someone's feelings.

Maybe the idea is sponsorship. You want non-citizens here, sign a waiver to foot the bill personally if things go south. If they are as angelic and heavenly as you indicate, if they figure out a way to gain citizenship and pay into a system they may one day need, you are off the hook. If they decide farming or any other type of work isn't for them, if they migrate elsewhere or simply become the burden of the government, you get the invoice. Imagine just being given a name on a sheet of paper, nothing more, then having to sign to be responsible for them. That is what our government is being asked to do. They can't take care of their own, how are they going to take care of someone else's?

One other thing...why is it that those who crusade for non-citizens being let in here unfettered never band together and go to where they are coming from to show their love and support. I'd imagine the wealthiest among us, the celebrities, the Soros' and Steyer's of the world have plenty of scratch to buy Honduras, employ security and grow the economy. Why does that never happen, if they really care about these people? I know, I'm being dumb again. Pig farming...that's the astute plan here.  

As for your answer, I never got anything worth considering. You see, if I have to choose between someone who once risked their lives for our country or someone who paid into our system their whole life; or someone who comes here under potentitally false pretenses without following our rules to give my support, I'll need more than a plan that exploits the latter. The left's been exploiting minorities and protected class people for decades (see inner cities and welfare). I'll be damned if I am going to back any more of that type of behavior. If folks want to escape their native country to become a hog farmer in Iowa, I am sure there is a form for that.   

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If they come here to work, then I would be ok with an open border.  But they get no public aid of any kind.  But that’s not why people come here.  Someone fills their head that they can get free stuff … and don’t forget to vote a certain way.  Again, I would be for an open border but then we need strong voter ID laws so that only citizens can vote in national elections.  If we abided by these two things there wouldn’t be a rush for the border.

 

 

 

The drawback is that there is then no deterrent for drugs or terrorists.  We would still need a wall and 100% check at Ports of Entry.  We would need to insist that people looking for work must still come through Ports of Entry.  Register and go on their merry way.  Criminal aliens get adjudicated and deported to the border when their incarceration ends.  Non-citizens would then receive ward status instead of illegal, in which case are entitled to the protections this country offers, “…whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” (Geo. Washington)  That last part must be stressed to those coming in looking for work.

I am still in favor of a secure border.  After all of our discussions about fencing,  I surely agree that enough of it in all the strategic places is necessary.  Even working needs some limits.  We don't currently have a clue how many invisible illegals we depend on to get work done in the US and keep the economy flowing.  If that number is 5 million, or 10 million, that is how many permits we get to issue.  Permanent work permits for long term stable jobs and seasonal permits for short term.

Maintain state of the art ports of entry with flow capabilities to match our needs.  Keep the drugs out.   Only citizens should vote, I agree with that too.How that will be done remains to be seen.

Where we diverge is our assumptions about motives. I admit my experience is limited, but I have hired a lot of Hispanic for entry level jobs in foundries, somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred over the years.   They worked hard, worked overtime if they could get it, were seldom sick, and took good care of my companies machinery.  I assume they were all here legally, we had to do the background check on all new employees.  They had far better attendance and productivity than their raised in america  counterparts.  We get far better results from Hispanics and Asian workers of any age than we get from 18-24 year old "ordinary" Americans.

I think Hispanics come here to work not freeload.  Where they grew up there is no culture of freeloading, they were not raised to do that.   So I am willing to call that a questionable claim.  Same with the voting.  A lot of Hispanic values are conservative, they would probably vote with Republicans on a lot of issues.

This idea of political bosses meeting people at the border with voter registration cards and twenty dollars  is a hold over from New York ward bosses and Tammany Hall greeting the Irish (legal of course) immigrants.  I do not think there is evidence for it today.  Voter fraud investigations have turned up only a handful of cases.

Even though I believe that immigrants come here to work hard and there is little evidence of voter fraud, I still favor secure borders.

 

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL, at least now we know why you stand where you do. The point is, some people are great with open borders, letting anyone come in without being vetted, at any time for any reason until it's their own home. Then, borders and security matter. Walls, fences, guns, wealth and sovereignty...all similarly great talking points where law abiding American citizens should give up something they earned and have a right to because it hurts someone's feelings.

Maybe the idea is sponsorship. You want non-citizens here, sign a waiver to foot the bill personally if things go south. If they are as angelic and heavenly as you indicate, if they figure out a way to gain citizenship and pay into a system they may one day need, you are off the hook. If they decide farming or any other type of work isn't for them, if they migrate elsewhere or simply become the burden of the government, you get the invoice. Imagine just being given a name on a sheet of paper, nothing more, then having to sign to be responsible for them. That is what our government is being asked to do. They can't take care of their own, how are they going to take care of someone else's?

One other thing...why is it that those who crusade for non-citizens being let in here unfettered never band together and go to where they are coming from to show their love and support. I'd imagine the wealthiest among us, the celebrities, the Soros' and Steyer's of the world have plenty of scratch to buy Honduras, employ security and grow the economy. Why does that never happen, if they really care about these people? I know, I'm being dumb again. Pig farming...that's the astute plan here.  

As for your answer, I never got anything worth considering. You see, if I have to choose between someone who once risked their lives for our country or someone who paid into our system their whole life; or someone who comes here under potentitally false pretenses without following our rules to give my support, I'll need more than a plan that exploits the latter. The left's been exploiting minorities and protected class people for decades (see inner cities and welfare). I'll be damned if I am going to back any more of that type of behavior. If folks want to escape their native country to become a hog farmer in Iowa, I am sure there is a form for that.   

You do realize I'm a Gulf War Vet.  Stop trying to tie/use me or my fellow soldiers to an issue we have nothing to do with.  Saying you care for immigrants less than vets is meaningless if you don't care for vets at all.  Maybe once I see an $8 billion bill to help homeless vets, I'll change my tune.  But right now you are just another fellow full of "thoughts and prayers".

As for the immigrants.  Right now they are being released in the thousands in Texas or kept under a bridge.  If you are fine with that then forget about sending them to Iowa.  A wall is pointless.  Maybe if Trump started it two years ago when Republicans controlled the house and immigration was at a historic low then parts of it might be up.  But his failure to do anything but aggravate this situation is what led us to this point.

(Why the snooty-ness with pig farming btw?  Too proud to do a job that gets your hands dirty?) 

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

aggravate this situation

 

You want to know what has aggravated this situation as to why all of a sudden, hundreds of thousands of people south of the border are obsessively doing everything they can to get into this country?

Success.

The success everyone is experiencing here economically because of the common sense policies of Donald J. Trump.

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Will Due

[Gromdor]

28 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

You want to know what has aggravated this situation as to why all of a sudden, hundreds of thousands of people south of the border are obsessively doing everything they can to get into this country?

Success.

The success everyone is experiencing here economically because of the common sense policies of Donald J. Trump.

 

Hmm.  I don't know if you realize it or not, but Iowa is part of the United States and the farmers here are going bankrupt at an 18 year high: https://www.salon.com/2019/02/13/midwest-farmers-going-broke-at-record-rates-thanks-to-trumps-trade-war/

You know because of his success and common sense policies.

The Federal workers got a pay freeze: https://www.federaltimes.com/management/pay-benefits/2018/12/29/trump-formalizes-federal-pay-freeze-for-2019/

You know, because the economy is going so great we can't afford it.

That's the reason why Iowans voted in all Republicans on the state level but voted in three democrats on the federal.  They are going broke with all this economic success. 

[+and-then]

15 hours ago, Gromdor said:

How long before they become worthless like the average US citizen? 

THIS^ tells me everything I'll ever need to know about you as an American.  Buh Bye.

[Kismit]

I'm giving out cookies to anyone who can come up with a more suitable tittle,

I'm thinking maybe American electoral nominees discussion, because that is basically what it is now,

On ‎2‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 5:46 PM, Likely Guy said:

That's the one thing that bugs me about the title... if I started a thread entitled "Psychotic Republicans" it would have been done in poor taste, of course.

Yet this issue flew off the shelf along with "I wonder about Democrats... and where does their loyalty lie?", literally calling them subversives.

*The above quote was Roof Gardener, not Tatetopa.