immigration with no control

[Independent Voter]

A question for all those who think open boarders may be a good thing.

The chairman and CEO at Gallup has found that 42 million Latin Americans, and 158 million people worldwide, currently want or plan to migrate to the United States.

We currently are a nation of + - 350 million people . Just how many more can we accept without exceeding the capability to support them. I believe we could support them as far as food goes, we are a nation of plenty as evidenced by the amount we export and the amount we give away.

We do however have a problem when it comes to infrastructure . Housing being the major problem. In SanFrancisco alone there are an estimated 7000 without shelter.

In New York City . There were 3,892 homeless people on the street, the Homeless Outreach Population Estimate done in February found — up 39% since last year.

Those are just estimates. The number may well be more and thats + - 11000 people in just two cities. Just how many more can we accept before we decide that enough is enough. Where do we put the estimated 158 mil. who plan to come here ?. How do we support them with the medical care that will be required or are we willing to accept the real possibility of an uncontrolled disease or epidemic . In San Francisco at this time, Typhus is becoming a problem due to the homeless and unsanitary conditions.

Control of our Southern Boarder is necessary. I am unsure how it can be done but done it must be. If a barrier of some type will help then that must be built. If the Military needs to be used , then use it.

We can no longer sit idly by and let uncontrolled numbers of people enter our Country .

[Billy_Rightwing]

Please send your post to Poultie and get this done. She is doing a lot of damage to this country.

[Dave Grubb]

Who of any consequence is advocating open borders?

[Independent Voter]

Dave, I'm not going to flood the site with examples . So I'll just leave it here. There are many in Congress that are advocates of unlimited immigration .
The three individuals I posted were just the tip of the iceberg. While it may seam as if they are not all that important, they do get national exposure and so influence many people, including those in office. EX President obama has also given speeches in which he advocated unlimited immigration .

OPEN BORDERS ADVOCATE MARK ZUCKERBERG BUILDING A FORTIFIED BUNKER WITHIN HIS WALLED FAMILY HOME

Report: Open Borders Advocate George Clooney Moving Family Back to Trump’s America for ‘Security Reasons’

For years, Democrats tried to portray themselves as tough on border security, even as they argued for amnesty for all illegal immigrants currently in the country. Sometimes they slipped, as Hillary Clinton did when, in a paid speech in 2013, she talked about her dream of open borders.

But three examples. All you have to do is watch the news and se that there are any number of advocates for open boarders.

[wacojoe]

Who of any consequence is advocating open borders?

Most Democrats, by their advocacy of “No Consequences/sanctuary/amnesty” policies freely invite and support free invasion by illegal immigrants at the same time throwing up every imaginable roadblock to effective exclusion. If that ain’t “open borders” advocacy, I don’t know what could take its place better. Their actions even support the view that they do not support turning over known criminal illegals to be deported. It don’t get no badder dan dat, mis amigos. Build it (sanctuary) and they will come.

[FredK]

Typical finger pointing as to who is to blame, I see.

No real answer(s) put forth by either side but blame. All the walls built in the pass never worked and neither will a wall in the present time. So there's got to be better options on the table as to solving the problem and to fixing the status of the people that are here.

[Independent Voter]

O K Fred, Lets go with immediate expulsion if caught crossing. If in Country, NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, aid what so ever . That includes anything free. i.e.. food , lodging , health care or anything else you can name. Anyone here illegally gets sent back to where ever they came from no matter how long they have been here.

Now, on the other hand. I will settle for NO MORE illegals allowed into the Country. Relief for those already here if there is no illegal activity. That includes EVERYTHING . NO interaction with law enforcement what so ever. They would have 5 five years to become legal citizens. After that OUT THEY GO.


By the by Fred. Just who is your snarky enclosed remark[s] aimed at ?. Is it a self appraisal or are you trying to make a point about someone else ?.

[wacojoe]

Typical finger pointing as to who is to blame, I see.

No real answer(s) put forth by either side but blame. All the walls built in the pass never worked and neither will a wall in the present time. So there's got to be better options on the table as to solving the problem and to fixing the status of the people that are here.

Notice that Fred, despite bemoaning other members’ lack of offering solutions to his liking, offers zero-nada-zilch-none either, if he even thinks there is a problem with illegal entry into our country.

[Honda]

Name me one Sovereign Nation in this world that allows unfettered unchecked individuals from other nations to freely enter their country.

[Independent Voter]

Yo Dave, I understand that opposing views are posted in the op-eds in the newspapers. However, you must admit that such op-eds are read by many people and if they do not separate the wheat from the chaff, their thinking and actions can be driven by the words. A paper such as the N Y Times is read by [ I have no idea ] but I would guess anywhere from hundreds of thousands to a million. Does that sound right ? .
Anyway, I give you a bit from one op-ed . The existing border wall must be torn down so that migrants can freely enter the United States, says an open borders op-ed published by the New York Times.
Now , how many people will be influenced by the article which is obviously much longer . It also goes into the fact that immigration, legal or illegal helps to keep wages down and housing costs up.
I stand by my statement that there are many in the U.S. Govt. and the general populace that are for open boarders. I also continue to believe that we can no longer accept unregulated immigration. Severe restrictions need to be placed on those entering our Country.

As an aside, I just read an article about one of our service men, a triple amputee getting the full grope treatment from tsa. If we need to check aircraft passengers that closely, why should we allow un checked individuals to cross our boarders ? .

[Dave Grubb]

IV----I am not going to defend or aid the attacks on the NYT---I live half my life in NYC---is it that strange that I have a subscription to the "home town paper"?

That said, I have no idea how many read the OP EDs---seldom does that number include me---I might average one a week. How many are influenced---again I have no idea. I am sure you are aware that the NYT publishes Op Eds from both the right and left extremes.

That said please post a link to the one you are referring too--within the context of this thread I would like to read it.

[Independent Voter]

Here ya go Dave. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...-open-borders/


Also allow me an up date. The article states that they have a 91 million on line audience . I was WAY off.

Adding a bio of the author. Daniel Denvir is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Fair Punishment Project and the host of The Dig, a podcast from Jacobin magazine. His journalistic work covers criminal justice, the drug war, immigration, and politics, and has appeared in the New York Times, Jacobin, Vox, the Nation, the Guardian, and elsewhere. Google Books

[Honda]

For anyones leisure reading

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...s-13018760.php

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-open-borders/

https://cis.org/Oped/Democrats-and-O...-Budget-Policy

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...-for-democrats

[Dave Grubb]

Here ya go Dave. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...-open-borders/


Also allow me an up date. The article states that they have a 91 million on line audience . I was WAY off.

Adding a bio of the author. Daniel Denvir is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Fair Punishment Project and the host of The Dig, a podcast from Jacobin magazine. His journalistic work covers criminal justice, the drug war, immigration, and politics, and has appeared in the New York Times, Jacobin, Vox, the Nation, the Guardian, and elsewhere. Google Books

IV---why would you post a link to Dimbart to reference something claimed to be in the NYT-----this is something I continue to be amazed at. Use the original source, why have someone else interpret for you?

I will not waste my time to go any further with this.

[Independent Voter]

Dave, I do not have a subscription to the Times. The article was posted on Brietbart and I read it and thought it would further the discussion I started. If you are against reading it, so be it, That doesn't change the fact it was written and in a way enforces my original point that there are many who want open boarders.

Also, you have not given an up-date on how your leg is doing lately. Are things going well ?.

York Times Op-Ed: Open the Borders
286

A group of Central American migrants climb the border fence between Mexico and the United States, near El Chaparral border crossing, in Tijuana, Mexico, Nov. 25, 2018. A group of Central American migrants climb the border fence between Mexico and the United States, near El Chaparral border crossing, in Tijuana, …Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images
11 Feb 2019370
6:59
The existing border wall must be torn down so that migrants can freely enter the United States, says an open borders op-ed published by the New York Times.

“Democrats should follow their voters, who increasingly want more open borders, and reframe the immigration debate by rejecting the very notion that the border needs more ‘security’ and making it clear that the real problem is the denial of migrants’ rights,” says the op-ed by Daniel Denvir, an open borders advocate, who argues that “[t]he time has come for the Democratic Party to push for concrete policies to make the border more open.”

Denvir continues:




The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the already-existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause.

Even the Democrats’ support for “border security technology” is a bad thing, wrote Denvir:

Democrats have for far too long let their political opponents define the terms of debate. Now they’re doing it again: House Democrats’ proposal heading into the negotiations with Republicans didn’t include funding for new physical barriers or additional Border Patrol agents, but it did offer significantly increased funding for “border security technology.”

That’s not only bad for immigrants who, as a result of militarized borders are more likely to be kidnapped, violently assaulted and driven to cross via the lethal desert. It’s also bad for Democrats, who are handing ammunition to the nativist right at a time when Republicans are on the back foot and polls show that Democratic voters are moving decidedly leftward on immigration and the border.

Denvir presents himself as a leftist, but the New York Times‘ audience is decidedly upper class. The Times‘ pitch to advertisers, for example, says its online audience consists of 91 million people, with a median age of 48 and a household income of $96,000. This is far higher than the nation’s median income of $60,000 in 2017.

Moreover, wealthy people tend to gain much of their income through the stock market, which makes investors rich when salaries are reduced. Devin’s open borders policy would dramatically lower salaries while funneling hundreds of billions in wages to the stock portfolios of his New York Times‘ editors and readers.

The wealth transfer is already huge under current policies, which provide businesses with a combined legal immigrant and illegal migrant population of at least 45 million — including at least 12 million illegals — plus at least 1.5 million college-graduate guest workers.

Immigrants — legal or not — are good for business because they help lower wages, raise rents, and spur purchases of many products and services.

In 2016, Breitbart News reported a study by the National Academy of Sciences which shows how mass migration shifts wealth from American employees to investors, including many GOP and Democratic donors:

Immigration shifts roughly $500 billion in wages away from Americans and from established immigrants, directing that money toward new immigrants and to major employers, according to a dramatic report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

On page 128, the report plays up the benefits of immigration by saying the inflow of skilled and unskilled immigrants has ”generated an immigration surplus of $54.2 billion, representing a 0.31 percent overall increase in income that accrues to the native population.”

But that flood of low-wage immigrants also cuts marketplace wages for Americans by 5.2 cents on the dollar, admits the report, titled “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.”