Good Analysis of California vs. Texas Oil & Gas Policies

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Good question! I would go with instant ID. The RINOS and the Democrats would not though. It would be a miracle IMHO.

Sounds about rigth. 

Why is Trump NOT pushing the instant ID? It would be a win-win across his base. rigth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Good question! I would go with instant ID. The RINOS and the Democrats would not though. It would be a miracle IMHO.

Unfortunately, instant ID doesn't solve the problem of asylum seekers or drug trafficking.  I'd vote for a properly designed wall because it handles all three problems simultaneously. 

 

On 2/8/2019 at 8:01 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Apart from the rant at Mexico and drug cartels (which I think is victimizing) I 100 % agree with the rationale. Take the lowest hanging fruits first and move on from there. 

BTW - I will reply to some of your other post, but I hope you understand that I 100 % believe going after the meployers is the way forward. Also in Europe.  

No worries; I know you're busy.

I'd like to add one thought: we can address narcotics demand by fixing domestic issues (Trump's policies are doing a lot for this already, which is nice), but every society will always have vulnerable members: ignorant teenagers, poor people, people with mental disorders, people going through hard times, etc.  The problem with allowing drugs into communities is that vulnerable people fall prey to them.  The dealers won't sit idly by, either.  When they see demand drying up, they'll send out the sales team to drum up more business.  That means preying on the vulnerable.

Thus, we have the real crux of the issue: these aren't average guys making a buck selling weed and LSD to informed adults; they're evil, ruthless, violent men who take advantage of misfortune.  It's our responsibility to stop them.  It would be nice to change their ways with love and kindness, but until that happens, we must rid our communities of them.  We must protect the innocent. 

I've kept this post tame, so now I'll allow myself one emotional statement: these drug dealers are predators.  If we were interested in justice, we'd crucify them where they crossed the border and leave their hanging carcass as a warning to others. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2019 at 7:55 AM, Dan Warnick said:

"Old Man's War!"  Taking "get off my lawn" to the nth degree!

I see you've been reading.  😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Boat said:

Thats the problem Ron. If it was patriotic to turn in an employer who hired an illegal we could have a country of heros for no money. Why do these bums hire illegals who work for less money and benifits? To watch them take siestas?  Hehe, at least the Dems know their value. You and the bold seem to be about silly talking points.

Employers hire illegals because they can abuse them with low wages, long hours, and terrible working conditions.  It's the same with tech workers from Asia: when the company can kick you out of the country at any moment, you have no choice but to do as you're told.  Illegal immigration, like the H1B visa, is just another form of indentured servitude. 

Of course, once they have an endless supply of slave labor, employers ask Americans why they're not willing to do the same, and the entire labor market reverts to the exploitation of the early industrial revolution.  That's the problem. 

I've seen this everywhere I've worked: when everyone in the world is competing for your job, the company doesn't value employees.  It doesn't train them, it doesn't mentor them, it doesn't take care of their health, it doesn't care about their families - nothing.  Employees become disposable, interchangeable cogs in a machine. 

Aside from the fact that no one wants to live under these conditions, it presents an existential threat to a country like America: our economy relies on innovation.  When employees are disposable, interchangeable, and abused, they stop innovating.  Cheap labor improves the bottom line today, but it does so by eating the company's seed corn.  It's not in anyone's best interest. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Boat said:

 

Thats the problem Ron. If it was patriotic to turn in an employer who hired an illegal we could have a country of heros for no money. Why do these bums hire illegals who work for less money and benifits? To watch them take siestas?  Hehe, at least the Dems know their value. You and the bold seem to be about silly talking points.

You think building a wall is a silly talking point, and I think you deny reality. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, mthebold said:

Unfortunately, instant ID doesn't solve the problem of asylum seekers or drug trafficking.  I'd vote for a properly designed wall because it handles all three problems simultaneously. 

My father-in-law farmed in the Rio Grande Valley (that's far south Texas) his whole life. He told me a wall was a bad idea & at that time i disagreed with him because I thought a physical barrier was the answer. I am definitely older now and would like to think those years have brought corresponding wisdom and I have come to realize that he was right. It doesn't matter what you build because a determined border jumper or drug smuggler will always be able to figure out a way to get around it. You have to eliminate the reward that lies on the other side of that border. The problem is that when you try to do this you are in for the political fight of your life!

Why? Because there is a political party in this country that learned long ago that they can steal money from the good citizens of this country by way of taxation and use it to buy votes in the form of entitlement programs.

I don't want to get off topic here and start a rant but instant ID is the answer in my opinion, as long as it is part of a system that makes it easy for a prospective employer to verify employment eligibility - see my earlier post in this thread.

Also, I believe that the vast majority of "asylum seekers" will go away when faced with a system that disregards trivial asylum applications.

Kent

 

Edited by MUI
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MUI said:

You have to eliminate the reward that lies on the other side of that border. The problem is that when you try to do this you are in for the political fight of your life!

PREACH

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MUI said:

My father-in-law farmed in the Rio Grande Valley (that's far south Texas) his whole life. He told me a wall was a bad idea & at that time i disagreed with him because I thought a physical barrier was the answer. I am definitely older now and would like to think those years have brought corresponding wisdom and I have come to realize that he was right. It doesn't matter what you build because a determined border jumper or drug smuggler will always be able to figure out a way to get around it. You have to eliminate the reward that lies on the other side of that border. The problem is that when you try to do this you are in for the political fight of your life!

Why? Because there is a political party in this country that learned long ago that they can steal money from the good citizens of this country by way of taxation and use it to buy votes in the form of entitlement programs.

I don't want to get off topic here and start a rant but instant ID is the answer in my opinion, as long as it is part of a system that makes it easy for a prospective employer to verify employment eligibility - see my earlier post in this thread.

Also, I believe that the vast majority of "asylum seekers" will go away when faced with a system that disregards trivial asylum applications.

Kent

I'm in favor of eliminating rewards, but as I said  before, that doesn't address the asylum seekers or the drug dealers.  Y'all are only looking at 1/3rd of the problem. 

Everyone has a story that boils down to, "Billy Bob down at the border - who's never worked a minute of security in his life - says walls don't work."  There might be a more idiotic way to analyze a problem, but I can't think of it.  These people aren't thinking about walls correctly because, again, they've never worked a minute of security in their life.  Any wall, like any safe, can be breached.  The question is, "How much time and effort will that take?"   Safes are measured by how many minutes, which tools, and what training are required to defeat them.  Not coincidentally, the border patrol evaluates walls the same way.

Minutes, tools, and training are also why the border patrol keeps asking for walls.  Think about that for a second: the professionals who do this every day say walls work.  They do this because a 1 minute wall doesn't give them time to react to a crossing attempt, but a 5 minute wall does.  5 minutes is the difference between arresting people when they climb down from the wall and spending hours tracking them  - assuming they can be tracked at all.  Anyone who honestly studies the issue quickly discovers that physical barriers dramatically reduce manpower requirements. 

Let's talk about some of the specific, asinine things people have claimed about walls:
1)  A vehicle barrier didn't work, therefore no wall can work. 
2)  A short, metal fence didn't work, therefore no wall can work
3)  Drug runners cut through metal bollards, therefore no wall can work (This is why Trump specifically requested concrete...)
4)  Illegals climbed a fence without concertina wire, therefore they'll climb any fence. 

Basically, every time a wall gets proposed, politicians insist on a version they know won't work.  This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of walls and everything to do with politicians not wanting walls to work. 

Of course, if you're wedded to the idea walls don't work, we could always try a minefield instead...

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I am opposed to a wall, it's just that I believe there is a better solution to the problem (which I described in an earlier post). I will lay you odds that it will be easier to get funding for the wall than to get the political support needed to enact my solution.

We are in agreement that something has to be done. The wall will slow down the flood and create a focal point for the battle. My proposal would create a system where the wall would not be needed but is too radical an idea for today's society to grasp so I will concede that a wall is probably a better solution right now. Keep in mind though, a border wall does nothing to deter anyone from legally entering this country and then overstaying their visa.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MUI said:

It's not that I am opposed to a wall, it's just that I believe there is a better solution to the problem (which I described in an earlier post). I will lay you odds that it will be easier to get funding for the wall than to get the political support needed to enact my solution.

We are in agreement that something has to be done. The wall will slow down the flood and create a focal point for the battle. My proposal would create a system where the wall would not be needed but is too radical an idea for today's society to grasp so I will concede that a wall is probably a better solution right now. Keep in mind though, a border wall does nothing to deter anyone from legally entering this country and then overstaying their visa.

 

Pls can someone explain to me why Trump is not pushing the instant ID? It seems to me it must be a homerun with his base? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robust wall

+ mandatory employment ID / verification

+ Voter ID / verification 

+ no welfare for illegal aliens

+ mandatory drug testing for legal welfare recipients

 

Just sayin.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Robust wall

+ mandatory employment ID / verification

+ Voter ID / verification 

+ no welfare for illegal aliens

+ mandatory drug testing for legal welfare recipients

 

Just sayin.

mandatory drug testing would wipe out over half those on the rolls. I'm for it !!!!!!!!

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MUI said:

It's not that I am opposed to a wall, it's just that I believe there is a better solution to the problem (which I described in an earlier post). I will lay you odds that it will be easier to get funding for the wall than to get the political support needed to enact my solution.

We are in agreement that something has to be done. The wall will slow down the flood and create a focal point for the battle. My proposal would create a system where the wall would not be needed but is too radical an idea for today's society to grasp so I will concede that a wall is probably a better solution right now. Keep in mind though, a border wall does nothing to deter anyone from legally entering this country and then overstaying their visa.

 

Visa overstays are a huge problem but you need to work on all aspects of a security problem. Enforcing visa overstays requires manpower and probably wrist bands or some other technology I am not aware of. We need to enforce our borders regardless. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

30 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Visa overstays are a huge problem but you need to work on all aspects of a security problem. Enforcing visa overstays requires manpower and probably wrist bands or some other technology I am not aware of. We need to enforce our borders regardless. 

Now you and I both know if you can put a chip in our pets, I am almost positive that we could put a tracking/chip on all immigrants. There are probably as many Europeans Illegally here as Central America up through Mexico. We do have the technology.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Visa overstays are a huge problem but you need to work on all aspects of a security problem.

In just the comments above, people, reasonable people, have come up with the obvious pieces of a total solution.  BUT, if we only employ parts of the solution then we have no solution.  Weak link, anyone?

 

On 2/10/2019 at 9:55 PM, mthebold said:

Basically, every time a wall gets proposed, politicians insist on a version they know won't work.  This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of walls and everything to do with politicians not wanting walls to work. 

This is the case, pure and simple, yet people attach themselves to party politics and for some reason still think they can solve multi-faceted problems by implementing parts of the solution, not its entirety.  It must really piss ex-military guys off every time they hear that the U.S. military could not win conflicts or relatively small wars, like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.  I mean, what stopped the U.S. military from absolute victory in any of those cases was lack of political will, or worse, political opposition to an all out victory.  Just ask Colin Powell and Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf.  Wars can be won, solutions to multi-faceted problems can be implemented and over 90% of the desired effect realized.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

mandatory drug testing would wipe out over half those on the rolls. I'm for it !!!!!!!!

I admit I'm a hard ass, but in this case, I don't see the wisdom in taking a drug addict - who may be the victim of someone or something beyond his control - and making the situation worse.  For US citizens, we need rehabilitation.  Often, drug addicts started as children born into impoverished  communities.  In many cases, they're the victims of illegal immigration, trans-national drug trafficking, and unchecked outsourcing.  We the People of the United States threw them to the wolves to save a few bucks.  Thus, We the People are responsible for making it right, regardless of cost. 

Illegals should return to their home countries and participate in whatever social contract Their People earned and maintained.  If they don't like their existing social contract, they can fight to establish a better one - just as we did here in the US. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites