We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Another WALL coming soon?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,540 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted Yesterday, 04:28 PM

Toronto has banned school trips to America.


  • TheCid likes this

#2 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,688 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 08:32 PM

"While Trump has claimed the wall will cost about $12 billion to construct, and Republican leaders Rep. Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell  have suggested it will be closer to $15 billion, the Homeland Security’s study says the cost will be at least $21.6 billion.

 

 

It will cost more, according to Vanity Fair, because Trump’s estimates fails to account for, “pesky little things the White House did not factor into its back-of-the envelope calculations, like the fact that many areas where the wall would go are privately owned and need to purchased and paid for.”

Of course, Trump’s biggest boast, that Mexico will pay for the wall, has already been exposed as a fantasy..,,

 

There are many in Congress and beyond who believe the wall is not necessary, and that the cost will be even greater once the monumental problem of acquiring the property and constructing it across difficult terrain is factored in.

 

While Trump has used the wall as a symbol for his get-tough policy on immigration, which helped him get elected, his claim for how it would be financed, what it would cost and when it would be done have already been proven to be untruthful....

 

http://occupydemocra...st-trumps-wall/


  • TheCid and Bogie56 like this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#3 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,154 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:25 PM

Most Common Jobs Held by Immigrants in each US State.

 

http://blogs.voanews...-each-us-state/

 

They are not taking jobs from the "whom think their entitled" American will ever do (picking crops, mopping floors).

 

ZTIME-890x395_c.jpg



#4 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:06 PM

There are laws already so Trump does not need to issue an executive order.  However, he cannot issue one with the force of law for this type situation anyway.  Only Congress can pass this type law.  Current one is weak and unenforced.

The problem is that the Republicans and some Democrats in Congress do not want to upset their rich friends, the corporations or even the middle class people who vote for them that utilize illegal aliens as cheap labor.

If they did, they would pass a very strict law and have it enforced.  They would even limit certain government support from the states that failed to cooperated in enforcing the law.

 

Regardless of the wall, the illegals will still come as long as there are jobs and things are bad back home.  They will come across the waters or through the air.  After all the "employers" will make sure the "importers" are able to supply their needs.

 

I agree that enforcing the existing laws against employers that hire illegal immigrants is a more cost effective approach than spending billions to increase border security  (except in the most 'open' parts of the southern border).    But the Feds also need to grant additional worker visas in a more timely manner. 



#5 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,496 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:44 PM

I won't buy that the Trump administration is really serious about illegal immigration until they do more on the employer end. If there are no jobs, there will be little to no illegal immigration. To use the drug war analogy, we keep going after the junkies instead of the dealers. The wall makes for nice press and an easy visual, but it really is nothing but a symbol. And I prefer substance to symbolism.

There are laws already so Trump does not need to issue an executive order.  However, he cannot issue one with the force of law for this type situation anyway.  Only Congress can pass this type law.  Current one is weak and unenforced.

The problem is that the Republicans and some Democrats in Congress do not want to upset their rich friends, the corporations or even the middle class people who vote for them that utilize illegal aliens as cheap labor.

If they did, they would pass a very strict law and have it enforced.  They would even limit certain government support from the states that failed to cooperated in enforcing the law.

 

Regardless of the wall, the illegals will still come as long as there are jobs and things are bad back home.  They will come across the waters or through the air.  After all the "employers" will make sure the "importers" are able to supply their needs.



#6 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:00 PM

Remind me to pack a few lunches the next time I visit the U.S.A....

 

Most Read A California waiter refused to serve 4 Latina women until he saw ‘proof of residency’ Diana Carrillo was looking forward to lunch at the upscale restaurant. Then the waiter demanded her ID. By Cleve R. Wootson Jr. 

Kent Bearden, the senior director of operations at Saint Marc, told The Washington Post that the waiter who had asked for the women’s IDs had been fired. It was the first time the employee had done anything like this, Bearden said, and he “had never received so much as a write-up” before.

“I don’t know if he had an agenda or not,” said Bearden. “My concern is he violated a company policy. We’re very specific about how we treat out guests. That individual did not treat a table of guests to the expectations that we set forth in that company policy, and that caused him to be terminated.”

Bearden stressed that the employee’s actions “are something that you can’t control. The true measure is how you then handle it as a company. I feel very proud of our team and how we tried to take a proactive approach, trying to create a positive out of this situation.”



#7 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,154 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

Remind me to pack a few lunches the next time I visit the U.S.A....

 

Most Read A California waiter refused to serve 4 Latina women until he saw ‘proof of residency’ Diana Carrillo was looking forward to lunch at the upscale restaurant. Then the waiter demanded her ID. By Cleve R. Wootson Jr. 

 

Excerpt from article..

 

Bearden stressed that the employee’s actions “are something that you can’t control.

 

 

My boss will disagree with that wholeheartedly.



#8 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,540 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:19 PM

Remind me to pack a few lunches the next time I visit the U.S.A....

 

Most Read A California waiter refused to serve 4 Latina women until he saw ‘proof of residency’ Diana Carrillo was looking forward to lunch at the upscale restaurant. Then the waiter demanded her ID. By Cleve R. Wootson Jr. 

 



#9 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,154 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:25 PM

Living on the wall in Iran. :huh: :blink:

 

construction-trailers-suspended_custom-7



#10 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,154 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:20 PM

The problem with very tall walls, these idiots will be attracted to it. :wacko:

 

highest-climbing-wall.jpg

 

article-2632626-1DFEC1A500000578-20_964x



#11 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,688 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:21 PM

Texans receive notice their property will be seized for Trump’s wall-

 

the Texas Observer recently reported, landowner-s who own property near the United States/Mexico border are now receiving “declarations of taking” that order them to either accept a lowball offer for their land, or have it seized by eminent domain....

 

“We don’t want this wall — the town is pretty much united on that,” Salinas told the Texas Observer. “But we don’t want to get sued by the U.S. government either.”.....

 

http://resistancerep...ty-seized-wall/


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#12 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:45 PM

I won't buy that the Trump administration is really serious about illegal immigration until they do more on the employer end. If there are no jobs, there will be little to no illegal immigration. To use the drug war analogy, we keep going after the junkies instead of the dealers. The wall makes for nice press and an easy visual, but it really is nothing but a symbol. And I prefer substance to symbolism.

 

I agree but I think the push for increased employer sanctions and increased enforcement needs to come from the Dems.   Instead the Dems, especially those in CA,  are for open border with no enforcement (otherwise why are they against increased border security) and a  'once your here,  you can stay' policy.

 

I understand that the Dems wish to protect (not deport),  the vast majority of the 11 million already here,  but that isn't a realistic compromise with the GOP.     If the Dems made a reasonable proposal the GOP might not be able to reject it;

 

1) Existing 'dreamers' get a pathway to citizenship but the 'dreamer' program is ended after 2 more years. 

2) Work visas are granted if an employer agrees to sponsor an illegal worker and unemployment in the general area is < 6% and the illegal doesn't have a criminal record other than 'minor' violations

3)  Agree to increase southern  border security but only in targeted areas that are currently too 'open'

4)  Agree to NOT support sanctuary cities in exchange for the above, by passing a law that penalizes them (if Constitutional of course).

5)  Mandated E-verify and SSN checks with increased Employer sanctions.

 6) Openly advise the remaining illegal immigrants that do NOT meet the above requirements that they need to leave as well as sending a message to Mexico that their citizens are only welcome if they come legally.    (instead of openly stating that they have a legit, moral reason to be in the USA illegally)

 

I believe the above would lead to about 60% to 70% being able to stay in the USA.    To me that is a fair compromise but I don't see the Dems having the leadership to make such an offer. 



#13 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Champion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,271 posts
  • LocationThereabouts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:27 PM

It is my understanding there is already such a law.       But I do want the law beefed up with major fines against employers that hire illegal aliens.    Regardless the issue is enforcement.    The IRS already knows which employers have potential illegal immigrants based on use of duplicate SSNs used by illegals (either phony numbers or they use the number of one of their friends\relatives). 

 

The employer use to have to get a legit SSN from the employee or fire them but the Feds stopped this practice.  I assume the Trump admin will restart it.

 

BUT,   all of the above will increase 'off the books' hiring and that is worst than 'on the books' hiring of illegal labor.  SO the USA must grant much more work visas and that takes more government employees to process the applications.

 

With the proposed Trump tax plan and increase in defense spending,  I just don't see where the money will come from with debt increases equal to or greater than what we saw under Obama.

 

I won't buy that the Trump administration is really serious about illegal immigration until they do more on the employer end. If there are no jobs, there will be little to no illegal immigration. To use the drug war analogy, we keep going after the junkies instead of the dealers. The wall makes for nice press and an easy visual, but it really is nothing but a symbol. And I prefer substance to symbolism.


  • TheCid likes this

#14 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:08 PM

OK.  So while on this topic, does anybody wonder why Trump doesn't sign an executive order that would make it unlawful for say, corporate farms, slaughterhouses, cleaning services and even his high tax bracket buddies to HIRE illegal aliens?  Thus cutting off a major incentive for illegal immigration to begin with?

 

Would be much cheaper than a wall, and it would cut the flow down to where it could be handled sufficiently by existing border guards.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

It is my understanding there is already such a law.       But I do want the law beefed up with major fines against employers that hire illegal aliens.    Regardless the issue is enforcement.    The IRS already knows which employers have potential illegal immigrants based on use of duplicate SSNs used by illegals (either phony numbers or they use the number of one of their friends\relatives). 

 

The employer use to have to get a legit SSN from the employee or fire them but the Feds stopped this practice.  I assume the Trump admin will restart it.

 

BUT,   all of the above will increase 'off the books' hiring and that is worst than 'on the books' hiring of illegal labor.  SO the USA must grant much more work visas and that takes more government employees to process the applications.

 

With the proposed Trump tax plan and increase in defense spending,  I just don't see where the money will come from without debt increases equal to or greater than what we saw under Obama.


  • LawrenceA likes this

#15 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,540 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 28 February 2017 - 11:26 AM

OK.  So while on this topic, does anybody wonder why Trump doesn't sign an executive order that would make it unlawful for say, corporate farms, slaughterhouses, cleaning services and even his high tax bracket buddies to HIRE illegal aliens?  Thus cutting off a major incentive for illegal immigration to begin with?

 

Would be much cheaper than a wall, and it would cut the flow down to where it could be handled sufficiently by existing border guards.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

That's hardly as sexy as a "wall."  Plus they need those illegal immigrants to get the crop in, don't they?



#16 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,444 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 28 February 2017 - 11:16 AM

OK.  So while on this topic, does anybody wonder why Trump doesn't sign an executive order that would make it unlawful for say, corporate farms, slaughterhouses, cleaning services and even his high tax bracket buddies to HIRE illegal aliens?  Thus cutting off a major incentive for illegal immigration to begin with?

 

Would be much cheaper than a wall, and it would cut the flow down to where it could be handled sufficiently by existing border guards.

 

 

Sepiatone


  • LawrenceA likes this

I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#17 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,227 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:54 PM

The progressive Liberal Party of Trudeau wouldn't make this change so that more refuges could enter Canada from the declared 'unsafe for refuges' USA?

 

No.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#18 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 22 February 2017 - 07:51 PM

No.

 

The progressive Liberal Party of Trudeau wouldn't make this change so that more refuges could enter Canada from the declared 'unsafe for refuges' USA?

 

Interesting.



#19 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,227 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:58 PM

So will Canada change the status of the USA to 'unsafe' therefore allowing easier access to Canada from the USA? 

 

No.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#20 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,227 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:57 PM

I see a possible WALL being proposed between the U.S. and Canada to help stem the tide.  So, who's gonna pay for THAT?

 

Why? Are proposals that costly?


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users