Sign in to follow this  
Sepiatone

Another WALL coming soon?

29 posts in this topic

Last night while watching an episode of SCHITT'S CREEK on CBC, in a commercial break there was a blurb for THE NATIONAL  mentioning a story about how Canada is the new destination for migrant workers from Mexico due to a "more welcoming attitute" in the nation.

 

That's how all this illegal immigrant brou-ha gets strarted.  So 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?

 

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting from Mexico to Canada should be easy in the future, just walk the Dakota pipeline. :lol:

 

41650c268f968ffa3e237d1a5a92913f.jpg

Edited by hamradio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night while watching an episode of SCHITT'S CREEK on CBC, in a commercial break there was a blurb for THE NATIONAL  mentioning a story about how Canada is the new destination for migrant workers from Mexico due to a "more welcoming attitute" in the nation.

 

That's how all this illegal immigrant brou-ha gets strarted.  So 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?

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Finland should pay for it.  Just for the heck of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night while watching an episode of SCHITT'S CREEK on CBC, in a commercial break there was a blurb for THE NATIONAL  mentioning a story about how Canada is the new destination for migrant workers from Mexico due to a "more welcoming attitute" in the nation.

 

That's how all this illegal immigrant brou-ha gets strarted.  So 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?

 

 

Sepiatone

 

The real story is that Canada requires refugees to fill out paperwork in the first 'safe' country they arrive in and currently the USA is deemed a safe country and therefore without the paperwork (which requires them to work with US officials),  they are denied access.

 

So will Canada change the status of the USA to 'unsafe' therefore allowing easier access to Canada from the USA?   They should if they really welcome these immigrants as much as some here claim they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real story is that Canada requires refugees to fill out paperwork in the first 'safe' country they arrive in and currently the USA is deemed a safe country and therefore without the paperwork (which requires them to work with US officials),  they are denied access.

 

So will Canada change the status of the USA to 'unsafe' therefore allowing easier access to Canada from the USA?   They should if they really welcome these immigrants as much as some here claim they do.

 

Have you heard or read of the Canadians sending the Somali refugees back to the United States?  I'm asking as I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard or read of the Canadians sending the Somali refugees back to the United States?  I'm asking as I don't know.

 

I'm also trying to find out,  but last I read they were let in and it looks like they will be able to stay.    The CNN article I read said that only a handful had come over but there was a concern that once it gets warmers more will come as well as non refugees like Mexican migrants.    What Canada will do then, if that occurs, will be interesting. 

 

As you know Canada has a very controlled immigration process.    Since it is controlled it allows Canada to welcome more refugees but Mexican migrants are not refugees.

 

Here in the USA illegal immigrants (which are mostly just migrant workers) are stealing the spots that should be reserved for actual refugees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also trying to find out,  but last I read they were let in and it looks like they will be able to stay.    The CNN article I read said that only a handful had come over but there was a concern that once it gets warmers more will come as well as non refugees like Mexican migrants.    What Canada will do then, if that occurs, will be interesting. 

 

As you know Canada has a very controlled immigration process.    Since it is controlled it allows Canada to welcome more refugees but Mexican migrants are not refugees.

 

Here in the USA illegal immigrants (which are mostly just migrant workers) are stealing the spots that should be reserved for actual refugees. 

 

Ontario farmers have relied on Mexican migrant workers for many years.  How they get here, I'm not sure.  Probably flights.  As for the Somali refugees I would say that if they can be back checked they should be most welcomed.  Think about the fortitude it must have taken to make it from Africa all the way to snowbound Manitoba!  Lots more guts and determination than most of us who just sit around our computers and whine about the global state of affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://resistancereport.com/news/texans-property-seized-wall/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us