DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Democrats and the border: What they don’t want you to know

Democrats and the border: What they don’t want you to know

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-and-the-border-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know

Is steel more moral than concrete?

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said last week that she and other Democrats consider a border wall “immoral.” But some of the same Democrats who decry President Donald J. Trump’s proposed concrete wall as a 30-foot-tall human-rights violation actually approved 700 miles of steel barriers under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA).


Give Pelosi this: She is consistent. She voted against SFA. Maybe, deep down, she wants an America without borders.

Meanwhile, these current, former, and then-ascendant Senate Democrats all voted for SFA, which President George W. Bush signed into law. On September 26, 2006, the Senate passed SFA 80–19, with 26 Democrats voting Yea. Among them:


Joseph Biden of Delaware (“I voted for the fence related to drugs,” he explained in a 2007 debate. “A fence will stop 20 kilos of cocaine coming through that fence.”)

Sherrod Brown of Ohio (while still in the House, Brown voted Yea that September 14.)

Tom Carper of Delaware

Hillary Clinton of New York (the Halloween after voting for SFA, she told the Council on Foreign Relations that America should “secure our borders with technology,
personnel, physical barriers if necessary in some places.”)

Dianne Feinstein of California (“Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence,” she told the Los Angeles Daily News. “We’ve got to get tough on the border. There’s no question the border is a sieve.”)

Bill Nelson of Florida (freshly defeated by Republican Rick Scott)

Barack Obama of Illinois (“The bill before us certainly will do some good,” Obama argued on the Senate floor. “It will authorize badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.” He added that SFA would stymie “immigrants sneaking in through unguarded holes in our border. . .”)

Chuck Schumer of New York

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Ron Wyden of Oregon

Illegal immigrants from the so-called caravan lately have been caught on camera burrowing under and vaulting over the steel fence. One of these barricade climbers, Honduran Maryury Elizabeth Serrano-Hernandez, 19, soon went into labor and delivered an American-citizen anchor baby in a San Diego hospital on November 27. Border Patrol officers told Fox News that the mother, the father (age 20), their newborn son, and another boy (age 2) all were “placed into immigration proceedings and released on their own recognizance on December 2.” Let’s see if they eventually attend their asylum hearing or simply dissolve into the American landscape.

#Hypocrites

Dems should package legalized weed, Medicare for all, and $15 minimum wage (all wildly popular) with $5 Billion funding for the wall. We'll see how important your wall really is then. If it passes everyone wins. If not, it's on the GOP.

$50,000 fine for every undocumented employee found at any place of employment in the US...yes even at Trumps golf courses. Second time offense, $100,000 per undocumented employee...3rd time offense jumps to $250,000 per employee. Cheapest self built wall in America.

And if you have "documented employees" using other peoples documents..the same fines apply.

KISS

As someone who hires for a business I think you'd see a new market in "documentation" insurance, similar to E&O insurance many businesses have now. Because it would be a hassle to get tagged for a $50,000 fine because someone expertly forged documents. Most business owners and managers aren't also forgery analysts. I highly doubt the accountants who handle the I9 forms are either.

Fining employers for the wrong doing of the applicant seems wrong to me. It would be like fining a convenience store because someone stole a candy bar. You go after the big violators like we have been. Blanket rules like a $50,000 fine would A) destroy many small businesses on even a first offense and B) Prevent people from starting a business in the first place because they may not even have $50,000 to absorb such a fine for something that isn't their fault.

Agreed. You cannot blame the employer if they followed and documented all the paperwork they were required too, its just happened those documents were forged/falsified by the worker.

FYI, I keep hearing how undocumented workers do not break laws, isn't forging government documents and using false SSN numbers a crime?

More illegal immigrants were deported under the Obama administration than any other president.

More illegal aliens were pardoned under Reagan than any other president.

Please continue.....

Yea, the thought that if I didn't detect a forgery right would cost my employer 5 figures is scary as can be. And it would give me pause if I owned my own business to even hire for sure. Not great economic drivers.

Those crossing the border illegally are definitely breaking the law, on this much we agree. I find holding them and splitting up families to be a disproportionate response to the law breaking. It's like catching someone stealing and cutting off their hand. That stuff shouldn't fly today.

Well I'm sating facts instead of just posting stupid BS.

Barack Obama of Illinois (“The bill before us certainly will do some good,” Obama argued on the Senate floor. “It will authorize badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.” He added that SFA would stymie “immigrants sneaking in through unguarded holes in our border. . .”)

It seems you can't remember that I'm all for a border wall. And in case you missed it, a fence is much cheaper than a wall.

And what you quoted from Obama? It only backs up the facts which show he was the toughest president on border security than any other president had been up until him. Yet isn't this very thread saying the opposite?

So why didn't he do it? The racist against brown skinned people just talked BS and you bought it.

Fair enough, but if I use someone else's SSN fraudulently, what happens to me? If I forge government issued documents, what happens? If I did so to better my family.

The law states you can be charged for criminal fraud, as I am sure I would be. I am curious as to why illegal immigrants are treated to a lesser extent of the law when they violate it?

You keep trying to pick fights with people that agree with you. You somehow think that makes you brilliant?

Penalty for identity theft varies by state but it's fairly substantial. I don't think someone who enters illegally should be treated to a less harsh sentence for a crime like that. I'd even be OK with a rider that increases the penalty somewhat, similar to how armed robbery is usually harsher punishment than unarmed. I'm additionally fine with the US Code's 6 month penalty for improper entry. That's a different crime from unlawful presence (which a strong number of people here in this country illegal are classified under, over 40%.)

Holding people seeking asylum however is a very different ball game, and many of the people coming over from central america have a case. We've done a poor job maintaining our sphere of influence, both meddling and pulling back seemingly at random because a new president will come in with new ideas on how to deal with the problem. Obama and Clinton played kingmaker in Honduras, setting up a horrible ordeal where they have the highest rates of kid murder in the world. Trump comes in and inherits a refugee crisis, but lumps them in with mexicans crossing the border. Not the same thing, and punishing refugees for seeking asylum is inhumane. Is it an easy problem? No. Not going to say it is. But we can't pretend it's not a problem, or move the goal posts on what the problem is. Neither side has done a good job of highlighting the nuances because it's easier to spout one liners, unfortunately.

So...whats your problem with Trump then.RIGHT

I am not sure why you keep going back to the separation practices.

I am not arguing for or against that so far in this thread.

I am simply pointing out that there are millions of undocumented workers supplying fake/stolen SSN and they are given sanctuary. Whereas you or I would be in jail.

The problem is trying to weaponize the issue. Stating lies like terrorists have been captured at the border in an attempt to instill fear. Like trying to paint refugees as gang bangers. It's a media war to paint all illegal immigrants with a broad brush. See, applying for asylum is legal. People in the caravan are here to do just that. It's the rhetoric. It's the lies.

Sometimes what someone is trying to accomplish isn't the problem. It's the nastiness, half truths and down right lies that is the problem. It's demonizing and trying to label everyone as the same that's the problem.

It's a general statement. I bring it up because I think it's important to bring up proportional response, and examples of where it's being used properly and improperly. What better way to show that, than within the actual conversation of immigration?

Can you elaborate on the sanctuary? Who is providing sanctuary to identity thieves? I'm aware of sanctuary cities that turn a blind eye to federal immigration status, similar to states turning a blind eye to Marijuana's Schedule I status. However a city turning a blind eye to federal immigration status does little to save someone busted forging an I-9 form. Committing Perjury on an I-9 and having the feds alerted to it does little in a sanctuary city, as the federal crime supersedes the states. Even if the state is allowing actions in direct violation of said law (see marijuana.)

Dems say government is the answer for everything, except the wall.

I've heard this idea before and it may sound wild but it would be the cheapest option and I'd tell it to the democrats if they don't want to fund the wall.

If you don't want the wall, we will place land mines surrounding the border and post danger signs. That would be one way to take care of things easily.

Well, I have a problem with killing people just to make a point.

I would rather chain Liberals together and stack them like cord wood along the border.

I know the guy who posted this is a huge douche and a right wing troll but this is still pretty funny.

So if you don't get a wall, you'd prefer indiscriminate and inhumane devices meant to maim and kill? Disgusting.

So everyone that wants to protect our borders wants to TO'MAME AND KILL'people. WOW are you crazy or are you just weaponizing your agenda?

He did direct his post and quoted the person who did actually suggest that. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants the wall is suggesting that.

For starters, insinuating I'm crazy is a low brow tactic. But given your response to me lacks in any amount of substance OR taste, perhaps low brow is the highest you can aspire to.

The list of logic flaws in your response is amazing. In one small post you managed to throw several logical fallacies my way, including but perhaps not limited to tu quoque and loaded questioning with an ad hominem inside said loaded questioning. We also either have broad generalizing or fallacy of composition, if we take your assertion that I meant everyone wants LAND MINES ON THE BORDER at face value. My response was directed at one person, not a bloc of people.

I am not going to say I've never gotten out of sorts in a discussion as most people would know that's not true, but I find it astonishing to think that you would consider my referring to land mines as inhumane is "weaponizing my agenda." Is this the extent of your discussion capabilities? If it is, perhaps you should go back to school, or maybe you have yet to finish secondary education. In any event, come back when you have worked on your critical thinking.

MY bad for not taking the time to read what and who you were responding to, PEACE

Thanks for clarifying, and no problem.

President of the United States of America Donald J. Trump just made an agreement with Mexico where all applicants for asylum in the US will have to wait in Mexico for their Court date.

No more disappearing into the US and never showing up for Court!

So in the Moolie Tibbet case were an illegal alien who could not speak english and used documents identifying him as John Budd gets the employer off the hook because he used fake documents that the employer "believed"...a non-english speaking guy named John Budd who looks hispanic should be a red flag...at this point we are making excuses for HR guys knowingly breaking the law and playing dumb.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mollie-tibbetts-suspected-killer-reportedly-used-alias-john-budd-at-work

Your rationale for punishing the employer is based on racial profiling...

It's based on committing crimes.

can you elaborate?

Sure. Employers are supposed to use due diligence to not hire people here illegally. If something seems to not obviously add up is right in front of you, it's their duty to look into it further.