Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:
How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.

I am talking of profiling businesses, because certain types (those making use of low skilled labor, especially in a few select industries) are the ones hiring illegals. All targeting involves some type of profiling, nothing to do with race/racism in this case at all, has to do completely with the profile of the business. You want to make a program to take down companies hiring illegals effective (both from a cost and from a results perspective)? Then you need to target the correct business.

Here is my original post, which was in reply to wasteful spending in the effort to stop the hiring of illegals.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How much money are you willing to throw at the problem before everybody starts complaining about wasteful Washington bureaucrats?

Frankly, if it is wasteful any money spent is too much, but that is the point. If instead, it was done smartly, with decent analysis and targeting/profiling you could do a lot of good with out wasting resources, even at current spending levels. But as long as Big Business has Big Govt covering for it and enabling this crap, throwing more money at it won't solve anything.

NOTHING in there, if taken with even the tiniest bit of context, could be considered racist, so shame on you for taking it out of context.

 CptJake wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.

I am talking of profiling businesses, because certain types (those making use of low skilled labor, especially in a few select industries) are the ones hiring illegals. All targeting involves some type of profiling, nothing to do with race/racism in this case at all, has to do completely with the profile of the business. You want to make a program to take down companies hiring illegals effective (both from a cost and from a results perspective)? Then you need to target the correct business.

Here is my original post, which was in reply to wasteful spending in the effort to stop the hiring of illegals.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How much money are you willing to throw at the problem before everybody starts complaining about wasteful Washington bureaucrats?

Frankly, if it is wasteful any money spent is too much, but that is the point. If instead, it was done smartly, with decent analysis and targeting/profiling you could do a lot of good with out wasting resources, even at current spending levels. But as long as Big Business has Big Govt covering for it and enabling this crap, throwing more money at it won't solve anything.

NOTHING in there, if taken with even the tiniest bit of context, could be considered racist, so shame on you for taking it out of context.

My misunderstanding thenm I apologize. It's something that I'm sensitive to and may have incorrectly construed it from your statement.

My state has a history of legislatively following Arizona around like a puppy dog and a few years ago this resulted in a near mass-exodus of Hispanic residents due to a law that flirted with outright profiling. Police were actually stopping people in the streets and asking for proof of residency. Local police and highway patrol set up "license checkpoints" in areas of Oklahoma City densely populated by Hispanic families but don't do so across town in majorly African-American or Caucasian areas.

I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.

I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).

Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.

On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.

But what, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean? Not exactly directed at you, but a general observation here. It's a pretty damned big border (2000 miles with Mexico, and let's not forget the 5500 mile one on the north side, too, and the 95000 miles of shoreline). How secure is secure? And what does it take to make it that secure? Do we buy the Great Wall of China and ship it here block by block (metaphorically speaking)? Do we rebuild the Berlin Wall, but make it 2000 miles long instead? Do we plop down a tower every few miles with some agents camped out in them? Constant drone surveillance? Cameras everywhere? Roving wiener dog attack packs? I like the idea of border security as much as the next person, but sometimes my mind boggles when I try to think about exactly what that entails.

See... this line of thought bugs the hell out of me.

In other word, it says: Meh... it's too hard, so why bother?

With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?

If you really want to know *why* we ought to try to *do better*? Review this site:
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

 CptJake wrote:
I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.

I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).

Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.

On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.

Oriental means Asian right?

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And that we just need to enforce existing laws.

Can't force the President to adjust his "proprietorial discretion" to meet our standards.

Interpretation is the Judiciary branch's job. The President is supposed to enforce, nothing more.

 whembly wrote:

If you really want to know *why* we ought to try to *do better*? Review this site:
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

I find it weird that a memorial established to honor the thousands of American citizens killed each year by Illegal Aliens only manages to list less than 25 people killed in 2014.

Go figure.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.

I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).

Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.

On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.

Oriental means Asian right?

Can be used to indicate east Asian but is usually used in relation to those of Chinese decent.

"With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?"

But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...

But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.

A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.

America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.

As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.

Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
"With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?"

But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...

But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.

A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.

America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.

As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.

Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...

We pride ourselves on freedom its true, but its not total freedom. because that would be anarchy and chaos.

Weed is certainly a borderline case because its not immediately harmful(although we are finding out more and more about the bad things it does to your brain, and how it actually is addictive) but no way in hell are we legalizing Coke or Heroine.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
"With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?"

But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...

But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.

A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.

America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.

As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.

Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...

We pride ourselves on freedom its true, but its not total freedom. because that would be anarchy and chaos.

Weed is certainly a borderline case because its not immediately harmful(although we are finding out more and more about the bad things it does to your brain, and how it actually is addictive) but no way in hell are we legalizing Coke or Heroine.

The federal government would probably destroy that trillion dollar deficit if drugs were legalised. Think of all that lovely taxation.

I disagree about anarchy ruling. I've always said that with rights, come responsibilities. For example, sure you can get drugged up on cocaine and drive a car, but if you kill somebody, that's 25 years in jail without parole. I'm going by UK standards, but it's a carrot and stick approach.

You set ground rules and I would guarantee that deaths from drug abuse would be no higher than DUI, or firearms offences or anything else similar in America.

I believe if you start treating adults like adults, then problems are not as bad as first feared.

Not really.

There wouldn't be that many outlets where you could legally buy this hypothetical legal and taxed Coke or Heroin.

So people would still make their own/buy it from the cartels. That infrastructure already exists and is thoroughly entrenched. And no legal supplier would be able to compete with that.

So you still have an illegal drug problem, its just now more difficult to attack. You still have the junkies getting it from their dealer, except now you have no ability to turn the junkies into informants in exchange for laxer sentencing.

Illegal cigarettes are big money still because you can get around the taxes, illegal drugs will remain even bigger money.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
But what, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean? Not exactly directed at you, but a general observation here. It's a pretty damned big border (2000 miles with Mexico, and let's not forget the 5500 mile one on the north side, too, and the 95000 miles of shoreline). How secure is secure? And what does it take to make it that secure? Do we buy the Great Wall of China and ship it here block by block (metaphorically speaking)? Do we rebuild the Berlin Wall, but make it 2000 miles long instead? Do we plop down a tower every few miles with some agents camped out in them? Constant drone surveillance? Cameras everywhere? Roving wiener dog attack packs? I like the idea of border security as much as the next person, but sometimes my mind boggles when I try to think about exactly what that entails.

See... this line of thought bugs the hell out of me.

See, people misinterpreting what I say in order to pursue their own agenda bugs the hell out of me. You completely dodged the question and proved you didn't understand my line of thought at all.

The question is simple: What, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean, and what does it take to make it "secure?"

This is a question that politicians refuse to be pinned down on to answer directly and completely. "Border Security" is nothing more than political buzzword jargon used to score points with voters and is used to obfuscate the real underlying issues.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Interpretation is the Judiciary branch's job. The President is supposed to enforce, nothing more.

Enforcement requires interpretation, unless you expect the interpreters to hold the hands of the enforcers. Which, of course, strips the enforcers of power and eliminates that whole separation of powers thing

Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

No one likes pettiness, even somewhat reasonable pettiness

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

Maybe if something like amnesty goes through they might but as of now actually becoming a citizen has far more benefits than being forcibly removed if you are discovered to be here illegally. The idea that undocumented immigrants* are living some freewheelin' lifestyle seems a bit odd.



*Undocumented instead of Illegal just for you OT.

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

I'd say people entering the country now, at this moment after the EO has been put into effect, have a case that maybe charging them for entry is unfair. To them, I think it very reasonable that all immigration fees be waved for the time being until the government can get it's gak together.

But someone who entered in 2008, or in 2014 the day before the EO, they have no case. Ex Post Facto. The EO was not in effect at those times and they are entitled to nothing. Times change and sometimes you end up paying for things people who come after you don't have to.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

I'd say people entering the country now, at this moment after the EO has been put into effect, have a case that maybe charging them for entry is unfair. To them, I think it very reasonable that all immigration fees be waved for the time being until the government can get it's gak together.

But someone who entered in 2008, or in 2014 the day before the EO, they have no case. Ex Post Facto. The EO was not in effect at those times and they are entitled to nothing. Times change and sometimes you end up paying for things people who come after you don't have to.

Could be. My reaction is in sympathy to a friend that jumped though all the legal hoops to have his wife from Canada be able to join him here. There definitely needs to be reform, but not something that ammounts to totaly throwing open the borders and encouraging more illegals the way Obama did.

Relapse wrote:
There definitely needs to be reform, but not something that amounts to totally throwing open the borders and encouraging more illegals the way Obama did.

Maybe you could get your representatives to do something about immigration finally, but then they haven't done anything about it for many moons so I doubt they will do something substantial now. It is easier to easier to get reelected if you are intractable until the point that someone else gets fed up and does something about it, and then you complain and use it to score political points for it. Actually do something about it would mean doing something beyond rhetoric and attacking the opposition. You don't get to ride the gravy train governing responsibly.

I'm just a bill, SNL style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

Clearly you are not familiar with the parable of the grape pickers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

Clearly you are not familiar with the parable of the grape pickers.

Fear the Wrath though

 Jihadin wrote:
Fear the Wrath though

If our incumbency rate wasn't sitting at somewhere around 85-90% I would agree.

Relapse wrote:
I'm just a bill, SNL style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

I saw that on Fox. That was awesome.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Petitiron on WH's site to refund the fees to legal immigrants who have applied over the past six years

I'd say they have a case.

Clearly you are not familiar with the parable of the grape pickers.

Fear the Wrath though

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm just a bill, SNL style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

I saw that on Fox. That was awesome.

Washington Post somehow felt the need to fact check the skit. Seems reasonable since they've done it for skits about conservative presidents, like...er... forget about that statement.

http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/wapo-fact-check-obama-snl-skit/?hvid=6csk3v

I rarely find SNL funny, but that was pretty funny. Of course since it was SNL it went on at least 33% too long, but still not bad.

Did anyone barf when Obama stated last night in response to Ferguson Grand Jury case:

"We are a nation built on the rule of law."

...

...

...

...


I think Obama is just trolling us.