So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

    Seems like the bill includes a provision to allow Napolitanto to nix building the fence.  Didn't she "reallocate" the border resources last time?  Why should this time be any different?

    We are being fed lies by the gang of 8.  this is straight up amnesty, one step at a time.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/22/Another-loophole-in-new-amnesty-bill-Big-Sis-can-decide-to-not-build-border-fence

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all


    Millions of instant new democratic voters. They don't want the border completely closed off; they want their future voters to keep filtering in. And they get looked at as "humanitarians" in the process. Build a wall/fence? They're not that stupid!                      

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all


    Obamacare redux.

    Months of negotiations, then the sneaky Dems throw in hundreds of pages in the bill at the last minute and force a vote.

     

    "You have to pass it to see what is in it."

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    this is straight up amnesty, one step at a time.



    Another Republican idea converted into a conspiracy theory.

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

    Millions of instant new democratic voters. They don't want the border completely closed off; they want their future voters to keep filtering in.



    No wall is going to stop immigration. And if it did, they'd just switch to rafts.

     

    Has it really not occurred to you that maybe some of the people opposing a wall think that it's a pointless endeavor? They are constantly having to repair breaches. The only way to make it work is to have constant patrols up and down its entire length, at which point the cure probably costs more than the disease.


    Oh and, why would Republicans be forever unable to appeal to that demographic, anyway?

     

     



    I don't care if it's a wall or done with patrolling, just do it. We have the technology and the ability to seal the border if we want to, could be done tomorrow, if we want. So let me bounce the question back to you, why do you think generally Democrats are not as much in favor of securing the border, and generally Republicans are more for securing the boarder?   

     

     

    Democrats are big on etitlements, they want their free stuff, money, tuition, cell phones, etc. So they are told if you want to keep these things, vote Democrat, and the vast majority who vote, do. The Democrats know this, I'm pretty sure you know this too.       

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    this is straight up amnesty, one step at a time.


    Another Republican idea converted into a conspiracy theory.

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

    Millions of instant new democratic voters. They don't want the border completely closed off; they want their future voters to keep filtering in.


    No wall is going to stop immigration. And if it did, they'd just switch to rafts.

     

    Has it really not occurred to you that maybe some of the people opposing a wall think that it's a pointless endeavor? They are constantly having to repair breaches. The only way to make it work is to have constant patrols up and down its entire length, at which point the cure probably costs more than the disease.


    Oh and, why would Republicans be forever unable to appeal to that demographic, anyway?

     



    What does "Republican" have to do with anything?  you think I'm going to go "oooh, you got me"?  They are all idiots.  And strange enough, all immigration amnesties seem to be due to Republicans.

    Seem to have a lot of reasons why we can't seem to protect our border, yet every other major country in the word doesn't seem to have this problem.

    Maybe it's the Democrat that's in office that is the problem.

    See what I did right there?  linked it to "Democrat".  Now it is a Democrat problem.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Well considering that immigration reform would cut the deficit, contrary to the xenophobic fears expoused from the right, it seems it's a no-brainer, if cost really was a concern.

     

    The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Senate immigration bill and concluded it will cut deficits by $200 billion in the first 10 years and $700 billion in the second 10 years.



    There was tremendous excitement among members of Congress and then the general public when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released data that showed that “enacting S. 744 would generate changes in direct spending and revenues that would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the 2014–2023 period.” The problem with the analysis is that most of the effects show up at the end of that period. Forecasts that rely on events that are years away are not worth the paper they are written on.

     

    In describing the bill, the CBO management wrote:

    S. 744 would revise laws governing immigration and the enforcement of those laws, allowing for a significant increase in the number of non citizens who could lawfully enter the United States on both a permanent and temporary basis.

    The new legislation would allow 10.4 million people to enter the United States, over the decade period, who would have been unable to do so otherwise, at least legally. The primary benefit would be that the taxes these people paid would increase federal receipts. This makes a great deal of common sense, based on the amounts current immigrants pay.

    The details of the deficit reduction reveal that of the $197.1 billion positive effect on the federal deficit, $36.2 billion comes in 2023, $33.2 billion comes in 2022 and $27.6 billion comes in 2021. In sum, 50% of the benefits will be posted in the final three years of the period.

    One of the regular lessons of federal budget forecasts is that they are notoriously wrong. The CBO and White House Budget Office estimates of how large the budget deficit would be this year and next already have proved incorrect. The deficit will be lower than expected. Last month, the CBO reported that the deficit for the current year would be $642 billion, which was an improvement of about $200 billion from the figure it had forecast in February. The magnitude of the change is tremendous, particularly in such a short period.

    Over the next 10 years, the tax code could change, as could the median income of immigrants, the mixture of their skills and the level of unemployment among the group. Those are just a few a nearly infinite number of variables that could make the forecasts about the effects of S. 744 inaccurate. In essence, that means it is wrong already.




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all


    I feel the majority of illegal imigrants coming hear have no interst in becoming an American, they are coming here to just "live in America". And with that mind set would have little to no interest in politics. They come for what America will give them, things they cant get in there home countries.   

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, the border won't be secured in the bill after all

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    this is straight up amnesty, one step at a time.


    Another Republican idea converted into a conspiracy theory.

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

    Millions of instant new democratic voters. They don't want the border completely closed off; they want their future voters to keep filtering in.


    No wall is going to stop immigration. And if it did, they'd just switch to rafts.

     

    Has it really not occurred to you that maybe some of the people opposing a wall think that it's a pointless endeavor? They are constantly having to repair breaches. The only way to make it work is to have constant patrols up and down its entire length, at which point the cure probably costs more than the disease.


    Oh and, why would Republicans be forever unable to appeal to that demographic, anyway?

     



    The wall makes a statement we have boarders and we expect non-citizens to respect them, not a very difficult concept.

    Repairing the wall could be better then the stimulus program in creating good working class jobs.  privitize the repair operation.  It should be configured as a public private partneership contract with payment tied to progress in building the wall and its maintenance should be tied to payments for quick repair.

    Monitoring could be by the FBI Drone training program.  Drones could be in daily use and then deployed by the FBI for specific events as they do today.  If they're going to get their training time in it should be worthwhile.

    Yes dismissing the cost of the wall as being more expensive then the cost of illegal immigration is an easy assumption.  The CBO has a whole series of assumptions to an economic model that says how the path to citizenship is such a cash positive answer for the country.  But the math is only as good as the assumptions, and there are various ways to cook the books.

    How do we know that we'll receive those back tax payments?

    How do we know that the new legal status residents will actually obtian jobs that earn the enough to where they pay taxes and not just obtain an earned income credit (freeby tax return)? 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share