Helping out with the border crisis.

[Arkady]

As I mentioned, Massachusetts has agreed to help out with the refugee children, rather than leaving them as a burden exclusively for Texas and Arizona. It sounds like neighboring Vermont will help out, too. So, I was thinking that lots of states would step up and do their share, but it sounds like it's mostly NIMBY sentiment, instead:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/the_child_migrant_crisis_is_not_just_a_border_issue_blue_states_need_to.html

At some level, I get where that sentiment could be coming from. Texas and Arizona are among the first states to gripe at national solutions to any problem, so when there's a local problem that hits them, it's temping to wish them luck and wash your hands of it. But it makes more sense to spread the burden, which is actually pretty small if spread evenly across the nation. I'm sure every state has a few unused or under-used facilities that can be drafted into use as temporary housing for these kids, diminishing their hardship and relieving the burden on the border states.

 

[trapdoor]

As I mentioned, Massachusetts has agreed to help out with the refugee children, rather than leaving them as a burden exclusively for Texas and Arizona. It sounds like neighboring Vermont will help out, too. So, I was thinking that lots of states would step up and do their share, but it sounds like it's mostly NIMBY sentiment, instead:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/the_child_migrant_crisis_is_not_just_a_border_issue_blue_states_need_to.html

At some level, I get where that sentiment could be coming from. Texas and Arizona are among the first states to gripe at national solutions to any problem, so when there's a local problem that hits them, it's temping to wish them luck and wash your hands of it. But it makes more sense to spread the burden, which is actually pretty small if spread evenly across the nation. I'm sure every state has a few unused or under-used facilities that can be drafted into use as temporary housing for these kids, diminishing their hardship and relieving the burden on the border states.

What Arizona and Texas are experiencing is not a local problem, that's the point. Illegal immigrants, plus these refuges, cross into Arizona and Texas not so much by crossing the state line, as by crossing the U.S. border -- making it a national problem, not merely a local one.

 

[Arkady]

What Arizona and Texas are experiencing is not a local problem, that's the point. Illegal immigrants, plus these refuges, cross into Arizona and Texas not so much by crossing the state line, as by crossing the U.S. border -- making it a national problem, not merely a local one.

You're preaching to the choir. I see the national implications of all sorts of problems that are only causing local difficulties. I'm just saying that I can see why people in other states might be slow to leap to the aid of these particular states, when they're so reluctant to engage in national approaches to problems in other contexts (e.g., national gun control, given how easily guns cross state borders).

 

[connieb]

As I mentioned, Massachusetts has agreed to help out with the refugee children, rather than leaving them as a burden exclusively for Texas and Arizona. It sounds like neighboring Vermont will help out, too. So, I was thinking that lots of states would step up and do their share, but it sounds like it's mostly NIMBY sentiment, instead:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/the_child_migrant_crisis_is_not_just_a_border_issue_blue_states_need_to.html

At some level, I get where that sentiment could be coming from. Texas and Arizona are among the first states to gripe at national solutions to any problem, so when there's a local problem that hits them, it's temping to wish them luck and wash your hands of it. But it makes more sense to spread the burden, which is actually pretty small if spread evenly across the nation. I'm sure every state has a few unused or under-used facilities that can be drafted into use as temporary housing for these kids, diminishing their hardship and relieving the burden on the border states.

It is the federal gov'ts responsibility to make sure that this problem doesn't impact local communities. If you want to take other facilities create secure lcoations where these people do not attend local schools are not eligible for local aid, etc. then fine. Go for it - house them there as secure facilities. If you intend to provide housing and dump the problem on the localities to see to education, etc - then no thanks. I would rather, as I said previously load them up in busses and dump them back into mexico or maybe even Canada. Local communities should not have to absorb the costs of the federal gov'ts in ability to manage to secure the border and enforce the laws in the timely and expeditious fashion.

connie

 

[as seen on tv]

As I mentioned, Massachusetts has agreed to help out with the refugee children, rather than leaving them as a burden exclusively for Texas and Arizona. It sounds like neighboring Vermont will help out, too. So, I was thinking that lots of states would step up and do their share, but it sounds like it's mostly NIMBY sentiment, instead:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/the_child_migrant_crisis_is_not_just_a_border_issue_blue_states_need_to.html

At some level, I get where that sentiment could be coming from. Texas and Arizona are among the first states to gripe at national solutions to any problem, so when there's a local problem that hits them, it's temping to wish them luck and wash your hands of it. But it makes more sense to spread the burden, which is actually pretty small if spread evenly across the nation. I'm sure every state has a few unused or under-used facilities that can be drafted into use as temporary housing for these kids, diminishing their hardship and relieving the burden on the border states.

i dont think the angst is over actual "children" . rather, its the adults mixed in with them - who comprise a majority of the illegal aliens, that has voters alarmed.

i don't see massachussetts or vermont volunteering to take in "latin king" or "m13" gang members. get back to me when they do

 

[Guthrie]

i dont think the angst is over actual "children" . rather, its the adults mixed in with them - who comprise a majority of the illegal aliens, that has voters alarmed.

i don't see massachussetts or vermont volunteering to take in "latin king" or "m13" gang members. get back to me when they do

Both gangs you speak of originated in the United States as people fled the US imposed violence of the 80s. They were then deported back to their country of origin, where they spread the gangs there.

Under the logic you offered, the governments of central America should have rightfully deported then to the United States.

I am unaware that the voters of America have spoken on this issue.

 

[Guthrie]

It is the federal gov'ts responsibility to make sure that this problem doesn't impact local communities. If you want to take other facilities create secure lcoations where these people do not attend local schools are not eligible for local aid, etc. then fine. Go for it - house them there as secure facilities. If you intend to provide housing and dump the problem on the localities to see to education, etc - then no thanks. I would rather, as I said previously load them up in busses and dump them back into mexico or maybe even Canada. Local communities should not have to absorb the costs of the federal gov'ts in ability to manage to secure the border and enforce the laws in the timely and expeditious fashion.

connie

Agree on federal v local point you made here.

However, these children, according to the UN are overwhelmingly legitimate asylum seekers. This has been confirmed on the ground as well by other objective agencies.

Sending them back to their country of origin would be akin to sending a Jew back to NAZI germany. This is especially so, when the problems they are fleeing from were created by The United States, the United States and well, the United States. This isn't a debatable point.

Thus, a combination of enforcement of the border, addressing the causes of the migration and the granting of asylum when warranted are the only solutions to this crisis.

General Kelly, head of the border, has said as such. No doubt, the US support for the recent Honduran coup, and the bloody murders that followed, played a major role.

What in Gods name would give the right of the US to dump these children in another country when our nation is to blame? Thats a deeply immoral mindset that to me is frankly deplorable.

We have a golden opportunity to right the wrongs of a horrible, brutal and at times genocidal past with Latin America. We might choose to forget that past, but it is the cause of whats happening right now.

 

[connieb]

Agree on federal v local point you made here.

However, these children, according to the UN are overwhelmingly legitimate asylum seekers. This has been confirmed on the ground as well by other objective agencies.

Sending them back to their country of origin would be akin to sending a Jew back to NAZI germany. This is especially so, when the problems they are fleeing from were created by The United States, the United States and well, the United States. This isn't a debatable point.

Thus, a combination of enforcement of the border, addressing the causes of the migration and the granting of asylum when warranted are the only solutions to this crisis.

General Kelly, head of the border, has said as such. No doubt, the US support for the recent Honduran coup, and the bloody murders that followed, played a major role.

What in Gods name would give the right of the US to dump these children in another country when our nation is to blame? Thats a deeply immoral mindset that to me is frankly deplorable.

We have a golden opportunity to right the wrongs of a horrible, brutal and at times genocidal past with Latin America. We might choose to forget that past, but it is the cause of whats happening right now.

I am not intersted in righting any wrongs. I am interested in protecting the opportunities that curretnly exist in this country are available for my children and my grandchildren, and making sure that my tax liability does not go up to make up for anyone else's problems or mistakes. So, if htey are legitimate asylum seekers - then Canada can welcome them. I have no interest in paying for them in any way shape or form. I will not assume any moral responsibility for someone else's failings. If our Gov't has done dubious stuff there - it quite simply is not my problem. I don't really care what we have done or haven't done - I will not own another's mistakes in any form or bail anyone out becuase they F-ed up. And I will not accept the burden of anyone else's mistakes.

 

[Guthrie]

I am not intersted in righting any wrongs. I am interested in protecting the opportunities that curretnly exist in this country are available for my children and my grandchildren, and making sure that my tax liability does not go up to make up for anyone else's problems or mistakes. So, if htey are legitimate asylum seekers - then Canada can welcome them. I have no interest in paying for them in any way shape or form. I will not assume any moral responsibility for someone else's failings. If our Gov't has done dubious stuff there - it quite simply is not my problem. I don't really care what we have done or haven't done - I will not own another's mistakes in any form or bail anyone out becuase they F-ed up. And I will not accept the burden of anyone else's mistakes.

You are accepting the burden because it is causing the people to come here.
My point is simply to stop this crisis one of the tactics is to address the underlying causes, which you dont seem to dispute.

Following your logic, why should Canada take them in as a result of US policies?
Why do your children deserve better then the children from there?
Cant those children say "I dont care who I am wronging I am coming anyway?

Your argument is, let me get this right, is to blame everyone and everything except for the actual cause of it? Sure, blame a 7 year old and drop him off in Mexico but dont blame the government polices? Dont advocate altering the polices that have caused this? Dont solve the problem by implementing a solution?

Further, installing dictators and training and giving them weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of people and subsequently exploit their nations resources for economic gain is not dubious stuff. Its horrific and criminal.

If we were to apply your rule as the golden rule the world would not be worth living in an every violent act could be justified in such way.

Your view is strikingly consistent with NAZI ideology(I am not calling you a NAZI) and grounded in deeply totalitarian principles.

Certainly you are more responsible for US government polices then is a child in another country.

If you were worried about your tax liability you would focus on where your taxes actually go, which by and large are to the aforementioned military polices that cause blowback such as mass immigration, terrorism, etc. Or is it that you worry about your tax liablity for children escaping death but not that you worry about tax liability for polices killing the children?

The children are risking a journey of death and rape to get here. They are coming. I for one am glad as hell for everyone that finds safety.
Your thought process will create a horrid world for your children if applied universally.
Luckily you are in the minority.
Your is a world with a wall around it. Mine is a faith in my fellow man.

 

[connieb]

You are accepting the burden because it is causing the people to come here.
My point is simply to stop this crisis one of the tactics is to address the underlying causes, which you dont seem to dispute.

Following your logic, why should Canada take them in as a result of US policies?
Why do your children deserve better then the children from there?
Cant those children say "I dont care who I am wronging I am coming anyway?

Your argument is, let me get this right, is to blame everyone and everything except for the actual cause of it? Sure, blame a 7 year old and drop him off in Mexico but dont blame the government polices? Dont advocate altering the polices that have caused this? Dont solve the problem by implementing a solution?

Further, installing dictators and training and giving them weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of people and subsequently exploit their nations resources for economic gain is not dubious stuff. Its horrific and criminal.

If we were to apply your rule as the golden rule the world would not be worth living in an every violent act could be justified in such way.

Your view is strikingly consistent with NAZI ideology(I am not calling you a NAZI) and grounded in deeply totalitarian principles.

Certainly you are more responsible for US government polices then is a child in another country.

If you were worried about your tax liability you would focus on where your taxes actually go, which by and large are to the aforementioned military polices that cause blowback such as mass immigration, terrorism, etc. Or is it that you worry about your tax liablity for children escaping death but not that you worry about tax liability for polices killing the children?

The children are risking a journey of death and rape to get here. They are coming. I for one am glad as hell for everyone that finds safety.
Your thought process will create a horrid world for your children if applied universally.
Luckily you are in the minority.
Your is a world with a wall around it. Mine is a faith in my fellow man.

I don't think Canada should take them - but I will happily let them also be the bad guys when they ship them back. I am not "blaming" anyone. Life where they come from sucks. But, I personally had nothing to do with that - so I personally refuse to bear any of the burden - either socially as our education system is decimated by being over crowded, nor monetarily. I do worry about where my taxes go - I support a major reducing in the Gov't international actions - defense spending, etc. I want more of my money back in my own pocket.

connie

 

[Guthrie]

I am sorry but yours is a losing argument, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't deal with half the issues I raised.

Small government is a well documented idea funded by the ultra wealthy in America to serve their ends.

But let me just ask you one last question:
Do you also think that the polices creating this crisis should be stopped and are you outraged for funding them?

 

[Guthrie]

More money back in your pocket will be alot better for the super rich who will have for money back in theirs. Something to consider.

 

[connieb]

More money back in your pocket will be alot better for the super rich who will have for money back in theirs. Something to consider.

As long as I get my proporitonal share of more money back in mine - I could care let what the rich have or get back. The rich don't keep me from being rich. I am quite happy to continue to try to get to their ranks - so when I get there - policies which have benefited them, will benefit me.

connie

 

[connieb]

I am sorry but yours is a losing argument, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't deal with half the issues I raised.

Small government is a well documented idea funded by the ultra wealthy in America to serve their ends.

But let me just ask you one last question:
Do you also think that the polices creating this crisis should be stopped and are you outraged for funding them?

I answerd all your points I had not previously responded to. If I missed them I appologize, I am popping in here in between calls and other things going on.

Yes, I think the policies should be stopped and I am outraged my money has been used to fund them. If you think however that the people doing those things -will care that I am outraged, nor would they stop - you are naive. I know that my opinion or yours does not matter - will not ever matter no matter who is in the white house and that you and I will never have any control over what those people do. We are at their mercy as much as anyone else - so what we should focus on is self preservation.

 

[Drumcollie]

I am sorry but yours is a losing argument, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't deal with half the issues I raised.

Small government is a well documented idea funded by the ultra wealthy in America to serve their ends.

But let me just ask you one last question:
Do you also think that the polices creating this crisis should be stopped and are you outraged for funding them?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...you telling someone that there argument is a losing one...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha...get back to us when you quit being a mouthpiece for your masters and have a real point.

 

[Guthrie]

I answerd all your points I had not previously responded to. If I missed them I appologize, I am popping in here in between calls and other things going on.

Yes, I think the policies should be stopped and I am outraged my money has been used to fund them. If you think however that the people doing those things -will care that I am outraged, nor would they stop - you are naive. I know that my opinion or yours does not matter - will not ever matter no matter who is in the white house and that you and I will never have any control over what those people do. We are at their mercy as much as anyone else - so what we should focus on is self preservation.

It doesn't seem that we disagree on many facts, just on I guess some personal moral issues.

DO you view addressing the root causes of illegal immigration as an efficient way to end it?

Cause beefing up the border would require bigger government intervention.

I do disagree though that you think that the government and rich are separate. They are one in the same. The governemnt serves the rich. Not the middle or poor. The rich are in favor of certain types of big government. Like subsidies, etc. It is these polices that are wasting away our tax dollars.

The rich very much advocate smaller government, however, simultaneously. But they want to get rid of social programs in favor of corporate programs.

States like Germany, who have far more government intervention, are doing much, much better.

I think you also ignore how this country developed, which was through heavy state intervention like tariffs, etc.

I understand your bitterness about taxes. You are not stupid you know that they are being taking from you and not used for your interest. To me the solution is to impose constraints on the government, like forcing them to make the rich pay their share. Not just shutting it down.

 

[Guthrie]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...you telling someone that there argument is a losing one...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha...get back to us when you quit being a mouthpiece for your masters and have a real point.

Your argument is a losing one as well, considering, it isn't an argument.

Still waiting for you to identify those masters.

 

[Guthrie]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...you telling someone that there argument is a losing one...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha...get back to us when you quit being a mouthpiece for your masters and have a real point.

Shes not disagreeing with what I said. Shes just saying she doesn't care.