Jump to content

Because Biden


nitflegal

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I have no idea why Biden administration just can't give the GOP whatever deal they want when it comes to the border in exchange for Ukraine aid. Enforcing it is basically their damn duty anyway, pretty much by definition.

That Senate immigration bill did give the GOP a lot of what they wanted (they got far more out of that bill than Ds did).  The GOP turned it down because they figured it'd help them in Nov to keep things as they are.  The way others on here describe the issue is a bit... disingenuous (shock, surprise...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

They don't teach the new troops. That's their poblem. Well one of them. 

Stocks of ammo and weapons are everything.  I had an argument with an old friend that we were entirely justified in keeping Lima's Tank Plant open even with 5000 Abrams tanks in stocks and use. I didn't want to see the US in the behind the 8ball position we were in in 1939 where tank production was in the bare handfuls out of locomotive foundries. 

They do train replacements.

Agreed, also if there's one thing we could learn from the Russians is to keep our shit instead of scrapping it. In a war like that even old M48s and M60s parked somewhere in the desert could be useful after an overhaul, let alone M1s (even with 105 mm gun). Or M109s. Or G@v1ns!

I think as of now, Poland may have transferred more tanks to Ukraine than all other countries combined (300+ T-72s and PT-91s), and we're a 'frontline country'. If not more, than at least damn close and they were transferred quickly, most of them in summer 2022 IIRC, in time for a counteroffensive. Same with BMPs, 2S1s, Grads and there were also modern 155 mm Krabs, equipment for 2, maybe 3 armored brigades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

That Senate immigration bill did give the GOP a lot of what they wanted (they got far more out of that bill than Ds did).  The GOP turned it down because they figured it'd help them in Nov to keep things as they are.  The way others on here describe the issue is a bit... disingenuous (shock, surprise...).

The fact that the provisions of the bill kicked in after 5000 illegal crossings a day is ridiculous to me. The preferred number of illegals crossing the border should be zero. 

This is how you defend the border:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

The fact that the provisions of the bill kicked in after 5000 illegal crossings a day is ridiculous to me. The preferred number of illegals crossing the border should be zero.

The 5k thing was about shutting the border down (and it could be shut down before then).  Not all aspects and changes of the bill hinged on that 5k number.  That was just one change of many.  The changes to asylum were separate from that.  The short-term changes to green cards and temp workers were also separate.

As for a wall... there are plenty of examples of places here where Trump's wall went up that they simply broke through (I remember seeing a clip where they created a door to open the hole in the wall and then shut it after).  If you want to see a more detailed response on the border issue see my post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

That Senate immigration bill did give the GOP a lot of what they wanted (they got far more out of that bill than Ds did).  The GOP turned it down because they figured it'd help them in Nov to keep things as they are.  The way others on here describe the issue is a bit... disingenuous (shock, surprise...).

The way I read it, going from memory,  3,000 to 5,000 illegals a day would be let in. There were triggers when it was supposed to be shut down, but the administration had wiggle room. We've seen how the Biden administration has handled wiggle room on the illegal immigration front. 

The Republicans feel, rightly I think, that they were taken advantage of in the immigration deal in the 80's under Reagan. It was agreed that there would be a one time amnesty but an increase in enforcement.

We got the amnesty but not the enforcement.

I can remember back in the 90's when you went for a job you had to show an ID. Do they still do that?

I think four things would solve the illegal immigration issue.

1. Strong ID's to prove US citizenship or  legal status to be able to get a job.

2. ZERO benefits for people here illegally.

3. End anchor babies and chain migration.

This would take care of 95% of the issue.

4. Strong deportation for the few that would remain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I'm all for giving Putin a bloody nose, but what is the cost in Ukrainian lives? Yes, they are in an existential conflict and can't really afford to retreat.

That is for Ukraine to say how much they are willing to sacrifice. I have a feeling that they will not be able to get all their land back. I hope I'm wrong.

At some time peace would be better for both sides than continual blood letting for little gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

The skepticism is understandable. 

The Putin worship, however,  is pure contrarianism. 

Who exactly is worshiping Putin?

  • Hillary and her "reset" button with Russia.
  • Obama assuring Putin's stooge, Medvedev, that he would have greater flexibility to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 election.
  • Hillary campaign team, CIA, and FBI colluded with the Russians in 2016 to sabotage Trump's campaign and then his administration.
  • December 2021 Biden green lighted a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I can remember back in the 90's when you went for a job you had to show an ID. Do they still do that?

You still must fill out a form I-9, but;

 

Quote

 

Do not file Form I-9 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

Employers must:

  • Have a completed Form I-9 on file for each person on their payroll who is required to complete the form;
  • Retain and store Forms I-9 for three years after the date of hire, or for one year after employment is terminated, whichever is later; and
  • Make their forms available for inspection if requested by authorized U.S. government officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, or Department of Justice.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-9.pdf

Quote

Certification: I attest, under penalty of perjury, that (1) I have examined the documentation presented by the above-named employee, (2) the above-listed documentation appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, and (3) to the best of my knowledge, the employee is authorized to work in the United States.

Observe the phrase that pays, "appears."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Who exactly is worshiping Putin?

  • Hillary and her "reset" button with Russia.
  • Obama assuring Putin's stooge, Medvedev, that he would have greater flexibility to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 election.
  • Hillary campaign team, CIA, and FBI colluded with the Russians in 2016 to sabotage Trump's campaign and then his administration.
  • December 2021 Biden green lighted a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Check the origin of my comment.

13 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

It's contrarianism.

 

The left put Ukraine flags on their socials,  cars, etc. Therefore, some conservatives are against it. It's like when the antiwar crowd got quiet when Obama took office, in soite of continuing the GWOT.

.

Them, my guy. Some conservatives. That's who have become Putin fanboys. Like my conservative friend who knows little of Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

can Ukraine take back territory? At what point is Ukraine better off cutting their losses and stopping the bloodletting?

When the Ukrainians decide that they have had enough (and/or the Russians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

We in the west presumed a higher degree of capability in a USSR vs the West Engagement. We knew there'd be a qualitative edge but not as bad as what we're seeing in Ukraine. 

 

They don't teach the new troops. That's their poblem. Well one of them. 

Stocks of ammo and weapons are everything.  I had an argument with an old friend that we were entirely justified in keeping Lima's Tank Plant open even with 5000 Abrams tanks in stocks and use. I didn't want to see the US in the behind the 8ball position we were in in 1939 where tank production was in the bare handfuls out of locomotive foundries. 

Wargaming it, the soviets would have done badly, apallingly, for about 2 weeks. And then the rest of the reinforcements would have turned up, and it would either have been buckets of sunshine, or the big tank parade in Paris. Or at least, Im damned if I could have seen how we would have won it. Even projecting with the POMCUS sets at the end of the 1980's, there just wasnt enough units arriving quickly enough to achieve ascendency in any area. 

Basically, the Soviets would have won by swamping us, and they would have had to have done it that way. There was just too many antitank weapons in Europe to do anything but soak them up like blotting paper.

Id rather you would have kept 1000 tanks in stock, and kept the line running building 100 a year. Which isnt much, but at least it would have kept the line with an excuse to always be running. We made the same mistake. We gave Vickers a bonus buy of 386 challenger 2's (Originally we would have bought just 150) as a thank you for winning the cold war. Then we never bought another tank. The end thereafter was predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

When the Ukrainians decide that they have had enough (and/or the Russians).

Considering how Ukrainian government system works nowadays, that would be the day Zelensky appears hung from the roof of a gas station by the feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

The 5k thing was about shutting the border down (and it could be shut down before then).  Not all aspects and changes of the bill hinged on that 5k number.  That was just one change of many.  The changes to asylum were separate from that.  The short-term changes to green cards and temp workers were also separate.

Kinda sort of. If every day is 5000. that's still 1,825,000 per year as permissible. 

Why is a low threshold of nearly 1.825 million a year even baked into the legislation? 

20 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

As for a wall... there are plenty of examples of places here where Trump's wall went up that they simply broke through (I remember seeing a clip where they created a door to open the hole in the wall and then shut it after).  If you want to see a more detailed response on the border issue see my post here.

If the CBP can show up when my wife and cousins walk up to the US side of the border wall then the can show up when someone attempts to breach it. 

It's assumed that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that a barrier MUST be monitored and any attempts to cross it are responded to. 

The current protocol by the Biden admin is just to let folks cross, pay for them to cross and give them free rides to where they want to go. Catch and release. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Wargaming it, the soviets would have done badly, apallingly, for about 2 weeks. And then the rest of the reinforcements would have turned up, and it would either have been buckets of sunshine, or the big tank parade in Paris. Or at least, Im damned if I could have seen how we would have won it. Even projecting with the POMCUS sets at the end of the 1980's, there just wasnt enough units arriving quickly enough to achieve ascendency in any area. 

Folks I know who trained for this are noting that they'd have been destroying the Soviet Logistics and the advances would ahve stalled for lack of supplies, both POL and ammo. 

The key thing being the Russian/Soviet supply system of being push vs pull. Some guy in the rear deciding what you needed vs a unit commander SAYING what he needed. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2024 at 6:35 PM, 17thfabn said:

The way I read it, going from memory,  3,000 to 5,000 illegals a day would be let in. There were triggers when it was supposed to be shut down, but the administration had wiggle room. We've seen how the Biden administration has handled wiggle room on the illegal immigration front.

It wasn't 3-5k being let in, it was 3-5k being interdicted by BP.

On 2/26/2024 at 6:35 PM, 17thfabn said:

I think four things would solve the illegal immigration issue.

1. Strong ID's to prove US citizenship or  legal status to be able to get a job.

2. ZERO benefits for people here illegally.

3. End anchor babies and chain migration.

This would take care of 95% of the issue.

4. Strong deportation for the few that would remain. 

Regarding #1 and #4... we have systems in place now that should be able to handle this but they're woefully underfunded or understaffed.  Rs are going to hate to admit this but if you really want to address this issue you need massive expansion of some Fed agencies.  It's more than BP that runs across this issue.  The NYT has been doing a lengthy investigation into these major meat-packing plants using underage and illegal workers at their facilities (and IIRC some have perished).  The Fed agency responsible for checking up on those employees, verifying status, etc. is woefully understaffed and underfunded and years behind on inspections.

If you haven't yet go read my response in another thread linked in the post above this.  IMNSHO if you go after the businesses, those jobs disappear (most of them... some would need to exist but need to be handled by legal means), you now eliminate a majority of this illegal traffic.  The catch is neither party, nor the business community, wants this to happen.

This focus on the wall, or on Trump deputizing NG units across the country to do a sweep to deport, just highlights how he and his people still don't understand the fundamental problem (or, I'd argue maybe they do but don't care... do a few months of sweeping to look tough and then continue on with the status quo so businesses get their cheap labor back).  You're not going to solve anything if you don't address the heart of the matter but instead focus on silly gestures just to look tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

It wasn't 3-5k being let in, it was 3-5k being interdicted by BP.

CBP catches fewer than the total that get in. AND CBP releases all those that state they have an asylum claim. So it's still 5k let in.
 

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Regarding #1 and #4... we have systems in place now that should be able to handle this but they're woefully underfunded or understaffed. 

What changed beween 2019 and 2021? Bueller? Anyone?
 

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Rs are going to hate to admit this but if you really want to address this issue you need massive expansion of some Fed agencies. 

OH, NOES, we can't build a wall!
 

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

This focus on the wall, or on Trump deputizing NG units across the country to do a sweep to deport, just highlights how he and his people still don't understand the fundamental problem (or, I'd argue maybe they do but don't care... do a few months of sweeping to look tough and then continue on with the status quo so businesses get their cheap labor back).  You're not going to solve anything if you don't address the heart of the matter but instead focus on silly gestures just to look tough.

How did Trump Drive down the illegal #s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there’s a bill in congress moving that requires expulsion of any illegal immigrant who commits burglary or robbery. Will the Democrats oppose this as unreasonable ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2024 at 8:21 AM, JWB said:

 

Can the Democrat Party be charged with Elder Abuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Why did President Joe Biden reverse former President Donald Trump’s order excluding noncitizens from being counted in the census, while simultaneously issuing a slew of executive orders decimating the integrity of our southern border? While illegal immigrants cannot vote in elections (despite Democrats’ best efforts), the left is using their illegal presence to rig elections by shifting the political landscape through apportionment.

Both congressional and electoral college apportionment is derived from the num

ber of residents in a particular area. Trump signed a memo in July of 2020 that barred illegal immigrants from being counted in the census, which is used to apportion representation in Washington. Biden, however, reversed the policy and ordered the census to include illegal immigrants and other noncitizens.

This means that American citizens aren’t receiving balanced representation in their government.

States can pick up — or lose — a congressional seat depending on the size of their population, despite the fact that some of that population may not even be allowed to vote. Millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are in large, left-leaning cities, dilute the voting power of American citizens who may live in a mildly populated area composed of legal residents.

And Democrats know what they’re doing.

[READ: 2020 Census Asks For Your Racial Identity, But Not If You’re A Citizen]

Democrat New York Rep. Yvette Clark said during a 2021 hearing that her district “can absorb a significant number of these migrants” because “I need more people in my district, just for redistricting purposes.”

Clark’s resurfaced clip prompted Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and others to introduce the “Equal Representation Act” which would mandate only legal citizens are counted for congressional districts and the Electoral College map.

Sanctuary Cities

So-called “sanctuary cities,” which promise not to enforce immigration laws and often guarantee lodging to illegal residents, have long blurred the lines of law, bucking federal immigration policy and then begging taxpayers to foot the bill.

But despite the drain on government resources — and sometimes violence — these policies invite, these cities and left-leaning states have reason to incentivize illegal immigrants because it helps them adjust for apportionment.

As residents flee blue states like California and New York for more family-friendly and taxpayer-friendly states like Florida and Texas, Democrats need to recoup their population losses. Illegal immigrants inflate the census data, which in turn could help Democrats retain their power.

Constitutionally Suspect

The framers likely would not support Biden’s position that illegal immigrants deserve to be counted in apportionment to determine representation.

The Constitution’s original census clause stated:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment stipulated that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

But “whole number of persons” was likely not intended to encompass those illegally residing in the states.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, most northern states advocated for no slaves to be counted in the apportionment proceedings so that slaveholding states, some of which had slave populations as high as 43 percent of their total residents, would not have an unfair amount of representation compared to their actual voting weight.

The three-fifths compromise also lessened the incentive for slaveholding states to import more slaves in order to expand their population and increase their representation.

No ‘Colorable Constitutional Claim’

Lower courts had blocked Trump’s memorandum from taking effect after 23 states challenged the memo, saying it violated the Constitution and federal census statutes.

The Supreme Court has never weighed in on the question nor answered whether the word “persons” encompasses illegal immigrants for the purpose of apportionment.

But the high court has previously ruled in Mathews v. Diaz, a case regarding the Social Security Act, that while illegal immigrants are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the unanimous court:

Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests.

If voting, which is a benefit exclusively for citizens, is off-limits to illegal immigrants, it would be hard to imagine that illegal immigrants should be empowered to dilute the weight of a vote by artificially expanding the population and increasing the representational advantage of one area while taking it away from another area that is populated by legal residents. And yet, thanks to Democrats, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/28/how-illegal-aliens-flooding-our-border-skew-elections-for-democrats-without-ever-casting-a-vote/

This is absolute fucking lunacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Colin said:

Can the Democrat Party be charged with Elder Abuse?

To be fair, Trump talks about showers and flush toilets at every rally and has mistaken Biden for Obama 7 times. So it is a race to the bottom here in the U.S.

Link to comment
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

×
×
  • Create New...