It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Negotiators reach deal ‘in principle’ to avert shutdown

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Tempter


Would need to see the specifics to make an informed decision...

However to reduce occupancy space to house foriegn invadors suggests the Progs just want to allow them to run free. So hoping NO DEAL.


It will be signed...let's go from there.


What if it doesn't pass in The House? 😎




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


If you are actually serious about stopping illegals, you need to do two things:

I count three, but whatever.


First - Make it impossible for them to obtain or spend money here.

That would be some trick. You'd have to make a way for every person, even the homeless, to receive money electronically. As it is right now, only businesses do so, because the cost of setting up the various accounts is prohibitive for an individual. You'd be outlawing true charity, including church tithes, which is a direct violation of the freedom of religion, and you'd be creating a paper trail of electronic records to exactly track every person at all times.

Just imagine the chaos if everyone were to be prohibited from buying or selling directly to another person. Just imagine the problems if someone were asked to pick up something in town for someone else. We have had suggestions to get rid of cash for quite some time now, and they always end up being rejected for good reason.


Second - Incentivize them to stay in their own countries.

I need more specifics here. We already send billions of dollars (more each year than the cost of the wall in total) to these countries in such an attempt. The leadership of these countries, being corrupt, tend to keep most (or sometimes all) of it instead of distributing it to their people or implementing programs to help the people. Knowing that, would you send more aid that wouldn't get to the people, hoping the corrupt leaders of those countries will suddenly grow a heart? Or would you establish policies for those countries, which amounts to an overthrow of their government and likely direct military involvement?


Third - Take steps to protect the data of US citizens.

We already do. The problem is there are 300+ million US citizens, and no two are exactly alike. I get calls regularly form my bank when I need something out of the ordinary for me, just to verbally verify that yes, I spent that. But the bank obviously can't verbally verify every transaction... I consider it a great favor that they verify any at all. They likely deal with hundreds of thousands of individual transactions per day.

Any electronic system can also be hacked. Any system, no matter how secure.


A wall, and even more Border Patrol (not that I'm opposed to BP as an agency, but to keep their high standards, mass hiring is simply not an option for them) do basically nothing to solve the problem. It's something tangible, and I get the appeal that has to people, but tangible and useless is still useless. Worse, it causes us to ignore the problem because there's now a physical symbol of it being solved, when the reality is that it was never addressed.

A wall will slow down and impede border crossings. Walls have always done that. There's not a substantial wall that has ever been built that did not impede free flow of traffic. If you were familiar with the border situation, you would know that impeding free movement is the biggest need we have there. People looking to cross the border at open areas do not slowly amble across the desert; they run across it, quickly, to avoid the occasional patrols the CBP operates in the area. There's simply too much unimpeded border for any reasonably-sized agency to patrol at intervals less than the time it takes to run across.

That's the issue. It's not about a monument, or stopping VISA overstays, or protecting us against boats. It's about protecting us from a known area of weakness that is being exploited at a growing rate by illegal immigrants, by impeding the free flow of traffic through it. The Border Patrol want a barrier; Trump won in large part because those who support him want a barrier. There is nothing that says a barrier along the border will stop us from using other means to deter illegal immigration and illegal immigrant crime in other ways for other situations, but it is foolhardy to leave such a gaping hole while trying to close up already-monitored holes.

Your methods require massive invasions of privacy and open warfare with other nations, while ignoring the requests of those who are actively working to protect the border every day. A wall costs far less than any of the programs you mention above, with less personal privacy invasion of US citizens, and is not as subject to abuse for political reasons. A wall does not discriminate; it stops everyone, regardless of age, gender, intent, or political persuasion. Political parties in charge of government agencies typically do discriminate, at least at times.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Tempter


Would need to see the specifics to make an informed decision...

However to reduce occupancy space to house foriegn invadors suggests the Progs just want to allow them to run free. So hoping NO DEAL.


It will be signed...let's go from there.

What if it doesn't pass in The House? 😎

Then Saturday begins the "Pelosi Shutdown".

BTW: It's interesting that this time last year, the DACA-DREAMERS were so important to Nancy Pelosi, she stood on the House floor for 8 hours straight, telling the world how much she loved them and wanted them to be permanent citizens.

Pelosi Babbles For 8 Hours!:www.nbcnews.com...

Nancy Pelosi must be developing Dementia, because she didn't even ask for DACA-DREAMER support provisions to be in the 2019 bills..none of them.
edit on 2/13/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Only 1% of all illegal immigration in the US comes from the southern border, through open areas.



this number includes all the one's that didn't get caught right?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Aazadan
Only 1% of all illegal immigration in the US comes from the southern border, through open areas.



this number includes all the one's that didn't get caught right?


Yes, unless you think those that cross via that means are for some reason caught significantly less than everyone else.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


unless you think those that cross via that means are for some reason caught significantly less than everyone else.

Well, they typically are... ask any CBP agent... but I'm curious how we are counting people we never see?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
A wall is permanent and cannot be torn down.

Tell them that in Berlin. I have a piece of it myself.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I count three, but whatever.


I originally wasn't going to make point #3, then I went back and edited it.


That would be some trick. You'd have to make a way for every person, even the homeless, to receive money electronically.


It's already done. The only step that would need to be added, is to get rid of the stupid prepaid debit cards (which should honestly be illegal anyways). The problem with the homeless is that they don't really want to be part of the system, and this forces them to be part of it. It would either result in the homeless having no money at all, or forcibly reintegrating to some extent.


As it is right now, only businesses do so, because the cost of setting up the various accounts is prohibitive for an individual. You'd be outlawing true charity, including church tithes, which is a direct violation of the freedom of religion, and you'd be creating a paper trail of electronic records to exactly track every person at all times.


No it wouldn't. You can still donate money electronically, nothing stops that. And there's nothing wrong with a paper trail either, it makes people more honest at tax time, so as a side effect we get to significantly cut down on tax cheating (and also automate a large part of taxation and verification).


Just imagine the chaos if everyone were to be prohibited from buying or selling directly to another person. Just imagine the problems if someone were asked to pick up something in town for someone else. We have had suggestions to get rid of cash for quite some time now, and they always end up being rejected for good reason.


Charge them? I've got one of those little swipe things I can plug into my phone. I can also accept paypal. Accepting money directly from another person digitally is trivial.


I need more specifics here. We already send billions of dollars (more each year than the cost of the wall in total) to these countries in such an attempt.


Shape our foreign policy to promote stability. For example, do what we can to defund cartels, which involves making street drugs less expensive, and making them more expensive to ship, and offering help to stop addiction from creating captive audiences. Other things we can do, would involve selling Mexico equipment to help keep their officials who are against the cartels secure (working anonymously is huge there).


We already do. The problem is there are 300+ million US citizens, and no two are exactly alike. I get calls regularly form my bank when I need something out of the ordinary for me, just to verbally verify that yes, I spent that.


That is a private business detecting financial fraud. It is quite different from a government entity protecting identity fraud. US identification has almost zero steps taken to create security, the only thing we have that are actually secure, are a handful of state ID's, and passports. Of course, all the information those things secure aren't secure themselves so they can easily be reverse engineered. For example, with nothing more than someones date of birth, it takes under 1000 attempts on average to verify their SSN. With their date of birth and state of birth, it can usually be done in under 50. The systems we use for identification are not secure.


A wall will slow down and impede border crossings. Walls have always done that. There's not a substantial wall that has ever been built that did not impede free flow of traffic.


Yes, it will. But most traffic doesn't go through areas that a wall will block. 60% of people who are in the US illegally come here by air. 20% come by boat. 70% who come here illegally are from Asia. 10% come from the northern border. What's left comes from the southern border. Out of the 30% of total illegal immigration that comes from the southern border, 90% of that comes through checkpoints, either legally or smuggled. Of that remaining 3% that comes over the rest of the southern border, if a wall manages to stop half of it, that's only 1.5% of total illegals stopped.

It quite simply isn't an effective solution. People like it because it's tangible, but something being tangible doesn't mean it's going to do anything.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan


unless you think those that cross via that means are for some reason caught significantly less than everyone else.

Well, they typically are... ask any CBP agent... but I'm curious how we are counting people we never see?

TheRedneck


Statistics are a hell of a thing.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


It's already done. The only step that would need to be added, is to get rid of the stupid prepaid debit cards (which should honestly be illegal anyways). The problem with the homeless is that they don't really want to be part of the system, and this forces them to be part of it. It would either result in the homeless having no money at all, or forcibly reintegrating to some extent.

No, it's not quite done. You can't just force everyone to get a Square card reader, much less a smart phone. I personally don't want a smart phone; I do have a tablet, but it rarely leaves home with me (no data plan). Some people simply are not technologically savvy enough to operate a smart phone.

You are also forgetting the cost involved. Even a small card reader from Square costs $10, in addition to the cost of a smart phone. Then there's the cost of accepting funds through it; banks who handle those transactions charge a fee. That's inflation, and a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy (sort of like what Obamacare did, but over all industries instead of just one).


I've got one of those little swipe things I can plug into my phone. I can also accept paypal. Accepting money directly from another person digitally is trivial.

Congratulations. But not everyone has those advantages, not everyone wants those advantages, not everyone can take advantage of those advantages. What about people who are mentally challenged? Just leave them out in the cold?


Shape our foreign policy to promote stability.

Again, we already do that. It just doesn't always work. We have no right to interfere with other countries. As a matter of fact, I attribute most of our foreign relations difficulties with our trying to interfere with other nations. All we can do is offer or refuse to offer foreign aid; it's up to their leaders how any aid is distributed. We also have no power to affect prices in other countries; their economy does that.

The only way we can accomplish what you are suggesting is to take over other countries. I oppose that vehemently.


That is a private business detecting financial fraud. It is quite different from a government entity protecting identity fraud.

Exactly. You are suggesting a program orders of magnitude larger, administered by a government that can't even figure out if they want a wall or not, and can't keep the doors open for bickering.


Yes, it will. But most traffic doesn't go through areas that a wall will block.

We don't know that.

Statistics are math for people who can't get the right answer. That sounds facetious, but in a way it's true. Statistics are used when the number of precise calculations are too great to be attempted, or when random inputs exist within a certain range of values. In the case of immigration, where the border with Mexico is completely unknown, unmonitored, and essentially unprotected in any but the most basic, any statistical calculation is being performed on unknown variables without even knowing the range they fall into. Therefore, any statistical calculations are nothing more than wild guesses. We don't even know how many illegal immigrants are living in the US right now, much less where they all come from. All we have to go on are reports of intercepted or discovered illegal immigrants, which is in no way guaranteed to be even close to the actual numbers.

If we had some sort of physical barrier, perhaps we could get a better idea of how many illegal immigrants are coming from where, but the fact we do not is enough cause to seriously question any statistical assumptions.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join