Just following orders.

[Corso]

Just curious:

What state and federal services do you presently use or intend to use in the future?
Public schools?
Roads?
Utilities?

Do you write an individual check for these services?

My point is: What's different about immigration? Why should this "cost" be managed differently?

Why should we embrace a new "rubber hit the road" policy at the individual level?

Do you think it's necessary to make other changes in order to give your proposal a chance of success, e.g., childless citizens should not contribute toward education, or those who don't own cars should not contribute to transportation infrastructure maintenance?

Or was this a strawman argument?

Also, why Mercedes instead of, say, Ford? I believe MB was recently singled out by Trump for potential tariffs (without regard for impact on domestic production and associated economic impact)... Not sure they will pony up to support immigration as a stand alone issue in the current climate. Germany has also been struggling with immigration, but taking a far more humane approach thus far.

I'm just trying to move this discussion past name calling.

Public services: I pay state and federal taxes. It's interesting to me, that people who are taxed at top rates get the same crappy roads, public schools and utilities, as those who pay zero taxes. Roads are roads, some pay for them while other don't. And yet some are always calling for the wealthy to pay more than they do.

The lack of imagination by politicians is simply "raise taxes". I'm growing tired of it.

Locally, I've seen childless citizens vote against building new schools. That's their option. I've also seen citizens tax money going to public transportation (who never use it).

Mercedes was truly a random choice, don't read anything into it please.

My suggestion of asking for public donations to help the immigration situation vs being forced to help was a way to measure how individuals really felt.
Spending your own money is a lot harder than spending others money.

[caleb]

Spending your own money is a lot harder than spending others money.

I have yet to see anyone in the Trump Administration say their policy is the result of a lack of resources. As far as I can tell, they aren't even trying to make a claim that anything they're doing on the border is about saving money.

[Saab2000]

I'm just trying to move this discussion past name calling.

Public services: I pay state and federal taxes. It's interesting to me, that people who are taxed at top rates get the same crappy roads, public schools and utilities, as those who pay zero taxes. Roads are roads, some pay for them while other don't. And yet some are always calling for the wealthy to pay more than they do.

The lack of imagination by politicians is simply "raise taxes". I'm growing tired of it.

Locally, I've seen childless citizens vote against building new schools. That's their option. I've also seen citizens tax money going to public transportation (who never use it).

Mercedes was truly a random choice, don't read anything into it please.

My suggestion of asking for public donations to help the immigration situation vs being forced to help was a way to measure how individuals really felt.
Spending your own money is a lot harder than spending others money.

None of this addresses the immediate fact that families are being torn apart and children are being housed in inhumane conditions, as we type these words. This could, and should, be stopped immediately. This is a humanitarian crime and the president could order this stopped right this minute.

Any talk now that his is the party of the family is total hypocrisy. Family friendly 'values'? I don't think so.

[Too Tall]

I apologize if my language caused offense but I feel strongly on this issue and I use the language I use for effect. This is a serious issue and should not be tolerated by anyone with a conscience, regardless of partisan leanings.

Dun worry bout it.

[Too Tall]

Call me crazy. We have a congress who are elected to use the power of us ,the constituents, to vote for/against and make rules which keep this great experiment afloat.

I'm not seeing that infact there is a derth of legislation.

Would term limits, severely cutting pay for Congress et. al. change any of this inaction?

While I'm at it. How's about we federally finance presidential elections and limit campaigns to a few months? Serious as a heart attack.

Ducking

[TMB]

I am not in the US, so take this for what it is worth.

It is my understanding that the key difference between the immigrant flows currently, compared to past periods, is that the majority of the people being apprehended are Central American as opposed to originating in Mexico.

When people (and they are people) from Mexico are apprehended they can be "turned around" and sent back to Mexico. When people from Guatemala are apprehended ...........

I think the policy that is being applied is horrendous, it is frightful and history will not treat it kindly.

But ..... if the desire (or whatever) is to stanch the flow of immigrant seekers and the majority are coming from further south than Mexico - such that they cannot be turned around - does it not make sense to be spending money on dealing with asylum claims in the country of origin? Set up or expand the facilities for dealing with asylum or immigration claims in El Salvador, Guatemala or wherever. Surely that would cost far less than the (what appears to be) extensive physical plant required to warehouse people, adults and children, in the US after being arrested.

Of course that will not happen because the private contractors operating the detention centres, buses, prisons, etc would lose money and I have no that there are policy makers invested in those contractors.

Of course Canada is a National Security concern so what do I know?

[Corso]

Call me crazy. We have a congress who are elected to use the power of us ,the constituents, to vote for/against and make rules which keep this great experiment afloat.

I'm not seeing that infact there is a derth of legislation.

Would term limits, severely cutting pay for Congress et. al. change any of this inaction?

While I'm at it. How's about we federally finance presidential elections and limit campaigns to a few months? Serious as a heart attack.

Ducking

I'm with you 100%.

Add that they have to have the same health care issues the rest of us have too. Not their Golden Coverage.

[Toddykins]

Campaign finance reform is a great discussion to have and other changes could be considered. I would actually argue for paying public servants MORE so as to attract better candidates that might otherwise go to the private sector and limit reliance on outside contributions.

But let's be clear - Child separation at the border has nothing to do with Congressional legislation. Both the Bush and Obama administrations did not choose to interpret the legislation on the books in this manner. Responsibility for the current situation lies squarely with the current administration which could choose to end the current policy at any point. I don't think we should dignify arguments that this should be used to spur Congressional action. Actual child hostage taking is wrong, its not a legitimate means of enacting policy change.

[mjbabcock]

I am not in the US, so take this for what it is worth.

It is my understanding that the key difference between the immigrant flows currently, compared to past periods, is that the majority of the people being apprehended are Central American as opposed to originating in Mexico.

When people (and they are people) from Mexico are apprehended they can be "turned around" and sent back to Mexico. When people from Guatemala are apprehended ...........

I think the policy that is being applied is horrendous, it is frightful and history will not treat it kindly.

But ..... if the desire (or whatever) is to stanch the flow of immigrant seekers and the majority are coming from further south than Mexico - such that they cannot be turned around - does it not make sense to be spending money on dealing with asylum claims in the country of origin? Set up or expand the facilities for dealing with asylum or immigration claims in El Salvador, Guatemala or wherever. Surely that would cost far less than the (what appears to be) extensive physical plant required to warehouse people, adults and children, in the US after being arrested.

Of course that will not happen because the private contractors operating the detention centres, buses, prisons, etc would lose money and I have no that there are policy makers invested in those contractors.

Of course Canada is a National Security concern so what do I know?

Well, in a stroke of pure genius, we blamed our neighbor to the south, imposed tariffs, personally insulted them, tried to wall ourselves off, and are playing hardball in NAFTA negotiations, threatening to screw over a fragile economy...wonder why the Mexican government isn’t stopping more of these folks (because they actually were stemming the flow all along). If I were Mexico, I’d flip the US the bird. Luckily we have our neighbors to the north who love and respect...oh, wait, scratch that. We are fucked.

[TMB]

Well, in a stroke of pure genius, we blamed our neighbor to the south, imposed tariffs, personally insulted them, tried to wall ourselves off, and are playing hardball in NAFTA negotiations, threatening to screw over a fragile economy...wonder why the Mexican government isn’t stopping more of these folks (because they actually were stemming the flow all along). If I were Mexico, I’d flip the US the bird. Luckily we have our neighbors to the north who love and respect...oh, wait, scratch that. We are fucked.

I just heard Trump this morning complaining that Mexico is "doing nothing to help us" ...... you really could not make it up.

[theflashunc]

Call me crazy. We have a congress who are elected to use the power of us ,the constituents, to vote for/against and make rules which keep this great experiment afloat.

I'm not seeing that infact there is a derth of legislation.

Would term limits, severely cutting pay for Congress et. al. change any of this inaction?

While I'm at it. How's about we federally finance presidential elections and limit campaigns to a few months? Serious as a heart attack.

Ducking

Term limits are one of those "sounds good in theory but bad in practice ideas" for Congress. Term limits further concentrate power with party power brokers -- because there needs to be a steady stream of candidates for seats rather than long term incumbents -- and it gives aides and others on Congressional staffs much more power than they might otherwise wield.

The compromise that is in place today is effective term limits on committee posts, notably chairmanships. Tends to encourage retirement if you're going from a committee leadership gig to being a back bencher.

[jlyon]

I have been thinking of what the alternative should be and I can't quite come up with anything good.
Is catch and release really the only other method that can be considered. Why catch at all if you are just going to release seems like a huge waste of resources.

Is there a humanitarian way to ensure nobody crosses our borders without permission? Not trying to be a wise ass but I am stumped.
Do we need to design detention centers now with families in mind so they can remain together?

[caleb]

Do we need to design detention centers now with families in mind so they can remain together?

Obama tried. The courts ruled that holding families together was a violation of the Flores settlement: Trump Resisting a Growing Wrath for Separating Migrant Families - The New York Times

Under President Barack Obama, the authorities initially responded to a similar surge in illegal border crossings by setting up family detention centers where children and their parents could be held together. But in response to a lawsuit against the Obama administration, a judge ruled that the Flores settlement also prohibited children from being detained with their parents.

Having no effective way to detain the parents with their children, Obama administration officials released the families pending the resolution of their asylum cases. Some were given ankle bracelets. Others were simply ordered to return for a court hearing. What they refused to do was to automatically split the children from their parents so that the adults could be detained.

Effectively, they made an exception for illegal immigrants who arrived with children — an exception that Trump administration officials followed until Mr. Sessions imposed a zero-tolerance policy this year.

[guido]

Enough time has not passed for normal election cycles to flush things out after the current period of administration/congressional malfeasance. But given the level of gerrymandering which the supreme court doesn't seem interested in fixing (alas), term limits would only change the face, not the behaviour/voting trends of the seat...

[bcm119]

What is the immigration answer?

On topic: I believe the children in this situation should NOT be taken from the families.

I'd be surprised if it continues due to the overall outrage. This could be the uniting match to get all in the senate/congress together. Maybe that's the strategy.

But what's the big picture?

Let everyone who wants to be here in? I'm fine with that, if you figure out how to PAY for everyone-both short and long-term. Because I believe that's the bottom line.

How about some solid ideas on this thread for immigration, instead of the usual bash and name-calling the President? That's good for venting, but does it really move anything forward?

I'll start: Figure out the cost of sponsoring a family of say, 4 for example. Building Housing, food, clothing, education, job training, local & federal government administration of all matters, cars, cell phones, etc per year, let's say it's $XX.

Next have a national campaign, to have people send the Federal Government or each State that houses the Now-documented folks a check for $XX to sponsor that family. The Bezos and Gates of the country can send as many checks as they want, fund raising events can help bundle money for those who can't simply write the $XX check. Companies like Mercedes can put $ in a fund for every car sold. Maybe a few bucks donated at every sporting event. Figure out how to fund this without simply raising taxes (for those who actually pay them, half the country doesn't already...)

BUT - People can choose not to if they are struggling to keep their own families in afloat, pay for their own kids college education, would rather buy a vacation home, a new bespoke bike, or simply don't choose to for whatever reason.

Only then will we see if where this country's heart is. Not the "we're better than this" talking point, let's see the $ rubber hit the road.

Your ideas seem to work on the presumption that immigration is a net negative on the economy. It's much more complex than that, at best-- and in the broadest sense, it is a net positive.
See The Effects of Immigration on the United States’ Economy — Penn Wharton Budget Model

[TTX1]

I'm just trying to move this discussion past name calling.

Public services: I pay state and federal taxes. It's interesting to me, that people who are taxed at top rates get the same crappy roads, public schools and utilities, as those who pay zero taxes. Roads are roads, some pay for them while other don't. And yet some are always calling for the wealthy to pay more than they do.

The lack of imagination by politicians is simply "raise taxes". I'm growing tired of it.

Locally, I've seen childless citizens vote against building new schools. That's their option. I've also seen citizens tax money going to public transportation (who never use it).

Mercedes was truly a random choice, don't read anything into it please.

My suggestion of asking for public donations to help the immigration situation vs being forced to help was a way to measure how individuals really felt.
Spending your own money is a lot harder than spending others money.

Thanks Corso.

I pay a lot of taxes. Call me crazy, but I'd gladly pay a bit more in order to deploy a single-payer healthcare system, address infrastructure issues, shore up social security, expand education programs, and... provide additional funding for law enforcement and border security.

I would advocate a targeted approach to address gang and criminal activity via existing agencies. Mass roundups and zero tolerance programs are hallmarks of totalitarian regimes.

[j44ke]

I'd just like to say that I really like and respect everyone here - I'm not excluding anyone - virtually I guess, but from what I can tell, it is all earned. And I don't have many soft spots (except for the ones in my skull from mountain biking) except for animals and kids. I've traveled lots of places and no matter where I've gone, the kids have always been the coolest. I haven't looked at any of the photos or videos of the US internment facilities for the kids, because I don't need those images to make me feel sick to my stomach. Just breaks my heart in so many directions. I feel like whatever the party or polemic or rhetoric, this risks tremendous karmic damage to our country. But that is secondary to the potential damage it creates within these kids. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I really don't care about the rest of it. Just the kids.

[guido]

Such naked cruelty makes one embarrassed for this country. (more correctly it adds to the rapidly growing list of embarrassments...)

[theflashunc]

Do we need to design detention centers now with families in mind so they can remain together?

That's a component of one of several compromise bills floating around Capitol Hill right now. More money for border security and alleviating this issue of separating families by allowing HHS to house parents and kids together while the legal issues are sorted out. The catch? The bill lifts the requirement that they can only hold kids for 21 days to, um, indefinite.

[Saab2000]

How can any nation that dares to refer to itself as "The Greatest Nation" hold children in detention centers, torn from their parents? This is rock bottom and I hope this is met with an immediate and strong bipartisan response.