Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What should we do about illegal immigration? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
Seal the southern border does not address the core problems…we have had this conversation before. Sealing the border doesn’t stop it…it creates a bottleneck where they are still there in Mexico…you just get to cover your wyes and pretend the core problems are fixed.
And yes…there will still be people caught at/near the border and so on.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
it stops it from being a USA problem absolutely and when Mexico and the cartels figure out they can't make money, they'll stop shipping millions of people into the US from the southern border. It'll also really hurt their drug trade. Sure, they'll continue to try - but gotta put up the fight and seal the border and stop this insanity
the core problem - TRUE core problem - is the crap countries in central/south American but unless you want the USA to invade and make those countries bend to our will then you're going to have to accept other countries will run how they run until the people in them unite and revolt and demand better
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Yep, sealing border doesn't address the majority of the drugs coming into the country, and won't stop the abuse and human rights issues.
sho nuff
Footballguy
But at its core (since you are a core problems guy you just said), it ignores the core problems which are not just US problems.
You think the cartels stop making money if the southern border is more secure (don’t use seal…that is next to impossible, this isn’t a ziploc bag)
Much of the drugs don’t get snuck over the border like that…they come in through the actual points of entry. If you are talking closing that too…you are now ####ting down a large chunk of trade.
Once again…you solution to the core problem is to cover your eyes and ears and pretend its not there if much of it just stays in Mexico.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If much of it stays in mexico then doesnt much of it stay in mexico?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yes…yet still will try and come in. And the core problem unaddressed leans people will still be trying to come here. Do you think covering our eyes and ears is good foreign policy? Or immigration policy? Or policy of any kind?
By the way…all this started this morning when as proof the government and administration is ignoring things…was a list of ways enforcement caught things and did their job. When that was pointed out…we moved on in typical fashion.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If most get stuck in mexico that is better than most in the US.
Of course we cant 100% seal off the border. But if we can get to "most" that would be pretty awesome.
But unfortunately the biden admin wants most in the us. Thats why bp officers can now grant asylum.(unless the courts have shut this down)
sho nuff
Footballguy
O think the administration and party would like more paths for legal immigration. And it is disappointing they haven’t worked more towards that after things were previously made even more difficult creating even more of a bottleneck and issue.
The Commish
Footballguy
There's no point in sealing the southern border as the "illegals" will just come over anyway.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
There's no point in sealing the southern border as the "illegals" will just come over anyway.
they'll keep trying sure - but we don't have common sense border laws/preventions to keep drugs and illegally coming here people out
its time to do that - or, just accept all the child abuse, sex trafficking, drug trafficking etc and he happy about it I suppose
The Commish
Footballguy
Of course we do...they just don't care and will continue coming here....no point in having the laws...they only hinder the people trying to abide by them.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
We should allow 200M illegals into the country immediately. Then let them fill all the jobs currently done by Americans. Then double the federal tax rate so that the government can give out universal basic income payments to all of their legal citizens.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
If you are saying the core issue is something like drugs coming into the country, and the majority don't come across the Southern border, then sealing the border doesn't address that. That was SCs point - he wants to stop the "core problems" like drugs, human trafficking/sex abuse, etc.. by sealing the border.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
So how do you explain the drugs getting seized? See that's the dumb tribal crap about the border topic - depending on the team in charge, people either focus on the number as either "look how many drugs were seized" or "look at this drug problem and how much is trying to get into the country!". It's the same number.
An article I just read was talking about how the overall number of drugs being stopped has dropped a bit in the last couple years, but if you look drug by drug, a lot of that was because weed is becoming more legal in the states so the huge amounts of weed we used to see seized isn't happening. Fentanyl seized is way up - but for some reason your focus seems to ignore the large amounts that were actually stopped from coming across and claim that the border is wide open and this administration doesn't care about this problem.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
no, we don't
its a wide open border with very little protection, obviously, drugs/illegals walk across it everyday
Stealthycat
Footballguy
what % you think they catch? 5% ? 95% ?
that's true on marijuana - and I'm pointing out the seizures because if they're catching that much, how much is NOT being caught ? I mean its tons and tons
but hey, backburner it, ignore it, 107,000 dead from overdosing in 2021, a record, and don't even talk about it much but those 450 killed with rifles ? man, that's headline news, that's "we have to do something now"
its frustrating and make me sick to be honest, this whole dance that goes on. 35,000 dead in auto wrecks, 100's of thousands injured, 100,000 dead from illegal drugs, 500,000 dead from smoking cigarettes, 11,000 die from drunk driving .... but do you see CNN or NYT or any big media outlet really focusing on that ?
no, because its all good, we're comfortable with all those deaths, its worth the cost because society loves their driving and drugs and smokes and drinking etc. :( but 400-500 dying from rifles is outrageous :( I mean its one of the biggest smoke and mirrors I've ever seen to be honest, how we're ok with all the death as long as we don't see it on tv/media
back to immigration .... not on tv, not in the media ... not really, so just ignore it, that's what this administration is excellent at and media in general. Agenda ... never forget the agenda
sho nuff
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
This is like saying we don't have common sense gun laws on the books because kids shoot up schools
Dickies
Footballguy
Sounds like SC’s arguments about gun control.There's no point in sealing the southern border as the "illegals" will just come over anyway.
There’s no point doing [insert any gun control proposal here] as the criminals will ignore it anyway.
The Commish
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
what % of illegal drugs do you think coming across the border gets sized ?
95% ? that would indicate a secure border right ?
1% ? that's indicate an exceptionally weak border
whats your % guess ?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Do you know, or are you just asking?
Last I looked for many drugs the southern border wasn't the main place the come in.
supermike80
Footballguy
I'm not sure what this means. So since it's not the main place, based on the last time you looked, we ignore it?
FairWarning
Footballguy
Where are the drugs coming in? Its most certainly not the northern border?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Just say no to drugs. Problem solved.
Next.
Next.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
we've talked about this often - there are charts on the google to show which drugs come in how/where
southern border is #1 for cocaine, marijuana, meth IIRC ... its a massively huge supplier
I don't know what % .... I'd guess 5% ? maybe 10% ?
EL PASO, Texas — Federal agents in this section of the southern border say they’ve seen a staggering 4,000 percent increase in fentanyl seizures over the last three years.
Those busts are not at ports of entry, where most smuggled drugs are typically found. The Border Patrol says the rising amount of fentanyl is being found in the desert – transported by increasingly brazen smugglers who are exploiting stretched federal resources.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Don’t know. What is yours and what do you base it on…since you claim the border is wide open!
sho nuff
Footballguy
Who said ignore it? We aren’t currently ignoring or we wouldn’t have the list of seizures Stealthy posted. Is anyone advocating we ignore drugs coming in?
Dickies
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
This is exactly why Congress brought the bill with increased technology at border crossings, more manpower and more facilities to the table in the 2018/19 timeframe.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
The Biden admin wants to move the US to be more like China. They should look at how China handles illegal immigration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
What is hard to understand is if the dems ever took a very tough stance on the border they would sweep elections. They would still get the dem voters and probably take the majority if independents who care about border security.
In reality it is not even getting tough, it is just enforcing the federal laws already in place.
In reality it is not even getting tough, it is just enforcing the federal laws already in place.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Not sure if you are right. Many in here saying neither side is doing it right. Ds pushing for policies similar to the previous 4 years wouldn't do it for me.
That said, I am not a real independent, I am a FBG independent, right @BladeRunner?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
We can't stop people coming over the border, so we should just make it super legal for everybody. Yay less water for the west!
The Commish
Footballguy
I know this thread probably isn't the best for a serious question, but I'm going to ask anyway 
For those who are considering the acceptance of background checks being expanded. Is it a bridge too far for you if they include the entire history of a person, including their childhood, as part of the background check?
I am assuming if you are for background checks, you're ok with them using a person's entire background, but maybe that's not a safe assumption. Your opinions are welcomed as well.
For those who are considering the acceptance of background checks being expanded. Is it a bridge too far for you if they include the entire history of a person, including their childhood, as part of the background check?
I am assuming if you are for background checks, you're ok with them using a person's entire background, but maybe that's not a safe assumption. Your opinions are welcomed as well.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Not sure if you are right. Many in here saying neither side is doing it right. Ds pushing for policies similar to the previous 4 years wouldn't do it for me.
That said, I am not a real independent, I am a FBG independent, right @BladeRunner?
Amen, brotha'!!!!
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
To me this becomes a very slippery slope fast. Typically info on minors is rather protected. If a teenager is seeing a psychologist is that included? Legal citizen? Or are we talking about crimes committed/convicted? Etc. Our government (choose your side) is pretty good at using any available data for other political objectives.I know this thread probably isn't the best for a serious question, but I'm going to ask anyway
For those who are considering the acceptance of background checks being expanded. Is it a bridge too far for you if they include the entire history of a person, including their childhood, as part of the background check?
I am assuming if you are for background checks, you're ok with them using a person's entire background, but maybe that's not a safe assumption. Your opinions are welcomed as well.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think SC should start up a news website. All articles about Chicago shootings, DUIs, and deaths via smoking. I am sure it will be a success - the issues and news America needs to hear about!.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
My first instinct is that at the very least it should be either/or - we extend the age for guns to 21, and then we at least have a few years of info for background checks. If not that, we should be able to use info from before 18 to help make better decisions on the background checks.I know this thread probably isn't the best for a serious question, but I'm going to ask anyway
For those who are considering the acceptance of background checks being expanded. Is it a bridge too far for you if they include the entire history of a person, including their childhood, as part of the background check?
I am assuming if you are for background checks, you're ok with them using a person's entire background, but maybe that's not a safe assumption. Your opinions are welcomed as well.
The Commish
Footballguy
For the "who"....I'd say "anyone wanting to buy a gun in this country". I don't know what's in a background check today. To keep the hypo simple let's say that this uses the existing background checks that they have today and the only question left is "how far back does one go into a person's past while researching their background?"
Similar threads
