The Goat Pen

hedge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 3:00 pm "Anyway, immigration should be easy and entering illegally should be difficult and disincentivized."

Already asked a couple of times, but please explain this easy process, as well as how to disincentivize and make it difficult illegally...

I don't know, how would you do it? Do you think its impossible? The only thing that is impossible is for the politicians of either side to do anything because its a fake political crisis, both sides know that immigration and large amounts of it is ultimately going to be necessary to keep the country from collapsing, both economically and financially in terms of the states ability to fund the safety net for older citizens as native born birth rates are unsustainably low.

Imagine, for example, the world's most desirable amusement park resort. And its free, you just go the gate, apply for entry, and walk in when you show up. Or alternatively, you can climb the fence, and risk getting grabbed by security, then jailed until they figure out who you are, why you are sneaking in and whether to press charges against you, and then banned permanently from the park. Who would sneak in or form mobs to overwhelm the fence then? Nobody would, because it'd be stupid to risk that and more effort required than just showing up and going in the front gate.

Instead we've made it hard and grueling to do it the right way. The park only selects people that kiss the workers feet and beg for years and years to finally allow them to walk in the front gate. So they show up that morning with the five other people that have been selected, and then the five of them spend their day in the park with 10,000 other people who just broke down the fence in the back rather deal with the bullshit those five people went through.

Which park in the two scenarios above do you imagine would be the better place to go to and spend a day? And believe me I already understand that the politicians wont allow scenario 1 to happen, because they are all cocksuckers. I know that, but you will just keep pretending the one side you are fan of is just trying to do it the right way, and couldn't possibly work with the other side to change things, park 2 is just how it has to be, or whatever.

“Remain in Mexico” is allowed per the Supreme Court. You can apply for asylum, but you’re not waiting here while it gets looked at.

LOL. You really are a simpleton...

Oh snap

Still waiting for the easy answers...

aTm wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 3:44 pm

hedge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 3:00 pm "Anyway, immigration should be easy and entering illegally should be difficult and disincentivized."

Already asked a couple of times, but please explain this easy process, as well as how to disincentivize and make it difficult illegally...

I don't know, how would you do it? Do you think its impossible? The only thing that is impossible is for the politicians of either side to do anything because its a fake political crisis, both sides know that immigration and large amounts of it is ultimately going to be necessary to keep the country from collapsing, both economically and financially in terms of the states ability to fund the safety net for older citizens as native born birth rates are unsustainably low.

Imagine, for example, the world's most desirable amusement park resort. And its free, you just go the gate, apply for entry, and walk in when you show up. Or alternatively, you can climb the fence, and risk getting grabbed by security, then jailed until they figure out who you are, why you are sneaking in and whether to press charges against you, and then banned permanently from the park. Who would sneak in or form mobs to overwhelm the fence then? Nobody would, because it'd be stupid to risk that and more effort required than just showing up and going in the front gate.

Instead we've made it hard and grueling to do it the right way. The park only selects people that kiss the workers feet and beg for years and years to finally allow them to walk in the front gate. So they show up that morning with the five other people that have been selected, and then the five of them spend their day in the park with 10,000 other people who just broke down the fence in the back rather deal with the bullshit those five people went through.

Which park in the two scenarios above do you imagine would be the better place to go to and spend a day? And believe me I already understand that the politicians wont allow scenario 1 to happen, because they are all cocksuckers. I know that, but you will just keep pretending the one side you are fan of is just trying to do it the right way, and couldn't possibly work with the other side to change things, park 2 is just how it has to be, or whatever.

We don't need any legal migrants.

Any economic argument I hear about funding our entitlements with migrants working and paying into the system are just bullshit. Foreigners marry US citizens, come here, never work, and collect entitlements. And (after immigration stops caring) divorce the spouse they never really loved (and never wanted to fuck) and collect alimony. Then after they marry (and possibly divorce) their way in, they use family connections to have their brother or sister or father or mother or what-have-you "cut the line" and then they move here, go on disability the instant they can, and they start collecting entitlements. This is well documented, standard operating procedure regarding legal immigration in the United States. It is repeated over and over and builds an ever growing dependency class of US citizens who become reliable democrat voters.

For the ones who have "mad skilz" to H1B their way in, there is no "vetting" of those skills. None. Zero. Any documentation they provide could be forgeries and any identity that they provide could be stolen. And we can't expect other nations to work with us when their citizens are so desperate to ex-patriate and leave. Why would they help us learn about the people who are doing everything they can to get out of their country? That is not the way it works. Moreover, we have no objective law at the federal level to define exact what "mad skilz" we need to justify the H1B. To create that kind of law, it would essentially be written by the lobbyists because our congressmen and women are far too old and far too incompetent about macro-economics to fully understand what exactly we need from foreign citizens. And we have no federal "test to take" to check those skills. So we rely entirely on sponsorship for H1B justification and we simply trust the sponsors. And we hope and pray that the sponsor isn't just staffing their massage parlor with a 15 year old Guatemalan girl utilizing her skills the way those 80,000 sponsored migrant children Biden just "asylum-ed" in who disappeared, may be doing.

Its hard to do this. We are not staffing shoe factories with illiterate migrants here, its not 1900. Its hard because we live in the information age and we need people who can contribute to that kind of economy. Our legislators, pretty much none of them have ever worked a day outside of government, let alone, work in IT. So they haven't the slightest fucking clue what these skills are. They don't know. They can't write that immigration bill and sign it into law. So they listen to lobbyists who donate the most to their re-election campaigns. That is how we got this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

Bottomline, we don't need any migrants. We have no possible way to "up the average" because to write laws to do so restricting migration for just those skills would be entirely racist and bigotry and all of that are non-starters because of politics.

I've just reread the past couple of pages. aTm, I did not see your post about the amusement park, my post that said "Man, you are a simpleton" was directed at IB for his "Wall" post, not you. His "Wall' post was the last post on the previous page, I didn't realize there was another page where your amusement park post was posted. I was confused as to why you said "oh snap" after I called IB a simpleton (and I also asked you again to explain the simple answer to the immigration problem b/c I hadn't seen your amusement park post). We've been in here sassing for years (decades) but I have never regarded you as a simpleton. Quite the contrary. IB, on the other hand.......

technically they both are

Are things at the other site not going well, Tree?

Since you asked I copied a few of your posts over there as "the smart one" here. Needless to say lots of laughs ensued.

hedge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 8:32 pm I've just reread the past couple of pages. aTm, I did not see your post about the amusement park, my post that said "Man, you are a simpleton" was directed at IB for his "Wall" post, not you. His "Wall' post was the last post on the previous page, I didn't realize there was another page where your amusement park post was posted. I was confused as to why you said "oh snap" after I called IB a simpleton (and I also asked you again to explain the simple answer to the immigration problem b/c I hadn't seen your amusement park post). We've been in here sassing for years (decades) but I have never regarded you as a simpleton. Quite the contrary. IB, on the other hand.......

heh, you could never make me feel bad or feel anything hedge.

You are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the level of depth and analysis in my posts that I share on this forum. We both know that.

You are correct about that last part, but not in the way you think are...

Trump ain't hanging out with any woman who admits to wearing a wire...

Send troops into Mexico to destroy the cartels or shut the fuck up about immigration

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:17 am Send troops into Mexico to destroy the cartels or shut the fuck up about immigration

That is what Senator Kennedy has called for.



I expect POTUS Trump would probably do this.

How can you believe a president who says he's going to stop fentanyl from getting into the country when he can't even stop it from being dispensed in the White House??

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:17 am Send troops into Mexico to destroy the cartels or shut the fuck up about immigration

Unlikely considering our end.