BigBallinStalin wrote:if we want people around the world to live better lives (note: this condition is not held by everyone, e.g. PS).
Nice dig, but based on what he has previously said I think it's completely true that Phatscotty does not care what happens in other countries as long as it does not affect the USA.
The interesting thing is that he had no problem with people in past decades coming to the US from European countries that were persecuting their citizens, so why the sudden outrage over people coming from Latin American countries? Are Mexicans just lazier than Italians?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?
Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?
Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.
As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?
And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.
I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.
And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.
The whole point of the question is to put a price on your position.
You see, let's say there's this guy, Bob. Bob likes the current immigration policy. So I ask Bob, "How much real income of the world are you willing to deny in order to maintain the current immigration policy?"
Let's say that Bob says that the current policy is fine unless EVERYONE in the world would have a 200% increase in their real income. So, if it was shown that if immigration restrictions were relaxed and that everyone in the world's income would increase by 200%, then Bob would have trouble defending the status quo.
That's the main point. You have to make tradeoffs, and if given the relevant information, you'd make a more informed decision in regard to current immigration policy.
People often refuse to answer the question because they don't want to KNOWN to deny people x-amount of foregone earnings. They'd rather dawdle about minor issues while consistently refraining from answering the question.
Main point: your stance on immigration restrictions affects millions of lives. Your opinion entails certain consequences for many people. Will you own up to the consequences? (No, which is why people don't like answering the question. They want a stance which is magically free of consequences).
Okay, I'll play along. Just one more thing in what I think is still a loaded question. The word 'deny' as in deny someone income..... I don't understand how an income can be someone's who has never had it before, not to mention who is not even currently a resident, and does not even have a social security number in order to work in the first place. My question, before I delve further, how can someone with no social security number be denied something that requires them to have a social security number? And why would I be the one denying that income?
Is Player's beloved Obamacare 'denying' me a certain share of my take home income that used to go for the better kind of diapers that result in less rashes for my baby girl? Therefore the more often rashes my baby daughter gets are all Players fault?
I deal with the rest of your response separately
Basically, you're for immigration restrictions--even if the policy has negative consequences for poor people. Thanks for answering.
That wasn't my answer...nor was your response an answer to my question. Here we go again
Some restrictions, of course. I think we have the right to give the say on restrictions and not other countries, irrelevant to whether it's good or bad. Are you okay with the USA making it's own laws BBS? Cuz it sounds like you are saying our laws should be made by what's wrong with other countries. Seems counter to what I know you to believe, but have to check.
Primarily my concerns when it comes to restrictions are with our current open border policies for violent criminals and gang members, terrorists, and people with contagious diseases. Are those really 'restrictions that have negative consequences?' How in the world are those restrictions negative for poor people? How are those restrictions negative for the USA? Comment, please. I thought those were positive restrictions.....agree or disagree? Certainly you are able to differentiate between levels of restrictions, and not just lay 100% of any restriction under the sun in my lap like that. pfff
BigBallinStalin wrote:if we want people around the world to live better lives (note: this condition is not held by everyone, e.g. PS).
Nice dig, but based on what he has previously said I think it's completely true that Phatscotty does not care what happens in other countries as long as it does not affect the USA.
And your beliefs are based on not caring one single bit what happens to the USA and only caring about what happens to anyone who is not the USA. How does that end up? Who can you help after you slice open the belly of the golden goose???
I don't see a single thing wrong with caring about my country more than another country....I don't have any rights in those countries, I cannot just walk into Costa Rica and announce I'd like to live there. In Costa Rica one has to start a business and create jobs for Costa Ricans, unless you have a social security check/pension plan and you are retiring. Are they not caring about themselves more than us? Why don't you have a problem with Costa Rica and all the other countries? Hypocrite much? Want to talk about equality, you never did answer my question on what you thought about us treating other countries the exact same equal way they treat us. That's as fair as it gets.
If the USA gets it's fiscal house in order and we even come close to correcting the completely unsustainable insanity of spending twice as much as we take in meaning we can even come close to taking care of ourselves, sure Mets, then when we aren't acting like total hypocrites and not fooling ourselves into thinking our houses are in order at the expense of the future generations and expectation they are going to have to work a minimum of twice as hard twice as long, THEN let us work together on helping other people with their houses.
What I have previously said summed up into a short sentence; get your own house in order before telling everyone else how to get their house in order. 100% my point, period, end of story.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BigBallinStalin wrote:if we want people around the world to live better lives (note: this condition is not held by everyone, e.g. PS).
Nice dig, but based on what he has previously said I think it's completely true that Phatscotty does not care what happens in other countries as long as it does not affect the USA.
And your beliefs are based on not caring one single bit what happens to the USA and only caring about what happens to anyone who is not the USA.
Incorrect. I think it is better both for us and for the people of other nations for the US to have more open borders. And aside from that, I do not value the life of a foreigner more than the life of a fellow citizen, because I was born in the USA as a matter of chance. To worry more about the people in Denver than the people in Djibouti is entirely irrational for me. The idea of "belonging" to a nation simply because you were born within its geographic borders is a convenient fiction we maintain.
get your own house in order before telling everyone else how to get their house in order. 100% my point, period, end of story.
Is the USA your house? Who gave it to you?
I don't see a single thing wrong with caring about my country more than another country....I don't have any rights in those countries
You could change residence to those countries and have rights there if you want to. Does the fact that you don't live there mean that the lives of people in those countries are worthless?
Last edited by Metsfanmax on Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mets, want to try confronting exactly what it is you so nonchalantly place your (everyone else in the worlds) 'burdens' on the backs of others who are not even born yet? BBS? Have at it.
#1 Do you agree spending double what we take in is a problem? #2 Do you think it's right to saddle the next generation of Americans with your debts? #3 How are we gonna deal with our spending problem and when? #4 What is your share of these debts? How much are you going to pay in personally? #5 If we do as you wish, and raise our spending even more, does that make the problem worse? #6 Tell me who is going to pay for what you want? #7 Do you think we can realistically pay back our debts? If so, how long will it take and how much more will each citizen have to contribute in order to pay for spending double what we take in, year after year after year, let's make it a decade? #8 Do you understand how much America is on the hook for concerning unfunded liabilities? #9 What is that total of unfunded liabilities America has promised to pay in future entitlements and benefits?
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
get your own house in order before telling everyone else how to get their house in order. 100% my point, period, end of story.
Metsfanmax wrote:Is the USA your house? Who gave it to you?
Interesting question coming from a person who thinks they have the right to borrow endless funds against that very house and spend all the money from that house the way you want to... I don't like calling people hypocrites, but you are earning it here.
I don't see a single thing wrong with caring about my country more than another country....I don't have any rights in those countries
Metsfanmax wrote:You could change residence to those countries and have rights there if you want to. Does the fact that you don't live there mean that the lives of people in those countries are worthless?
Yeah, except you purposefully edited out the conditions I listed as prerequisites in order to do so, I can understand however why you keep dodging the true fairness issue I keep asking you, that is to treat nations exactly equal to the way they treat us, not to mention the fact that if I lived there somehow means the lives of others is worthless...... Just because I am free and in a free country does not mean everyone else is worthless. That's your problem, as is usually the case with the greedy. Everything revolves around money with you. If you can't get into the business of everyone else and tell them what to do with their lives work and lives saving and destroy their dreams, well then they are worthless to you, because that means they think everyone but them somehow is worthless. I do not follow your incoherent leaps.
Save it for the police state it will take to enforce your international socialism and the walls you will have to imprison everybody with in order to keep them from fleeing. I bet at that point, as now concerning corporations earnings you think you have a right to entitle yourself to, in that case you don't have a problem with walls or enforcing the border at all. The simple fact you wish to enslave your country shows exactly how much you care for it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, PS, how much real income are you willing to deny people in order to maintain your immigration restriction stance? A 20% raise? How about 50%? What about 100%?
Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?
Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.
As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?
And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.
I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.
And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.
The whole point of the question is to put a price on your position.
You see, let's say there's this guy, Bob. Bob likes the current immigration policy. So I ask Bob, "How much real income of the world are you willing to deny in order to maintain the current immigration policy?"
Let's say that Bob says that the current policy is fine unless EVERYONE in the world would have a 200% increase in their real income. So, if it was shown that if immigration restrictions were relaxed and that everyone in the world's income would increase by 200%, then Bob would have trouble defending the status quo.
That's the main point. You have to make tradeoffs, and if given the relevant information, you'd make a more informed decision in regard to current immigration policy.
People often refuse to answer the question because they don't want to KNOWN to deny people x-amount of foregone earnings. They'd rather dawdle about minor issues while consistently refraining from answering the question.
Main point: your stance on immigration restrictions affects millions of lives. Your opinion entails certain consequences for many people. Will you own up to the consequences? (No, which is why people don't like answering the question. They want a stance which is magically free of consequences).
Okay, I'll play along. Just one more thing in what I think is still a loaded question. The word 'deny' as in deny someone income..... I don't understand how an income can be someone's who has never had it before, not to mention who is not even currently a resident, and does not even have a social security number in order to work in the first place. My question, before I delve further, how can someone with no social security number be denied something that requires them to have a social security number? And why would I be the one denying that income?
Is Player's beloved Obamacare 'denying' me a certain share of my take home income that used to go for the better kind of diapers that result in less rashes for my baby girl? Therefore the more often rashes my baby daughter gets are all Players fault?
I deal with the rest of your response separately
Basically, you're for immigration restrictions--even if the policy has negative consequences for poor people. Thanks for answering.
That wasn't my answer...nor was your response an answer to my question. Here we go again
Some restrictions, of course. I think we have the right to give the say on restrictions and not other countries, irrelevant to whether it's good or bad. Are you okay with the USA making it's own laws BBS? Cuz it sounds like you are saying our laws should be made by what's wrong with other countries. Seems counter to what I know you to believe, but have to check.
Primarily my concerns when it comes to restrictions are with our current open border policies for violent criminals and gang members, terrorists, and people with contagious diseases. Are those really 'restrictions that have negative consequences?' How in the world are those restrictions negative for poor people? How are those restrictions negative for the USA? Comment, please. I thought those were positive restrictions.....agree or disagree? Certainly you are able to differentiate between levels of restrictions, and not just lay 100% of any restriction under the sun in my lap like that. pfff
Never mind that you're unwilling to state a price that you find acceptable. With policy, there are costs, and no matter what you think, those costs will still exist. You can keep ignoring them as you please (or continue harping about a small portion of the costs a la criminals), but it isn't a convincing case. By denying people trade, you deprive them of opportunities. How many people you are willing to deny this opportunity is up to you.
If you can't understand that trade is mutually beneficial, then I really can't explain to you how opening up labor markets provides gains for both sides. If you're still digging in your heels, imagine that your State prevents 95% of people from entering. Does that sound like a prosperous policy?
re: underlined, If that's really your primary concern, then you'd support looser immigration restrictions. Those who have higher chances of legally entering the country are those who aren't criminals, diseased (?, how many Americans who are diseased should be kicked out?), or militants. If you open the legal window, then more decent folk enter while consequently the diseased criminals compose a larger percent of the illegals. There, we just increased the chances of capturing teh bad guise by supporting looser immigration restrictions. Do you agree with loosening immigration restrictions now?
Phatscotty wrote:Mets, want to try confronting exactly what it is you so nonchalantly place your (everyone else in the worlds) 'burdens' on the backs of others who are not even born yet? BBS? Have at it.
#1 Do you agree spending double what we take in is a problem? #2 Do you think it's right to saddle the next generation of Americans with your debts? #3 How are we gonna deal with our spending problem and when? #4 What is your share of these debts? How much are you going to pay in personally? #5 If we do as you wish, and raise our spending even more, does that make the problem worse? #6 Tell me who is going to pay for what you want? #7 Do you think we can realistically pay back our debts? If so, how long will it take and how much more will each citizen have to contribute in order to pay for spending double what we take in, year after year after year, let's make it a decade? #8 Do you understand how much America is on the hook for concerning unfunded liabilities? #9 What is that total of unfunded liabilities America has promised to pay in future entitlements and benefits?
You do realize that the whole 'getting your house in order' argument cuts several ways, right?
1. In order to justify our current immigration restrictions, we must first loosen them until our house is in order. 2. In order to justify looser immigration restrictions, we must first tighten them until our house is in order. 3. In order to justify a change in immigration restrictions, we must first maintain the status quo until our house is in order.
See? Your justification is flimsy.
It can also be used to support other positions:
Before we start cracking down on criminals and terrorists, we must first get our house in order. etc.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Before we start cracking down on criminals and terrorists, we must first get our house in order.
Can I have dinner tonight before I clean my apartment?
Absolutely not--unless PS fills in the correct application form. You'll have to wait 3-15 business days for the Bureau of Orderly Housliness's response. Don't blame me. It's the LAW.
Phatscotty wrote: Why am I the dictator who is calling the shots?
Is there really only one way to immigrate? no difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, makes sense/doesn't make sense? Really? none at all? Because that's the way your questions keep laying it out as.
As in another gap; are you accusing me of denying the income of a person who is a 3 time convicted felon with gang tattoo all over their face? Or are you accusing me of denying the income a well mannered 16 year old virgin raised with a mother and a father with strong family values and a 4.0 GPA that had always dreamed of working at NASA and would like to inquire about furthering educational opportunities in America? Oh, so then it's about 'of course not the murderer, the 4.0 has a great shot tho' but then, back to my main point.....how do we know who is who?
And fourthly your questions tries to lame the blame on me for denying someone's income, as if it's not at all true that 10 million unskilled illegal immigrants with no social security number willing to work for less than minimum wage cash jobs has no impact on the 40 million unskilled Americans who are barely getting by on minimum wage because they actually fear the laws, like buying car insurance.
I aint denying foreigners anything, it's you who seems interested in misrepresenting what is in reality denied American citizens and keeping wages artificially low.
And in order for you to have a point in the first place, it would be a lot better if we actually helped people who needed it on a more consistent basis, like Christians in Iraq or homeschooling Christians from Germany, but we send them back. I don't buy that your compassion genuine when it's only given if the immigrant is more than 70% likely to vote Democrat.
The whole point of the question is to put a price on your position.
You see, let's say there's this guy, Bob. Bob likes the current immigration policy. So I ask Bob, "How much real income of the world are you willing to deny in order to maintain the current immigration policy?"
Let's say that Bob says that the current policy is fine unless EVERYONE in the world would have a 200% increase in their real income. So, if it was shown that if immigration restrictions were relaxed and that everyone in the world's income would increase by 200%, then Bob would have trouble defending the status quo.
That's the main point. You have to make tradeoffs, and if given the relevant information, you'd make a more informed decision in regard to current immigration policy.
People often refuse to answer the question because they don't want to KNOWN to deny people x-amount of foregone earnings. They'd rather dawdle about minor issues while consistently refraining from answering the question.
Main point: your stance on immigration restrictions affects millions of lives. Your opinion entails certain consequences for many people. Will you own up to the consequences? (No, which is why people don't like answering the question. They want a stance which is magically free of consequences).
Okay, I'll play along. Just one more thing in what I think is still a loaded question. The word 'deny' as in deny someone income..... I don't understand how an income can be someone's who has never had it before, not to mention who is not even currently a resident, and does not even have a social security number in order to work in the first place. My question, before I delve further, how can someone with no social security number be denied something that requires them to have a social security number? And why would I be the one denying that income?
Is Player's beloved Obamacare 'denying' me a certain share of my take home income that used to go for the better kind of diapers that result in less rashes for my baby girl? Therefore the more often rashes my baby daughter gets are all Players fault?
I deal with the rest of your response separately
Basically, you're for immigration restrictions--even if the policy has negative consequences for poor people. Thanks for answering.
That wasn't my answer...nor was your response an answer to my question. Here we go again
Some restrictions, of course. I think we have the right to give the say on restrictions and not other countries, irrelevant to whether it's good or bad. Are you okay with the USA making it's own laws BBS? Cuz it sounds like you are saying our laws should be made by what's wrong with other countries. Seems counter to what I know you to believe, but have to check.
Primarily my concerns when it comes to restrictions are with our current open border policies for violent criminals and gang members, terrorists, and people with contagious diseases. Are those really 'restrictions that have negative consequences?' How in the world are those restrictions negative for poor people? How are those restrictions negative for the USA? Comment, please. I thought those were positive restrictions.....agree or disagree? Certainly you are able to differentiate between levels of restrictions, and not just lay 100% of any restriction under the sun in my lap like that. pfff
Never mind that you're unwilling to state a price that you find acceptable. With policy, there are costs, and no matter what you think, those costs will still exist. You can keep ignoring them as you please (or continue harping about a small portion of the costs a la criminals), but it isn't a convincing case. By denying people trade, you deprive them of opportunities. How many people you are willing to deny this opportunity is up to you.
If you can't understand that trade is mutually beneficial, then I really can't explain to you how opening up labor markets provides gains for both sides. If you're still digging in your heels, imagine that your State prevents 95% of people from entering. Does that sound like a prosperous policy?
re: underlined, If that's really your primary concern, then you'd support looser immigration restrictions. Those who have higher chances of legally entering the country are those who aren't criminals, diseased (?, how many Americans who are diseased should be kicked out?), or militants. If you open the legal window, then more decent folk enter while consequently the diseased criminals compose a larger percent of the illegals. There, we just increased the chances of capturing teh bad guise by supporting looser immigration restrictions. Do you agree with loosening immigration restrictions now?
With policies there are costs? And....without policies, there are still costs. So...???
All of my questions remain unanswered. You don't even attempt to address them. With full knowledge you will not address any of these questions, I simply cannot resist pointing out your flawed logic and your loaded questions.
I have nothing wrong with legal immigration. Obviously, this is about illegal immigration. Let's get the current crisis under control, then let's talk about loosening legal immigration. But that doesn't change your point that the needs of the rest of the world trump America's right to make our own laws. And because of the political aspect of the situation, we aren't going to be talking about anything or making any deals until we deal with the current problem. We've already been down that road of making deals and passing laws, only to have those deals fall through and those laws laughed at. Politicians can't be trusted or counted on to get serious about the crisis. I think this one is gonna be handled personally by the people.
I'm not unwilling to state a price at all. The simple fact of the matter is, I asked you to state a price long ago in this thread, and as usual, you don't like the answer you'd have to give if you were being honest, so you do not give one. I asked you to to state whether restricting murderers and rapists and violent criminals and gang members and those with contagious diseases was a good restriction or bad, and you can't even handle that. And then you think you're gonna badger me about not stating a cost?? Go back and look it up, I asked you to tell us the cost of all the American's who have been murdered by illegal immigrants in that video which documented some of the crime's committed by illegals in 2013. Then tell me the cost of all the DWI's and all the property damaged caused by the illegals who don't give a damn about our laws or our people or our way of life. Then tell me the cost of all the men and women, and children who have been raped, kidnapped, sold into prostitution, and enslaved. Why don't you start with the cost of the 14 year old girl in Texas that was raped by 2 illegal aliens on the 4th of July last month.
I don't ignore the costs at all, you are just barking up the wrong tree. I could come right back at you with your own flawed logic, and I could ask 'Do you understand there are costs for us to have a court system? Since you ignore those costs, we should not have a court system?" As I've said time and time again, there are fundamental basic legitimate functions of our government, and while it doesn't excuse waste and overcharging taxpayers to load their crony buddy's pockets which in turn get filtered back to them, there is a point when it comes to courts and police and defense and protecting our borders where those costs are justified. Without those basic fundamental primary duties, we do not have a country, we do not have a government, we are unable to enforce our laws.
If you cannot understand that there is a legitimate reason to not take a child with a contagious diseases, then put them in the same classroom as your child, if you cannot understand there is a legitimate reason not to let violent criminals in or that we should at least try to protect our people and laws and way of life, then let that violent criminal move into your basement. If you cannot understand there is a legitimate reason to do what we can to turn away gang members, then let them move into the drug trade on your street corner.
You try to reflect my concerns back on me with a ridiculous point that sick Americans should be kicked out of the USA? HA! 0/10. Let's again take your pretend logic and go with violent criminals, not violent as you and I know them from the TV or first hand experience, but violent as in born and raised in the 3rd world all they know is violence....so let's apply your method. 'Why should we lock Americans up for murder? You just want to deny them income and opportunity by locking them up! Can't you understand this will build up the economy?' Hey, just like you said, the % of people locked up for murder and rape is a statistically small %, and 95% of people will still not rape and murder, so just get rid of the laws against rape and murder, and we will all benefit!
It sounds to me like you are making the barbarian argument, that is if America does not do what the rest of the hemisphere wants us to do, then more murderers and rapists and thugs are going to pour across out border. Perhaps loosening our legal policies will stem the tide of these kinds of illegals. Just curious why you think all of a sudden our laws will be respected with such a long history of treating our laws like a joke and wiping their asses with what Americans think?
Hey, I can't convince you to care more about messing up the lives of poor people--who weren't arbitrarily born as Americans, and I can't get you to answer any questions without you kicking and screaming for several pages, so I'm not gonna bother with you ITT.
FALFURRIAS, Texas — The death toll continues to climb in the Falfurrias death march region also known as the ranch lands and highways of Brooks County. The toll on illegal immigrants who have died attempting to cross these ranch fields and bypass the Border Patrol checkpoint located in the center of Brooks County now stands at 44 as a woman was found dead this week. A woman reported being raped by her fellow travelers earlier this week and another woman was seriously injured as she either bailed out of or was pushed from a vehicle she was riding in that was being pursued by a deputy sheriff.
A Guatemalan woman was found dead on Wednesday along the new natural gas pipeline being constructed in the western portion of the county. Breitbart Texas previously reported on this “illegal immigrant superhighway” which provides a direct south to north navigational aide but is surrounded by very soft sand that creates extra exertion that has claimed the lives of several people who are trespassing through the area. While she had only been deceased for about one day, her body was already massively disfigured by the heat, insects and animals. The 29-year-old woman was identified by Brooks County officials as Maritza Beatriz from Guatemala.
On Friday, a woman who entered the country illegally was captured by Border Patrol Agents who told Brooks County officials she had reported being raped earlier in the week. Because the alleged rape was reported within 96 hours after its occurrence, Border Patrol officials were instructed to take the woman to the hospital for rape testing. She reported she was sexually assaulted only in the form of oral sex. She will be examined and tested for other forms of sexual assault as well. “It is not uncommon for these women to not disclose the full extent of their sexual assault,” said Brooks County volunteer deputy Daniel Walden who is also a human trafficking instructor. More information will be made available about this case after her examination and testing is completed.
Late last night, a Brooks County volunteer deputy initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle which was behaving suspiciously. The vehicle immediately fled and was pursued by the deputy for several miles. As the vehicle slowed the front passenger door opened and a woman flew out of the door. It is not known at this time if she jumped from the vehicle or if she was pushed. As she exited the vehicle, she fell under the right rear tire and was run over by the fleeing vehicle. The vehicle ran over her head, neck and shoulder region. The deputy immediately stopped and offered first aid to the woman while waiting for an ambulance.
The entire episode was captured by CBS News Digital Journalist Nicole Sanseverino who captured the entire event on video as she was doing a ride-along with the deputy who initiated the traffic stop and pursuit. The woman was transported initially by ambulance and was eventually escalated to a helicopter air-evac to Corpus Christi. Her current condition was not known at this time. The woman allegedly was in possession of a United States Passport.
At least 15 people exited the minivan and fled into the fields on either side of Highway 281. Border Patrol joined in the search that was complicated because the aerostats normally used in search operations were grounded due to weather.
Throughout the night, additional pursuits were engaged in by police, deputies and border patrol. One of the vehicles being pursued crashed through the fence of a rancher in the southwest portion of the county. Several illegal immigrants bailed out of this vehicle at that time. This tactic is particularly dangerous as the damaged fence allows cattle to exit the fields onto busy roadways creating traffic hazards. Seven illegal immigrants were captured in this pursuit.
Another pursuit which occurred just as the sun was coming up involved members of the Falfurrias Police Department who chased a Dodge Charger into a field behind a local hotel. Seven illegal immigrants bailed out of that vehicle, five of whom were captured shortly thereafter by border patrol and Brooks County volunteer deputies.
The organization of non-paid police officers who are volunteering their time to serve as Brooks County Deputy Sheriffs is known as the Border Brotherhood of Texas. Because of illness, the lone Brooks County Deputy Sheriff who was scheduled to work that shift was not available. The volunteers staffed three patrol units for Brooks County and provided a wide variety of law enforcement services throughout the fourteen hour shift last night.
Deputy Walden is a volunteer reserve deputy for Brooks County. In his regular job, he serves as acting police chief of the Donna Independent School District Police Department. He has organized the Border Brotherhood of Texas, a group of sworn police officers who are volunteering their time to help the distressed Brooks County Sheriff’s Office.
U.S. Border agent murdered in front of his family.
When 36-year-old Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega Jr. took his family fishing over the weekend close to home in the Rio Grand Valley, he had no idea he wouldn't be going back to work. When his family jumped in the car that day to spend time with their father, husband and son on his day off, they never expected to watch him murdered in cold blood right in front of them.
But that's exactly what happened. From the National Border Patrol Council:
It is with extreme sadness that the National Border Patrol Council announces the murder of Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega last night in Santa Monica, TX. Border Patrol Agent Vega was spending his time off with his family when two criminals attempted to rob him. Agent Vega was armed and fought back to protect his family. During the course of the ensuing firefight Agent Vega's father was hit in the leg and Agent Vega was mortally wounded. After Agent Vega fell, his family members continued to fight back.
Agent Vega's actions were in keeping with the finest traditions of the United States Border Patrol and his will be a place, deserved of honor and glory, when the final story of the United States Border Patrol is written. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and colleagues in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
We want to commend the Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers involved in the manhunt for Agent Vega's killers. It is through their professionalism and tenacity that the wretched animals who committed this crime will face the full measure of Texas justice. Vega's family members who were with him that day included his father, mother, his three sons and his wife. He was murdered by illegal immigrant thugs Ismael Hernandez and Gustavo Tijerin. Both of the men are from Matamoros and Tijerin has been deported multiple times for involvement in other violent crimes.
Court records show that Tijerina has a previous criminal history including DWI, unlawful carrying a weapon, assault family violence and felony marijuana possession going back to 2007. What does it take?
Most arguments against loosening of immigration restrictions fundamentally rely on a dislike for the foreign. It's largely an emotionally driven argument.
Phattscotty, first you make statements about us being overrun by taxes, needing to keep our "own house in order". Then you post examples of illegal aliens that commit heinous crimes.
Which is it? The aliens are costing us money or are all a bunch of rampaging criminals?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phattscotty, first you make statements about us being overrun by taxes, needing to keep our "own house in order". Then you post examples of illegal aliens that commit heinous crimes.
Which is it? The aliens are costing us money or are all a bunch of rampaging criminals?
rampaging criminals cost us a bunch of money, along with many other policies and lack of policies. I simply stated we should do better at screening those with serious criminal backgrounds, and we can't do that if we don't even know who is coming across the border.
Until you face up to our spending situation, I do not believe your opinions on taxation can be valid. If you don't know how much is being spent and promised out, how in the world could you ever have an educated opinion on how much taxes should or shouldn't be?
#1 Do you agree spending double what we take in is a problem? #2 Do you think it's right to saddle the next generation of Americans with your debts? #3 How are we gonna deal with our spending problem and when? #4 What is your share of these debts? How much are you going to pay in personally? #5 If we do as you wish, and raise our spending even more, does that make the problem worse? #6 Tell me who is going to pay for what you want? #7 Do you think we can realistically pay back our debts? If so, how long will it take and how much more will each citizen have to contribute in order to pay for spending double what we take in, year after year after year, let's make it a decade? #8 Do you understand how much America is on the hook for concerning unfunded liabilities? #9 What is that total of unfunded liabilities America has promised to pay in future entitlements and benefits?
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most arguments against loosening of immigration restrictions fundamentally rely on a dislike for the foreign. It's largely an emotionally driven argument.
We get the current situation under control first if we want to be taken seriously on anything.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phattscotty, first you make statements about us being overrun by taxes, needing to keep our "own house in order". Then you post examples of illegal aliens that commit heinous crimes.
Which is it? The aliens are costing us money or are all a bunch of rampaging criminals?
rampaging criminals cost us a bunch of money, along with many other policies and lack of policies. I simply stated we should do better at screening those with serious criminal backgrounds, and we can't do that if we don't even know who is coming across the border.
If you loosen immigration restrictions so that more non-criminals can enter legally, then criminals become a larger percentage of those who 'come across the borders'. Thus, it becomes easier to "screen those with serious criminal backgrounds.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most arguments against loosening of immigration restrictions fundamentally rely on a dislike for the foreign. It's largely an emotionally driven argument.
We get the current situation under control first if we want to be taken seriously on anything.
Emotions are not the only thing to consider
1. I'm right about your emotionally charged position.
2. Your "get the current situation under control" argument has already been demonstrated as silly.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most arguments against loosening of immigration restrictions fundamentally rely on a dislike for the foreign. It's largely an emotionally driven argument.
We get the current situation under control first if we want to be taken seriously on anything.
Emotions are not the only thing to consider
So if we balanced the budget tomorrow, would you consider loosening immigration restrictions?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most arguments against loosening of immigration restrictions fundamentally rely on a dislike for the foreign. It's largely an emotionally driven argument.
We get the current situation under control first if we want to be taken seriously on anything.
Emotions are not the only thing to consider
1. I'm right about your emotionally charged position.
2. Your "get the current situation under control" argument has already been demonstrated as silly.
3. If you disagree, see #1.
0/10
AS much as you claim you are right, you couldn't be more wrong, and that's gonna keep happening the more you try to paint issues rather than deal with them honestly. I am for loosening legal immigration restrictions, which is why you are just racebaiting. I have no emotions invested in the current issue. You are barking up the wrong tree, badly.
I challenged you with some basic questions, but as per usual you dodged them. So, again, how are we gonna ask for respect for our new looser immigration policies, when there is no respect for our policies now? What's gonna change that?
