Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:47 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,726

"Shooting migrants in the legs". Is this legal? If Area 51 trespassers can be shot...


So, Trump has expressed a desire, per CNN, to have illegal immigrants shot.

This would be an inhumane, despicable act. And it doesn't address the root cause of illegal immigration. (though, in reality, it might be an effective deterrent)

So my first thought is "no, this would be a violation of international law and a failure to use proportional force".

But, then again, trespassers at the Area 51 base can legally be shot for entering a restricted area. The border fencing is Federal property and this is an international border. Could the Feds declare a military controlled zone up and down the border, post signs in multiple languages warning that lethal force is authorized, and fire on anyone that crosses?

Could the President make an executive order authorizing this? Is it within his powers?

If the answer is no, why can the military shoot unarmed area 51 trespassers to prevent them from seeing what's there? What precisely authorizes this?
  #2  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:46 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Well, there’s actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally. Kinda hard to reconcile that with needing to kill the person.

If you invade Area 51, the White House, or whatever, you aren’t just going to be shot on sight. I don’t even know where you get that idea. The authorities would attempt to detain you, and if you escalated the situation, oh yeah, you could be shot. But it isn’t like the East Germans shooting people trying to crawl over the Wall.

Plus I should add that crossing the border is merely a misdemeanor, or even just a civil matter. Military facilities are covered by other laws, such as the Espionage Act which provides far more serious penalties.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-01-2019 at 10:49 PM.
  #3  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:55 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,876
Some of those East German border guards were convicted of manslaughter (the judge was not impressed by their "I was just following orders" defense), so that is not a precedent for shooting refugees being legal, quite the opposite.
  #4  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:12 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post

If you invade Area 51, the White House, or whatever, you arenít just going to be shot on sight. I donít even know where you get that idea. The authorities would attempt to detain you, and if you escalated the situation, oh yeah, you could be shot. But it isnít like the East Germans shooting people trying to crawl over the Wall.
.
I got the idea from official statements from the Air Force warning lethal force is authorized. And similar bases have warning signs saying you can be shot. I am taking them at their word.

I am assuming by "escalate" you mean "keep walking in the direction of the secret base" right?
  #5  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:16 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I got the idea from official statements from the Air Force warning lethal force is authorized. And similar bases have warning signs saying you can be shot. I am taking them at their word.

I am assuming by "escalate" you mean "keep walking in the direction of the secret base" right?
"Lethal force authorized" and "you can be shot" in no way equals "you will be shot/killed on sight"
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #6  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:12 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Well, thereís actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally.
Does not mean they can illegally cross a border to do so.
  #7  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:32 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 22,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I got the idea from official statements from the Air Force warning lethal force is authorized. And similar bases have warning signs saying you can be shot. I am taking them at their word.

I am assuming by "escalate" you mean "keep walking in the direction of the secret base" right?
Nope. "Escalate" means to walk on carrying weapons or explosives, or to ram the gates in a vehicle. Also, if you charge the guards in a threatening manner, they do have a right to defend themselves. If you simply keep walking, they have less lethal means at their disposal such as tasers and rubber bullets.
  #8  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:43 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Well, thereís actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Does not mean they can illegally cross a border to do so.
Yeah, actually, it does. That's what the sentence "thereís actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally" means.
  #9  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:50 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
If you simply keep walking, they have less lethal means at their disposal such as tasers and rubber bullets.
Or the even simpler expedient of just arresting them.
  #10  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:02 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Yeah, actually, it does. That's what the sentence "thereís actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally" means.
No, what the law states is that you can claim asylum from within the USA regardless of immigration status OR apply at a port of entry.

It does not, not even a little, not even in the most brain-dead interpretation, mean that a person can just waltz across an international border unrestricted to claim asylum. In that case the legal route is to apply at the port of entry and stand-by.

Nowhere has it ever been legal to cross a border illegally just to claim asylum. That has always been an illegal entry and will forever continue to be so.
  #11  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:16 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
No, what the law states is that you can claim asylum from within the USA regardless of immigration status OR apply at a port of entry.
Yep, and if you get asylum then your status is "legal".

Quote:
Nowhere has it ever been legal to cross a border illegally just to claim asylum. That has always been an illegal entry and will forever continue to be so.
Look up the phrase "wet foot dry foot" in regards to Cubans. Lots of former citizens of Cuba came to Florida without seeking permission first and got to stay without penalty.
  #12  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:02 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Look up the phrase "wet foot dry foot" in regards to Cubans. Lots of former citizens of Cuba came to Florida without seeking permission first and got to stay without penalty.
President Obama ended that policy in January 2017 just before he left office.
  #13  
Old 10-02-2019, 06:54 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Does not mean they can illegally cross a border to do so.
Sure - itís as serious a crime as shoplifting. Shop owners arenít justified in shooting people stealing candy bars.

Plus thereís a factual matter here: the vast majority of people coming over the border recently are actively looking to get caught so they can exercise their lawful claim of asylum. Shooting people who are surrendering is yet another sadistic and evil idea from a racist disgrace.
  #14  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:00 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure - itís as serious a crime as shoplifting.
Thatís an understatement, but the severity of the crime means nothing. Itís still a crime and one that is willfully broken and costs the taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars to adjudicate people who by and large will be denied and deported.

And thereís no end in sight.

And thatís only the ones that get caught & cry asylum.

They wonít be shot on sight and fuk knows the context or truth behind the statement or if it was even made.

The point is that itís billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. Itís absurd.
  #15  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:37 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Thatís an understatement, but the severity of the crime means nothing. Itís still a crime and one that is willfully broken and costs the taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars to adjudicate people who by and large will be denied and deported.

And thereís no end in sight.

And thatís only the ones that get caught & cry asylum.

They wonít be shot on sight and fuk knows the context or truth behind the statement or if it was even made.

The point is that itís billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. Itís absurd.
Please provide a cite that illegal aliens are a net cost to the taxpayer. My understanding is that they are a net boon to the economy, so please cite your claim.
  #16  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:38 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Thatís an understatement, but the severity of the crime means nothing. Itís still a crime and one that is willfully broken and costs the taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars to adjudicate people who by and large will be denied and deported.

And thereís no end in sight.

And thatís only the ones that get caught & cry asylum.

They wonít be shot on sight and fuk knows the context or truth behind the statement or if it was even made.

The point is that itís billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. Itís absurd.
...and that's why we should just shoot unarmed civilians summarily. Because the administration of justice is costly and annoying.

Yes, that seems reasonable and not at all a dangerous precedent.
  #17  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:54 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
The point is that itís billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. Itís absurd.
Iíll believe that when I see anti-immigrant folks propose an increase to any aspect of our social safety net.
  #18  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:13 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Iíll believe that when I see anti-immigrant folks propose an increase to any aspect of our social safety net.
LOL youíre anti immigrant if you have a problem with illegal aliens?

Absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Please provide a cite that illegal aliens are a net cost to the taxpayer. My understanding is that they are a net boon to the economy, so please cite your claim.
You first, bud. If youíre gonna claim something so preposterous, you should start first.

And it better not be vox or buzzfeed or any other hard left rag.
  #19  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:15 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
LOL youíre anti immigrant if you have a problem with illegal aliens?

Absurd.
Stop nitpicking and list what social programs youíd like to increase spending on, but ďillegalsĒ are stopping us from enjoying.
  #20  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:47 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Stop nitpicking and list what social programs youíd like to increase spending on, but ďillegalsĒ are stopping us from enjoying.
I never made that argument. Thatís a little strawman you fabricated.

But:

How about lower state taxes, lower property taxes, lower healthcare costs, more educational funds going to citizens not aliens. Taking a chip out of the deficit. All these things impact the people in the country who need this money the most - lower middle class and below.

We hemorrhage money left right and center and the absolute LAST people we should be funding are illegal aliens at the expense of taxpayers. There is not a sound argument that can be made for it.
  #21  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:56 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,885
We spend less than 60 billion a year on immigrants, totally ignoring any economic benefits they bring by buying American goods and services while living here, payments into Social Security or other taxes, or any other benefit.

We spend more than ten times that on the military each year. That is a much, MUCH bigger cost than immigrants. Why don't we cut military spending to 90% of the current rate, still leaving us at around DOUBLE the spending of Russia (69 billion) and China (200 billion) combined, and over 30% of global military spending. Then we can take the money we save and cover the entire cost of immigration (and then some).
  #22  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:03 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
No, 60 billion is AFTER taking out illegal aliens social security contributions and paid taxes (which are likely being withheld because of a fake or stolen social security card/number).

And spending, what, 2.5% of our GDP on our own countrymen and women is somehow even comparable to the billions and billions it costs the taxpayer to fund illegal aliens?

Also absurd.
  #23  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:06 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
We spend less than 60 billion a year on immigrants, totally ignoring any economic benefits they bring by buying American goods and services while living here, payments into Social Security or other taxes, or any other benefit.

We spend more than ten times that on the military each year. That is a much, MUCH bigger cost than immigrants. Why don't we cut military spending to 90% of the current rate, still leaving us at around DOUBLE the spending of Russia (69 billion) and China (200 billion) combined, and over 30% of global military spending. Then we can take the money we save and cover the entire cost of immigration (and then some).
Why? Why spend all that on supporting an illegal immigration system when that money can be passed directly and indirectly back to the taxpayer?

Itís like you guys think of every possible reason not to stop illegal immigration.
  #24  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:07 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
How about lower state taxes, lower property taxes, lower healthcare costs, more educational funds going to citizens not aliens. Taking a chip out of the deficit. All these things impact the people in the country who need this money the most - lower middle class and below.
Right - you arenít trying to help citizens with better healthcare or schools. Itís just another reason why conservatives want to cut taxes and services to everyone. If the weather is good, cut taxes and services. If it is bad, cut taxes and services. Too many immigrants, cut taxes and services. No immigrants, cut taxes and services.

By the way, I googled it: shoplifting costs the economy $50 billion a year. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits.
  #25  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:39 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Right - you arenít trying to help citizens with better healthcare or schools. Itís just another reason why conservatives want to cut taxes and services to everyone. If the weather is good, cut taxes and services. If it is bad, cut taxes and services. Too many immigrants, cut taxes and services. No immigrants, cut taxes and services.

By the way, I googled it: shoplifting costs the economy $50 billion a year. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits.
Haha yeah, you donít know how property/state taxes work do you, and youíre real good at getting yourself in a fuss over something I never said nor implied. I never said anything about cutting services at all, services will become cheaper and will require less funding - less taxes.

Every mainstream lefty right now chants about raising taxes on the ď1%Ē and people paying their ďfair shareĒ yet we bleed money left right and center and no one gives a shit. We waste more money that even imaginable and if we wound that in we would have enough to spare to help so many more people without even increasing welfare.

And itís funny the way you worded your last sentence. No matter how you choose to deceptively arrange your words, illegal aliens cost the taxpayer shitloads both federally, locally (even more so) and everywhere in between including the hospital and everywhere else.

There is literally nothing stopping you from taking your money and donating to the charity of your choice. Hell, you can even donate it to the IRS yourself if you like, but getting pissy because people want to keep their own heard earned wealth instead of paying for totally ineligible illegal aliens is why youíll always have Republicans/opposition parties.
  #26  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:50 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Why? Why spend all that on supporting an illegal immigration system when that money can be passed directly and indirectly back to the taxpayer?

Itís like you guys think of every possible reason not to stop illegal immigration.
No, we're merely observing that whenever a Republican says "Why are we spending money on illegal immigrants when we could be helping the homeless or veterans or the poor working class, it never seems to be accompanied by any plan to actually help the homeless or veterans or the poor working class and instead is usually accompanied by plans to funnel yet more money to the wealthiest people. It's like you guys don't really care about illegal immigration; it's just another distraction from the looting of the country.

It's also noteworthy that this deep concern about illegal immigration amongst Republicans is quite recent - right about the time Trump got elected and started an active anti-immigrant propaganda campaign. Prior to that, they were considerably less concerned. Back in 2013, the Democrats proposed a $53 million program of enhancements to the border including increased personnel and surveillance capabilities, some increased barriers where deemed appropriate and improved processing capacity for detainees*. And the Republicans rejected it, probably because Obama and the Democrats were for it. And illegal immigration fell between then and the end of the Obama administration, so the newfound interest in illegal immigrants isn't based on that. Hmm.


*Note that this is substantially different than the current "let's just build a big wall" proposal.
  #27  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:52 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
The thing you donít understand is that basically nobody is in favor of open borders. Sure, thereís some libertarian types out there, but really among Democrats, the vast majority are totally fine deporting illegal migrants.

But the difference is that Dems have an actual understanding of the complexities of immigration, and donít just fall into the scapegoating that so often blurs the line into racism.

And in the same spirit of ďlibs can always donate to charities,Ē you can always stop eating fruit and vegetables and put the largest employers of illegal immigrants out of business.
  #28  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:02 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
No, we're merely observing that whenever a Republican says "Why are we spending money on illegal immigrants when we could be helping the homeless or veterans or the poor working class, it never seems to be accompanied by any plan to actually help the homeless or veterans or the poor working class and instead is usually accompanied by plans to funnel yet more money to the wealthiest people. It's like you guys don't really care about illegal immigration; it's just another distraction from the looting of the country.

It's also noteworthy that this deep concern about illegal immigration amongst Republicans is quite recent - right about the time Trump got elected and started an active anti-immigrant propaganda campaign. Prior to that, they were considerably less concerned. Back in 2013, the Democrats proposed a $53 million program of enhancements to the border including increased personnel and surveillance capabilities, some increased barriers where deemed appropriate and improved processing capacity for detainees*. And the Republicans rejected it, probably because Obama and the Democrats were for it. And illegal immigration fell between then and the end of the Obama administration, so the newfound interest in illegal immigrants isn't based on that. Hmm.


*Note that this is substantially different than the current "let's just build a big wall" proposal.
No, youíre merely stating what you think we are saying while completely ignoring what we are saying. Thatís what youíre doing.

And the border funding package youíre referring to was little different than the recent funding package circus that was embarrassingly put forward by the left. There was zero intention to stop anything. It was more money to continue doing the exact same thing they have been doing, which is nothing. And then the next year? More money again. And the next? More taxpayer billions thrown away while the middle class dies off.

Something that can be done is let people keep more of their own money, that they earned, thatís theirs, so they can buy food. Rent. Therapists.
  #29  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:18 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Something that can be done is let people keep more of their own money, that they earned, thatís theirs, so they can buy food. Rent. Therapists.
You do realize that's merely another way to say "fuck the poor", yes ?
  #30  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:28 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post

Something that can be done is let people keep more of their own money, that they earned, thatís theirs, so they can buy food. Rent. Therapists.
Rescinding tariffs would do exactly that, no?
  #31  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:31 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
No, youíre merely stating what you think we are saying while completely ignoring what we are saying. Thatís what youíre doing.
No, I'm paying attention to what you're doing and noting that it is at odds with what you're saying. As usual.
Quote:
And the border funding package youíre referring to was little different than the recent funding package circus that was embarrassingly put forward by the left. There was zero intention to stop anything. It was more money to continue doing the exact same thing they have been doing, which is nothing. And then the next year? More money again. And the next? More taxpayer billions thrown away while the middle class dies off.
None of that is remotely true.

It does, however, accurately apply to the current GOP border control proposals. Tens or hundreds of billions on a Wall that can be scaled in seconds? Yes, that seems sensible. And the GOP economic policies are doing far more damage to the middle class than anything the Democrats have proposed. Winning that trade war!

Quote:
Something that can be done is let people keep more of their own money, that they earned, thatís theirs, so they can buy food. Rent. Therapists.
Eating cake. That sort of thing.
  #32  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:35 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Immigration is a net benefit to countries. By regulating immigration you can enhance the benefit further - allow the healthy, educated, strong, smart, attractive in, for example. While there are some ethical concerns about those types of distinctions, at least it makes sense on some level. Just eliminating immigration is just stupid. We can see how things go for countries with a lower that replacement birthdate, which is what the US would be without immigration. It would mean, at least, that the current social security system becomes untenable. It would also mean that the amount of time an incontinent elderly person spends lying in their own filth is longer than it would be with non-zero immigration - purely based on the makeup of age cohorts in the US.
  #33  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:07 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
And spending, what, 2.5% of our GDP on our own countrymen and women is somehow even comparable to the billions and billions it costs the taxpayer to fund illegal aliens?
Well, it would be easier to compare if you hadn't deliberately changed the way you were referring to the monetary amounts to make the 693 billion spent on the military sound SO MUCH MORE than the 0.3% of the GDP it costs to fund immigrants.
  #34  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:17 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
We hemorrhage money left right and center and the absolute LAST people we should be funding are illegal aliens at the expense of taxpayers. There is not a sound argument that can be made for it.
The absolute LAST people we should be funding are the rich fuckers who've somehow taken control of our country.
  #35  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:41 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
The point is that itís billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. Itís absurd.
You sound very annoyed.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #36  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:43 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
No, 60 billion is AFTER taking out illegal aliens social security contributions and paid taxes (which are likely being withheld because of a fake or stolen social security card/number).
Even if they taxes you're referring to are attached to stolen ID numbers, those illegal aliens are not getting the money back.

Meanwhile, they pay sales tax just like you and I do, and when they buy fuel for their vehicles they pay those taxes, which help pay for our roads, and the pay rent and utilities and for food (but they don't get food stamps) all of which helps the economy where they are.

So, sorry, I don't buy your claim that these folks are costing us "billions and billions". Yes, there is a cost and there are some problems but they are far, far from bankrupting this country.

Quote:
And spending, what, 2.5% of our GDP on our own countrymen and women is somehow even comparable to the billions and billions it costs the taxpayer to fund illegal aliens?
Please provide a cite that dealing with illegal aliens costs even as much as 2.5% of our GDP.
  #37  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:49 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Every mainstream lefty right now chants about raising taxes on the ď1%Ē and people paying their ďfair shareĒ
Actually, I've been chanting that a few decades now, it's not a recent hobby of mine. But I'm not sure you could actually call me a "liberal", I seem to piss them off just as much as I do the conservatives. Maybe I'm just contrary.

Quote:
There is literally nothing stopping you from taking your money and donating to the charity of your choice. Hell, you can even donate it to the IRS yourself if you like, but getting pissy because people want to keep their own heard earned wealth instead of paying for totally ineligible illegal aliens is why youíll always have Republicans/opposition parties.
Oh, my, your spelling is slipping...

I have a question for you - if people such as yourself (whatever stripe of politics you label yourself with) are really so anti-immigrant or, if you prefer, anti-illegal immigrant, why are you not advocating that BUSINESS OWNERS who hire illegal aliens are not arrested alongside the illegal aliens? Aren't those employers ALSO breaking the law? Indeed, doesn't their hiring of illegal aliens encourage such law-breaking? Hmm.... we could arrest the business owners, confiscate their money earned from criminal activity, and use it to pay for the cost of dealing with illegal immigration, yes?
  #38  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:52 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Something that can be done is let people keep more of their own money, that they earned, thatís theirs, so they can buy food. Rent. Therapists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
You do realize that's merely another way to say "fuck the poor", yes ?
I have my doubts that he is aware enough to realize that's what he's saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Immigration is a net benefit to countries. By regulating immigration you can enhance the benefit further - allow the healthy, educated, strong, smart, attractive in, for example. While there are some ethical concerns about those types of distinctions, at least it makes sense on some level. Just eliminating immigration is just stupid. We can see how things go for countries with a lower that replacement birthdate, which is what the US would be without immigration. It would mean, at least, that the current social security system becomes untenable. It would also mean that the amount of time an incontinent elderly person spends lying in their own filth is longer than it would be with non-zero immigration - purely based on the makeup of age cohorts in the US.
Unfortunately, there is a cohort of people in the US who see those consequences as a feature and not a bug.
  #39  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:08 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
...
You first, bud. If youíre gonna claim something so preposterous, you should start first.

And it better not be vox or buzzfeed or any other hard left rag.
Sorry, it was your claim, not mine. You claimed that we're net spending billions and billions on undocumented immigrants. This isn't what I've heard, but if you have a cite to that effect (not from some "hard right rag"), I'd be happy to read it. Please include the relevant section in your post, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance.
  #40  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:14 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Well, NBC (from the Heritage group) has it at about $54 billion, which seems on the high end, though they concede that it's really difficult if not impossible to nail down a real figure. Certainly, Trump's $250 billion doesn't seem to hold much water. I'm assuming NBC (and even the Heritage Group, though perhaps not as much) doesn't qualify as a 'hard right rag'.

Quote:
Rector said his 2013 estimate pegged the cost of undocumented immigrants ó the cost of services received minus their tax contributions ó was about $54 billion a year.

A precise cost is nearly impossible to ascertain, many experts said. That's in part because undocumented immigrants operate within the shadows, leaving their full fiscal contributions ó and use of taxpayer-funded resources ó at least somewhat unknown.

"It's really hard to calculate anyoneís 'net cost' or 'net benefit.' We all use all kinds of services, from roads to military protection. How do we apportion what part of that is something I or you or an immigrant use?" said Kallick.

Overall, there is a broad misunderstanding of how much undocumented immigrants contribute to America's balance sheets, and what taxpayer-funded benefits they receive, the experts interviewed by NBC News said.

"Undocumented immigrants are incredible contributors to our economy and are not eligible for public benefits that people think they come here for," Wiehe said.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #41  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:18 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
As for the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So, Trump has expressed a desire, per CNN, to have illegal immigrants shot.

This would be an inhumane, despicable act. And it doesn't address the root cause of illegal immigration. (though, in reality, it might be an effective deterrent)

So my first thought is "no, this would be a violation of international law and a failure to use proportional force".

But, then again, trespassers at the Area 51 base can legally be shot for entering a restricted area. The border fencing is Federal property and this is an international border. Could the Feds declare a military controlled zone up and down the border, post signs in multiple languages warning that lethal force is authorized, and fire on anyone that crosses?

Could the President make an executive order authorizing this? Is it within his powers?

If the answer is no, why can the military shoot unarmed area 51 trespassers to prevent them from seeing what's there? What precisely authorizes this?
Focusing just on the shoot on site on Area 51 part, I'd ask the question...well, how many people have actually BEEN shot trying to get onto the Area 51 (Grooms Lake) facility in, oh, say the past 40 years? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? A quick Google search indicates a lot of arrests, but I haven't found any cases of folks actually being shot. MAYBE there have been a few, but I can't find them. Not even 10's of folks shot, despite hundreds of arrests. So, the premise seems flawed just from that angle.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #42  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:53 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, NBC (from the Heritage group) has it at about $54 billion, which seems on the high end, though they concede that it's really difficult if not impossible to nail down a real figure. Certainly, Trump's $250 billion doesn't seem to hold much water. I'm assuming NBC (and even the Heritage Group, though perhaps not as much) doesn't qualify as a 'hard right rag'.
That report, assuming it's the one referenced below, has been pretty roundly criticized:

Quote:
In 2013, Robert Rector and Jason Richwine of The Heritage Foundation released a study concluding that as of 2010, the "average unlawful immigrant household" had a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.[47] Critics of the Rector-Richwine report "questioned several assumptions made by the reportís authorsóeverything from the amount that legalization could boost earnings for immigrants to the amount of welfare they may use."[48] The Heritage report purported to project costs over a 50-year period and assumed no changes to Social Security or Medicare, which prompted criticism that the study was overly speculative.[48] The report also counted "the cost of benefits paid to the children of those living in the U.S. illegally, even though many of those children by law are citizens."[48] The methodology and conclusions of the 2013 Heritage Foundation study were sharply criticized as flawed by, among others, Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, Doug Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum, and Tim Kane at the Hudson Institute. Nowrasteh wrote that the Heritage report's refusal to account for GDP growth and increased economic productivity from immigration led to "a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue."[49] Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida also criticized the report
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom..._United_States

Also, the Heritage Foundation is definitely a hard right rag -- among other awful positions, they are climate change deniers.
  #43  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:59 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
That's fine. It was the only one I saw an actual figure put on. The point was just showing that even that is a lot less than Trump's assertion.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #44  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:00 PM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 22,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
As for the OP:



Focusing just on the shoot on site on Area 51 part, I'd ask the question...well, how many people have actually BEEN shot trying to get onto the Area 51 (Grooms Lake) facility in, oh, say the past 40 years? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? A quick Google search indicates a lot of arrests, but I haven't found any cases of folks actually being shot. MAYBE there have been a few, but I can't find them. Not even 10's of folks shot, despite hundreds of arrests. So, the premise seems flawed just from that angle.
According to some admittedly less reputable sources, an unnamed man was shot at Area 51 in January 2019 after driving through a security checkpoint and exciting his vehicle with a cylindrical object in his hand.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/popcult...military-base/
  #45  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
You sound very annoyed.
Also, his reference to "treasure" was hilarious! What, are we pirates now?
  #46  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:19 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
That's fine. It was the only one I saw an actual figure put on. The point was just showing that even that is a lot less than Trump's assertion.
OK, thanks!

Maybe Annoyed has a better cite in mind since he or she seems to be pretty confident of the billions and billions number.
  #47  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:22 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,157
Rhetorical question: Are you holding your breath?
  #48  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
OK, thanks!

Maybe Annoyed has a better cite in mind since he or she seems to be pretty confident of the billions and billions number.
Well, "billions and billions" just means "at least four billion", which isn't all that outrageous a claim.

Sure, the phrasing was intended to make the number sound YUGE, which was consistent with the rest of his bullshit phrasing as he tried to pretend that immigrants somehow cost more than the military.
  #49  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:32 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Well, "billions and billions" just means "at least four billion", which isn't all that outrageous a claim.

Sure, the phrasing was intended to make the number sound YUGE, which was consistent with the rest of his bullshit phrasing as he tried to pretend that immigrants somehow cost more than the military.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a net positive for the US, as there are a hell of a lot of things that factor in to this. Illegal aliens, after all, buy stuff...and a lot of things bought in the US are taxed. In addition, often illegals actually DO pay payroll taxes, as they either use someone else's credentials or something similar, paying into things like social security despite not really getting the benefits. Sure, they also use social services, so I wouldn't be surprised, on the other hand, if it WAS billions...as in several billions, maybe even a few 10's of billions. But it's not going to be $250 billion, not unless you are seriously cherry picking your data and spinning like crazy.

I'd say the very fact that it's hard to nail down is a good indication it's not a serious issue that is draining the treasury. Hell, we spend more on NASA per year, and that's a very small fraction of our overall budget. This isn't what's causing the large deficits, and it's not taking away valuable services from native born citizens.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #50  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:22 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Rhetorical question: Are you holding your breath?


Turning blue here.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017