Border problem.

Polds4OSU said:
Throw immigrants out of helicopters....wtaf

www.rawstory.com

Republican lawmaker suggests immigrants should be thrown out of helicopters

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) appeared to suggest migrants should be extrajudicially murdered in a social media post on Thursday.Collins made the post on X in response to another post by Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY), who was reacting to a Fox News clip of an arrested immigrant in a Lakers jersey...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, both sides want to throw people from helicopters from time to time. This story is just pure garbage for an election year.
 
Sen. Lankford: Speaker Johnson Refused to Negotiate with Senate


As the specifics of the bi-partisan Senate agreement on the border are released tonight, all eyes are on Speaker Mike Johnson, who refused to engage in any negotiations with the Senate after speaking with Donald Trump. Republican Senator James Lankford has been the primary negotiator with Senator Schumer, and he was interviewed tonight by CNN's Manu Raju about his communications (or lack thereof) with Johnson.

Republicans have misrepresented the agreement in the media and on social media for the past couple of weeks. Trump has made it clear that he opposes ANY border agreement passing because it will be seen as "a win" for Biden. Several Republican Members of Congress have also explicitly stated that they oppose a border agreement because it would help Biden's approval ratings before the 2024 elections. Johnson acknowledged that he spoke to Trump "many times" about the agreement, and he won't accept any deal until border contacts reach zero. Border contacts averaged roughly 600,000 a year during the Trump Administration, so getting to zero is impossible, as Johnson well knows.


As Senator Lankford pointed out in a series of interviews, the Senate agreement is even tougher than the provisions Trump requested in 2018 as president, which failed to pass Congress. But now Trump is against a tougher bill when it is supposed to be a crisis, because the border and immigration is the primary issue that his presidential campaign is centered around. The new agreement calls for stricter enforcement, asylum applications sped up with faster deportations, and increasing funding to interdict fentanyl.

Lankford was asked whether Johnson was involved in any way in the negotiations. Johnson claimed that he refused to participate because the House passed a border security bill 9 months ago that was ignored by the Senate. This is another excuse from Johnson that simply shows that he is obstructing anything from getting done for political reasons. The legislature in the United States is bi-cameral, as any 7th grader knows. That requires both House and Senate to work together and negotiate. Johnson knows this, but seems unwilling to even speak to his own party members in the Senate.

Lankford then pointed out that Republicans like Johnson have been misrepresenting the agreement when they haven't even seen it. The agreement requires the president to close the border for 14 days if contacts reach 5,000 in a single day. Some Republicans have claimed that any day contacts are less than that number is a day that every migrant who arrives will be allowed to enter the country. But Lankford points out that is untrue, and if the current agreement was already in place that the border would have been closed for the last 4 months.
 
Polds4OSU said:
Sen. Lankford: Speaker Johnson Refused to Negotiate with Senate


As the specifics of the bi-partisan Senate agreement on the border are released tonight, all eyes are on Speaker Mike Johnson, who refused to engage in any negotiations with the Senate after speaking with Donald Trump. Republican Senator James Lankford has been the primary negotiator with Senator Schumer, and he was interviewed tonight by CNN's Manu Raju about his communications (or lack thereof) with Johnson.

Republicans have misrepresented the agreement in the media and on social media for the past couple of weeks. Trump has made it clear that he opposes ANY border agreement passing because it will be seen as "a win" for Biden. Several Republican Members of Congress have also explicitly stated that they oppose a border agreement because it would help Biden's approval ratings before the 2024 elections. Johnson acknowledged that he spoke to Trump "many times" about the agreement, and he won't accept any deal until border contacts reach zero. Border contacts averaged roughly 600,000 a year during the Trump Administration, so getting to zero is impossible, as Johnson well knows.


As Senator Lankford pointed out in a series of interviews, the Senate agreement is even tougher than the provisions Trump requested in 2018 as president, which failed to pass Congress. But now Trump is against a tougher bill when it is supposed to be a crisis, because the border and immigration is the primary issue that his presidential campaign is centered around. The new agreement calls for stricter enforcement, asylum applications sped up with faster deportations, and increasing funding to interdict fentanyl.

Lankford was asked whether Johnson was involved in any way in the negotiations. Johnson claimed that he refused to participate because the House passed a border security bill 9 months ago that was ignored by the Senate. This is another excuse from Johnson that simply shows that he is obstructing anything from getting done for political reasons. The legislature in the United States is bi-cameral, as any 7th grader knows. That requires both House and Senate to work together and negotiate. Johnson knows this, but seems unwilling to even speak to his own party members in the Senate.

Lankford then pointed out that Republicans like Johnson have been misrepresenting the agreement when they haven't even seen it. The agreement requires the president to close the border for 14 days if contacts reach 5,000 in a single day. Some Republicans have claimed that any day contacts are less than that number is a day that every migrant who arrives will be allowed to enter the country. But Lankford points out that is untrue, and if the current agreement was already in place that the border would have been closed for the last 4 months.
Click to expand...
But Gogetum told us this wasn’t true. We were going to be letting up to 5000 immigrants per day into the US. Does that mean that conservative media and twitter were full of misinformation?
 
HacklemanPoke said:
But Gogetum told us this wasn’t true. We were going to be letting up to 5000 immigrants per day into the US. Does that mean that conservative media and twitter were full of misinformation?
Click to expand...
How do you interpret Section 3301 of the Border Emergency Authority? While this doesn’t mean they are allowing 5k illegals per day, it does appear the reporting of border not shut down until 5k/day was correct.

Section 3301 reads “The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average exceeds 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.”

 
Last edited:
Mike Johnson made the claim today we didn't need any new immigration laws and that the border issue should be solved via executive orders by Biden


Dan Crenshaw does not agree

1000001119.png
 
60 Minutes last night had two interesting stories. The first was an excellent interview of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Among other things he said our national debt is not sustainable and in 30 years the national debt per household will be +$1M.

The 2nd story was on border security and the ease of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. Specifically, the story focused on Chinese immigrants. Few politicians give deep thought about cost of not securing border, billions in the bill to give to other countries, and it’s ties to our growing national debt…and the burden we are placing on future generations.
 
JTOSU said:
How do you interpret Section 3301 of the Border Emergency Authority? While this doesn’t mean they are allowing 5k illegals per day, it does appear the reporting of border not shut down until 5k/day was correct.

Section 3301 reads “The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average exceeds 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.”

Click to expand...

So, they want the Border Emergency Authority to be put in place anytime a single person crosses the border?

Sort of like having FEMA send aid teams anytime there is a thunderstorm with some hail damage.
 
Last edited:
JTOSU said:
60 Minutes last night had two interesting stories. The first was an excellent interview of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Among other things he said our national debt is not sustainable and in 30 years the national debt per household will be +$1M.

The 2nd story was on border security and the ease of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. Specifically, the story focused on Chinese immigrants. Few politicians give deep thought about cost of not securing border, billions in the bill to give to other countries, and it’s ties to our growing national debt…and the burden we are placing on future generations.
Click to expand...
I'll ignore the first point to avoid being re-scolded about discussing something not on the topic of the border in this very specific thread.

The "cost" of illegal immigration is always discussed by the far right but the benefits to our national debt are ignored. We are also the best economy amongst leading nations. Seems strange if we really had this big drag on our economy that we would be trashing all those others who didn't.
The biggest issue with our debt is how they screwed up the SS trust. Well, thanks illegals for propping up our retirement system for us!

Social Security's big immigration problem​

However, none of these concerns are major issues for Social Security right now. So what's Social Security's big immigration problem? There isn't enough immigration.

Social Security is funded in part by its two trust funds. The majority of the program's costs, though, are funded by ongoing payroll taxes. This means that the more workers there are in the country, the greater the revenue for Social Security.
A 2019 report from the Bipartisan Policy Center stated, "Immigration strengthens the solvency of the Social Security system by boosting the number of new workers without immediately adding more new beneficiaries." The 2023 Social Security Trustees Report agrees with this, concluding that, "because immigration occurs at relatively young ages," it increases the number of workers well before the number of Social Security beneficiaries increases.

But what about undocumented immigrants who don't pay taxes? This isn't as significant of an issue as it might seem.

The Bipartisan Policy Center noted that all U.S. employers are required by law to verify that new hires have some form of authorization to work. Its report said that many undocumented immigrants "will use a false Social Security number, someone else's number, or a previously valid number when getting a job." As a result, their pay will be subject to FICA payroll taxes. However, they won't be eligible to collect Social Security benefits.


The Center for Immigration Studies acknowledges that it "seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." Even though the organization wants less immigration, its 2023 report stated that "illegal immigration unambiguously benefits" Social Security.

MSN

www.msn.com
 
JTOSU said:
How do you interpret Section 3301 of the Border Emergency Authority? While this doesn’t mean they are allowing 5k illegals per day, it does appear the reporting of border not shut down until 5k/day was correct.

Section 3301 reads “The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average exceeds 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.”

Click to expand...
I get that it can be difficult sometimes to have an exchange on a message board. Bob made the claim that 1/2 the population of OK would be let in the country w this bill bc of the misinformation he either read or inferred and then tried to race bait people w Tucker and poorly chosen links.
 
Polds4OSU said:
View attachment 3484
Click to expand...
I have voted for Lankford in the past and have also voted against him. I think in this case he is actually putting America 1st and getting the best deal he can get bc he realizes this opportunity is rare and likely won’t present itself again in the next 10 years.

It’s crap like this that will likely lead to him not running in the future. Some on the left will say fine good riddance. Some on the right will be ok too.

But in OK the alternative will be a plumber who thinks it’s ok to challenge witnesses to a fist fight in a Senate committee hearing. That’s who we will get at best. At worst it will be Ryan Walters.
 
steross said:
I'll ignore the first point to avoid being re-scolded about discussing something not on the topic of the border in this very specific thread.

The "cost" of illegal immigration is always discussed by the far right but the benefits to our national debt are ignored. We are also the best economy amongst leading nations. Seems strange if we really had this big drag on our economy that we would be trashing all those others who didn't.
The biggest issue with our debt is how they screwed up the SS trust. Well, thanks illegals for propping up our retirement system for us!

Social Security's big immigration problem​

However, none of these concerns are major issues for Social Security right now. So what's Social Security's big immigration problem? There isn't enough immigration.

Social Security is funded in part by its two trust funds. The majority of the program's costs, though, are funded by ongoing payroll taxes. This means that the more workers there are in the country, the greater the revenue for Social Security.
A 2019 report from the Bipartisan Policy Center stated, "Immigration strengthens the solvency of the Social Security system by boosting the number of new workers without immediately adding more new beneficiaries." The 2023 Social Security Trustees Report agrees with this, concluding that, "because immigration occurs at relatively young ages," it increases the number of workers well before the number of Social Security beneficiaries increases.

But what about undocumented immigrants who don't pay taxes? This isn't as significant of an issue as it might seem.

The Bipartisan Policy Center noted that all U.S. employers are required by law to verify that new hires have some form of authorization to work. Its report said that many undocumented immigrants "will use a false Social Security number, someone else's number, or a previously valid number when getting a job." As a result, their pay will be subject to FICA payroll taxes. However, they won't be eligible to collect Social Security benefits.


The Center for Immigration Studies acknowledges that it "seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." Even though the organization wants less immigration, its 2023 report stated that "illegal immigration unambiguously benefits" Social Security.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
I don’t want to misinterpret what you posted.
Are you thinking that the expense of illegal immigration (housing, medical, education) is turned into a net financial positive due to the small subset that pays FICA?

As a FYI: Appears illegal immigrants pay an estimated $13B into FICA. Some of that is a pure benefit to SS while some is also paid to the name on SS that illegal immigrant utilized.
But those costs are dwarfed by annual cost of illegal immigration (estimates from $150B to $450B annually). Illegal immigrants (at least over last decade) skew strongly on the lower income side and receive significant government assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Florida Judge Name & address appear after Data breach of European Neo-Nazi customer database
Replies
0
Views
208
Polds4OSU
P
P
GOP Rep George Santos Arrested, charged with 13 crimes by DoJ
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
4K
Polds4OSU
P
RxCowboy
WSJ: TikTok Fight Rocks U.S.-China Relations
Replies
5
Views
539
GratefulPoke
GratefulPoke
Back
Top