Had enough yet

[Save Us]

Times change, and the government has an obligation to do what is in it's citizens best interests first, refugees, immigrants, etc. second

In the end money and resources ultimately determine how a government administrates it's affairs, since we are broke we should suspend all refugee and implement an immigration program that benefits our citizens.
We simply don't need any more immigrants that end up on public support. Like I said half of all babies in NY are born through medicaid. Which means that we are just propagating more poverty. It is insanity.

The people that come here are usually in the best stations in life to help their own countries. You really think thousands of refugees that won't fight for their country are really going to fight for ours?

The Gates foundation really needs get to the root of the problem... birth control.

[WNYresident]

We simply don't need any more immigrants that end up on public support. Like I said half of all babies in NY are born through medicaid. Which means that we are just propagating more poverty. It is insanity.

You seem to understand what is going on why don't the www.ecdems.com and their supporters see it?

[BorderBob]

Ref. the political atmosphere.
It seriously, in my belief, does not bode well for the future.

There were working theories about what would occur if Clinton had one the election, perhaps Electorally as Trump did, but flipped. What would have been the response of his followers. Now one must consider the possibility of Trump and many of his associates being frog marched from the White House. Money Laundering, not treason, but espionage. The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution, the case is building quickly.

What will his 36% of hard core support do?

To the immigration debate, a couple of things.

No one seems to speak to the other side of the debate, the attraction of American jobs and the employers too happy to hire illegals. We saw examples of it recently in the CoB. Folks more outraged at the closing of a few taco stands. Like those who state we should "build the wall" and secure the border before talking about immigration reform, we also need to secure our employment and lock out undocumented aliens from the lure of the American paycheck. Punishing aliens for working here is not enough. We must provide a closed means of certifying employment eligibility and then punish employers who willingly employ illegals.

Sanctuary Cities: Some local governments quite correctly have determined that the safety of ALL its residents is primary to their federal immigration status. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for how you do that. Certainly establishing a system where people are afraid to get help because they fear the local police serves neither the police or the community. And the law is pretty clear that detainers held by local police are not lawful instruments to detain aliens once the state case is completed. The courts have decided that one.

"Catch and release:" Is as old as the Border Patrol itself. We used to joke about it in the early 1980's. It was "Mutual of Omaha," catch them, tag them and set them free. But that is not an Obama construct.

Overstays: Non-immigrant visas are typically valid for 10 years. But a visa is only a "preclearance" approval to travel to the U.S. A visa only means you have applied and been processed foreign for the authorization to apply for admission to the USA. Airlines require valid visas to get on airplanes. Once you arrive and are inspected, you receive an I-94 form, which is your authorization to remain in the U.S. for a specified period. You can be refused admission to the USA. Your visa can be revoked at the border. But it will not be CBP which does that. State does that, sometimes after approval, sometimes based on actions at the border. Visitor I-94's are usually 6 months. Students are for "duration of status." As long as they remain bonafied students. Employed aliens, typically H1B's and the like are longer but defined and subject to reapproval.. Then you have the Visa waiver program (VWP), where citizens from certain countries will not require a visa pre-arrival. Those are typically tourist entries and are good for 89 days. Off continent visa waiver approvals require preapproval via ESTA, which is an online questionaire for which you complete certain biographical items. VWP applicants from Canada and I believe Mexico as well are not required to use ESTA, or at least weren't at the time I retired. Please not that as many, if not more "illegal" aliens held valid visas and I-94's but never left.

CBP Officers stopping people on domestic flights. It only occurred once but got a lot of social media attention. This is a personal opinion based on my training and experience, but I don't understand what authority those officers were operating under. On international flights, CBP officers have the full authority of the border search. Inbound and outbound. Even "pre-cleared" flights such as a Toronto to Buffalo movement is subject to reinspection in Buffalo under border search. But a domestic flight is "4th Amendement" territory. Seizure of a person (a stop) requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If they knew who they were looking for they would have been in a stronger position to look for THAT person. Demanding identification from every person as a condition to deplane is in no law, rule or regulation I have ever heard of. But I worked in a land border environment, perhaps, and this is speculation, there is a rule in the airline statutes which require identification, but that would seem to fall to airline personnel under their carrier contract (ticket) Just a guess.

Hope this answers a few questions.



b.b.

[mark blazejewski]

There were working theories about what would occur if Clinton had one the election, perhaps Electorally as Trump did, but flipped. What would have been the response of his followers. Now one must consider the possibility of Trump and many of his associates being frog marched from the White House. Money Laundering, not treason, but espionage. The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution, the case is building quickly.

What will his 36% of hard core support do?

To the immigration debate, a couple of things.

No one seems to speak to the other side of the debate, the attraction of American jobs and the employers too happy to hire illegals. We saw examples of it recently in the CoB. Folks more outraged at the closing of a few taco stands. Like those who state we should "build the wall" and secure the border before talking about immigration reform, we also need to secure our employment and lock out undocumented aliens from the lure of the American paycheck. Punishing aliens for working here is not enough. We must provide a closed means of certifying employment eligibility and then punish employers who willingly employ illegals.

Sanctuary Cities: Some local governments quite correctly have determined that the safety of ALL its residents is primary to their federal immigration status. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for how you do that. Certainly establishing a system where people are afraid to get help because they fear the local police serves neither the police or the community. And the law is pretty clear that detainers held by local police are not lawful instruments to detain aliens once the state case is completed. The courts have decided that one.

"Catch and release:" Is as old as the Border Patrol itself. We used to joke about it in the early 1980's. It was "Mutual of Omaha," catch them, tag them and set them free. But that is not an Obama construct.

Overstays: Non-immigrant visas are typically valid for 10 years. But a visa is only a "preclearance" approval to travel to the U.S. A visa only means you have applied and been processed foreign for the authorization to apply for admission to the USA. Airlines require valid visas to get on airplanes. Once you arrive and are inspected, you receive an I-94 form, which is your authorization to remain in the U.S. for a specified period. You can be refused admission to the USA. Your visa can be revoked at the border. But it will not be CBP which does that. State does that, sometimes after approval, sometimes based on actions at the border. Visitor I-94's are usually 6 months. Students are for "duration of status." As long as they remain bonafied students. Employed aliens, typically H1B's and the like are longer but defined and subject to reapproval.. Then you have the Visa waiver program (VWP), where citizens from certain countries will not require a visa pre-arrival. Those are typically tourist entries and are good for 89 days. Off continent visa waiver approvals require preapproval via ESTA, which is an online questionaire for which you complete certain biographical items. VWP applicants from Canada and I believe Mexico as well are not required to use ESTA, or at least weren't at the time I retired. Please not that as many, if not more "illegal" aliens held valid visas and I-94's but never left.

CBP Officers stopping people on domestic flights. It only occurred once but got a lot of social media attention. This is a personal opinion based on my training and experience, but I don't understand what authority those officers were operating under. On international flights, CBP officers have the full authority of the border search. Inbound and outbound. Even "pre-cleared" flights such as a Toronto to Buffalo movement is subject to reinspection in Buffalo under border search. But a domestic flight is "4th Amendement" territory. Seizure of a person (a stop) requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If they knew who they were looking for they would have been in a stronger position to look for THAT person. Demanding identification from every person as a condition to deplane is in no law, rule or regulation I have ever heard of. But I worked in a land border environment, perhaps, and this is speculation, there is a rule in the airline statutes which require identification, but that would seem to fall to airline personnel under their carrier contract (ticket) Just a guess.

Hope this answers a few questions.



b.b.

Thank you for the information and the insights regarding immigration Bob. I am very appreciative.

[HipKat]

I agree, and that's the best solution; amend the law to make more sense, to make it easier to uphold the law and to make the process more doable for those coming with good intentions of becoming Americans.

Thanks for all that Bob. It sounds WAY overly complicated and reeks of needing reform

[mark blazejewski]

I agree, and that's the best solution; amend the law to make more sense, to make it easier to uphold the law and to make the process more doable for those coming with good intentions of becoming Americans.

Thanks for all that Bob. It sounds WAY overly complicated and reeks of needing reform

Agreed HipKat.

[grump]

You seem to understand what is going on why don't the www.ecdems.com and their supporters see it?

Why don't the Erie Dems see it? See it? Hell, they're counting on it!! It keeps them in office. I've worked in a lot of places and for a lot of employers. I've never had a boss give me a raise just because I had another kid. Only the welfare system rewards with more money propagating like roaches. In fact, much of the public policy debate in America in the last 150 years can be defined in terms of the Democrats' attempts to regain control of the slave population that was taken from them after Abraham Lincoln and the Republcans freed the slaves in the Civil War.

[4248]

wow - Grump stated, "In fact, much of the public policy debate in America in the last 150 years can be defined in terms of the Democrats' attempts to regain control of the slave population that was taken from them after Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans freed the slaves in the Civil War"

Do you realized you stopped everyone in their tracks with that statement - Holly Sheetz

[mark blazejewski]

wow - Grump stated, "In fact, much of the public policy debate in America in the last 150 years can be defined in terms of the Democrats' attempts to regain control of the slave population that was taken from them after Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans freed the slaves in the Civil War"

Do you realized you stopped everyone in their tracks with that statement - Holly Sheetz

I agree with you 4248---WOW.

Grump is correct to this extent: Starting pretty much with William Jennings Brian, the Democrats, USUALLY, have pursued a populist course in an attempt to reach the so-called "common man." They also worked to make in-roads in the naturalized citizen population, working men, organized labor, women (starting in 1920), and other minority populations.

The Great Depression was a gift to the Democrats. The socialist-style relief programs and welfare did help those severely affected by the Depression, but the Democrats exploited, extended, and institutionalized what were to be rather temporary relief measures, and in so doing, created "dependent classes" of minorities and others who did not enjoy the full fruits of the American Dream.

But to say that the Democrats attempted to "regain control of the slave population" for the last 150 years is untrue, unfair, and to this conservative, offense, even given the current time of biter political divisions.

Up until the Great Depression, the Democrats did little to assuage the plight of blacks; they in fact seem to have gone out of their way to alienate the "former slave population."

The Democrats really did not seriously concern themselves with social injustices and civil rights until after World War Two. At that time, President Truman and then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey attempted to rid the Democrat party of the likes of the Dixiecrats, and made civil rights a key platform plank at Philadelphia in 1948.

President Truman followed through with certain civil rights reforms, including a new and lasting desegregation of the armed forces.

Up until that time, the likes of Woodrow Wilson, and yes, even President Franklin Roosevelt, his positive contributions to civil rights notwithstanding, always tried to thread the populist needle with a racist thread.

President Wilson re-segregated the armed forces.

President Roosevelt took a racist, John Nance Garner, as his running mate in 1932 and 1936, and appointed Hugo Black and James Byrnes to the Supreme Court.

No, the Democrats did nothing from 1865-1933 to endear themselves to the "former slave population." That is why many blacks, including MLK were Republicans, and that is why Grump's characterizations are wrong, and I am sure, UNINTENTIONALLY unfair, unjust, and offensive.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

No, the Democrats did nothing from 1865-1933 to endear themselves to the "former slave population." That is why many blacks, including MLK were Republicans, and that is why Grump's characterizations are wrong, and I am sure, UNINTENTIONALLY unfair, unjust, and offensive.

I don't think you understand what Grump is saying. regain control ≠ endear.

A solid argument can be made on the nature of control that is created by entitlement programs over the very people they are 'designed' to empower.

[mark blazejewski]

I don't think you understand what Grump is saying. regain control ≠ endear.

A solid argument can be made on the nature of control that is created by entitlement programs over the very people they are 'designed' to empower.

There is no question that the Democrats have created dependent classes; I said that in my comments.

I assumed, and acknowledged, that Grump was somewhat off message in his presentation when he commented "Regain control..." and linked those remarks to a "150 year" time period., which taken at face value, suggests control by harshly oppressive means such as the sin of slavery. The issue of Emancipation was settled on the battlefield, and all sides recognized that.

IMHO:

(1) What remained after 1865 was bitterness. As such, the national Democrat Party did little to encourage the blacks, or attract them into entering their "control orbit." Rather, they exploited that remaining bitterness residing within the white population, to nurture the electoral base which was the "Solid South."

(2) It was not until the Depression era that the Democrat Party recognized an opportunity to exploit the black voter, and with time, abandoned their near-exclusive obsession with a "Solid South" and the attendant racial bitterness, and chose instead to embrace what might be termed "compassionate economic control" by creating a dependent class.

I got all of that.

If that is what Grump was saying, I agree in large measure. But his comments, as presented, seemed potentially inflammatory, historically unsupported, and reduced the validity of his own argument, again IMHO.

[grump]

What the grump was saying is that the Ku Klux Klan was a creation of a Democratic electorate, one that Pres. Grant had to send the Secret Service into the South to break up. Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Klan member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court in spite of (because of ) his Klan membership. Further, Roosevelt, who denied entry into America to Jews who were obviously subject to Nazi persecution, discarded progressive Henry Wallace as his VP candidate in favor of Klan member, Harry Truman, a man not at all shy about employing the "N" word around the White House. The Community Reinvestment Act was a law designed by Democrats and enforced and interpreted in such a way that it only benefitted Blacks if it was applied in such a way as limited their ability to avail of it if they stayed in carefully defined neighborhoods subject to careful geographic definition by white suburban Democrats such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Andrew Cuomo and others. It it's almost impossible to find an urban school district that continues to function as an institution of learning as they continue to be controlled by white Democratically controlled suburban unions. Remember the words of abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, who, in relating the story of his white mistress trying to teach him the alphabet, cited the words of her husband, his master, "If you teach a ****** to read you'll never be able to keep him."

[grump]

And this doesn't even address the whole "urban renewal" program of the 50's and 60's that led to the wholesale destruction of inner city neighborhoods and the substitution with apartment cubicle style buildings where minority residents were subject to careful control and monitoring by white suburban Democratic "social workers". Nor does it address a public welfare system that requires the breakup of the family unit as condition of participation...another idea designed and implemented by white suburban Democratic "social workers". Democratically controlled labor union were in the forefront of opposition to equal opportunity legislation throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. But why go on. History speaks for itself.

[mark blazejewski]

And this doesn't even address the whole "urban renewal" program of the 50's and 60's that led to the wholesale destruction of inner city neighborhoods and the substitution with apartment cubicle style buildings where minority residents were subject to careful control and monitoring by white suburban Democratic "social workers". Nor does it address a public welfare system that requires the breakup of the family unit as condition of participation...another idea designed and implemented by white suburban Democratic "social workers".

I know that there were charges that President Truman was a member of the KKK, but I had thought that those charges were, in today's parlance, "fake news.'

President Truman was a "Freemason," and that has always given me some "concern." He was also a hack for the Pendergast machine, and seemed to have something of a relationship with James Byrnes, a real racist, but it is hard for me to believe that he was a member of the KKK.

The problem with the likes of Truman, Stevenson, and Kennedy is that their necessary relationships with the likes of the Byrnes, Barkleys, Sparkmans, and Fullbrights is that they get painted with the same brush.

I hated, and hate, that guilt by association crap when they did it to Nixon with Thrumond, Reagan with Helms, and NOW Trump with the Russians, David Duke... and on-and-on, so I can't remain quiet when the same thing is done to the other side.

If this Truman allegation is true, which I doubt, how the hell did he harmonize his KKK membership with his business relationship with Eddie Jacobson?

I've got some real problems with that one "Grump." But, I guess I could be wrong.

Anyone care to straighten me out with a RELIABLE source?

[grump]

From what I've read Truman acknowledged his membership in Klan. He claimed to drop out for the high minded reason that he developed great respect for the Irish Catholics he served with in the war. Actually, he dropped out because he was receiving support from the corrupt Pendergast machine (Pendergast was Catholic) and he didn't want to run the risk of losing the support.