6 Members have donated this month.
Ideally I need 5 donations a month.
Thank you for your support. ~Blue
Welcome to ANSWEROLOGY RELOADED, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community. ~Bluegenel
63 Online
4 Members and 59 Guests
Members online. If you're not logged in, you're a guest.
Visits Today: 9897
Visits Yesterday: 6908













































Get more answers Bump Button   Questions that need more answers
+1 vote
46 views

And most know it started when we stopped enforcing immigration laws once across.

My concern is public opinion wants kids to automatically be put with people that claim to have the child’s best interest at heart.  A lot of children have been found dead after the border on ranches, only to find out they’d abducted the child to use as an insurance policy to get across if they get caught. A lot of children are sold once across the border as a sex slave even by parents.  

So you can’t automatically trust someone that’s got a child with them claiming to be their parent is being honest, nor that parents always have the child’s best interest at heart.  In fact, when adults are putting kids at substantial risk for injury or death the presumption is that they don’t have the child’s best interest in mind and for good reason.  Do you want that to be changed?

The more lax immigration laws once across and paying amounts to sponsor kids illegally across correlated to more cases of issues at the border of illegal crossings. 

Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview during her campaign the only way to manage it was to deport even children, that you have to take the incentive away once they have crossed illegally. 

What are your thoughts to a solution to this problem? 


asked in Education by (306,600 points)

5 Answers

+1 vote

The use of modern technology for starters.

Building a wall sounds good but is a bit of a redundant idea.


Just Relax.

answered by (3,035,031 points)
0

They do use drones- so okay now using technology, they’ve detained people illegally crossing - so what next?  Under Obama if you had a child with you- after detainment you were released in America and could do whatever you wanted with the child with no documentation or even a scintilla of evidence to their true identity.  

That led to hopefully unintended consequences of more children illegally crossing the border, clogging the Justice system, and slowing the processing down.  Some children being abducted in Mexico and used to get across the border illegally, once across some children are immediately murdered, others sold to People for sex, some sold to people that wanted financial compensation of being a sponsor to an illegal immigrant child and for 80% of the children to never resurface alive again.

+4 votes

Start jailing the employers who hire illegals. There is no solution to decreasing a "supply" unless yo decrease the "demand" for it - that is basic, basic economics. If the illegal immigrants knew there were no jobs for them here, they wouldn't come.  

answered by (1,711,840 points)
0

I can see that helpful as a part of comprehension illegal immigration plan.  That may help with a minute percentage, but you can’t count on people running brauthels with enslaved illegal immigrants or drug cartels to self report.  Not to mention what about the employers that are illegal immigrants themselves?  Or employers that are intentionally circumventing the laws.  None of the above employers claim employees on theirs federal taxes.  

And further, in order to accomplish this the laws preventing employers from asking about immigration status would have to be undone. Would you be okay with that?  Undoing the laws of sanctuary cities that prevents employers from even asking about legal or illegal status- or do you think employers should risk prison for hiring Hispanic people because they could be illegal and aren’t allowed to ask?  Can you see any unintended consequences of that

+2
"None of the above employers claim employees on theirs federal taxes."
Illegal brothels, drug cartels and illegal employers aren't filing tax returns at all. 
Legitimate companies that employ illegals often DO claim them on their taxes - to get the deduction for their wages. And they file their payroll tax reports with social security numbers that are either stolen or bogus ("123-45-6789.") I've seen it all in my 30 years of doing taxes.
Employers who are intentionally circumventing the law get a slap on the wrist when they're eventually caught. Throw the book at them - put them in jail and make them pay fines that are so huge, they'll have no money left when they finally see daylight again. 
0

in order to accomplish this the laws preventing employers from asking about immigration status would have to be undone to be fair in my opinion. Would you be okay with that?  Undoing the laws of sanctuary cities that prevents employers from even asking about legal or illegal status- or do you think employers should risk prison for hiring Hispanic people because they are more likely to turn out to have entered the country illegally and aren’t allowed to ask?  Can you see any unintended consequences of that if sanctuary cities policies aren’t undone along with it?  Or do you think it’s fair for Americans to lose their freedom for doing something that’s illegal for them to even ask if they are doing?

+2

"in order to accomplish this the laws preventing employers from asking about immigration status would have to be undone to be fair in my opinion."

In order to hire someone, you have to have them fill out an I-9 form. ("Employment Eligibility Verification.") This form is to verify whether or not someone is *legally authorized to work in the US.*  This is a FEDERAL form that every employer must have new employees fill out, and it requires identification and proof that one is legal to get a job in the US. So obviously it is not against the law to ask if a potential worker is legal to work in the US, as is evidenced by the federal government's requirement to have employees fill out an I-9 form. 

+1

Oh just passingthru I wish you understood the real issues.  After the Wells Fargo case in California for employers, employers started counting people as independent contractors that did work like employees. That’s another topic- sanctuary city allow their own ordinances - in some individuals and business owners were jailed for asking immigration status.  It costs about $100 to get fake documents in America from birth certificates to passports to you name it.  In Texas it wasn’t until Trump that sanctuary cities were banned.  Austin had been fining and jailing people for asking.  Chalk it up to liberals and their love for immigrants?  Not so fast, a lot of businesses have always loved slave labor - it’s something that advocacy groups for immigrants and businesses agree upon- they don’t want them deported and given fake documents are an entire industry - everyone was happy.  It wasn’t until Trump was even Texas empowered to speak up against this by banning sanctuary cities- that claimed progressively love by instilling even in their most liberal constituents a belief slave labor was a good thing- that it’s better than the countries they come from and jailing people that ask about status- there’s a still a huge loophole and Texas knows it- employers still aren’t required to verify the only thing it now allows is police to ask for fake papers.  Why is Texas putting up a front and even conservatives coming out to speak against immigration enforcement?  Because they profit from it. But if you’d watch cnn or rely on headlines- you’re going to think Texas has a strong stance against immigration now, you’re going to think Trump is cruel - nobody likes to see good parents taken away from their kids to be detained, but when you require due process for illegal immigrants, it’s illegal to detain children with parents, and you follow the law and try to enforce the law the way it is - it’s not going to be pretty and a lot of people are going to be unhappy for various reasons.  If you really want what you claim and if you think that’s reasonable- Trump is your biggest aly on the matter because he’s clearing a path to make that possible.


+2

"Oh just passingthru I wish you understood the real issues."

Yes, please explain them to me, I'm so uninformed and I need a conservative to tell me what's what. 

"But if you’d watch cnn or rely on headlines-......"

Since I don't do either of those things, that's a moot sentence.

"If you really want what you claim and if you think that’s reasonable- Trump is your biggest aly on the matter because he’s clearing a path to make that possible."

Trump is Trump's ally. He would do literally anything that he thought would make him money and stroke his ego. His brilliant plan is building "a big beautiful wall" and having Mexico pay for it. Yeah...that'll happen. 

+2 votes

I don't share your pessimistic view of the world that is filled with rapists, drug, dealers and sex slaves.  But that is besides the point of the question.  What would I do about the current problem.

Given that you don't want to let anyone in, you simply have busses at the border.  You catch someone on your side of the border, you load them on a buzz and send them back.  No need for separation.  No need for processing since they cannot get approved anyway.  Just have a few trailers for holding until you get a busfull then off they go.

answered by (1,072,010 points)
0

So would you be willing to undo Democrat judges ruling that such would be unconstitutional?  That they must be processed detained (due process extends to non Americans) and the case law that any minors are not allowed to be detained with the parents?

+1

"So would you be willing to undo Democrat judges ruling that such would be unconstitutional? "

You can't "undo" a judge's ruling unless you appeal and another court reverses the decision, in which case it can be appealed again and on it goes, "up the ladder" until the SC finally takes the case and decides it once and for all. 

And please provide some evidence that "Democrat judges" are the ones who've ruled that  not giving them due process would be unconstitutional. 

+1

"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that immigration authorities must abide by a 1997 legal settlement that established a policy for the detention, release and treatment of minors in immigration custody."

Sounds to me like the 9th Circuit was just upholding a previous ruling.

0

What do you call that?  Is there a word for when a court makes a decision?  And who was the lower court? And who presides?  It’s almost like all of these questions are answered in a statement judges decided, made a ruling, any other ways you could think of to express the same statement? Can everyone accurately predict the 9th circuit court of appeals?  How did they do that- are they psychic?  I guess that could be it, or in every case they side with liberals earning the reputation of liberal judges.

+1 vote

I don't agree with ripping a child away from their parent.  You make sure the family has a caretaker that can care for the child while parent is away, or you just don't do it.  You can watch the person for months and make sure they are doing things right.

Courts do it all the time.

Yes the parents make mistakes, but the child shouldn't be paying for it


Time is simply how we live our lives-Craig Sager

answered by (1,286,180 points)
0 votes

Look at improvements on the old barrier between the Eastern Europe and Western Europe or Mexico's Border wall with Guatemala. Then beef it up with Landmines and Shoot to Kill standing orders - for everyone



“Better a true enemy than a false friend.”

answered by (2,645,900 points)
[ contact us ]
[ richardhulstonuk@gmail.com ]

[ F.A.Q.s ]

[ Terms and Conditions ]

[ Website Guidelines ]

[ Privacy Policy ]

[ cookies policy ]

[ online since 5th October 2015 ]

...