AOC Steps in it Again!

[idhawkman]

Wow, this woman actually went to college too. Now she's claiming that border patrol officers are forcing detainees to drink out of the toilet - which you may consider as true but take a look at what they are actually drinking out of here:

toilet.jpg (124.21 KiB) Viewed 4687 times

https://www.businessinsider.com/photo-hybrid-toilet-drinking-fountain-cbp-centers-2019-7

This woman's mouth over runs her ass so much that you are not sure which end she's talking out of at any given moment.

Maybe now she knows why the border patrol has been asking for more funding to build more facilities which she voted against TWICE just because she didn't want to give Trump a win. Then she chastised Pelosi for giving in. What an idiot this woman is.

[Aseahawkfan]

The left is pushing the concentration camp and human tragedy angle hard while not funding improvements and help. Typical of the hypocritical Democrats to make extreme stands while not bothering to consider the real effects of their hypocrisy and idiocy. They don't want immigrants mistreated, but they won't fund improvements for the border services. Instead they vilify the agencies that do this work for us and then try to push no borders and amnesty while leaving the immigrants in a bad way because they won't fund the help. It's just like they did with the Iraq War when the Democrats voted for the war then due to the uproar voted not to fund it leaving the soldiers going to war in funding limbo. It's why it will take a real extraordinary Democrat not towing the party line to get my vote any time soon.

[RiverDog]

Hopefully you're not suggesting that it's OK to have people drinking out of toilets or water from a toilet even if it was fresh, clean water. If what AOC is true, then that would be a big problem.

Otherwise, I agree with you. The Dems weren't on a fact finding or humanitarian mission, they were looking to dramatize their political position. Certainly the Dems have to share at least some of the blame for conditions down there because they were playing politics with votes that could have helped mitigate it at least to some degree.

[Aseahawkfan]

Hopefully you're not suggesting that it's OK to have people drinking out of toilets or water from a toilet even if it was fresh, clean water. If what AOC is true, then that would be a big problem.

Otherwise, I agree with you. The Dems weren't on a fact finding or humanitarian mission, they were looking to dramatize their political position. Certainly the Dems have to share at least some of the blame for conditions down there because they were playing politics with votes that could have helped mitigate it at least to some degree.

What do you expect when Ocasio-Cortez and quite a few other Dems want to abolish I.C.E. because it does what it's supposed to do protecting the borders. Ocasio-Cortez and her flunkies want policies to completely undermine borders and turn us into a charity state for all the people of color we've wronged as a nation. LIke the entire world hasn't been screwing each other for ages and America and Europe ended up on top when everyone decided to make a change as though America wasn't instrumental in that change worldwide.

[idhawkman]

Hopefully you're not suggesting that it's OK to have people drinking out of toilets or water from a toilet even if it was fresh, clean water. If what AOC is true, then that would be a big problem.

Otherwise, I agree with you. The Dems weren't on a fact finding or humanitarian mission, they were looking to dramatize their political position. Certainly the Dems have to share at least some of the blame for conditions down there because they were playing politics with votes that could have helped mitigate it at least to some degree.

No, I wouldn't want them drinking from the bowl because there's so much disease coming from down south that it would just be spread and then brought into the interior of the US. What I understand is that the immigrants don't know how to use the sink faucets and/or they are broken due to lack of funding and staffing to keep them working under the strain of so many illegals clogging up the facilities. Yet, she didn't want to fund the repairs, people to teach how to use or whatever. There's not enough staff to change diapers, run kids to hospitals, make sure everyone knows how stuff works, repair stuff that don't work, and do their normal jobs too. The dems just think it is a manufactured crisis but the manager/leaders of those agencies have been telling congress for months on end that they needed more resources and the dems just thought they were trying to get Trump a win. At some point, they have to give him credit for calling it a crisis and a national emergency.

[idhawkman]

There was a group of pastors that visited the very same facilities that AOC visited. The pastors were there just 3 days prior to AOC going and they are telling a whole different story about the conditions. Now you have CBP saying they have video of how AOC acted and they are reviewing it to make sure they can release it. This is shaping up to be real bad for the Dems and AOC in particular.

[RiverDog]

Hopefully you're not suggesting that it's OK to have people drinking out of toilets or water from a toilet even if it was fresh, clean water. If what AOC is true, then that would be a big problem.

Otherwise, I agree with you. The Dems weren't on a fact finding or humanitarian mission, they were looking to dramatize their political position. Certainly the Dems have to share at least some of the blame for conditions down there because they were playing politics with votes that could have helped mitigate it at least to some degree.

No, I wouldn't want them drinking from the bowl because there's so much disease coming from down south that it would just be spread and then brought into the interior of the US. What I understand is that the immigrants don't know how to use the sink faucets and/or they are broken due to lack of funding and staffing to keep them working under the strain of so many illegals clogging up the facilities.

So your only concern is that disease could spread into the US? My God, man, tell me that's not true!

FYI It's against federal regulations to consume any food or beverages in a public restroom, and that includes water. We had to take out a combination water faucet/eyewash faucet in our men's room because of this regulation. This particular one is from OSHA but I can assure you that similar regs exist with the FDA, state, and other regulatory agencies:

Eating and drinking areas. No employee shall be allowed to consume food or beverages in a toilet room nor in any area exposed to a toxic material.

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulati ... 0/1910.141

So even if all they did was use a cup to get a drink out of the faucet, it is against the government's own regulations to do so. It's only common sense not to consume anything in such close proximity to a toilet.

My concern would be if border control agents are giving instructions to detainees to access their drinking water from restrooms. Bottled water is cheap as hell. I bought a case of 36-16.9 oz bottles at Costco for less than $2.00. There's no excuse why we can't at least be providing them with sanitary drinking water. Hopefully those reports are false.

However, I don't trust AOC or the other Dems at all to give an accurate representation of what the conditions are.

[burrrton]

However, I don't trust AOC or the other Dems at all to give an accurate representation of what the conditions are.

Yeah, this absolutely reeks of 'too good to verify' on the part of the press. I've read that sink/toilet combo is standard equipment for detention facilities (despite your OSHA concerns, RD).

Countdown to finding out nobody is instructed to drink from a toilet in 3... 2... 1...

[idhawkman]

So your only concern is that disease could spread into the US? My God, man, tell me that's not true!

FYI It's against federal regulations to consume any food or beverages in a public restroom, and that includes water. We had to take out a combination water faucet/eyewash faucet in our men's room because of this regulation. This particular one is from OSHA but I can assure you that similar regs exist with the FDA, state, and other regulatory agencies:

Eating and drinking areas. No employee shall be allowed to consume food or beverages in a toilet room nor in any area exposed to a toxic material.

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulati ... 0/1910.141

See, this is where you go so far wrong Riv. Did I say it was my only concern or did you say that? Additionally, this is not an employee area and yes, many of our jails around the country have the same exact thing installed in the jail cells. These are not employees and therefore not covered by OSHA or the reg you posted. Jeez!

So even if all they did was use a cup to get a drink out of the faucet, it is against the government's own regulations to do so. It's only common sense not to consume anything in such close proximity to a toilet.

Wrong again. It is not against the govt's own regulation. See above.

My concern would be if border control agents are giving instructions to detainees to access their drinking water from restrooms. Bottled water is cheap as hell. I bought a case of 36-16.9 oz bottles at Costco for less than $2.00. There's no excuse why we can't at least be providing them with sanitary drinking water. Hopefully those reports are false.

Three for three, wrong again. Do you remember the part where the CBP has been begging for money to feed, shelter, clothe and treat these people? Where are they going to come up with even the small amount of money you say (times 144,000 immigrants) each month? The CBP agents that AOC trashed have brought in their own kids toys and movies so that these illegal immigrants have something to play with and watch. But remember, the Dems and maybe even you too think it is a manufactured crisis.

However, I don't trust AOC or the other Dems at all to give an accurate representation of what the conditions are.

Especially since you have a group of pastors that saw the same things 3 days before AOC and her band of cranks saw something totally different. Remember, AOC led the Wayfair walkout protests because she didn't want them sending beds to the border. What the hell is going on in her brain?

[RiverDog]

See, this is where you go so far wrong Riv. Did I say it was my only concern or did you say that? Additionally, this is not an employee area and yes, many of our jails around the country have the same exact thing installed in the jail cells. These are not employees and therefore not covered by OSHA or the reg you posted. Jeez!

The first and only concern you mentioned was the spread of disease to the interior of the US. I will take you at your word that you didn't mean that to be your only concern, but the fact is that the first thing to come to your mind was not the immediate health of law abiding individuals we are detaining at the border. They shouldn't be treated as prisoners, they should be treated as our temporary guests. The vast majority of those people are attempting to enter legally.

I can assure you that there are regs in other regulatory agencies that prohibit consuming food and beverages in restrooms. OSHA is taking their que from the FDA and CDC. If it's bad for workers, why wouldn't it be bad for the general public?

The point is that drinking water is so damn cheap that we should not have to be telling anyone to go into the bathroom to get a drink of water.

[Aseahawkfan]

The first and only concern you mentioned was the spread of disease to the interior of the US. I will take you at your word that you didn't mean that to be your only concern, but the fact is that the first thing to come to your mind was not the immediate health of law abiding individuals we are detaining at the border. They shouldn't be treated as prisoners, they should be treated as our temporary guests. The vast majority of those people are attempting to enter legally.

I can assure you that there are regs in other regulatory agencies that prohibit consuming food and beverages in restrooms. OSHA is taking their que from the FDA and CDC. If it's bad for workers, why wouldn't it be bad for the general public?

The point is that drinking water is so damn cheap that we should not have to be telling anyone to go into the bathroom to get a drink of water.

If these people are our guests then the next time someone breaks into your house or camps on your property without your permission, you treat them like guests until you figure out if they deserve to be there or not. If that's you're thinking. I"d prefer that folks like yourself take these folks in until their immigration status is determined. It would likely be better than the border facilities they're staying at and you seem to want to use our taxpayer dollars to encourage border jumping by treating border rushers as guests.

As far as I know there is a visa process they can follow, usually at the immigration offices of their nation. That is the legal means to enter a nation. These folks are border rushing folks attempting to get in using the asylum laws if they can't make it past the border agents, which the vast majority won't qualify for. We have a visa process in place to allow for legal immigration that they are not using, usually done at the embassy or immigration offices of a nation.

If the water is in the bathroom, then you tell them to go there to get a drink. It's not like they can build a full apartment for each person or group with a kitchen and a bathroom. They have installed a utilitarian device that combines a sink and toilet in one which provides them a means to go to the bathroom and obtain water.

[RiverDog]

If these people are our guests then the next time someone breaks into your house or camps on your property without your permission, you treat them like guests until you figure out if they deserve to be there or not. If that's you're thinking. I"d prefer that folks like yourself take these folks in until their immigration status is determined. It would likely be better than the border facilities they're staying at and you seem to want to use our taxpayer dollars to encourage border jumping by treating border rushers as guests.

As far as I know there is a visa process they can follow, usually at the immigration offices of their nation. That is the legal means to enter a nation. These folks are border rushing folks attempting to get in using the asylum laws if they can't make it past the border agents, which the vast majority won't qualify for. We have a visa process in place to allow for legal immigration that they are not using, usually done at the embassy or immigration offices of a nation.

They didn't "break into" anything, nor did they camp on private property or "rushing" any gates. They are trying to enter the country legally. Even if they did not follow their own country's process, that's not a crime, it's simply a justification for rejecting their request for a visa.

I

f the water is in the bathroom, then you tell them to go there to get a drink. It's not like they can build a full apartment for each person or group with a kitchen and a bathroom. They have installed a utilitarian device that combines a sink and toilet in one which provides them a means to go to the bathroom and obtain water.

I didn't see any fountain in the bathroom, just a vanity for hand washing. I can't believe that they can't supplement drinking fountains with bottled water or portable 5 gallon jugs and paper cups if they are that overwhelmed.

I am not advocating that they allow ANY of these people entry into the country. It should be done in an orderly manner based on each individual's merit.

I haven't dug into this issue, but I don't understand why they have to be detained, why they can't just be given a time/date they can show up for an interview and turned away. But if we have to detain them, then we need to treat them humanely. They are not criminals.

[burrrton]

I haven't dug into this issue, but I don't understand why they have to be detained, why they can't just be given a time/date they can show up for an interview and turned away.

Do you know what percentage show back up? I can't remember exactly, but it's small.

Also, there's the small matter of their not being allowed in the country without going through a legal process. You're not doing anyone a favor saying "Ok, go dodge authorities for 6 mos and we'll see you back here then for your 1 in 10 shot at asylum!"

Also also, AFAIK asylum seekers are free to head home anytime. Nobody is forcing them to stay there.

[RiverDog]

I haven't dug into this issue, but I don't understand why they have to be detained, why they can't just be given a time/date they can show up for an interview and turned away.

Do you know what percentage show back up? I can't remember exactly, but it's small.

Also, there's the small matter of their not being allowed in the country without going through a legal process. You're not doing anyone a favor saying "Ok, go dodge authorities for 6 mos and we'll see you back here then for your 1 in 10 shot at asylum!"

I'm not saying let them through to the American side, which I think is what was happening under Obama and are the conditions of which you are referring the percentages. I'm asking why can't we give them a general appointment (show up on Friday or a week from Tuesday) then turn them back south? Do we have to let them in to be processed?

Also also, AFAIK asylum seekers are free to head home anytime. Nobody is forcing them to stay there.

Honest question: What happens if they leave? Can they attempt at a later date to re-enter or if they leave, do they have to get at the back of the line? If your choices are wait and maybe you'll get lucky and be admitted or turn around and walk 2,000 miles and go back home, what would you do?

Like I said, I haven't dug into this specific issue to see what those people's options are, if they should have gone through their home countries' state dept to get a visa approved as ASF claims, or if that's even an option for them. But the point is that once we take them into our facilities, we have an obligation to provide them with basic human needs, like sanitary facilities, drinking water, basic food (MRE's). Otherwise, we should be closing the doors and not even let them into our facilities.

I'm not blaming Trump, at least not exclusively. Heck, even the Democrats aren't all to blame. This is unprecedented, and I don't know if there was any way to anticipate or prepare for this. But obviously, those people are desperate, and no doubt think that their lives and their children's lives depend on getting admitted to the United States.

[idhawkman]

They didn't "break into" anything, nor did they camp on private property or "rushing" any gates. They are trying to enter the country legally. Even if they did not follow their own country's process, that's not a crime, it's simply a justification for rejecting their request for a visa.

That's just BS and you should know that. They are entering illegally. They are not refugees and they are not asylum seekers. If they were either, their legal recourse is to stop in the first country that provides them relief from the "Persecution" that they claim they are suffering from. That would be Mexico. So yes, they are illegal.

I didn't see any fountain in the bathroom, just a vanity for hand washing. I can't believe that they can't supplement drinking fountains with bottled water or portable 5 gallon jugs and paper cups if they are that overwhelmed.

I don't understand why you are not understanding that they have NO BUDGET. Their money is already long gone and they can't find two cents to rub together to create a spark even if they had them. They have been begging Congress for money to handle this. As in Asea's example, lets say it is 500 people who invade your house all at one time and another 500 are only 4 days behind those, etc, etc, How long before you're broke feeding clothing, caring for and treating them to bottled water? Don't forget you have to import porta pottys for them to go to the bathroom too. Not only do you have to do all of that but then you also have to ask each and everyone of them what their name is, where they lived, who their relatives are, etc., etc. Hopefully now you see the problem.

I am not advocating that they allow ANY of these people entry into the country. It should be done in an orderly manner based on each individual's merit.

Well Trump tried that in his zero tolerance policy - vetting everyone but lo and behold, you can't do that because you only have 20 days to process 90,000+ poeple in. Don't forget, your effective force is down to only 10% doing their actual jobs becuase the other 90% are changing diapers, escorting people to the hospital, building tents or a whole magnitude of other non CBP duties.

I haven't dug into this issue, but I don't understand why they have to be detained, why they can't just be given a time/date they can show up for an interview and turned away. But if we have to detain them, then we need to treat them humanely. They are not criminals.

Everyone gets a DNA test now (swab of the mouth) if they are claiming children and family unit. Also, you have to try and run the person's fingerprints through interpol to see if they are terrorists or other wanted criminals. Then you have to know where they are going and arrange for transportation to get them there in addition to getting their address so you know where to send them notifications of their pending court dates, etc., etc. Then you have to vet the people they claim to be going to live with and make sure they actually exist. Again, as in Asea's example, you wouldn't want to just had people walking through your front door a date and time to show up to move out would you?

[idhawkman]

I'm not saying let them through to the American side, which I think is what was happening under Obama and are the conditions of which you are referring the percentages. I'm asking why can't we give them a general appointment (show up on Friday or a week from Tuesday) then turn them back south? Do we have to let them in to be processed?

Oh, I see where you are getting confused. "IF" they say they are escaping persecution from their country, we can not turn them away. A judge in the 9th circuit ruled that this exact thing that Trump installed is illegal and put an injunction on doing this. We MUST Accept them into the camp and we can only hold them for a maximum of 20 days (per another judges' ruling in the 9th circuit). We can ONLY turn back single adult males from Mexico. I know you are probably saying BS right now but I swear that is totally true. Who could imagine this crap?

Honest question: What happens if they leave? Can they attempt at a later date to re-enter or if they leave, do they have to get at the back of the line? If your choices are wait and maybe you'll get lucky and be admitted or turn around and walk 2,000 miles and go back home, what would you do?

good question. At minimum they will have missed their court date and taken a slot that someone else could have used. I believe the stat that Asea was looking for earlier is that the number of people who show up for their court date is between 10-14% (86-90% don't show up is the way I heard the stat). I believe that if they miss their court date they are immediately denied asylum and a warrant for their arrest is put out to ICE. (these are the people that Trump said ICE would be rounding up a couple weeks ago e.g. those who missed their asylum court dates). I don't know the rules for those that have left though and want to re-claim asylum later. I would imagine they would be denied but hey, with all the other crazy crap going on down there, I could definitely be wrong.

Like I said, I haven't dug into this specific issue to see what those people's options are, if they should have gone through their home countries' state dept to get a visa approved as ASF claims, or if that's even an option for them. But the point is that once we take them into our facilities, we have an obligation to provide them with basic human needs, like sanitary facilities, drinking water, basic food (MRE's). Otherwise, we should be closing the doors and not even let them into our facilities.

Trump has threatened that too but the only way to do it is to shut the border down completely which would put a strain on Mexico's and our economy. Once these folks set one foot on US soil, we are obligated to take them to process.

I'm not blaming Trump, at least not exclusively. Heck, even the Democrats aren't all to blame. This is unprecedented, and I don't know if there was any way to anticipate or prepare for this. But obviously, those people are desperate, and no doubt think that their lives and their children's lives depend on getting admitted to the United States.

There's been many reporters down to the border and most of them tell the reporters that they are not fleeing their country but that the US economy is so good and the coyotes are advertising on their radio that they can get into the US and have free healthcare, food, housing, etc. So why wouldn't they come? If you really think these folks are fleeing their countries, then there's a story I really want to hear about how there are so many of them on playing games and talking on their smart phones 4 months after fleeing. Seriously, when you look at the folks in these holding centers, why are there so many over weight people with Ambercrombie shirts on and holding smart phones. I'm not kidding either, I've actually witnessed these things during the border interviews by the reporters.

[burrrton]

I'm asking why can't we give them a general appointment (show up on Friday or a week from Tuesday) then turn them back south? Do we have to let them in to be processed?

Oh, I see. Not sure without considering the implications more deeply, but maybe that's a decent suggestion.

If your choices are wait and maybe you'll get lucky and be admitted or turn around and walk 2,000 miles and go back home, what would you do?

If the conditions were acceptable, I'd wait. I bet that's their calculus, too.

But the point is that once we take them into our facilities, we have an obligation to provide them with basic human needs, like sanitary facilities, drinking water, basic food (MRE's).

I think we're doing that, at least to the best of our ability considering the numbers we're being flooded with. Nobody is dying or getting sick in our custody that didn't arrive on the brink of death.

I've made it clear I'm a big time immigration dove, but EH OH SEE's cute little photo-op was BS.

[RiverDog]

But the point is that once we take them into our facilities, we have an obligation to provide them with basic human needs, like sanitary facilities, drinking water, basic food (MRE's).

I think we're doing that, at least to the best of our ability considering the numbers we're being flooded with. Nobody is dying or getting sick in our custody that didn't arrive on the brink of death.

Certainly the agents on the scene are doing the best they can with what they got. But the government has huge resources via agencies like DOD and FEMA that are prepared to react to situations anywhere in the country if not the world. Those facilities are on our soil, and if a humanitarian crisis, natural catastrophe, etc, happened anywhere else in the country, we wouldn't have been so slow to react. And although it's not known what condition they were in when they arrived, people, including children, have died while in our charge. We don't want to wait for that to happen again.

I've made it clear I'm a big time immigration dove, but EH OH SEE's cute little photo-op was BS.

Yes, you have a much more reasonable POV regarding immigration than does Idahawkman and ASF, and I agree 100% with you about AOC. After hearing her celebrate Amazon's pulling out of Long Island, I don't trust what she says anymore than I do DEE JAY TEE.

And BTW, the pronunciation of the "A" in "AOC" is more accurately indicated by writing "AYE" or "AI". Someone says "EH" and I think of an old man cupping his hand around his ear asking that you speak up. I think that use might have confused one of our friends.

[burrrton]

And although it's not known what condition they were in when they arrived, people, including children, have died while in our charge.

Yes, we did know the condition- they were on the verge of death from dehydration and such- but demagoguing politicians didn't tell you that because it was more important to try to turn the country against the agents (it was later reported by the authorities defending themselves).

And BTW, the pronunciation of the "A" in "AOC" is more accurately indicated by writing "AYE" or "AI". Someone says "EH" and I think of an old man cupping his hand around his ear asking that you speak up.

?? How do you pronounce "aye"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=aye+definition

The possible confusion is noted, but I think "eh" is the best for those who sound it out.

[RiverDog]

Yes, we did know the condition- they were on the verge of death from dehydration and such- but demagoguing politicians didn't tell you that because it was more important to try to turn the country against the agents (it was later reported by the authorities defending themselves).

Perhaps. Nevertheless, with the overcrowded situation at border facilities, we're just asking for trouble if we keep people in such cramped conditions. I remember the concern at the Super Dome in the aftermath of Katrina due to the overwhelmed facilities and so many people being crowed into a place that was well over designed capacity. This seems worse.

And BTW, the pronunciation of the "A" in "AOC" is more accurately indicated by writing "AYE" or "AI". Someone says "EH" and I think of an old man cupping his hand around his ear asking that you speak up.

?? How do you pronounce "aye"?

Ask our Canadian friends I-5 and North Hawk .

[burrrton]

Ask our Canadian friends I-5 and North Hawk .

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+do+canadians+say+eh

[c_hawkbob]

Aye is pronounced "I", it's an acknowledgement in the affirmative. Ask a Sailor not a Canadian.

Eh is pronounced "A", it's a query usually said seeking corroboration. Ask any fan of Bob and Doug McKenzie. Or a Canadian.

[Aseahawkfan]

They didn't "break into" anything, nor did they camp on private property or "rushing" any gates. They are trying to enter the country legally. Even if they did not follow their own country's process, that's not a crime, it's simply a justification for rejecting their request for a visa.

They crossed the border illegally. The border is there for a reason. No nation allows you to cross into their nation without following the process, much less forcing a nation into the imposition of having to house and process a massive number of people trying to enter your nation illegally that you caught. We caught them RD. Or are you saying they showed up to a legal border station and asked for asylum? Asking for asylum after their caught is like me asking to use your bathroom after I break into your house.

I didn't see any fountain in the bathroom, just a vanity for hand washing. I can't believe that they can't supplement drinking fountains with bottled water or portable 5 gallon jugs and paper cups if they are that overwhelmed.

I am not advocating that they allow ANY of these people entry into the country. It should be done in an orderly manner based on each individual's merit.

I haven't dug into this issue, but I don't understand why they have to be detained, why they can't just be given a time/date they can show up for an interview and turned away. But if we have to detain them, then we need to treat them humanely. They are not criminals.

It is a criminal act to enter a nation without following the process for entry. If I show up to Germany without properly entering the nation, they will jail me like a criminal. If i show up to Mexico without following the proper procedure, they will jail me as a criminal. The list of nations where crossing their border without following the proper legal method is a crime is numerous. So yes, they are criminals.

But don't worry. I get what you're trying to say as in they aren't a bunch of violent criminals looking to rape, rob, and murder people like the Trump speeches claim he uses to rouse his base. Like I've argued with you multiple times, Trump don't even believe what comes out of his mouth. He just knows the anti-immigration base that votes for him will keep voting for them if stokes their fears and says he will fix them. Sames as the Dems play the pity party and racism game on so many issues.

It's funny. You've become an immigration liberal and I've become a socialized medicine liberal. I guess in some ways you do liberalize with age. Then again I'm not an immigration conservative or anti-immigration. I'm just anti-illegal, rush the border immigration. We should be able to control who comes to our nation using a variety of factors. We already take in way more folks than any nation in the world. I'm fine with immigrants coming to the nation. I enjoy having people from everywhere bringing their food and families to show that freedom is for everyone and it works regardless of how many different people you put in one place as long as you have rule of law and a culture that supports liberty first. But man,we have a process. This idea of sneak in here, hang for a while, and get amnesty is just a rotten idea by the Democrats. This level of illegal immigration isn't healthy for a nation.

[RiverDog]

It is a criminal act to enter a nation without following the process for entry. If I show up to Germany without properly entering the nation, they will jail me like a criminal. If i show up to Mexico without following the proper procedure, they will jail me as a criminal. The list of nations where crossing their border without following the proper legal method is a crime is numerous. So yes, they are criminals.

It is NOT against the law to request admittance to another country at a port of entry, and I challenge you to show me a law that supports your claim. Just the face of what you are saying is absurd. A good analogy is if I try to enter a 21+ establishment w/o proper documentation of my age and the bouncer at the front door challenges me, that he can call the cops and they'll throw me in jail.

Showing up at a port of entry w/o a visa is a reason to have entry delayed or denied, but it is not against any country's law to ask permission.

...Trump don't even believe what comes out of his mouth. He just knows the anti-immigration base that votes for him will keep voting for them if stokes their fears and says he will fix them. Sames as the Dems play the pity party and racism game on so many issues.

I agree with that. Trump knows where he would be w/o the immigration issue to motivate his base. Also agree with your take on the Dem's position, which IMO is no more reasonable than Trump's. They've intentionally over dramatized the subject as their most recent trip to the border demonstrates.

It's funny. You've become an immigration liberal and I've become a socialized medicine liberal. I guess in some ways you do liberalize with age. Then again I'm not an immigration conservative or anti-immigration. I'm just anti-illegal, rush the border immigration. We should be able to control who comes to our nation using a variety of factors. We already take in way more folks than any nation in the world. I'm fine with immigrants coming to the nation. I enjoy having people from everywhere bringing their food and families to show that freedom is for everyone and it works regardless of how many different people you put in one place as long as you have rule of law and a culture that supports liberty first. But man,we have a process. This idea of sneak in here, hang for a while, and get amnesty is just a rotten idea by the Democrats. This level of illegal immigration isn't healthy for a nation.

I haven't "become" an immigration liberal, and I don't agree with the term "liberal" as a characterization of my POV. The liberals want to de-criminalize illegal entry, abolish ICE, approve of chain or family migrations, etc. I don't agree with any of those proposals. Rather I would consider myself a little more to the center on the issue. And I agree with you regarding there being a process, IMO a rigorous one with a thorough vetting process. That was one of the lessons of 9/11.

Additionally, my passion about the subject is not something I've recently acquired. I grew up with minorities, went to school with them, played baseball and football with them, married one of them, have a sister-in-law from Ethiopia. For over 40 years, I've worked in an environment where I was in the minority in that I was a native born American. Immigrants do not pose a threat to me like they do to others. Indeed, many would seek me out in situations where they needed an advocate to represent their interests. It doesn't bother me to hear people speaking in another language. I believe in an immigration policy that flexes with our economy, and right now, the economy is good and we need workers, particularly those in the 18-35 age group. If we're in a recession and unemployment rises, I have no problem with closing the door to immigration.

But I appreciate what you're saying. My self description is that I am a fiscal conservative (socialized medicine and Trump's wall are good examples) and a social moderate (immigration, abortion).

[idhawkman]

Certainly the agents on the scene are doing the best they can with what they got. But the government has huge resources via agencies like DOD and FEMA that are prepared to react to situations anywhere in the country if not the world. Those facilities are on our soil, and if a humanitarian crisis, natural catastrophe, etc, happened anywhere else in the country, we wouldn't have been so slow to react. And although it's not known what condition they were in when they arrived, people, including children, have died while in our charge. We don't want to wait for that to happen again.

Just as an aside, the spending bills that they've been trying to get passed also included funding for FEMA and emergencies. Maybe that is why they aren't helping much, too. Congress neglected to fund them to try and put pressure on Trump. The Dems manufactured all of this and then defunded it and now are trying to blame Trump and his agencies. It's simply ridiculous.

Yes, you have a much more reasonable POV regarding immigration than does Idahawkman and ASF, and I agree 100% with you about AOC. After hearing her celebrate Amazon's pulling out of Long Island, I don't trust what she says anymore than I do DEE JAY TEE.

And BTW, the pronunciation of the "A" in "AOC" is more accurately indicated by writing "AYE" or "AI". Someone says "EH" and I think of an old man cupping his hand around his ear asking that you speak up. I think that use might have confused one of our friends.

Now that is funny...

[burrrton]

Turns out EH OH SEE was completely full of sh*t (surprise!), and is a complete rag to boot:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -witnesses

They ought to prosecute that b*tch for libel.

[RiverDog]

Turns out EH OH SEE was completely full of sh*t (surprise!), and is a complete rag to boot:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -witnesses

They ought to prosecute that b*tch for libel.

If the video...which I assume they have video cameras up the ying yang in those facilities...corroborates the story, then she absolutely should be prosecuted, but she won't.

If they were going to send Congressmen/women to the border on a fact finding mission, it should have been bipartisan. Otherwise, it smells bad.

[c_hawkbob]

Problem is the WE is as biased to the right as she is to the left. I click on the story and get a bunch of pop up ads and a completely unrelated video (or three) ... but the text content is there.

[Aseahawkfan]

It is NOT against the law to request admittance to another country at a port of entry, and I challenge you to show me a law that supports your claim. Just the face of what you are saying is absurd. A good analogy is if I try to enter a 21+ establishment w/o proper documentation of my age and the bouncer at the front door challenges me, that he can call the cops and they'll throw me in jail.

They are not asking permission is my point. They are trying to rush the border in large numbers, getting caught, and forcing a neighbor nation to engage in the substantial cost of housing and processing them. Few other nations could afford this level of attempted illegal immigration. All you need to do is look at the laws on the books if I try to illegally enter another nation. Getting caught and asking for asylum after I'm caught does not change this. You are trying to characterize this as these folks just showing up and saying, "Hey, is it ok if I come in. My nation is messed up." They are trying to get in here without using the normal process and getting caught up by the border protection services.

There is even a criminal industry that exists solely to facilitate illegal immigration into America.

I haven't "become" an immigration liberal, and I don't agree with the term "liberal" as a characterization of my POV. The liberals want to de-criminalize illegal entry, abolish ICE, approve of chain or family migrations, etc. I don't agree with any of those proposals. Rather I would consider myself a little more to the center on the issue. And I agree with you regarding there being a process, IMO a rigorous one with a thorough vetting process. That was one of the lessons of 9/11.

If you're calling people trying to enter the nation illegally in large numbers "guests", you have crossed into at least slightly liberal territory. That certainly isn't what is happening. If that was the case, I wouldn't be as displeased as I am. They are rushing our borders in large numbers and even built an entire industry based on entering America illegally as well as American businesses built that rely on illegal off the books labor. It's not a healthy way to run immigration for any nation. Then these folks illegally entering the nation are being politicized for votes and political power, which is just wrong.

Additionally, my passion about the subject is not something I've recently acquired. I grew up with minorities, went to school with them, played baseball and football with them, married one of them, have a sister-in-law from Ethiopia. For over 40 years, I've worked in an environment where I was in the minority in that I was a native born American. Immigrants do not pose a threat to me like they do to others. Indeed, many would seek me out in situations where they needed an advocate to represent their interests. It doesn't bother me to hear people speaking in another language. I believe in an immigration policy that flexes with our economy, and right now, the economy is good and we need workers, particularly those in the 18-35 age group. If we're in a recession and unemployment rises, I have no problem with closing the door to immigration.

Half my family is minority although likely to be a majority at some point. I'm not anti-immigrant at all myself. But your characterization of this situation is too lax for my tastes. Maybe it's because of Trump's dumbass talk making immigrants seemed like hardened criminal that you feel like you have to speak strongly against his stance because I don't recall you being this lax.

Your brother married an Ethiopian? Lucky SoB. They have some beautiful Ethiopian women. They did not have this many Ethiopian women around when I was young or I'd probably be married to one. Those are some gorgeous women. That is a group of people with unique features.

But I appreciate what you're saying. My self description is that I am a fiscal conservative (socialized medicine and Trump's wall are good examples) and a social moderate (immigration, abortion).

We're about the same. I've changed my stance on medicine because profiting off people's sickness is very uncomfortable and macabre. I don't like it. I've spent too much time researching why these companies make so much money and it primarily comes down to charging Americans an exorbitant amount of money far beyond the cost to produce. I stopped investing in cigarettes even though it is profitable because profiting off an addictive vice that is ruining people's health just feels wrong. When you invest in the healthcare industry, you really start to see how much America is getting screwed on healthcare costs.

[burrrton]

I've changed my stance on medicine because profiting off people's sickness is very uncomfortable and macabre.

Nobody profits off someone's "sickness" over the long-term- they profit off getting them the care they need to recover and keep paying premiums.

This aversion to free market principles is bizarre.

I've spent too much time researching why these companies make so much money and it primarily comes down to charging Americans an exorbitant amount of money far beyond the cost to produce.

A health insurance company's profit margins are very low, and if you're referring to drug cos ("cost to produce"?), the needed profit encompasses a h3ll of a lot more than what it costs to generate the pill itself. There are literally *decades* of R&D involved, during which time not a penny of revenue is collected (save for a possible grant or charitable contribution).

[RiverDog]

They are not asking permission is my point. They are trying to rush the border in large numbers, getting caught..

The vast majority that are being detained are requesting asylum. They are not "rushing" the border and "getting caught." If they were, you can rest assured that our friend DJT would be charging them with a crime instead of detaining them, but since both US and international laws require us to allow them to apply for admission, he has to at least give them a hearing:

Under US and international law, people have the right to seek asylum in another country. So the 150 (from April 2018) or so Central Americans who traveled north through Mexico in a migrant caravan are perfectly within their rights in waiting to do so at the southern US border.

“They will go into custody, which is a fancy way of saying immigration jail," Yegani says. Migrants are willing to go through that process because they fear for their lives, she says.

During the question and answer session, the asylum-seeker must testify under oath that they have a fear of persecution if they return to their home country, Yegani says. Under international law, she says, “we have a duty not to return a person to a country where they may face torture or other serious harm.”

The asylum-seeker is then put in expedited removal, or deportation proceedings.

All of these steps are part of the US’ legal obligations toward asylum-seekers under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-01/ ... -us-border

That's why I'm referring to them as "guests" as they are well within their rights to seek asylum.

[RiverDog]

A health insurance company's profit margins are very low, and if you're referring to drug cos ("cost to produce"?), the needed profit encompasses a h3ll of a lot more than what it costs to generate the pill itself. There are literally *decades* of R&D involved, during which time not a penny of revenue is collected (save for a possible grant or charitable contribution).

It's not just the R&D costs of that one specific drug. Companies experiment with thousands of drugs, most of which never make it through the USDA approval process. The successful ones that do make it to market have to make up the R&D costs for all those that failed:

Nine of every ten new drugs fail in clinical testing. According to consultant Cheryl Barton, a drug in phase III testing has 32% chance of failure. Only 21% of drugs that enter phase I testing ever make it to market [1]. Even in Phase I, 37% fail. Most drugs fail in phase II. (Goodman and Gilman estimate the success rate in the three phases to be 50%, 30% and 25-50%, or an overall success rate of between one in 13 and one in 26). The percentage of drugs for neurological diseases that fail is even higher. For example, over 200 drug candidates for Alzheimer's disease have failed so far in clinical testing.

https://www.randombio.com/drug-failures.html

[burrrton]

Of course I'm aware of that, and agree, Riv. R&D is for *every* drug, both those that succeed and generate revenue and those that go nowhere.

You can't cover that providing the drug for cost once the FDA approves it (for better or worse).

[RiverDog]

Of course I'm aware of that, and agree, Riv. R&D is for *every* drug, both those that succeed and generate revenue and those that go nowhere.

You can't cover that providing the drug for cost once the FDA approves it (for better or worse).

I wasn't necessarily intending to enlighten you on that phenomena, but the rest of the posters as well.

I really don't think that the general public, and certainly not AOC, understands just how much of that drug pricing incorporates R&D, but take away the profit motive, and the R&D funds dry up. We'll essentially have a bunch of standard, cheap generic drugs to keep our blood pressure and cholesterol low, but no revolutionary break through drugs that fights Alzheimer's.

[idhawkman]

Turns out EH OH SEE was completely full of sh*t (surprise!), and is a complete rag to boot:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -witnesses

They ought to prosecute that b*tch for libel.

At a bare minimum they should censure her in Congress.

[Aseahawkfan]

This aversion to free market principles is bizarre.

Really? So you think the free market doesn't produce immoral behavior? You really want to debate that? For example selling or overpricing drugs far in excess of cost knowing that you have someone in a position of absolute need.

A health insurance company's profit margins are very low, and if you're referring to drug cos ("cost to produce"?), the needed profit encompasses a h3ll of a lot more than what it costs to generate the pill itself. There are literally *decades* of R&D involved, during which time not a penny of revenue is collected (save for a possible grant or charitable contribution).

Some of if publically funded. Some of it privately funded. Not all of these drugs are even close to necessary. They created a pill to reduce fat with unhealthy outcomes,but not unhealthy enough to deny approval, rather than use the more proven method of self-discipline and diet to reduce a weight problem. Just like approving stomach reduction which also leads to further long-term medical problems that require...surprise...additional surgery and medical treatment.

Why would we do this? Why would you not work on a different long-term method for reducing obesity and getting control of your bad food supply? Profits, buddy. Free market principles.

This idea that the free market operates in a rational manner is free market economics foolishness easily disproven. Human beings are irrational. We have a bunch of industries making a lot of money off irrational human behavior.

[Aseahawkfan]

The vast majority that are being detained are requesting asylum. They are not "rushing" the border and "getting caught." If they were, you can rest assured that our friend DJT would be charging them with a crime instead of detaining them, but since both US and international laws require us to allow them to apply for admission, he has to at least give them a hearing:

Under US and international law, people have the right to seek asylum in another country. So the 150 (from April 2018) or so Central Americans who traveled north through Mexico in a migrant caravan are perfectly within their rights in waiting to do so at the southern US border.

“They will go into custody, which is a fancy way of saying immigration jail," Yegani says. Migrants are willing to go through that process because they fear for their lives, she says.

During the question and answer session, the asylum-seeker must testify under oath that they have a fear of persecution if they return to their home country, Yegani says. Under international law, she says, “we have a duty not to return a person to a country where they may face torture or other serious harm.”

The asylum-seeker is then put in expedited removal, or deportation proceedings.

All of these steps are part of the US’ legal obligations toward asylum-seekers under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-01/ ... -us-border

That's why I'm referring to them as "guests" as they are well within their rights to seek asylum.

Well within their rights? They are abusing our law. They are rushing the border and requesting asylum after being caught. It is putting us in a bad position with skyrocketing costs to protect our borders.

You can post the law as much as you wish. It does not change that they are not coming to border stations. They are crossing at positions we monitor and being picked up. If we did not have border protections, they would pass on in.

The penalty for illegally entering a nation is detainment and deportation. They are being processed as we would anyone entering the nation illegally. This is nothing more than a technicality similar to a criminal being caught and demanding to have his rights read to him to ensure the legal process is followed.

Like I said, you're very liberal on immigration if you consider these folks guests. It's costing a lot of money and political problems these folks rushing our borders. They can do so as our laws allow it, but it isn't some kind of right. It's just abuse of our weak immigration laws.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's not just the R&D costs of that one specific drug. Companies experiment with thousands of drugs, most of which never make it through the USDA approval process. The successful ones that do make it to market have to make up the R&D costs for all those that failed:

Nine of every ten new drugs fail in clinical testing. According to consultant Cheryl Barton, a drug in phase III testing has 32% chance of failure. Only 21% of drugs that enter phase I testing ever make it to market [1]. Even in Phase I, 37% fail. Most drugs fail in phase II. (Goodman and Gilman estimate the success rate in the three phases to be 50%, 30% and 25-50%, or an overall success rate of between one in 13 and one in 26). The percentage of drugs for neurological diseases that fail is even higher. For example, over 200 drug candidates for Alzheimer's disease have failed so far in clinical testing.

https://www.randombio.com/drug-failures.html

I will enlighten the posters that the vast majority of these drugs are unnecessary. A great deal of this is a big money grab with labs created with funding for drugs that will never see the light of day while they cash in on a various milestones regardless of the final success of the drug where the stock gets pumped and dumped into the market. I've even cashed in on a few of these milestones when a stock spiked because phase 2 or 3 clinical data looked good. Nice little profit.

Billions of dollars are paid in private grants and by the government for drug research regardless of the contribution of large pharmaceuticals whose primary agenda is not to cure or help humanity, but to drive revenue growth. They even discuss seeking new methods of revenue growth. As I stated a cure is not the best way to drive revenue and profits, not at all. In fact it's a good way to kill profits.

I would even argue that you can prove that big pharma encourages the creation of new sicknesses including funding questionable research for drugs like anti-depressants, health supplements, and other medical drugs, processes, and devices that have no place on the market including paying doctors to push more expensive drugs and procedures over equally effective less expensive outcomes. I've even noticed a manipulation of bloodwork and vital sign statistics to further encourage doctors to get people within the listed numbers regardless of how many drugs they have to put you on to do it such as cholesterol and blood pressure being tightened or new research on dietary cholesterol showing a poor correlation with heart disease being ignored.

For profit medicine incorporates a lot of the negative attributes of the free market and is nearly as bad as for profit war. Free market principles are great for the vast majority of goods and services, but medicine I question because just as the free market has led to many bad outcomes in various industries driven by greed and the quick buck mentality, medicine shouldn't be one of those areas open to that type of corrupt behavior. It should be focused on its overall benefit to society including for example not allowing a product or service to become standard that will lead to more bad outcomes.

I've done more research on medicine in America than anyone on this board. I don't resort to grabbing a few articles to try to make a point because the amount of information is immense. If you take time to investigate socialized medical systems to see health outcomes, you see that we are not getting better health outcomes with our expensive private system. And I've invested in more biopharmaceutical companies than anyone on this board I'd bet. I've seen how they run. This idea that we're paying for the research costs of all drugs is horsecrap.

So how about burrton and Riverdog go check out the balance sheets and cash balances of big pharma to see those huge cash hordes. If what you say was true about us paying for many, many, many drugs, then big pharma wouldn't be sitting on piles of cash and their margins wouldn't be as high as they are because all that cash would be spent on reinvestment in drug development. Investment in biotech is actually quite cheap. You don't need some huge company to fund drug research. It's often done by small labs and research facilities that are fairly inexpensive. Even trials start off with a small number of patients and only reach the next level when the drug show some efficacy data with no side effects, which is fairly rare. If the lab shows some promise, then they make a deal with a big pharma company or perhaps seek other private investors. Not to mention there are great tax benefits for investing in drug and medical development.

There are a lot of Big Pharma companies making money in a lot of different ways. Not all of it is quality care for a market driven cost. It's more we have you over the barrel and we're giving you a chance to live, so we'll charge as much as we can get away with. That's why you see these companies getting called to task and looking worse for having done so.

I strongly recommend anyone undecided to research the biotech industry. See what's going on. See how the process of drug development works. It's a very interesting world. Thought a lot of good does come from it, especially for orphan drugs, a great deal is very focused on profiting off human sickness including pushing new sicknesses like the giant push you've seen for anti-depressants, fat surgery and drugs, and trying to fix nearly everything with pharmaceuticals. Even the law that was passed to stop Americans from getting cheaper drugs in Canada was pushed to protect the high margins of the American drug industry because Americans can't have inexpensive medical care, too much money lost.

[RiverDog]

Well within their rights? They are abusing our law. They are rushing the border and requesting asylum after being caught. It is putting us in a bad position with skyrocketing costs to protect our borders.

So what's your solution? All you've done is complain about these people that are making an effort to enter the country as if they should go to hell for having the gall to want to come here yet you have not said what should be done in response. Do you want to start shooting them? According to you, they're rushing our border and you've compared that act with defending our homes, so why not? If someone invades my home, there's a good chance that they could get shot, and the law will back me up. Or how about something less lethal, like attack dogs? Maybe some fire hoses? Tear gas?

[burrrton]

Really? So you think the free market doesn't produce immoral behavior? You really want to debate that?

I *have* debated it (many times, in fact- I was on debate teams in both HS and college and this isn't a new subject). It's a bigger *limiter* of immoral behavior than any alternative, and it's not close.

If you don't grok that at your age, I can't (and won't) explain it to you.

This idea that the free market operates in a rational manner is free market economics foolishness easily disproven. Human beings are irrational.

Your implicit assumption is that irrational behavior vanishes in your alternate system. Sorry, but it doesn't. This shouldn't be news to you.