TRUMP was not the first

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Trump takes a lot of heat over migrants but he is far from the first to take action on the problem,

the Democrats have latched on to this to push their agenda of getting rid of Trump



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...d-migrants-with-disdain/ar-AAzyUPq?li=BBnb7Kz
Trump takes a lot of heat over migrants but he is far from the first to take action on the problem,

the Democrats have latched on to this to push their agenda of getting rid of Trump



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...d-migrants-with-disdain/ar-AAzyUPq?li=BBnb7Kz
I spoke to a woman who lived in Florida for a time, it was a nice community with a HOA. She said it was to be single family only. Well there was a big crackdown on this because apparently illegal immigrants were living in basements and all sorts of makeshift apartments in the neighborhood and the local health department was being stretched passed it's limits by all these people. It was so bad that they couldn't take care of their own people who lived in the service area. It was all illegals and the regular folk couldn't get in due to the long lines going clear outside the clinic buildings. She told me this on the 4th of July at a family picnic. Have to say this makes me unhappy that so much of our resources are going to criminals.
 
A wall is not the answer though. Putting just a fraction of that money towards improving the immigration court system, enforcing expired visas, and streamlining the processes, would go MUCH further towards resolving problems.

You don't have to sneak over, so a wall means nothing. Just get a travel visa and then STAY. That's what most do, from all over. Not sneaking across the border.
 
These days, I can't go along with the "they took our jobs" idea... In our area, they basically do the jobs nobody wants to do for really low pay. (farm picking, hotel maid service, outside day labor, etc.). Granted, you could argue they'd be paid more if they couldn't employ illegals, but percentage wise, I still think we'd see we have bigger fish to fry.
 
These days, I can't go along with the "they took our jobs" idea... In our area, they basically do the jobs nobody wants to do for really low pay. (farm picking, hotel maid service, outside day labor, etc.). Granted, you could argue they'd be paid more if they couldn't employ illegals, but percentage wise, I still think we'd see we have bigger fish to fry.
Cut off welfare and the deadbeats sucking off the government tit would either fill these jobs or starve. Either way all illegal aliens should be deported, plus the incentive for them coming here should be eliminated.
Years ago whenever I'd get laid off from my job I never thought that I was too good to do farm work or day labor. Why are some of us so willing to accept the excuse that poor people won't do certain jobs now days? Work or go hungry is a simple concept that has worked for thousands of years. The tax payers should never be forced to pay for those who are too lazy to work.
 
Last edited:
Cut off welfare and the deadbeats sucking off the government tit would either fill these jobs or starve. Either way all illegal aliens should be deported, plus the incentive for them coming here should be eliminated.
Years ago whenever I'd get laid off from my job I never thought that I was too good to do farm work or day labor. Why are some of us so willing to accept the excuse that poor people won't do certain jobs now days? Work or go hungry is a simple concept that has worked for thousands of years. The tax payers should naver pay for those who are too lazy to work.
Absolutely, I have been so poor as to collect cans from the side of the road or peddle campfire wood for 2 dollars a bundle. But as long as a person thinks they can get something for free they will try for it. That is why it needs to stop being given. Most will find a way.
 
Absolutely, I have been so poor as to collect cans from the side of the road or peddle campfire wood for 2 dollars a bundle. But as long as a person thinks they can get something for free they will try for it. That is why it needs to stop being given. Most will find a way.
I'm even old enough to remember when being on the dole was a bad thing. And people, depending on the demographics, would be ashamed if they ever had to beg for a hand out from the government. How times have changed.
 
You don't have to sneak over, so a wall means nothing. Just get a travel visa and then STAY. That's what most do, from all over. Not sneaking across the border.
That maybe true for one class of immigrants, but really that class isn't the one that we should worry about. It's the class of miscreants who would not be able to get a travel visa that we worry about the most jumping the border (MS-13, Al Qaeda, etc.).

As far as migrant workers, we HAVE a H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Visa program ALREADY. Just USE it so the migrant workers can be accounted for and not have to swim the Rio Grand.
 
That maybe true for one class of immigrants, but really that class isn't the one that we should worry about. It's the class of miscreants who would not be able to get a travel visa that we worry about the most jumping the border (MS-13, Al Qaeda, etc.).

As far as migrant workers, we HAVE a H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Visa program ALREADY. Just USE it so the migrant workers can be accounted for and not have to swim the Rio Grand.
Exactly, thats why Gazrok is wrong on this one. .
 
I'm even old enough to remember when being on the dole was a bad thing. And people, depending on the demographics, would be ashamed if they ever had to beg for a hand out from the government. How times have changed.
Just thinking about that this morning. The sensitive types have removed the stigma of being on the dole. changed food stamps to cards that look like credit cards, etc. changed the name of food stamps to SNAP, anything to protect the sensitivities of people who take advantage, so why not? I remember when only the poorest of people took government handouts and as a last resort. People piss me off. It is a lack of pride.
 
Brandx,

Amen!

You probably remember joking about 'government cheese'. People today have no idea what that meant. Before 'SNAP' and such, welfare was literally getting a bag of beans or rice or a chunk of cheese. And it wasn't that nice, smooth cheese. It was dry, it tasted... yuck. But it was nutrition. It was a not-so-subtle way of saying "you don't want to stay eating this stuff".

We need to return to those types of actions to stop the life-long welfare cycle. If a 'family' wants to steal from me (aka get it from the gov't, who steals it from me), they need to do a few things. 1) identify the father of the kids, and hold him (them) accountable for caring for the kids. 2) No cash! No need to have my money go toward drugs, booze, etc. They get a bag of rice, a bag of beans, a roll of gov't cheese, old 3-year-old layer hen carcasses (I want that meat old and tough). If that person wants cigarettes that bad, they need to find someone to trade 10 lbs of rice for a pack of cigs... not near as easy as scamming a SNAP card. But this covers all the needed food groups. Rice, beans, a little cheese and meat. Veggies? OK, a pack of seeds. If they can't go out & earn their keep, they can tend a garden and supply for themselves. Oh, and a bottle of multivitamins... there, that's everything. Want more, get a job! This would be a good start.
 
Exactly, thats why Gazrok is wrong on this one. .

Not really, a wall is still not going to do anything about it. a) there are plenty of places along the border that it simply isn't feasible, b) there are plenty of ways to sneak AROUND it (i.e. the water), and c) existing fences, checkpoints, etc. aren't working either, so how is it any different?
 
Just thinking about that this morning. The sensitive types have removed the stigma of being on the dole. changed food stamps to cards that look like credit cards, etc. changed the name of food stamps to SNAP, anything to protect the sensitivities of people who take advantage, so why not? I remember when only the poorest of people took government handouts and as a last resort. People piss me off. It is a lack of pride.
Like the old saying goes; "Being poor should not be comfortable."
 
Brandx,

Amen!

You probably remember joking about 'government cheese'. People today have no idea what that meant. Before 'SNAP' and such, welfare was literally getting a bag of beans or rice or a chunk of cheese. And it wasn't that nice, smooth cheese. It was dry, it tasted... yuck. But it was nutrition. It was a not-so-subtle way of saying "you don't want to stay eating this stuff".

We need to return to those types of actions to stop the life-long welfare cycle. If a 'family' wants to steal from me (aka get it from the gov't, who steals it from me), they need to do a few things. 1) identify the father of the kids, and hold him (them) accountable for caring for the kids. 2) No cash! No need to have my money go toward drugs, booze, etc. They get a bag of rice, a bag of beans, a roll of gov't cheese, old 3-year-old layer hen carcasses (I want that meat old and tough). If that person wants cigarettes that bad, they need to find someone to trade 10 lbs of rice for a pack of cigs... not near as easy as scamming a SNAP card. But this covers all the needed food groups. Rice, beans, a little cheese and meat. Veggies? OK, a pack of seeds. If they can't go out & earn their keep, they can tend a garden and supply for themselves. Oh, and a bottle of multivitamins... there, that's everything. Want more, get a job! This would be a good start.
Years ago they gave away some cheese out of an old store building, it was some kind of subsidy government purchased cheese to support dairy farmers or something. It was free to anyone who wanted it, I went and stood in line. Hey I didn't have to file for anything and it was free so I got some. It sure came in handy the year I lived off 5000 dollars for 12 months. I never so much as bought a French fry that year. It all went to gas, food and laundry.
 
Brandx,

Amen!

You probably remember joking about 'government cheese'. People today have no idea what that meant. Before 'SNAP' and such, welfare was literally getting a bag of beans or rice or a chunk of cheese. And it wasn't that nice, smooth cheese. It was dry, it tasted... yuck. But it was nutrition. It was a not-so-subtle way of saying "you don't want to stay eating this stuff".

We need to return to those types of actions to stop the life-long welfare cycle. If a 'family' wants to steal from me (aka get it from the gov't, who steals it from me), they need to do a few things. 1) identify the father of the kids, and hold him (them) accountable for caring for the kids. 2) No cash! No need to have my money go toward drugs, booze, etc. They get a bag of rice, a bag of beans, a roll of gov't cheese, old 3-year-old layer hen carcasses (I want that meat old and tough). If that person wants cigarettes that bad, they need to find someone to trade 10 lbs of rice for a pack of cigs... not near as easy as scamming a SNAP card. But this covers all the needed food groups. Rice, beans, a little cheese and meat. Veggies? OK, a pack of seeds. If they can't go out & earn their keep, they can tend a garden and supply for themselves. Oh, and a bottle of multivitamins... there, that's everything. Want more, get a job! This would be a good start.
I wrote my politicians about a family that was on their 5th generation of welfare and how angry I was about it. Leaches!
 
It slows them down enough that the Border Patrol can do their job. Right now they are overwhelming the Border Patrol. I see where the National Guard has helped the Border Patrol apprehend thousands of border jumpers since being deployed. Just in the first three weeks they helped apprehend 1600.

It's more a question of bang for the buck. Your example above shows that more manpower helps. I'd also argue that more fencing, sensors, and other methods would be both more effective, and more economical, than the proposed wall.

Of course, the BEST answer is to simply eliminate the incentive...i.e. this instant citizenship by birth nonsense. That is NOT what the Constitution intended. It is actually pretty clear that it's more a matter of your PARENTS' citizenship, as to whether or not you are BORN an American citizen. Not location.
 
At the time the Constitution was passed, all of the framers of the Constitution were born as British subjects, and none of their parents would have considered themselves anything other than British subjects. And a good number of their parents were born in Great Britain. So the "natural born citizen" qualification for President (Article II, Section 1, clause 5 "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President") had to mean simply being born on American soil.

The next mention of conditions for citizenship in the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." So I guess you could use the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude illegal aliens, but the wording is pretty clear.
 
Not really, a wall is still not going to do anything about it. a) there are plenty of places along the border that it simply isn't feasible, b) there are plenty of ways to sneak AROUND it (i.e. the water), and c) existing fences, checkpoints, etc. aren't working either, so how is it any different?
I think if they build a wall, the drug cartels will build more tunnels. They will be in the business of drug smuggling and people smuggling. There is plenty of money to be made for the cartels for letting someone pass through their tunnels for the right price.
 
Not really, a wall is still not going to do anything about it. a) there are plenty of places along the border that it simply isn't feasible, b) there are plenty of ways to sneak AROUND it (i.e. the water), and c) existing fences, checkpoints, etc. aren't working either, so how is it any different?
I think if they build a wall, the drug cartels will build more tunnels.
Following this line of logic, then we should not lock our doors because crooks can pick locks and break down doors.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top