Google "net migration rate us Mexico"

I saw some articles that said there was a few hundred thousand plus Mexican illegals versus those that are leaving. Those numbers add up but they're still only from Mexico. That doesn't include other nations.

I didn't see a clear answer either way, so maybe you can provide one that suggests otherwise.

I've seen ones that claim to be tracking anyone of any nationality crossing our southern border in either direction legally or illegally. 
The other way lots of people get here illegally is by air.  Our government doesn't let you leave the international terminal of our airports without a visa, but people are overstaying their visa and working even though their visas say that they may not work.  Punishing employers who hire illegals is the only way to reduce that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In Mexico?

If you think this isn't happening to some degree you're not as informed as you think you are.

It's happening "to some degree" in every country. My point is that  Mexico should be taking in all those from south of their border, not escorting them right through to the USA. Mexico is not a 3rd world hellhole, and more than capable of housing those seeking asylum from Central and South American countries. People in Mexico seeking asylum in the USA are leaving a country more than capable of being their sanctuary and Mexico encourages it to our detriment.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you think this isn't happening to some degree you're not as informed as you think you are.

It's happening "to some degree" in every country. My point is that  Mexico should be taking in all those from south of their border, not escorting them right through to the USA. Mexico is not a 3rd world hellhole, and more than capable of housing those seeking asylum from Central and South American countries. People in Mexico seeking asylum in the USA are leaving a country more than capable of being their sanctuary and Mexico encourages it to our detriment.

And therein lies part of the problem. They don't want to deal with it so they pass these folks on to us.

---

These wholly manufactured outrage protests happening today are hilarious. A camera shot moved down a row of people standing alongside of a road who were holding signs declaring the injustice, INJUSTICE, of a subject they couldn't have cared less about 2 weeks ago until their desperate leaders told them it might help them politically. Lo and behold, what does the camera see prominently displayed in all this self-righteousness? A sign of truth; big and colorful, reading: "Eff Trump, Eff Pence," but using the actual naughty word. This is what true hate looks like, boys and girls.

---

Send them kids to my place. Ill give them some food and drink in between their shifts hauling busted up concrete.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

These wholly manufactured outrage protests happening today are hilarious. A camera shot moved down a row of people standing alongside of a road who were holding signs declaring the injustice, INJUSTICE, of a subject they couldn't have cared less about 2 weeks ago until their desperate leaders told them it might help them politically. Lo and behold, what does the camera see prominently displayed in all this self-righteousness?  A sign of truth; big and colorful, reading: "Eff Trump, Eff Pence," but using the actual naughty word. This is what true hate looks like, boys and girls.

Google [BLEEP] Obama, check the images. It didn't start with Trump, did your disgust with the hate?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

These wholly manufactured outrage protests happening today are hilarious. A camera shot moved down a row of people standing alongside of a road who were holding signs declaring the injustice, INJUSTICE, of a subject they couldn't have cared less about 2 weeks ago until their desperate leaders told them it might help them politically. Lo and behold, what does the camera see prominently displayed in all this self-righteousness?  A sign of truth; big and colorful, reading: "Eff Trump, Eff Pence," but using the actual naughty word. This is what true hate looks like, boys and girls.

Google [BLEEP] Obama, check the images. It didn't start with Trump, did your disgust with the hate?

On a side note, when did the outright hate start for both parties?  Reagan was my first cognizant president and I recall the hatred towards him, especially after he trounced Mondale in 84.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

These wholly manufactured outrage protests happening today are hilarious. A camera shot moved down a row of people standing alongside of a road who were holding signs declaring the injustice, INJUSTICE, of a subject they couldn't have cared less about 2 weeks ago until their desperate leaders told them it might help them politically. Lo and behold, what does the camera see prominently displayed in all this self-righteousness?  A sign of truth; big and colorful, reading: "Eff Trump, Eff Pence," but using the actual naughty word. This is what true hate looks like, boys and girls.

Google [BLEEP] Obama, check the images. It didn't start with Trump, did your disgust with the hate?

What I should have said is that this level of hatred and threats of violence was never so endorsed by "journalists", entertainers, apparatchiks embedded in federal agencies, left wing nut politicians, incompetent leftist academia who are typically protected by tenure, and legions of unthinking disciples emboldened by the outward expressions of seething unaccountable hate. Other than that, you have a point.   

---

You can go back to the founders and find "hate" for opposition groups. Politicians were skilled rhetoricians and the papers were often literally owned by the politicians. Jefferson and Madison even started a paper to slander Hamilton. Well, slander might be too strong a word... but definitely to attack him and his positions. There has been no shortage of "hate" towards political opponents since the founding of this nation. The better question is when did people become so unreasonable. I think that is a much newer phenomenon. People in the past tended to really safeguard their public image. Today, it's acceptable to behave irrationally.

---

You can go back to the founders and find "hate" for opposition groups. Politicians were skilled rhetoricians and the papers were often literally owned by the politicians. Jefferson and Madison even started a paper to slander Hamilton. Well, slander might be too strong a word... but definitely to attack him and his positions. There has been no shortage of "hate" towards political opponents since the founding of this nation. The better question is when did people become so unreasonable. I think that is a much newer phenomenon. People in the past tended to really safeguard their public image. Today, it's acceptable to behave irrationally.

Distilled to its purest form, this is the problem in politics and society.

---

Politics has fully replaced religion as the guiding force in most people's lives. As a result, the zealotry we used to see confined to Sunday morning congregations now permeates the national discourse. Political parties now claim the Divine Right to inform, guide, and direct the lives of the populace and their Acolytes go about spreading the Word by soft and strong arm.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Google [BLEEP] Obama, check the images. It didn't start with Trump, did your disgust with the hate?

What I should have said is that this level of hatred and threats of violence was never so endorsed by "journalists", entertainers, apparatchiks embedded in federal agencies, left wing nut politicians, incompetent leftist academia who are typically protected by tenure, and legions of unthinking disciples emboldened by the outward expressions of seething unaccountable hate. Other than that, you have a point.   

So your answer is yes.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You can go back to the founders and find "hate" for opposition groups. Politicians were skilled rhetoricians and the papers were often literally owned by the politicians. Jefferson and Madison even started a paper to slander Hamilton. Well, slander might be too strong a word... but definitely to attack him and his positions. There has been no shortage of "hate" towards political opponents since the founding of this nation. The better question is when did people become so unreasonable. I think that is a much newer phenomenon. People in the past tended to really safeguard their public image. Today, it's acceptable to behave irrationally.

Distilled to its purest form, this is the problem in politics and society.

Pretending it only occurs on one side is also a problem.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Distilled to its purest form, this is the problem in politics and society.

Pretending it only occurs on one side is also a problem.

No pretense at all. But it is embraced more broadly and promoted more mainstream on one side than the other. Let's not pretend that isn't the case.

---

Pretending it only occurs on one side is also a problem.

No pretense at all. But it is embraced more broadly and promoted more mainstream on one side than the other. Let's not pretend that isn't the case.

Most of us only pay attention to the worst and most implausible things said by politicians of the other party.
meanwhile we excuse or ignore the impossible things said by politicians of our own party and focus on the good things that they say.
only a person who is totally outside of this country could really be a fair observer of which side has a closer grasp on rationality.
Rationality only gets you so far though.
There are always unfalsifiable postulates.
a statement does not have to be universally or undeniably true to be rational.
You may hear a Democrat say something, which is based on an unfalsifiable postulate, such as "spreading the wealth around makes everyone better off," and then you'll say that's nonsense this guy is not in touch with reality. But even though it doesn't make sense to you at a gut level you cannot prove that it is wrong. you can point to other countries it seem to have tried this kind of thing and failed, but these were not controlled experiments and there were many other things going on than the government trying to make a more equitable distribution of income or wealth. also the countries of Northern Europe seem to have tried this kind of thing and made it work pretty well. so as long as what the guy is saying is consistent with the unfalsifiable belief that he holds he is speaking rationally. meanwhile you'll hear people on your side say things like "having the government leave it alone is the best possible thing." This is also not falsifiable and if you don't hold this belief, the things that come after it, like "just let the rich keep more of their money and they'll spend it on making poor people employed" might sound crazy to you. But it makes sense if you've embraced the idea that the less government does, the better.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I guess everyone is too outraged to remember this treatment of people under Bill Clinton.....

I served in the US Navy and saw unbelievable desperation in the Caribbean. The first time we were performing interdiction for a Haitian Crisis. We would burn their boats and put them back in Port Au Prince.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-16/n...ti-embargo


Later we were involved in a massive operation that led to the start of Wet Foot/Dry Foot which was terminated by Obama. The scale of human misery was heartbreaking and still bothers me today. A people so desperate to flee communist dictators that they would go through shark infested waters on anything that floats. One elderly man had his medical degrees rolled into his underwear so he could prove he was worthy of asylum. The thousands we "rescued" all ended up in Guantanamo. They were heartbroken when they found out we were not taking them to Key West Naval Base. Here is a wiki summary. You will note the actual terms of Internment camp and barb wire.

President Clinton, trying to stem the flow of Cuban rafters, pressed a dozen Latin American governments to provide internment camps that officials hoped would prove more attractive to refugees than the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Although the refugees at Guantanamo were held behind barbed wire, to many, the base was less forbidding than a foreign internment camp.

As a result of bilateral migration accords between the two governments, in September 1994 and May 1995, the status quo of U.S. policy toward Cuban migrants was altered significantly. The U.S. granted Cuba an annual minimum of 20,000 legal immigrant visas and, at the same time, determined that Cubans picked up at sea would be sent home just as any other group of illegal immigrants. President Clinton's agreement with Cuba resolved the dilemma of the approximately 33,000 Cubans then at Guantanamo. This new agreement had two new points. The United States agreed to take most of the Cubans detained at Guantanamo through the humanitarian parole provision. Cuba agreed to credit some of these admissions toward the minimum quota of 20,000 migrants from Cuba, with 5,000 charged annually over the years. Secondly, rather than placing Cubans intercepted at sea in a camp, the United States began sending them back to Cuba. Both governments promised to follow international agreements to ensure that no action would be taken against the people returned to Cuba.
As a result of these migration agreements and interdiction policy, a "wet foot/dry foot" practice toward Cuban immigrants has developed

Enforcing laws sucks sometimes but it is whole necessary to prevent more suffering. The border is a mess with rape trees and coyote smuggling.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

No pretense at all. But it is embraced more broadly and promoted more mainstream on one side than the other. Let's not pretend that isn't the case.

Most of us only pay attention to the worst and most implausible things said by politicians of the other party.
meanwhile we excuse or ignore the impossible things said by politicians of our own party and focus on the good things that they say.
only a person who is totally outside of this country could really be a fair observer of which side has a closer grasp on rationality.
Rationality only gets you so far though.
There are always unfalsifiable postulates.
a statement does not have to be universally or undeniably true to be rational.
You may hear a Democrat say something, which is based on an unfalsifiable postulate, such as "spreading the wealth around makes everyone better off," and then you'll say that's nonsense this guy is not in touch with reality. But even though it doesn't make sense to you at a gut level you cannot prove that it is wrong. you can point to other countries it seem to have cried this kind of thing and failed, but these were not controlled experiments and there were many other things going on than the government trying to make a more equitable distribution of income or wealth. also the countries of Northern Europe seem to have tried this kind of thing and made it work pretty well. so as long as what the guy is saying is consistent with the unfalsifiable belief that he holds he is speaking rationally. meanwhile you'll hear people on your side say things like "having the government leave it alone is the best possible thing." This is also not falsifiable and if you don't hold this belief, the things that come after it, like "just let the rich keep more of their money and they'll spend it on making poor people employed" might sound crazy to you. But it makes sense if you've embraced the idea that the less government does, the better.

Who are you trying to impress?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Most of us only pay attention to the worst and most implausible things said by politicians of the other party.
meanwhile we excuse or ignore the impossible things said by politicians of our own party and focus on the good things that they say.
only a person who is totally outside of this country could really be a fair observer of which side has a closer grasp on rationality.
Rationality only gets you so far though.
There are always unfalsifiable postulates.
a statement does not have to be universally or undeniably true to be rational.
You may hear a Democrat say something, which is based on an unfalsifiable postulate, such as "spreading the wealth around makes everyone better off," and then you'll say that's nonsense this guy is not in touch with reality. But even though it doesn't make sense to you at a gut level you cannot prove that it is wrong. you can point to other countries it seem to have cried this kind of thing and failed, but these were not controlled experiments and there were many other things going on than the government trying to make a more equitable distribution of income or wealth. also the countries of Northern Europe seem to have tried this kind of thing and made it work pretty well. so as long as what the guy is saying is consistent with the unfalsifiable belief that he holds he is speaking rationally. meanwhile you'll hear people on your side say things like "having the government leave it alone is the best possible thing." This is also not falsifiable and if you don't hold this belief, the things that come after it, like "just let the rich keep more of their money and they'll spend it on making poor people employed" might sound crazy to you. But it makes sense if you've embraced the idea that the less government does, the better.

Who are you trying to impress?

No one. 
I'm just trying to mediate,bring people together, so they rise above saying "No U! Maybe a little bit me but mostly u!"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Who are you trying to impress?

No one. 
I'm just trying to mediate,bring people together, so they rise above saying "No U! Maybe a little bit me but mostly u!"

Then stop using those 50 cent words.  By the time I look them up I have forgotten what we were supposed to be arguing about.  lol

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

No one. 
I'm just trying to mediate,bring people together, so they rise above saying "No U! Maybe a little bit me but mostly u!"

Then stop using those 50 cent words.  By the time I look them up I have forgotten what we were supposed to be arguing about.  lol

Sorry.  If you come up with a better word for unfalsifiable or postulate, let me know.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.