I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Good point. However starving people do not tend to complain about food and accommodations. Nor do they have designer clothes and a IPhone.
I think there are some that take advantage when they are not starving or otherwise poor. Some see it as a good way to increase their wealth, not get out of poverty. Then take the resources away from people who really need it.
Perhaps some of the money spent can be allocated to programs that help people in poverty come out of poverty while in their native country? This may help prevent the US from becoming the same type of dire economy as the countries they came from.
That's not a great solution if the migrant is trying to escape starvation. I believe that the proportion of migrants escaping starvation is going to keep increasing at least for a bit.
To me, it's not just a question of how to keep people out. Seems counterproductive given an ongoing labor shortage.
That's not a great solution if the migrant is trying to escape starvation. I believe that the proportion of migrants escaping starvation is going to keep increasing at least for a bit.
To me, it's not just a question of how to keep people out. Seems counterproductive given an ongoing labor shortage.
I agree. My point was the people who are let in should actually be starving and/or poor. I do not belive such people would be complaining about accommodation. Nor would they be sporting nice clothes and expensive cell phones.
So perhaps better investigation of these people is warranted. However how do you do this without proper boarder policy?
Thanks for pointing out that a bill proposed 2 years ago, failed. Republicans are not the majority party so I don't think you have much to worry about.
I agree. My point was the people who are let in should actually be starving and/or poor. I do not belive such people would be complaining about accommodation. Nor would they be sporting nice clothes and expensive cell phones.
So perhaps better investigation of these people is warranted. However how do you do this without proper boarder policy?
Precisely ... the question is what is "proper border policy"? Should history and ethics factor into it?
Historically, the approach seems to be that "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, also.”
Precisely ... the question is what is "proper border policy"? Should history and ethics factor into it?
Historically, the approach seems to be that "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, also.”
It should be "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours" and "I'll give you some of mine if you really need it and enough so you can yourself get more".
It should be "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours" and "I'll give you some of mine if you really need it and enough so you can yourself get more".
How does one implement that policy? What would it look like? Just asking because many minds much better than mine can't figure this out. Are you saying that there are people shouldn't be considered because of their wardrobe and cell phone choices? Perhaps some of them actually need amnesty. I get it, I know this doesn't work when millions of people ask for amnesty. The Cato Institute has, IMHO, a reasoned approached to immigration reform (it's a real conservative think tank, not Congress:) and I don't know why their fellow "conservatives" aren't interested in taking any of these ideas on. To me, it's kinda silly to come to an online forum and criticize our supposed policies if you can't offer any concrete ideas.
How does one implement that policy? What would it look like? Just asking because many minds much better than mine can't figure this out. Are you saying that there are people shouldn't be considered because of their wardrobe and cell phone choices? Perhaps some of them actually need amnesty. I get it, I know this doesn't work when millions of people ask for amnesty. The Cato Institute has, IMHO, a reasoned approached to immigration reform (it's a real conservative think tank, not Congress:) and I don't know why their fellow "conservatives" aren't interested in taking any of these ideas on. To me, it's kinda silly to come to an online forum and criticize our supposed policies if you can't offer any concrete ideas.
"Our supposed policies" is correct. The US does have policies and immigration laws already. The problem is that the current administration is not doing their job and upholding said laws. They have been tearing down everything Trump did and allowing millions to come for "amnesty". Biden and Mayorkas should both be impeached for dereliction of duty!
I thought the GOP was going to impeach Mayorkas ASAP? Perhaps their distracted with Direct TV dropping Newsmax. Claiming censorship. It's seems like government telling a business what channels to carry is a violation of the first amendment.
I thought the GOP was going to impeach Mayorkas ASAP? Perhaps their distracted with Direct TV dropping Newsmax. Claiming censorship. It's seems like government telling a business what channels to carry is a violation of the first amendment.
It's not a violation per say. And a private business can make their own decisions of course. Except in some recent court cases.
Did Direct TV recieve complaints from their subscribers? Or did they just collectively not like or agree with the differing opinions of News Max and chose to sensor because they can?
Not all censorship violates the 1st amendment. But a moral consideration is also to be considered. An example being the Cake Baker that refused to make a LBGTQ cake. It was his private business but was it morally right for him to refuse?
The executives decided they didn't like News Max so they eliminated it. Should they have? Although not a law violation, it does present the idea that Direct TV doesn't value free speech or diverse opinions.
However, Direct TV said it was removed due to a pricing conflict. Of this is true then the above is irrelevant.
The executives decided they didn't like News Max so they eliminated it. Should they have? Although not a law violation, it does present the idea that Direct TV doesn't value free speech or diverse opinions.
It seems this is a financial decision, and not DirecTV "cencorship" of conservative speach.
heron, ASN, RN
4,688 Posts
That's not a great solution if the migrant is trying to escape starvation. I believe that the proportion of migrants escaping starvation is going to keep increasing at least for a bit.
To me, it's not just a question of how to keep people out. Seems counterproductive given an ongoing labor shortage.