Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I think we can all pretty much accept that first world countries use a great deal of energy to perpetuate their life-style. Also those countries contribute a considerable amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which has alarmed those in the climate change community. Many recommendations have been put forth to solve the CO2 problem and power-down our life-styles. This is a sure-fire plan that can achieve somewhat instant results. We deport all illegal aliens and refugees back to their point of origin. This is why deportations will help solve our CO2 emissions problems and lead to power-down.

1) Most refugees and illegal aliens come from the third world where CO2 emission levels are less. Once they are gone, they return to that life-style and we use less energy and produce less CO2 in the first world.

2) As costs rise to replace the labor that they used to do, such as yard maintenence or agriculture, then some of those services will be done away with or people will do them themselves. Grow your own food dammit. Don't put poison on your lawn.

3) With less crime, we will have to build less prisons and less law enforcement will be needed saving even more energy.

4) As more people take on physical tasks previously done by those lower paid illegals, the population in the first world will become healthier using less health care services. Or the service will be done away with as unnecessary. Saving both money and energy.

5) First world countries typical have lower birth rates. Without the presence of illegals and refugees, who have higher birth rates, we can reach ZPG and even start to lose population. This also saves us energy.

There you go. I have provided you an easy to implement solution to save the world.

I work daily in San Francisco and already see consequences of the shifting political winds vis a vis illegal immigration in routine activities.

Specifically, a number of lower tiered help - think maintenance, deliveries, stocking personnel in an array of businesses, are gone or in the process of leaving.
This is from both first hand observation and conversations.
While the crushingly high cost of living here always plays a role, I believe the changes underway - particularly in California - may be hugely disruptive on an economic, political, and social level.

Interesting times.

If their crime is just ileagal entry I favor deportation, but if they comit any crime from petty theft, welfare fraud right up to premeditated murder I want them to serve a maximum sentence, no early parole, no time off for good behavior. Then throw them out, and if they come back again lock them up for ilegal entry at federal prison in Northern Michigan or Alaska or whatever unpleasently cold climate you have available.

I proposed the same idea after seeing someone ranting about how first world countries consume too much resources. The person who was ranting was not at all happy at my suggestion of cutting off immigration to first world countries. I guess he was much more interested in having his family and friends move to join him in the first world that he appeared to despise so much!

Cog,

All good points. I think a more fundamental question is whether we (the U.S.) are a nation of laws or not? Should stopping at red lights be optional? If we are a nation of laws, then all illegals need to be deported. We can set criteria and numeric limits for letting many of them back in if we choose, subject to some of your other considerations.

Subjectivist wrote:If their crime is just ileagal entry I favor deportation, but if they comit any crime from petty theft, welfare fraud right up to premeditated murder I want them to serve a maximum sentence, no early parole, no time off for good behavior. Then throw them out, and if they come back again lock them up for ilegal entry at federal prison in Northern Michigan or Alaska or whatever unpleasently cold climate you have available.

But my main issue is economic. If people would behave and they didn't consume scarce resources, then I'd be fine with taking everyone who wanted to come. Unfortunately, resources (including money) are scarce, so that doesn't work.

I see the principle of punishing illegals for (serious) crimes to the full extent of the law. However, it's insanely expensive to keep a prisoner in federal prison for a year. Doing that isn't helping with the resource problem at all. Even if they're illegally getting some welfare or food stamps (which I don't favor economically), that's probably, on average, less than a quarter the cost of housing them in jail (say, for welfare fraud).

So I'd rather promptly kick them out every single time, for such fraud or minor crimes. (Not jaywalking, but say, driving with no license, insurance, etc -- i.e. meaningful scofflaw stuff.) That would be both a strong deterrent (word would get around) and minimize the cost of implementation.

drwater wrote:Cog,

All good points. I think a more fundamental question is whether we (the U.S.) are a nation of laws or not? Should stopping at red lights be optional? If we are a nation of laws, then all illegals need to be deported. We can set criteria and numeric limits for letting many of them back in if we choose, subject to some of your other considerations.

This is one example of why I can't "be a liberal". (There are plenty of examples why I can't "be a conservative" too.) Just ignoring any laws one doesn't like for whatever "principle" (or more likely, convenience, IMO) is the way to chaos.

If we don't like laws, we should change them.

I was hit hard in an intersection by an extremely drunk driver when I was 24. For a couple of seconds, I thought I might die. When the first cop approached he was so pissed I was afraid of him -- I thought he was pissed at me for some reason. He explained he'd seen the innocent guy killed in a similar accident two nights ago and was getting REALLY sick of that sort of thing.

So, being very pissed myself (but thankful I'd worn my seat belt), I joined MADD, contributed to them, wrote letters to congressmen, etc. Not that I personally had anything to do with it, but around shortly after that society had had ENOUGH of drunks killing and maiming with little consequence. Drunk driving penalties and enforcement were greatly stiffened.

That's an example of how we should change laws we don't like, not ignore them and hope they go away.

The main thing driving the hatred of foreigners is the factories closed and there is no need for unskilled workers.
You will still need people to pick the fruit,clean the toilets and man the kitchens of restraunts though

Cog,

As usual you have a decent argument.

However I am reminded of a position Ibon took sometime ago and his proposition. I'm sure I won't recall it correctly or with his eloquence but it sort of ran like this........

For too long forces in the USA, of both political persuasions, have encouraged illegal immigration. If not by outright support then by failure to act to secure our borders. Basically we wanted them to do me I tasks and to be a neck indentured servant, someone we could bully and threaten with deportation of they didn't comply. We, through our incompetent and cheroot political leadership are largely responsible for the approximately 11 million illegals within our borders.

So the proposal is that we do a one time amnesty to all illegals, without felony convictions, and make them citizens. Gowing forward we then strictly enforce our borders and immigration policies. No more allowing folks to overstay their visas. No sanctuary cities/states. Nix.Anyway that's how I remember his proposal.

To this, from MY perspective, I would add this. The Federal Government requires each state to prepare a development plan that states the target population for that state and how it intends to achieve that population by when. Each state gets to decide if they have enough folks or if they need more and if the additional population will come from internal breeding or from stealing another states population or from external immigration. Then the Federals set the rules for becoming a citizen.

So if California wants to grow an additional 30 million and wants them all to be Mexican immigrants fine. But then there will be a perms ate cap on California's population, not to exceed ever present+30 million. If they exceed then we go to LIFO, Last In First Out. If the have P+31 then the last 1 million immigrants need to go back. No ifs ands or buts.

This would cause the USA to set some peak population level, say 500 million, that could never be exceeded. It would make it a State wide discussion where folks would have to think about whether they wanted grandkids or immigrants. It would bring the discussion to the family dining table where it should be. The Feds would be out of the argument, let the states hash it out.

There have been a number of ICE deportations going on in the major cities as of late. Concentrating on the felons.

Cog wrote:There have been a number of ICE deportations going on in the major cities as of late. Concentrating on the felons.

I can't imagine why the Ds don't support the idea of deporting Mexican drug gang members, muggers, burglars, and other felons.

Deporting foreign criminals who come here to prey on US citizens just seems like common sense to me.


The policies of Obama and the D sanctuary cities shielding criminals from deportation are nuts. OF COURSE we should deport foreign criminals.

Newfie wrote:Cog,

As usual you have a decent argument.

However I am reminded of a position Ibon took sometime ago and his proposition. I'm sure I won't recall it correctly or with his eloquence but it sort of ran like this........

For too long forces in the USA, of both political persuasions, have encouraged illegal immigration. If not by outright support then by failure to act to secure our borders. Basically we wanted them to do me I tasks and to be a neck indentured servant, someone we could bully and threaten with deportation of they didn't comply. We, through our incompetent and cheroot political leadership are largely responsible for the approximately 11 million illegals within our borders.

So the proposal is that we do a one time amnesty to all illegals, without felony convictions, and make them citizens. Gowing forward we then strictly enforce our borders and immigration policies. No more allowing folks to overstay their visas. No sanctuary cities/states. Nix.Anyway that's how I remember his proposal.

To this, from MY perspective, I would add this. The Federal Government requires each state to prepare a development plan that states the target population for that state and how it intends to achieve that population by when. Each state gets to decide if they have enough folks or if they need more and if the additional population will come from internal breeding or from stealing another states population or from external immigration. Then the Federals set the rules for becoming a citizen.

So if California wants to grow an additional 30 million and wants them all to be Mexican immigrants fine. But then there will be a perms ate cap on California's population, not to exceed ever present+30 million. If they exceed then we go to LIFO, Last In First Out. If the have P+31 then the last 1 million immigrants need to go back. No ifs ands or buts.

This would cause the USA to set some peak population level, say 500 million, that could never be exceeded. It would make it a State wide discussion where folks would have to think about whether they wanted grandkids or immigrants. It would bring the discussion to the family dining table where it should be. The Feds would be out of the argument, let the states hash it out.

In theory that sounds great and all, the problem is exactly that proposal was enacted back during the Reagan Presidency. Millions of illegals were granted Amnesty and the border laws were supposed to be strongly enforced from that day forward. The enforcement part never happened. Then back in 2006 when there was a big push for a new Amnesty many on Congress got calls and letters telling them to secure the border FIRST before any amnesty was pushed through. they passed the border control act and ordered that a wall would be built on the Mexican border to control immigration. A few weeks after coming into office President Obama declared that the wall was 'nearly complete' and pretty much stopped further construction when it was only about 5 percent completed.

Look I am not a heartless so and so who wants to see people dying in the desert dumped off by coyotes to fend for themselves. But the situation is totally out of control and needs to be brought under control before we hear any more amnesty BS from the globalists and slave labor advocates who want a lot of poor low education immigrants they can bully into doing as they are told for sweat shop wages because they are afraid of disobeying.

Since being re-elected in 2012, the Obama administration released over 86,000 criminal alien felons into the United States.

Since 2013 the Obama administration released 86,000+ criminal alien felons into the USA

These are illegal aliens who committed serious crimes in the USA, were convicted in US courts, served time etc. and then were released onto the streets of our cities by the Obama administration instead of being deported as required by US law.


AND if an illegal alien commits a felony in the USA....chances are Obama won't deport him.

Obama who?

News obviously travels slow to Alaska, probably even fake news

pstarr wrote:

Cog wrote:There have been a number of ICE deportations going on in the major cities as of late. Concentrating on the felons.

You sound like Tea Partier. I'll bet you were?

Don't you read the news? This has been widely reported in US media. People are protesting the deportations. There are hundreds of thousands of these felons around by the way.

Here you go

http://ktla.com/2017/02/09/protests-eru ... -counties/

Tanada,

I completly get your point. Build the wall, first.

This is point where I think the Left has completly lost their marbles. Even in my most Liberal days I could not understand how you allow illegal immigration.

What is the definition of a country if not its borders? Why do we have passports if not to be able to get back into your own country?

I can understand allowing people to burn the flag, freedom of expression. I can't understand the two faced illegal support of illegal immigration supported by BOTH parties.

If I believed in conspiracy theories and TPTB this would be article #1 of proof that they are colluding to circumvent our laws and national soveringty.