Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday December 15 2018, @05:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the Buy-a-Brick,-Build-a-Wall-Act dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

As President Donald Trump threatened to allow a government shutdown if Congress did not provide funding for his proposed wall along the Mexican border, a Republican congressman from Ohio offered up alternative routes to getting the wall built: through Internet crowdfunding or through an initial coin offering.

During an interview with NPR's Morning Edition on December 12, Rep. Warren Davidson said that he had offered what he referred to as a "modest proposal" in the form of his "Buy a Brick, Build a Wall Act." The bill, which he submitted on November 30, would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to accept monetary gifts from anyone "on the condition that it be used to plan, design, construct, or maintain a barrier along the international border between the United States and Mexico." The funds would go into an account called the "Border Wall Trust Fund," and a public website would be set up to process donations electronically.

Rep. Davidson told NPR's Steve Inskeep that the donations could come from anyone and be gathered in a number of ways."You could do it with this sort of, like, crowdfunding site," Davidson explained. "Or you could do it with blockchain—you could have Wall Coins."

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/ohio-congressman-we-can-fund-border-wall-with-wallcoin/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 16 2018, @01:30AM (12 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 16 2018, @01:30AM (#775001) Journal

    Look who flunked reading comprehension! I was talking about both the caravan that hasn't reached the border yet, but that intended to present itself at that fictional golden door, and the many families that already did properly and legally present themselves at a legal entry point who were systematically separated from their children and are now incarcerated separately from their young children. Even the Trump administration acknowledges that those already incarcerated children number in the thousands. They've been here for some time. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know about it.

    Of course this is mustache twirling cartoon villain level evil, so I can understand why you'd want to put it out of your mind.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 16 2018, @03:05AM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 16 2018, @03:05AM (#775026) Journal

    That was an entirely different event, of course. And, obviously, those people weren't all "legal". Some small number, as I recall, were criminals who had already been deported. A larger number were people who were ineligible and/or undesirables.

    What many fail to understand is, those illegals are the ones who put their children at risk. The US didn't put them at risk of death by dehydration while crossing the border. The US didn't suggest they come, at all. We've made it fairly clear that we don't want them, but they insist on coming anyway. Donald Trump didn't do that to them, they did it to themselves.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Sunday December 16 2018, @03:53AM (10 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 16 2018, @03:53AM (#775037) Journal

      None of them were illegals. They entered the U.S. at a legal point of entry and applied for status legally. Some were ineligible for various reasons, but they weren't illegal. But as far as I know, none of the children were criminals (espacially those under the age of criminal responsability). Some of them weren't old enough to know what crime is.

      In many cases, their children were at risk where they were as well. Their parents weighed the risk of staying vs the risk of trying to reach the United states. Some may have underestimated the difficulty of the trip, others might have faced so much risk at home that it actually did outweigh the risk of trying to get in to the U.S. Indeed, that part is not the fault of the U.S. (unless their danger at home derived from our never ending drug war or fighting forces propped up by the CIA), but what happened to them once they got here most certainly was.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 16 2018, @07:04AM (9 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 16 2018, @07:04AM (#775076) Journal

        Let's put this on a more personal level. Some crazy person comes into your home. He/she brings half a dozen kids with her. She won't leave, insisting that she has some kind or "right" to be there. The law comes and takes her away. Now - what about the kids? Are you going to be their new mom? Are you going to send them somewhere? Where, exactly? I can almost promise you that those kids are going to see the inside of the police station, and maybe Juvie Hall. They have to go SOMEWHERE. Surely you don't want them locked up in the jail house with their mom? Out of the kindness of your heart, I suppose you can give them your bedroom, and you can sleep on the couch.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:09AM (8 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:09AM (#775079) Journal

          In that case, she is trespassing on private property. In the case of the immigrant seeking asylum, she is exercising a right that the U.S. agreed by treaty that she has which is enshrined in international law. That is, she is not breaking the law.

          As for parents who break the law, the kids go to a close relative if at all possible, or to foster care. They do not go to kiddie jail. They most certainly do not have to represent themselves in court and in general, they are allowed to communicate with their incarcerated parent.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:49AM (7 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:49AM (#775082) Journal

            All the parties to the treaty have to agree that asylum is necessary, don't they? No, she's not exercising a right unless and until we AGREE that she has a right to enter this country.

            And, once again, I say that they have an obligation to fix their own country, rather than to bug out to America, and bring their problems with them.

            Nice graphic here, explaining how and why we do no good for the world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE [youtube.com] The video is a little out of date - maybe ten or fifteen years out of date. The numbers have changed, ever so slightly, primarily because China has changed.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16 2018, @04:12PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16 2018, @04:12PM (#775114)

              All the parties to the treaty have to agree that asylum is necessary, don't they? No, she's not exercising a right unless and until we AGREE that she has a right to enter this country.

              TMB's taxonomy disagrees with you [soylentnews.org]. Rights are not something we bestow upon another.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Sunday December 16 2018, @05:19PM (2 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 16 2018, @05:19PM (#775125) Journal

              There exists a right to apply for asylum. The procedure for that starts with entry.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:27PM (1 child)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:27PM (#775184) Journal

                Citation needed. I could swear that one can apply for asylum at an embassy or consulate. Remember Vietnam, and the evacuation of Hanoi? (Sorry, you may not be old enough to remember.) Asylum was granted to those folk before they ever left Vietnam. We couldn't airlift all the people to whom asylum was granted, so many were left behind. Obviously, if there is any requirement of entry before applying, it can be waived.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:22PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:22PM (#775204) Journal

                  >a href="https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum">here. here [wikipedia.org], and here [usatoday.com].

                  All indicate that one may apply at a point of entry or even when already inside the U.S. as well as at an embassy (note, if you are in the embassy, you are technically already inside the United States).

                  I was a bit young to know what was going on when Hanoi was evacuated, but I do know what happened.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:15PM (#775201)

              And, once again, I say that they have an obligation to fix their own country...

              The people in the caravan are Central Americans. They've been trying to fix their own countries for the last 150 years, but every time they make a start, the US installs another violent dictator, and they have to start again.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 17 2018, @06:31AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 17 2018, @06:31AM (#775309) Journal

                Maybe they should close their borders, to keep the Norte Americanos the hell out.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:43AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:43AM (#775334)

                So why go to America? They have a Trump!