J.C.MacSwell

Thanks INow. It was higher back when you had a population close to Canada's present population. Canada's is presently well above your peaks around that time, currently 20+ percent. Not perfectly, but we seem to manage it, albeit with lower population densities overall. We also have an incarceration level 1/6 of what yours is, and less military spending.

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration? I'm not advocating the use of detaining as a deterrent. But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

I think that is a valid argument. Do you disagree with that argument, or disagree?

Ten oz. I realize you think you know better than I do about any agenda I might have, but I am actually the authority on it not you. Insulting my questions does not change that fact. I am not pushing that. I was merely asking questions on it. In particular with respect to the costs associated with it.

I asked some questions. But I really haven't. As usual, you are quick to assume.

From the link: "Less wasteful and equally effective alternatives to detention exist. Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security show that the costs of these alternatives can range from 70 cents to $17 per person per day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the currently detained population, taxpayers could save more than $1.44 billion per year—almost an 80 percent reduction in annual costs." Do you not think allowing more migrants through (and not detain them) would encourage more migrants to come?

And you would like to see it maintained, and continue to pay for it? The link seems in favour of reducing the requirements and costs of the infrastructure for low risk individuals. Would this not increase and encourage the flow of economic migrants. I am making the assumption that all here are in favour of those migrating and seeking asylum for fear of safety or persecution, and many wish to maintain current targets overall but keep the system as fair and economic as practical.

Thanks CY

Why would you say that? (Maybe you think I'm a heartless conservative? Or maybe I don't care about the costs at the US border? This is the type of remark that feeds Trump supporters. I don't take it personally, but I think it is counterproductive) I cared enough to ask. I was trying to get the 50,000 you quoted in perspective. If it is a couple hours it is a lot less significant than 3 months. 50,000 for an average of, say 2 days, would be less significant than 5,000 extra Caravan detainees for a month. A few thousand is a lot. The fact that you have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the World does not make it any easier to absorb immigrants. There are no bulk discounts to apply from that. Thank you. That is a good post.

Again fair enough. Let's get to the big picture. Where is this set up and how long do they stay there? Is it kept secure? Are they essentially incarcerated, at least with regard to going further into the US? What happens to the ones that do not meet the bar for being accepted? Are they sent back across the border? How long are they detained, on average?

OK. Fair enough. Yes. I would expect that would be more of a logistical problem, though less critical than food, water, and of course waste management. Water for basic hygiene before showers.

Did you read his post without assuming the worst? He clearly indicated that was something that could and should be managed.

Thanks MigL Maybe if Markus sees this he will comment.

Would that not be conserved as gravitational potential energy? Globally, we could assume a Frame that is consistent as neutral to the CMBR, which (I think) would be a growing continuum of a set of local inertial frames. With that we could ask whether energy is conserved with the expansion, and how and why, or even if the question is valid for that Frame.

I would suggest you look at a large size version of Lego...

Is that like when you cite something that doesn't support your position, and when you have it pointed out you are unable to admit it because your confirmation bias is so high you cannot see that you are clearly wrong? No. You just can't stand a moderate position where someone can see both sides. Everything is "False Equivalency!" if they don't see your's alone. Even this...the latest you took exception to...if you were a Trump supporter I could see a mild objection to it...but no...not enough "Democrats can do no wrong" in it for your liking:

This bodes well for 2020...

Use a different name the second time? Preferably one you know will not vote. Or use an accomplice working the poll station, They can choose what name to cross off. Obviously there will be safeguards against doing this, which may vary from place to place. And of course only one party would ever try it...

Pipe comes standard in it's outside dimension. For pipe 14" and large it is the same OD as the nominal size (so 14.00 +/- tolerance for a 14" pipe) The OD of a 6" pipe is 6.625" and a 12" is 12.75". A schedule 5 will have a thinner wall than a schedule 10, for the same nominal size.

Difference being that I am making a sports analogy tongue-in-cheek, not even stating my opinion, and you are stating your opinion and claiming it as fact.

I guess I forgot to add that Brenda Snipes is at WWE referee level... Honestly, I have no idea what is really going on in Florida...and I don't expect you do either

It seems more like a battle between two sports teams than an honest legal process...with Trump "rising" to WWE level.

If you do go that far, make sure you planet

Iowegian for now...Iowanian when you start moving to your next State...