Dr. Steven Gundry generally advises caution with carrots, advising that they should be eaten in moderation due to their high sugar content when cooked, which makes the sugars more available. While they are not considered a highly lectin-heavy food, he suggests eating them raw when possible to avoid this breakdown of cell walls. [1, 2]
Key points from Dr. Gundry regarding carrots:
• Raw is Better: Cooking carrots breaks down their cell walls, releasing sugars that may not be ideal, so raw is preferred.
• Moderate Intake: Due to their starch/sugar content, they are not an "eat all you want" vegetable in his diet plans.
• Low Lectin: Raw carrots are generally low in lectins compared to high-lectin foods like beans or grains. [1, 2, 3, 4]
He emphasizes focusing on leafy greens and other low-sugar, low-lectin vegetables for better gut health, rather than root vegetables. [1, 5]
Here are **five ways** in which Mexico's immigration policy has often been described as stricter than that of the United States, particularly in enforcement practices and treatment of irregular migration (especially from Central America and other transit countries). These points draw from historical and ongoing comparisons, noting that policies evolve and both countries have tightened controls in recent years.
1. **Higher deportation rates relative to apprehensions**
Mexico has historically deported a much higher percentage of apprehended migrants compared to the US. For example, in periods like 2004–2018, Mexico deported about 94% of apprehended Central American migrants, while the US often apprehended far more than it deported (due to asylum processing, releases, or other factors). In specific years (e.g., 2015–2018), Mexico deported more Central Americans than the US did, despite the US having a much larger overall unauthorized population and border flow.
2. **Stricter enforcement and use of military/national guard for border control**
Mexico has deployed its National Guard (and previously other forces) extensively to enforce its southern border with Guatemala, intercepting migrants in transit and restricting movement northward. This has included busing migrants back south, checkpoints, and disruptions to migrant routes—often in direct response to US pressure. The US enforces its border primarily through Border Patrol and ICE, but Mexico's approach has been characterized as more aggressive in blocking transit migration.
3. **Visa requirements and restrictions on transit/asylum access**
Mexico has imposed visa requirements on nationals from countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and others in recent years, and restricted humanitarian visas or transit permissions that previously allowed migrants to move through the country while awaiting US asylum claims. It has also kept many asylum seekers in southern Mexico rather than allowing them to reach the US border. While the US has asylum restrictions (e.g., metering, Remain in Mexico), Mexico's policies have limited onward movement more directly for non-Mexicans.
4. **Criminalization and penalties for irregular entry (historically harsher)**
Prior to reforms (e.g., pre-2008), unauthorized entry into Mexico could result in jail time (up to two years), and even after decriminalization, enforcement remains firm with fines, detention, and rapid removal. Some sources describe Mexico's overall framework for legal residency and citizenship as more difficult and restrictive for many foreigners compared to US pathways, though the US has per-country caps and backlogs.
5. **Rapid removals and cooperation in deportations**
Mexico frequently cooperates with the US on deportations (including accepting third-country nationals in some cases) and carries out swift removals of non-Mexicans to their origin countries. In contrast, the US system often involves longer processing times due to court backlogs, asylum claims, and legal protections. Recent Mexican administrations have increased deportations and enforcement budgets, contributing to sharp drops in migrant flows through the country.
Note that "stricter" is subjective and context-dependent—Mexico faces different migration dynamics (primarily as a transit country) than the US (primarily a destination). Both nations have faced criticism for enforcement practices, and recent years show convergence in tougher controls.
Henry McClure 785.383.9994 sent from mobile 📱 time kills deals
Based on Dr. Steven Gundry's "Plant Paradox" principles, pickled beets can be part of a healthy diet, but with specific, critical caveats regarding preparation and ingredients. [1, 2]
Here is what Dr. Gundry says about pickled beets:
• Raw vs. Cooked Beets: Dr. Gundry generally classifies raw beets as a "Yes" food. He cautions that cooking root vegetables like beets breaks down their cell walls, making their sugars more available and potentially less healthy.
• Pickling and Fermentation: He advises that true fermentation is better than simple vinegar pickling. While many pickled foods are just in vinegar, fermented foods (like properly fermented pickled beets) are rich in gut-healthy probiotics.
• Watch the Ingredients: Dr. Gundry often warns that many store-bought pickled products contain added sugars and unhealthy oils, which should be avoided.
• Lectin Concerns: Beets are generally low in lectins, but they are high in sugar (carbohydrates). [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
In summary: Dr. Gundry considers fermented, low-sugar, homemade, or properly sourced pickled beets acceptable, but cautions against store-bought versions laden with added sugar and preservatives. [8, 9, 10, 11]
From: Michael Padilla <mpadilla@topeka.org> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:22 PM To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com> Subject: RE: good to see you at the mall
Henry,
If you believe this report, then you are not as smart as some people say you arr.
Have a good day.
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 7:40 PM To: Brett Kell <bkell@topeka.org> Cc: Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org> Subject: good to see you at the mall
This message originated from outside your organization
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rhonda Underwood<prettyidangel@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:58 PM Subject: Lauren's Bay To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Hey Mr. Henry McClure,
Both you and Mr. Dultmeier gave outstanding information that the people of the community need to know and hear. KUDOS
Rhonda
LOCAL
Developer: City can't stand pat regarding problems with Lauren's Bay Estates
Situation could leave city on the hook to pay $11.1 million
Tim Hrenchir
The city of Topeka will "get every lot back" if it charges the current estimated special assessment of $3,318 per parcel in southwest Topeka's Lauren's Bay Estates, said Perry Marney, who owns 28 of the lots.
"The bottom line is that, if nothing changes, that subdivision will never go," Marney told The Topeka Capital-Journal on Friday.
The failure of the 178-lot development — located just west of S.W. 47th and Wanamaker Road — could cost the city as much as $11.1 million, council members learned at their meeting this past week.
Brandon Kauffman, the city's chief fiscal officer and controller/treasurer, said Gene Jani's Brainstorm Development Group initiated the Lauren's Bay Estates project using a process through which the city forms special assessment benefit districts to encourage development.
Developers ask the city to form geographic districts to pay the city's costs to provide such services as water, sewer and street infrastructure. The city, after the work is completed, requires each lot owner to pay a certain amount annually as part of their property tax bill, generally for 20 years.
But the city is legally obligated to pay any bonds it has issued if the developers or property owners default on the special assessment payments, Kauffman told the city governing body in a recent memorandum.
Get the Afternoon Headlines newsletter in your inbox.
Get the latest headlines you may have missed
Delivery: Weekdays
Kauffman said the city has assessed a payment of $701 per lot to put in sanitary sewer system infrastructure to serve Lauren's Bay Estates, and governing body members soon will be asked to approve assessments for projects the city completed to make improvements to a pond and provide water and street infrastructure. Work has yet to be completed on a separate project to make improvements to a second pond, he said.
Meanwhile, Jani went into bankruptcy in 2008 and ownership of the 178 lots is now divided between two banks, four developers and three individual owners. Those lots contain only three houses, Kauffman said.
He said CoreFirst Bank and Trust owns 68 parcels, James Klausman owns 45, Marney owns 28, The Lawrence Bank owns 19, Sam Campbell owns 10, Mark McGivern owns five and individual homeowners own three.
0:00
1:50
Kauffman's memo indicated the estimated total special assessment rate for the lots is $3,318 a year, at a time when the market rate is $1,800 to $2,160.
"The primary concern for the City is that the specials per lot are higher than the market rate, which will make the lots difficult to sell," Kauffman wrote.
Marney said the city consequently needs to do something other than maintain the status quo.
"The best way would be to extend the bonds out from 20 years to 30 years, but they say they can't do that," he said. "If they don't do anything and they just run the specials straight, they get every lot back."
The city's governing body on Tuesday will consider scheduling a June 9 public hearing to discuss its options, which Kauffman said include:
¦ Assessing the estimated $3,318 per lot.
¦ Putting in place a "partial pre-payment" option, which the city hasn't used in the past but its staff considers to be viable.
¦ Lowering the interest rate owners must pay on the lots, which would require the city to cover the part of the rate they don't pay.
Developer Chuck Dultmeier asked the city not to take the latter step at this past week's meeting.
Dultmeier said he owns 237 lots south of Lauren's Bay Estates and about 230 elsewhere in the area.
He said he would be "pounding my fist" if Lauren's Bay Estates got a special rate when he "made it work" without one.
Dultmeier suggested the city pursue the partial pre-payment option.
Kauffman explained that option in his memo to the governing body.
He wrote that, during the process to apply special assessments to properties, there is a 30-day window to pay special assessments in advance so they don't apply to the property. The city currently only allows full payment of those assessments but multiple cities in Kansas allow partial prepayments.
"For example, instead of an individual paying $1,000 for their share of the special assessment projects, the City would allow them to pay $500, resulting in the remaining $500 being spread over the 20 years of the bonds," Kauffman said.
He said partial prepayment would allow the city to reduce the debt load and enable Lauren's Bay Estates developers to bring the special assessments on the properties down to a rate that is closer to what the market is dictating.
In addition to dealing with the problems regarding Lauren's Bay, city officials are considering taking steps to mitigate the risk the city takes by offering special assessment benefit districts.
Kauffman said the city collected 97 percent of the special assessments it levied up until 2008, the year of a housing market crash, but has collected only 83 percent since that time.
Planning director Bill Fiander said the city will hold an open developer forum from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Thursday, May 21, at its Holliday Building, 620 S.E. Madison.
Fiander said the city will seek input regarding potentially changing its policy by requiring developers to:
¦ Pay for certain improvements.
¦ Obtain financial sureties.
¦ Put down a certain percentage of the project costs.
¦ Allow the city or a third party to perform due diligence on the developer's finances.
