Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[charwin95]

I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
I know you told me how tough you are but------ how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?

It's called working under the table..


And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?

You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.

Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..

Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.

.

Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?

And if you remove all these illegals from ----- let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.

They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas


God you refuse to get supply and demand.


Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?

How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
3. if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
Then pay babysitter.
4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?

Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour

• Philip Wegmann

3 years ago

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.

The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
I]

For your post #363 & 364.

You are totally lost in the jungle dude. Big time. This just show how a ignorant you are.
Tell me what is so hard working at McDonald's or Walmart inside an air conditioned building compared to working at ------- convalescence home, home care, agricultural farm at 100+° , slaughter house etc etc etc? Tell me.

On top of that you did not even answer every single questions I asked you.

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.

Agree 100%. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats..

Wrong! Sanctuary enclaves can be found in many red states too. Not only do these states have Sanctuary Cities,some have Sanctuary counties too.
Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States

Oh you poor, poor little nitwit. What you call "red states" have "blue" cities in them, you twit. Ohio is a red state right now, but Cleveland is solid blue. Michigan is a red state right now, but Detroit is solid blue.

How dumb does one have to be to believe that if a state is "red", 100% of the population and cities in that state are Republican?!?

So I'll ask again stupid - who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government! Am doing which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats!

I can't help an idiot like you who cannot think beyond his nose. Governors of red states could certainly influence the cities and counties under their jurisdictions. Distributions of federal funding generally goes through the state which then distributes said funds to counties and cities.
Don't pretend Repub-lie-con governors don't give Sanctuary entities under their jurisdictions a pass. Often, Republican interests are enhanced by cheap alien labor and you know it.

 

[JQPublic1]

Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the dimensions..

Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?

Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass. Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid. Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.

Mitch "the bitch" McConnell doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate. And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify 11 million illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms to do it. Anyone who knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....

You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

 

[KissMy]

Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass. Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid. Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.

Mitch "the bitch" McConnell doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate. And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify 11 million illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms to do it. Anyone who knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....

You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!

Grow up.

Why the fuck you are telling me that? Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
His been doing these to me for a while.

I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?

"But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"

Really mature.

So why the fuck you want to get involved?

Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.

Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.

"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "

Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?

 

[charwin95]

It's called working under the table..


And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?

You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.

Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..

Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.

.

Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?

And if you remove all these illegals from ----- let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.

They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas


God you refuse to get supply and demand.


Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?

How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
3. if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
Then pay babysitter.
4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?

Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour

• Philip Wegmann

3 years ago

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.

The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.


://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/

Again it's simple economics 101 you get rid of 20 million illegals wages
Will go up...


McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires

.

What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.

Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
In short your just fucked up the economy.

Anything else tough guy?

 

[bripat9643]

Mitch "the bitch" McConnell doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate. And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify 11 million illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms to do it. Anyone who knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....

You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?

 

[charwin95]

No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.

$20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget. The government spends more than that on office supplies. Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.

The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.

The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...

But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.

Yes it is, dumbass.

How did you know that?
You may want to read the link. It cost $1 billion for 62 miles but that's the easy sections of the border, witch is accessible for heavy equipment and roads. Do you think prices of those wall are the same as those in mountainous terrains? Do your math at $1billion for 62 miles ----- 2,000 miles.

Trump border wall ask: $1B for 62 miles

 

[charwin95]

Why the fuck you are telling me that? Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
His been doing these to me for a while.

I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?

"But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"

Really mature.

So why the fuck you want to get involved?

Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.

Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.

"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "

Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?

Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.

 

[charwin95]

Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?

Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!

Grow up.

Why the fuck you are telling me that? Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
His been doing these to me for a while.

I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?

"But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"

Really mature.

So why the fuck you want to get involved?

Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.

You little hypocrite. You have people insulting me here and you have Bear calling me names -------Did you blasted them for me?

I was talking to you like adults...... Didn't I Asshole?

 

[JQPublic1]

You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?

You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".

 

[bripat9643]

"But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"

Really mature.

So why the fuck you want to get involved?

Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.

Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.

"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "

Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?

Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.

You mean you don't see the problem with your English?

Really?

 

[KissMy]

You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?

That ain't enough if they are paying illegals $10k less than native citizens every year. The fine needs to be $50k. Or let illegals pay $50k each to remain in country.

 

[charwin95]

So why the fuck you want to get involved?

Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.

Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.

"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "

Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?

Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.

You mean you don't see the problem with your English?

Really?

Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
Keep trying you might piss me off.

 

[Spare_change]

$20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget. The government spends more than that on office supplies. Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.

The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.

The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...

But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.

$20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget. The government spends more than that on office supplies. Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.

The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.

The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...

But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.

Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?

Nahh --- I didn't think so.

Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
This alone is just your pure delusional.

English your second language?

You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.

In short, you said it ... now, prove it.

 

[Spare_change]

Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!

What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?

Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!

What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?

I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.

THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.

Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.

On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything. and what challenge did he offer?

Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.

If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!

Grow up.

Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.

Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.

 

[Spare_change]

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?

You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".

Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?

No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.

 

[charwin95]

The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...

But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.

The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...

But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.

Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?

Nahh --- I didn't think so.

Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
This alone is just your pure delusional.

English your second language?

You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.

In short, you said it ... now, prove it.

Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None.

You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.

 

[charwin95]

What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?

What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?

I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.

THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.

Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.

On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything. and what challenge did he offer?

Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.

If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!

Grow up.

Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.

Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.

I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.

 

[charwin95]

(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?

You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".

Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?

No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.

Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.