Who is opposed to a border fence and why?

[WorldWatcher]

#1 - It has nothing to do with race or "white identify", it's removing birthright citizenship if you are here illegally. It doesn't do anything to those that are already citizens.

Of course it has to do with race! That's the basis of all opposition to any kind of immigration. Those who oppose immigrants do so out of identity politics and bigotry. They perceive immigrants as "less than"...so add supremacy to white racial resentment.

#3 - If they bring their kids with them sure. But entering the country illegally to obtain citizenship by giving birth here should be allowed. If you are here legally? Sure. If you are here illegally children should be citizens of the country of their parents.

Well, that's unconstitutional. So maybe think of a different solution that doesn't violate the 14th Amendment? What about making them citizens instead? That way, they are on the books, they pay taxes, and they have an incentive to contribute to American society. By keeping them in the shadows and posturing toughness, you're not solving any issue. You're just making it worse.

#4 - Go back and try again, I don't support building a 25 BILLION dollar wall and then spending millions every year after that to patrol and maintain it. Some walls near highly populated areas? Sure. But the biggest impact on reducing illegal alien presence in this country will occur by removing the motivations for them to come to begin with.

WTF??? Oy vey...you said yourself the motivation was "[P]eople come here to seek a better life". So how do you remove that motivation while still maintaining our land of opportunity? You get that your argument is rife with cognitive dissonance, right?

And what does that accomplish? Nothing. It might make you feel better about yourself, but this isn't about you. Get over yourself.

#5 - Nope that is not what I said. I said if they were in custody they would get health care while being processed. Anyone in custody should be treated if they have a medical condition and are being held by the government. If they sought asylum and came here legally, they would be in the same boat as everyone else.

OK, apologies then. I misunderstood what you wrote.

#1 My opinion has jack to do with race. You are the once injecting race into it. My opinion is based on legal v. illegal. You assume because I'm against someone breaking the law that I'm against legal immigration. A huge mistake on your part.

#3 I support federal law that clarifies that, for birthright citizenship, "under the jurisdiction of" means here legally. Let that clarification rise through the courts to be address by SCOTUS, since they have not addressed it in the context of illegal immigration. In the landmark case of Ark, they were here legally. If SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, I can live with that. Then we should amend the clarification into the Constitution. If the SCOTUS agrees, then it's not unconstitutional. If the Constitution is modified, then it's not unconstitutional either. In either case I support a Constitutional approach.

#4 There are plenty of opportunities for those that entry here legally. For those that would come here illegally, then they should not reap the same benefits that played by the rules instead of jumping the line. I'm here leagally, I don't have to feel better about myself. Just fine thank you.

#5 Roger.


>>>>

 

[BrokeLoser]

#1 Ending birthright citizenship for those in the country illegally,

Not the reason most illegal immigrants come here, so you're solving for a problem that doesn't exist.

#2 Hammer employers (both companies and individuals that hire "under the table") for hiring illegals and making it much more expensive by far then employing legal residents,

Again, that's not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem, but not the cause. The employers hiring illegal immigrants aren't the problem. The problem is employers import foreign workers (who will work for cheap and in worse conditions) and then aren't held accountable when the worker they imported doesn't leave.

#3 Restrict access to free education (K-12) and instate rates (post-secondary) [hell make schools mandatory reporters].

Well that makes little sense. Children are victims. They should be taken care of, even if they come here illegally because it's the humane thing to do. Also, most of those children are refugees who come from turmoil-torn countries in Central America. They are allowed to seek asylum and voluntarily turn themselves in to Border Patrol Agents because that's part of the process to seek asylum.

#4 Restrict access to social programs (housing assistance, food stamps, etc.),

Why? What good does that serve?

5 Restrict medical treatment to life saving emergency treatment, and then keep them in custody for deportation.

Again, the people you are talking about are largely asylum seekers fleeing conflict-torn Central American countries who turn themselves in when they cross the border in order to seek asylum. So they're already in custody as their case winds through Immigration Court. While in custody, we should give them medical treatment...because that's what being a good host entails.

#6 And yes, to accomplish #2 we need a solid guest worker program where bonds are paid and employers become responsible for the workers (I'm thinking like a Temp Agency for migrant workers that brings them in and takes them home as part of the mandate).

I would agree to that. I think that's a reasonable solution.

#6 stiffer penalties on those here illegally. Long times in a tent city before deportation

That doesn't accomplish anything. Why are you so dead-set on making these people suffer? Surely, we can detain them more humanely than that. We would expect other nations to humanely detain our citizens, so why isn't that a two-way street?

The USA has tent cities for criminals - for example Arizona.

And they're a disgusting stain on this country and should be abolished completely. We are judged by how we treat our prisoners. And we treat them like shit. So we are shit because of that. Last time I checked, AZ still had tons of violent crime, drugs, and illegal immigrants.

Why should illegals get any different than citizens?

Nobody should get that, first off. Secondly, doing that does nothing to prevent people from overstaying their visas. A "tent city" isn't going to magically make Jose "self-deport" after he overstays his visa. All it does is add a pointless level of cruelty to it. What do you think you accomplish by sticking anyone (let alone illegal immigrants) in "tent cities"? It hasn't stopped illegal immigrants at all. It hasn't stopped violent crime. It hasn't stopped recidivism. It's just cruelty and completely pointless. What do those "tent cities" prove, other than we don't know what the fuck to do about incarceration? Wouldn't the fact that "tent cities" even exist undermine the intent behind them? If the goal of a "tent city" is to prevent future crimes, it sure as shit isn't working.

Like all incarceration it is a deterrent against committing future crimes.

OK, but we've been incarcerating people since the founding of the country and crime still exists. Recidivism is high too. So even putting someone in a "tent city" doesn't make them less likely to end up in jail again. So it's not a deterrent for anything. It's just cruelty.

You are entitled to your opinions.

I sure am. I just don't see the point in being cruel to people. It's not going to deter future lawbreakers, obviously, so what is the real motivation behind it? That, I'm not so sure. I refuse to accept that it's cruelty for cruelty's sake. Is it to prove something? If so, what? Obviously it hasn't done anything to prevent crime or recidivism. So if it doesn't work, why are we still doing it??

So the penalties are not deterrents for crime?

Obviously not, since those crimes continue to happen. Like I said, doesn't the fact that "tent cities" are continually full undermine the assumed point of their effectiveness? I just want to get you to think differently about it, because the current solutions don't seem to be working that well.

Speeding tickets make no difference?

Obviously not, since people still speed. Some people speed so much they have tons of warrants out for them because of all the unpaid speeding tickets they get.

Security cameras make no difference?

They can, sure. But that's not what we're talking about. And it's not a penalty, like a jail sentence. It's just a piece of surveillance equipment.

People behave the same with and without penalties?

People are gonna commit crimes regardless. It's just gonna happen. What we need to figure out as a society is what is the best way to rehabilitate someone so they don't commit future crimes. So far, there's no real evidence that our current penalties are any more effective than more humane solutions. Like I said, we are judged by how we treat our prisoners. And we treat them like shit. So what does that say about us?

So if the last time I snuck across the border I had to do a year in a tent city before being deported that would have no affect on my plans to do it gain?

First of all, the bulk of illegal immigrants didn't sneak into this country. They were brought here by people like Trump who hate American workers. They hate American workers so much, they literally import labor that they don't have to treat or pay as they would a citizen. A "tent city" solves that, how? Seems to me the people we should be cruel towards are people like Trump who bring these folks in, then feign ignorance once their visas expire. If you're gonna be cruel to anyone, be cruel to those people because they created and perpetuated the problem you want to solve by being cruel to someone who possibly came to this country seeking asylum from their own conflict-torn lands. We should be welcoming those people here, not trying to kick them out. They had the desire, drive, ingenuity, and determination to get the hell out of their bad situations, and come to the land of opportunity. Why would you want to be cruel to them? I don't get it. It seems like posturing to me.

20 billion for the wall is a one time cost. The maintenance of that wall is likely to be less than a billion a year.

I've worked with enough contractors in my life to know that's a load of bullshit.

And a wall isn't going to stop Trump from importing foreign workers to work at his domestic resorts, then overstay their visas once they expire. A wall solves that problem, how? Because most illegal immigrants came here on visas like the ones Trump uses because he hates American workers. He hates American worker wages. He hates American worker workplace standards. He puts so little value on labor, he literally imports people so he doesn't have to adhere to any kind of standards American workers are accustomed to.

Healthcare, when run by the government, will start at 20 billion the first year and before that first year is over, will cost overrun by 3 billion.

No one is proposing government-run health care. All that is being proposed is government-run health insurance. How your doctor gets paid has no bearing on the treatment your doctor gives you. Because that transaction happens after you've already received treatment, not before. Think about the function an insurance company actually plays in health care. They administrate payment from the premium pool to your provider. A premium pool you've already paid into. So these guys shuffle money from one place to another, take as much as 20% for themselves, and that's better than a single payer, how? A single payer means all providers are reimbursed at the same rate, which levels the playing field and forces providers to compete for your care. And how do they do that? By improving outcomes and reducing costs. Isn't that what you want? Free market competition in health care?

WOW...congrats.
You win the award hands down for posting the most pussified bunch of bullshit I've ever read on this forum. Do you have a spine and or a nutsack at all?
Your dumbass:
"Laws don't work"
"Stiff penalties don't work"
"An aggressive approach with our incarcerated don't work"
But, but, but what will work is finding a clever approach to "rehabilitate" (coddle) our piece of shits....JUST FUCKING WOW!
I'd guess you've spent your life enabling, getting bullied and ran over by assertive, dominant types. Let your balls drop bud....it'll be okay.
Thank you for making me feel like a man with nuts...I really appreciate it.

 

[MarcATL]

Black communities desperately want a wall and for illegals to be deported.

Who told you that?

It's not true.

Black communities desperately want institutional racism to stop in this country.

Whichever party accomplishes that will have the black vote for the next century. Guaranteed.

 

[MrMike]

Black communities desperately want a wall and for illegals to be deported.

Who told you that?

It's not true.

Black communities desperately want institutional racism to stop in this country.

Whichever party accomplishes that will have the black vote for the next century. Guaranteed.

Do blacks need a political party to enable some of them to stop being racist? Interesting...

 

[BrokeLoser]

Black communities desperately want a wall and for illegals to be deported.

Who told you that?

It's not true.

Black communities desperately want institutional racism to stop in this country.

Whichever party accomplishes that will have the black vote for the next century. Guaranteed.

Momma always said:
"you must act like an equal if you expect to be treated equally"
I'm thinking nobody you has ever had the balls to profess this throughout our nations ghettos. You think?

 

[danielpalos]

Setting aside the disingenuous arguments about its cost and effectiveness, why are you opposed to a physical barrier to illegal immigration across our southern border? Please spare me the histrionics and tell me why we should not maintain our territorial integrity (like every other country in the world).

A waste of money.

 

[MarcATL]

#1 - Never said it was the reason "most" illegal aliens come here. But it is a factor, and then their is the tourism citizenship trade where well to do foreign nationals come to the US for a "vacation" and stay through a birth.

So what's the problem with that? If someone is born here to illegal immigrants, they are still a citizen. They are still in the system. They are still paying taxes. I don't understand what the problem with this is. The only thing I keep coming back to is that some folks don't want babies of color born in this country because they think it will somehow dilute their white identity. Let me be the first to tell you; there is no such thing as white identity. It doesn't matter what color you are, you're still an American. So this anti-birthright thing is being motivated not by justice, but by racial resentment.

#2 - Employers (whether companies or individuals hiring nannies or gardeners) are a huge part of the problem. People come here to seek a better life, part of the is the idea of finding a job.

Right, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people like Trump who import foreign workers simply because they don't want to pay them as well or treat them as well as American workers. There's no other reason. And if people are risking life and limb in order to get here, what does that say about their ethics? I'd say they're pretty strong, wouldn't you?

#3 - I agree that children are victims, their parents shouldn't have brought them here to begin with. They should return home with the parents and let their country of origin pay for schooling. If a child is a citizen of the US (see #1) the parents have a choice (a) take the child with them, (b) turn the child over to responsible relatives to remain, (c) give up the child for adoption.

Ugh...so, this is in contrast to what you just said above about how "[P]eople come here to seek a better life". Would that not extend to seeking a better life for their kids too? So these people make the thousands-of-miles journey through the worst of Central America all to make sure their children have better lives. So why do you want to punish the children for their parents' determination to make their lives better? I don't get it. It just seems like posturing. And it doesn't fucking work. Think about from where these people are coming...El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, even Mexico...these are not nations known for stability and opportunity. And your penalty for those parents is cruelty and nothing more. I mean one of your solutions is to literally break apart a family. What does that accomplish, exactly?

#4 - Significantly reduces the burden on the US taxpayer.

Well, you could cut spending anywhere and it would have the same effect. Cut military spending, and you significantly reduce the burden on the US taxpayer. The thing you've made clear is that you don't prioritize life above stupid things like walls. That is an indictment of you, not of illegal immigrants. So don't pretend as if cancelling benefits to illegal immigrants will somehow reduce a burden on you as a taxpayer. It won't. It never has.

#5 - If they have been granted asylum then they are not here illegally.

First of all, there's a long process in place before anyone is granted amnesty. So people who come here seeking amnesty come here illegally. They turn themselves into BP, then wind their way through the amnesty process and the courts. So they are not defacto legal migrants seeking asylum. They start off in the system as criminals, then it's on them to prove they're not. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't our judicial system work the opposite way?

#5 applies if they entered the country illegally. If of course they are in custody, then medical treatment should be denied.

So someone who came here illegally, seeking asylum should be denied health care? Why? That makes no sense.

Say it again!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Why is our Capitalist in Chief pandering to the right wing with social solutions on a national basis?

We should be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis through Commerce, well regulated.

 

[Rambunctious]

I have a fence surrounding my property and locks on my doors why would I not want that for my country. Any American that wants open borders is not a good American and is not very bright.

 

[The Derp]

1. You are lying through your teeth, because most of those states have large military facilities............but let us take your word as gospel, sooooooo------>

California has more military bases than any other state, and yet, California contributes more to the Treasury than it takes. So if CA can be a maker state and have lots of military bases, why can't any red state do the same?

Secondly, Red States use the welfare block grant to plug the deficit holes their tax policy creates. So if you want to get really technical, you could say your governing economic and fiscal ideology is dependent on welfare to subsidize it. Which would make you a welfare queen, wouldn't it?

2. You would rather give your money to NON-CITIZENS? Non-Americans? You are a patriot!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And you want us that have money to finance healthcare?

If I had to choose between giving health care to illegal immigrants and giving health care to Trump voters, I'd choose the illegal immigrants every time. You're the ones who voted for Trump, so you should be expecting cuts to your benefits and low prioritization of your needs. Where's that rugged individualism? Or is that only applicable to everyone but you? And you're not financing healthcare. Unless you are in the 1%, you aren't fucking financing shit. So get over yourself.

ANSWER---------> GO FU** yourself! You would rather give money to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS instead of your American bretheren, but you want Americans FORCED to give money through transfer of wealth to other Americans, AND illegals! You are a real piece of work, and are anti-American. You are a Marxist, no doubt about it!

I sure as shit would rather give benefits to illegal immigrants, who want to be here, instead of Trump voters, who don't know what the fuck they want.

 

[The Derp]

How many people were turned away from getting healthcare? Then why did we need Obamacare?

The problem isn't people being turned away from health care, the problem is paying for it. That's the part of this whole thing you don't think about. You say people can't get turned away from health care, and you're right. However, what about how that health care people can't get turned away from is paid and by whom? That's the question Conservatives don't have an answer for...Other than "don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly".

So how do YOU provide health insurance for MORE people with the same amount of money? ANSWER---------> YOU CAN NOT! So you want US to pay for those who can't afford it.

Bullshit. We all pay for Medicare, don't we? So how about instead of throwing premiums at insurance companies, who just take as much as 20% for themselves before performing their actual role of administration, everyone pays a payroll tax into a single risk pool from where Medicare administers reimbursement? Why is that not something you want? We already do that with Medicare, and it seems to work just fine.

A single payer means you can go to any doctor you want, because they're all reimbursed by the same entity (thus, no more "networks") which levels the playing field so that providers have to improve outcomes and reduce costs in order to attract patients. That is what free-market health care looks like.

Maybe you should think about what it is you actually want from our system instead of thinking about what you don't want.

 

[The Derp]

Why do I have to choose from those two positions mate?

Because your argument is cognitive dissonance; you say that illegal immigration is at an all-time low, yet you also say it's so bad that we have to spend $20B building a fucking wall. Well, it can't be both. So which is it? Pick a position.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a fence surrounding my property and locks on my doors why would I not want that for my country. Any American that wants open borders is not a good American and is not very bright.

Still don't understand the difference between the public sector and the private sector?

 

[The Derp]

#1 My opinion has jack to do with race. You are the once injecting race into it. My opinion is based on legal v. illegal. You assume because I'm against someone breaking the law that I'm against legal immigration. A huge mistake on your part.

You're mad at them for breaking the law because they have a motivation to make their lives better? You said the motivation for people coming here is because their lives would be better here. But you say we should remove that motivation and what? Make America the place where your lives aren't better? Come on, man. Think critically about what you're saying.

#3 I support federal law that clarifies that, for birthright citizenship, "under the jurisdiction of" means here legally. Let that clarification rise through the courts to be address by SCOTUS, since they have not addressed it in the context of illegal immigration. In the landmark case of Ark, they were here legally. If SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, I can live with that. Then we should amend the clarification into the Constitution. If the SCOTUS agrees, then it's not unconstitutional. If the Constitution is modified, then it's not unconstitutional either. In either case I support a Constitutional approach.

The approach already is Constitutional. What you're trying to do is make it unconstitutional. So you're not employing a "constitutional approach", you're applying an anti-constitutional approach. The 14th amendment is quite clear. No clarification is needed. And what is the motivation behind this? Race. You don't want people of third world nations and races giving birth to American citizens because it "dilutes" the American (ne: white) identity. What do you care if some illegal immigrants gives birth here? It doesn't affect you. It's got nothing to do with you. It isn't about you.

#4 There are plenty of opportunities for those that entry here legally. For those that would come here illegally, then they should not reap the same benefits that played by the rules instead of jumping the line. I'm here leagally, I don't have to feel better about myself. Just fine thank you.

But why? What do you care? It doesn't affect you. You don't have to have anything to do with them if you don't want to. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is really tantamount to nothing. I think we need reform of our immigration system, but trying to legislate the morality of it is bullshit. We have to lead by example.

 

[ChrisL]

Setting aside the disingenuous arguments about its cost and effectiveness, why are you opposed to a physical barrier to illegal immigration across our southern border? Please spare me the histrionics and tell me why we should not maintain our territorial integrity (like every other country in the world).

It's funny considering democrats supported a border fence in 2006. Now it's suddenly "inhumane" because somebody else is doing it. Lol.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're mad at them for breaking the law because they have a motivation to make their lives better?

Nope, not mad at all. You should really attempt to refrain from reading other peoples minds. You aren't good at it.

I just don't think you should benefit by breaking the law and coming here illegally.

The approach already is Constitutional. What you're trying to do is make it unconstitutional. So you're not employing a "constitutional approach", you're applying an anti-constitutional approach. The 14th amendment is quite clear. No clarification is needed. And what is the motivation behind this? Race. You don't want people of third world nations and races giving birth to American citizens because it "dilutes" the American (ne: white) identity. What do you care if some illegal immigrants gives birth here? It doesn't affect you. It's got nothing to do with you. It isn't about you.

1. I never said the current approach was unconstitutional.

2. What I said was the current status could be changed in 2 ways, either of which is constitutional. The new status would be then constitutional with either (a) a SCOTUS review of federal law defining what "under the jurisdiction" means from a birthright citizenship standpoint, or (b) amend the constitution to include such language. Both would be constitutional.

3. Yes it does impact me and society. When illegals are taking jobs that would go to a citizen or legal resident because they are willing to work "under the table", you bet it impacts me and society at large.

But why? What do you care? It doesn't affect you. You don't have to have anything to do with them if you don't want to. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is really tantamount to nothing. I think we need reform of our immigration system, but trying to legislate the morality of it is bullshit. We have to lead by example.

When I as the taxpayer have to fund schools and social programs for illegal aliens it take money from my family. If someone enters the country legally and is playing by they law. Don't have a problem with that.



>>>>

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Why do I have to choose from those two positions mate?

Because your argument is cognitive dissonance; you say that illegal immigration is at an all-time low, yet you also say it's so bad that we have to spend $20B building a fucking wall. Well, it can't be both. So which is it? Pick a position.

Build it.

And no aid to Mexico until it is paid in full plus interest.

 

[danielpalos]

Setting aside the disingenuous arguments about its cost and effectiveness, why are you opposed to a physical barrier to illegal immigration across our southern border? Please spare me the histrionics and tell me why we should not maintain our territorial integrity (like every other country in the world).

It's funny considering democrats supported a border fence in 2006. Now it's suddenly "inhumane" because somebody else is doing it. Lol.

Dudette, Your guy wants to lower taxes and spend more money.

 

[Rambunctious]

Still don't understand the difference between the public sector and the private sector?

Really Daniel? Did you think this through before you posted it? The border is in place for our protection and to protect the sovereignty of the United States. What in the world does that have to do with public and private sectors?

 

[danielpalos]

Still don't understand the difference between the public sector and the private sector?

Really Daniel? Did you think this through before you posted it? The border is in place for our protection and to protect the sovereignty of the United States. What in the world does that have to do with public and private sectors?

A public sector deals with public goods and services that are non-rivalrous; a private sector deals in goods that are rivalrous and private.