Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[bripat9643]

Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board. You are the most ignorant. Calling people names is a testament to your character.

The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.

If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.

You're a certifiable idiot. People have a right to use force to protect their property. The fact is irrefutable. I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.

Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.

Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others

I didn't use the term "lethal force." However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away. You are allowed to use force against trespassers.

Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.

Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.

There're a number places in world where deadly force is used by individuals and the government to prevent border crossing. Many of these people making crossing are armed and dangerous, often criminals and terrorist. Most of the people attempting illegal crossings of our southern border are not terrorists are even criminals. They're people seeking a safe haven and chance to make a living wage. They would certainly enter legally if they could. However for most of these countries getting into the US without having family in the US is nearly impossible. In some cases the wait can be years even if you have family in the US.

Tough shit for them. No one has a right to emigrate to the United States. If the country where they live sucks, they should work on improving it.

 

[bripat9643]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?

You are a major fucking idiot.

 

[Flopper]

No they will not. Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table. Nothing is being traded for it.

Immigration has always been a problem. Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem. Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem. In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar. Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals. Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah. Only Trump was transcending in what he said. He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country. We will build a wall. And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.

There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.

Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.

Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.

Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.

The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.

In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.

Utter horseshit. All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times. The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.

Nope. And no, it hasn't.

A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money and go home. And come back the next year for the next harvest season.

Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. Meaning they have to stay longer. And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.

Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. Which walls do nothing to prevent.

Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,

"the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."

Mick Mulvaney

Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics

Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.

The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.

The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes years to build, is wildly expensive to maintain, is ineffective, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually increases the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. Its a stupid proposal.

E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, it is already in place, its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. Its a smart proposal.

A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.

No. When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry. Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.

That's not so. The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants. Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it. You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.

 

[Pogo]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?

You are a major fucking idiot.

Yuh huh. Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.

Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.

Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.

Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.

The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.

In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.

Utter horseshit. All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times. The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.

Nope. And no, it hasn't.

A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money and go home. And come back the next year for the next harvest season.

Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. Meaning they have to stay longer. And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.

Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. Which walls do nothing to prevent.

Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,

"the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."

Mick Mulvaney

Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics

Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.

The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.

The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes years to build, is wildly expensive to maintain, is ineffective, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually increases the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. Its a stupid proposal.

E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, it is already in place, its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. Its a smart proposal.

A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.

No. When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry. Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.

That's not so. The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants. Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it. You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.

So if they're going home anyway, what difference would that make?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
Macedonia / Greece barrier 2015 - 30 km
India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km

Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care? Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.

Explain that one to me. Anyone?

What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?

Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993. Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.

I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.

This is about (1) enforcement of CURRENT Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,

(2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened. In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.

(3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE

(4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.

Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.


Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states. Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.

Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.

You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.

That's the same thing, is it?

You're supporting an open border with Mexico, douchebag. You keep opposing doing anything that would actually work.

Quote me advocating an open border. You'll find you're suffering from your ordinary delusions.

Walls don't work. Cutting off the supply of work that keeps drawing illegals here.....that works.

Threatening businesses that support our Federal Immigration Laws, imposing fines on corporations that cooperate with ICE to deport immigrants found in the state illegally, is advocating an open border dumbass!

Open borders means you encourage illegal immigrants to come in from Mexico by harbor them through “sanctuary cities”, not notifying ICE of the presence of illegal immigrants in your state, using lawyers to protect to instruct those who come here illegally with HOW they can stay in this country, and refusing to see illegals deported.

California attorney general threatens $10,000 fine for businesses that share employee information with immigration agents

You show me where
(1) officials in the state of California have followed Federal Immigration Laws,
(2) that California does not freely allow illegals within their state through the Harbor and protection of illegals within their state from Law Enforcement who seek their deportation
(3) that California assists in the deportation of immigrants they find that are here illegally (as defined under Federal Law) within their state back to Mexico,
THEN I will agree with your position that they do not support open borders.

 

[Billo_Really]

So who's killing their children?

Trump Administration separation policy and all his minions that support it.

 

[Billo_Really]

No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.

.

Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.

 

[Billo_Really]

How did anyone know if they hadn't showed up to collect them themselves?

.

Is that a rhetorical statement?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.

The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.

China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
Macedonia / Greece barrier 2015 - 30 km
India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km

Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care? Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.

Explain that one to me. Anyone?

What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?

Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993. Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.

I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.

It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties. You can't make this stuff up.

You actually think Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, and India are communist nations? Care to try that again?

Actually ... I always found it interesting when you have liberals that are so opposed to building the wall, throwing their support for an open border. Yet, when you inform the left that strict gun regulations simply does not work to lower gun violence in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, they then blame how easy it is for criminals to transport guns across the border. Talk about a paradox, I don’t believe the left has actually taken the time to completely think this through.

For what reason did those countries put up a wall?

To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.

Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country? Define for me the term “National sovereignty”.. How does a nation achieve National sovereignty?

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong again, moron. Except for one or two, every person involved in founding this country was born here.

Well, if you go back far enough in the DNA tree, even the people you claim founded this country emigrated here over the Bering Sea. So we're nothing but a country of foreigners.

 

[Billo_Really]

To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.

Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country? Define for me the term “National sovereignty”.

Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq? In Syria? In Afghanistan? In Africa?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.

.

Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.

Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?

Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.

Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country? Define for me the term “National sovereignty”.

Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq? In Syria? In Afghanistan? In Africa?

So you don’t know what National sovereignty is regarding why a nation would choose to build a wall or fence along its border.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.

Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country? Define for me the term “National sovereignty”.

Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq? In Syria? In Afghanistan? In Africa?

Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring nation Kuwait, which first brought United States troops to Iraq in response. Iraq also still harbors terrorists who engage against the United States in supporting terrorist attacks.

Syria used chemical weapons on its own people which the nations condemned and the United States responded.

Now United Nations (historically) have shown they don’t enforce their own sanctioned policies. IF the United Nations performed the role they were initially formed to do in the first place, the United States would not be the nation to solely enforce the UNs role FOR them. The United Nations, other than to be a bureaucracy of “talks” and bickering disagreements, demonstrate through their actions that they have no real enforcement backbone... no proven authority to uphold and follow through with their own sanctions against violating nations.

 

[sealybobo]

We aren't discussing "immigrants." We're discussing illegal aliens. Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.

Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.

As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.

Then let them feed their families at home. Surrendering is never a winning strategy. It's an admission of failure.

Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever. Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.

So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs? Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here? Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?

What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful. That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home. Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.

Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.

Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.

Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.

They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.

As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?

Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?

 

[basquebromance]

the Babylonians insisted on building walls even as they were being driven to extinction. generation after generation elected to build walls rather than take up arms. its very admirable.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?

We're supposed to be the land of opportunity. I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.

Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?

Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?

 

[Billo_Really]

So you don’t know what National sovereignty is regarding why a nation would choose to build a wall or fence along its border.

I'm saying we could care less about national sovereignty.

 

[Billo_Really]

Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring nation Kuwait, which first brought United States troops to Iraq in response. Iraq also still harbors terrorists who engage against the United States in supporting terrorist attacks.

Syria used chemical weapons on its own people which the nations condemned and the United States responded.

Now United Nations (historically) have shown they don’t enforce their own sanctioned policies. IF the United Nations performed the role they were initially formed to do in the first place, the United States would not be the nation to solely enforce the UNs role FOR them. The United Nations, other than to be a bureaucracy of “talks” and bickering disagreements, demonstrate through their actions that they have no real enforcement backbone... no proven authority to uphold and follow through with their own sanctions against violating nations.

Since this is completely off topic, I will be brief:

• we did not invade Iraq over Kuwait
• Hussein harboring terrorists has been completely debunked
• US backed rebels were the ones who used the gas
• we have no right acting unilaterally in lieu of UN resolutions