Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[dblack]

Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage. Why should I? Do you actually want that? If you do, then you're a damn fool.

I don't want government protecting privilege, regardless of whether or not it's my privilege that's being protected. That's not what government is for. I want it protecting freedom.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".

Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function. Controlling our healthcare isn't.

A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.

Did you grow up in a prison?

We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.

You are REALLY insecure. The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong? If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

I'm looking at what you're selling, which is open borders.

That's not an option.

I'm not advocating anything. You have not seen me offer up a single proposed solution. I think you're so scared that you might be exposed for something sinister that you cannot hold an intelligent conversation.

Your entire line of deflections, name calling, and refusal to engage intelligently are causing all your arguments to collapse right in front of you.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

 

[bripat9643]

Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage. Why should I? Do you actually want that? If you do, then you're a damn fool.

I don't want government protecting privilege, regardless of whether or not it's my privilege that's being protected. That's not what government is for. I want it protecting freedom.

ROFL! The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test. Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world. That's the only reason you're saying that.

 

[dblack]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

Abuse? Don't be so hard on yourself. Spouting vulgarities and making a fool of yourself abuses no one.

 

[bripat9643]

Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function. Controlling our healthcare isn't.

A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.

Did you grow up in a prison?

We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.

You are REALLY insecure. The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong? If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

I'm looking at what you're selling, which is open borders.

That's not an option.

I'm not advocating anything. You have not seen me offer up a single proposed solution. I think you're so scared that you might be exposed for something sinister that you cannot hold an intelligent conversation.

Your entire line of deflections, name calling, and refusal to engage intelligently are causing all your arguments to collapse right in front of you.

You attack any measure to control the border. Therefor, you are for open borders.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

Abuse? Don't be so hard on yourself. Spouting vulgarities and making a fool of yourself abuses no one.

ROFL!

Fail.

 

[dblack]

ROFL! The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test. Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world. That's the only reason you're saying that.

No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.

 

[BlackFlag]

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

 

[Porter Rockwell]

These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy. The less government we have, the better things will work.

A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.

Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage. Why should I? Do you actually want that? If you do, then you're a damn fool.

In all reality, YOU are the one who invoked the term control. It's the only word you've given me to work with.

Now your theory moves from control to a concern about labor and jobs. The fact is, there are more jobs available today than there are people to fill them. You may think you can make two thirds more if the foreign labor goes away, but a couple of things you need to know:

1) Over-regulation kills businesses and drives them out of the U.S.

2) Some people want to buys goods and they need services. No matter how much you think you're worth, if a person cannot afford you, they will hire someone they can afford. The poor, disabled and those on fixed incomes cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages to people who have a skill set that was learned by an illiterate Mexican in six months.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.

I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution. The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test. Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world. That's the only reason you're saying that.

No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.

I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries. Those people can secure if for themselves. That isn't why our government exists. What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country. You have to be a fucking moron to believe that. I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble." Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back the right of the Federal Government regarding their Federal authority regarding immigration. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

 

[dblack]

I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.

Promise, promises...

 

[dblack]

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble." Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.

I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution. The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

I dish out abuse to morons who are immune to facts and logic.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble." Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.

You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here. They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

we need to abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if we need a wall.

Bullshit. A wall on the southern border would help to reduce the inflow of illegals, which in turn helps combat crime, drugs, and terrorism.

A wall is not the be all, end all that too many believe is sufficient and necessary to make our nation safe. It ain't.

First, what type of Steel will be used to build the wall? Anyone know?

Different Steel Alloys Have Different Properties and Uses

Once that becomes known, the type of torch and fuel will determine how easy or hard it might be to cut a hole.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble." Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.

My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally. Porter Rockwell wanted to go down the path of “equality”, as I replied there is none when illegals are not following the same laws as foreign immigrants overseas that wish to become citizens.

Pay attention.

 

[dblack]

My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.

OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.