Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[longknife]

 

[bripat9643]

If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse? We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat. Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?

Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?

You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic. You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here. If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous? We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them. That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.

 

[basquebromance]

our steel industry's come roaring back. Trump has promised to build a steel wall instead of a concrete wall

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country. If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?

dblack gave the greatest response to you with respect to Canada.

The problem with those who cannot articulate their position on this issue realize they have a major obstacle to overcome:

The United States is not Canada, Mexico, Israel, or China. We are what was once the leaders of the free world and the laws of other countries do not apply here. And I'm not limiting this to statutory laws, but the laws of economics.

In some countries they are at war; we are not. In some countries the people have been flooding their neighbors and there are no jobs; America has plenty of jobs; in some countries they are protecting a given culture (race); we won't allow that here. It's as if the rest of the world were driving a Ford Taurus with a bad transmission and we had a Lexus that needs a tune up.

I'm still struggling to figure out what the real issue is. Every time we address one symptom, a poster will move the goal posts, provide no authorities for their position (like a section of the United States Constitution), and give us yet another of the standard party lines. It's like listening to Marco Rubio try the same canned speech only to have Pillsbury boy Chris Christie call him out.

The only point I've read where it was unequivocally stated by anyone in favor of the wall is that this is about control. I'm about to call it a day and if someone can come up with a few answers and actually discuss the issue, I look forward to it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse? We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat. Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?

Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?

You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic. You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here. If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous? We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them. That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.

I have not stated my opinion as to whether it's a right or not, but all you've done is sling skeet, make assertions because you cannot cobble a coherent reply to honest questions and do your best to remain in a pissing match instead of a conversation.

All that says is that whatever it is you believe in cannot withstand scrutiny and those who would use critical thinking skills to think this out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

dblack said:

"They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business."

BEST POST ON THIS THREAD

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.

Correct provided they stay on your property and not in public, because if in public, they need to have our governments permission to be here.

Your property has always been under the jurisdiction of government. There are only so many children allowed to live in your home based on amount of bedrooms. You can't fence off your front yard or even have hedges beyond the limit the city or town puts in place. If your driveway or sidewalk is cracked or busted up, you are required by the city to repair or replace it. You can't paint your home bright orange and so on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.

No, outsiders have no rights in our country unless they are here. But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government. Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.

You have no inalienable right to live in Germany. If it's your desire to join their society, you need their permission to do it. They may accept or deny you for any reason they want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

They do that at the point of entry after they've been checked out, not sneaking across the desert in the middle of the night or hiding in a tractor-trailer.

 

[dblack]

If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?

sigh... I'm pretty sure you've had this explained to you before (and are just playing stupid to avoid admitting that you're wrong) but I'll give it a shot anyway. Saying someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do it in a way that endangers others. This idea is summed up succinctly in the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

So, if someone is a proven threat, and this has been established via due process, the government has no obligation to protect their rights. Indeed, it has an obligation to prevent them from harming others, to arrest them, imprison them, or even kill them if that's what it takes to stop them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.

No they do not. DumBama took Arizona to court when they created their own immigration policies and he won. The court ruled that immigration is a federal policy and not state.

 

[dblack]

But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government.

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

 

[The Original Tree]

It’s wrong because it would impinge on Pelosi and Schummer’s Acceptance of Political Donations from Drug Cartel Shell Corporations

 

[Geaux4it]

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

It is needed to repel the invaders intent on weakening our society through dependence on social subsidies.

-Geaux

 

[bripat9643]

If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse? We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat. Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?

Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?

You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic. You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here. If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous? We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them. That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.

I have not stated my opinion as to whether it's a right or not, but all you've done is sling skeet, make assertions because you cannot cobble a coherent reply to honest questions and do your best to remain in a pissing match instead of a conversation.

All that says is that whatever it is you believe in cannot withstand scrutiny and those who would use critical thinking skills to think this out.

It can easily withstand scrutiny. Here's the crux of the issue: do foreigners have a right to cross our border or not? If you claim they do, you are full of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?

sigh... I'm pretty sure you've had this explained to you before (and are just playing stupid to avoid admitting that you're wrong) but I'll give it a shot anyway. Saying someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do it in a way that endangers others. This idea is summed up succinctly in the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

So, if someone is a proven threat, and this has been established via due process, the government has no obligation to protect their rights. Indeed, it has an obligation to prevent them from harming others, to arrest them, imprison them, or even kill them if that's what it takes to stop them.

You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others. The same goes for ex cons. Why is it OK for one but not the other? You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit. How is an illegal alien with a criminal record any different than an American citizen with a criminal record? From the standpoint of your argument, there is no difference.

You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here. Just give up while you're behind. No foreigner has a right to live in the USA. The claim that they do doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They do that at the point of entry after they've been checked out, not sneaking across the desert in the middle of the night or hiding in a tractor-trailer.

Even then, they don't have a right to travel here. They do so only with our permission.

 

[bripat9643]

But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government.

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

Actually, no you don't. You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently. There are regulations that prevent that.

 

[dblack]

Actually, no you don't. You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently. There are regulations that prevent that.

Indeed there are. And they violate my rights. Yours too, but presumably you don't care.

 

[dblack]

You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others. The same goes for ex cons. Why is it OK for one but not the other?

Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.

You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.

I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?

You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.

Nope. You have quite an imagination.