Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[dblack]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.

It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.

No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.

Right... because the criminals and rapists will just announce themselves for vetting at your "open ports"?

There's a pathetic contradiction at the heart of the wall logic. The people who intend to do us harm won't have any problem circumventing your silly wall. The only people who will be impacted are the poor families who come here looking for work. But then they're the real target, aren't they? It's not rapists and murders we're afraid of. It's people less fortunate than ourselves. We're afraid they'll work harder for less money than us and earn some of our wealth.

As I said, pathetic.

 

[dblack]

Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.

Name a single person anywhere in this thread who's said we shouldn't have some kind of border control.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.

Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.

no, you're arguing with the wrong person.

 

[Flopper]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

 

[Slyhunter]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.

First off people climbing fences to get into the country are not the major problem. We should go after the real problems:
The major source of illegal immigration is the border crossing, not fences out the desert. You stop people at the border crossing. You enforce visa time limits. You provide reasonable immigration limitations. You limit family sponsored immigration to the immediate family. You have people apply for asylum at embassies and consulates eliminating the caravans. Lastly, you stop supporting dictatorships that serve criminal gangs and the cartel making life a living hell for the poor which drives them to the US.

 

[Flopper]

No, they'll just

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

No, they'll just buy a ladder. We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years. Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they'll just

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

No, they'll just buy a ladder. We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years. Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.

So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You provide reasonable immigration limitations.

You mean allowing a million people a year to become citizens and passing out 11,000 VISAs a year is not reasonable? What other country is more reasonable than ours?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Hmmmm. Must be one desperate trucker to do that:

Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.

Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences

Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.

It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.

No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.

Right... because the criminals and rapists will just announce themselves for vetting at your "open ports"?

There's a pathetic contradiction at the heart of the wall logic. The people who intend to do us harm won't have any problem circumventing your silly wall. The only people who will be impacted are the poor families who come here looking for work. But then they're the real target, aren't they? It's not rapists and murders we're afraid of. It's people less fortunate than ourselves. We're afraid they'll work harder for less money than us and earn some of our wealth.

As I said, pathetic.

Let me tell you what's really pathetic: Selling out your own countrymen. That's pathetic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

What conservatives are doing is trying to stop illegals coming in--not legal outsiders. What Democrats are doing is trying to continue illegals coming in; so to the point they'll even shut down the government for it's continuation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

Good. The more the merrier.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.

The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall. In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

See post # 2806

 

[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.

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.

I'm not stating an opinion either way. Opinions are like posteriors. Everybody has one.

You have claimed that you get your Rights from the government. I'm just collecting the facts so as to make some determination.

All that name calling and abuse you dish out doesn't impress anyone; doesn't change anyone's mind - except that those who agree with you, but are embarrassed by your tone might be open to answering my questions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Criminals and terrorists don't enter our country through a place of legal entry. They cross our border because WE DON'T HAVE A BORDER WALL and make their way into our country. The lowlife that killed the cop in CA had a record of past DUI's and deportation, yet he was still able to make it back to the US to get drunk again, and this time kill a police officer who was also an immigrant, only a legal immigrant.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

The people parroting Trump are so busy chanting the party line that they cannot afford a discussion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

We welcome those who come here LEGALLY!

Why?