Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[OKTexas]

The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4​

Naturalization is about citizenship. Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen. Citizenship is a privilege.

Liberty is an unalienable Right.

You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?

Control over the border is a different issue. Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions? I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you. I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.

As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did. And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.

Answer the question: do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?

The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go. If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.

Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?

states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.

That right ended in 1808, you're not near as smart as you think.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

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

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.

The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire. I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here. In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.

About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light. Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear. The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops. His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.

When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop. His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there. I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.

So don't say it's a state issue. It's not.

You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG. The RIGHT went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue. They did not want the federal government to be able to force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws. The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.

When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL. That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench.

Again, read post # 2806. You are wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You can't use something that isn't there. Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs. However a wall is not just for drugs. A wall is not just for illegals. A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.

Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner stole from you?

Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers. They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road. In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?

Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world. Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?

I'm very aware of that. However supply and demand comes into play. If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.

Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply. Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases. Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans and all others.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Naturalization is about citizenship. Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen. Citizenship is a privilege.

Liberty is an unalienable Right.

You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?

Control over the border is a different issue. Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions? I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you. I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.

As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did. And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.

Answer the question: do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?

The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go. If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.

Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?

states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.

That right ended in 1808, you're not near as smart as you think.

.

What Amendment changed that? Again, read post # 2806.

 

[dblack]

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.

Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:

How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?

Because they don't have $150?

 

[OKTexas]

The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.

End of story.

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:

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

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.

Read all of it.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

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

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.

The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire. I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here. In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.

About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light. Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear. The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops. His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.

When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop. His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there. I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.

So don't say it's a state issue. It's not.

You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG. The RIGHT went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue. They did not want the federal government to be able to force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws. The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.

When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL. That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench.

Again, read post # 2806. You are wrong.

Guns are a Constitutional right, illegals are not. The federal government should decide which states are awarded money and which are not. In other words, if we are giving California X amount of dollars to fight illegal immigration, and they welcome it instead, those funds should be cut because they are using the money for things other than illegal immigration.

 

[dblack]

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?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

Huh. What IS your definition of a "progressive"? From what I've read they're big on that "we the people" shit to.

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

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

Well, you're not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree. You shouldn't have to share your property with anyone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.

End of story.

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:

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

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.

Then why did the federal courts support DumBama's suit against Arizona?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You can't use something that isn't there. Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs. However a wall is not just for drugs. A wall is not just for illegals. A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.

Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner stole from you?

Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers. They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road. In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?

Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world. Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?

I'm very aware of that. However supply and demand comes into play. If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.

Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply. Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases. Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.

Ray, are you dense? As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.

Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts. So, let me ask you: Where do you get your Rights from?

Why do you REALLY want a wall?

You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board. You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.

You continue to make socialist arguments. We are not Italy, Mexico, etc. Jobs belong to the person who CREATES the job.

And I can tell you that a lot of the money in Mexico comes right back to the U.S. If you think not, go to any major company that has sales reps on the phones. a large contingent are taking orders in Spanish and sending stuff to Hispanic countries. Quit trying to blow smoke up our ass and come out with some substantial fact.

At least have the common decency to answer my questions without the deflections and long commentaries that don't address the issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they'll just

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?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out. They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.

If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them. But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.

How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?

Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics. They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket. Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).

When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions. After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:

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

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.

Read all of it.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

.

You know me better than that. If you have something to say, spit it out. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

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

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.

The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire. I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here. In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.

About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light. Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear. The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops. His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.

When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop. His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there. I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.

So don't say it's a state issue. It's not.

You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG. The RIGHT went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue. They did not want the federal government to be able to force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws. The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.

When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL. That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench.

Again, read post # 2806. You are wrong.

Guns are a Constitutional right, illegals are not. The federal government should decide which states are awarded money and which are not. In other words, if we are giving California X amount of dollars to fight illegal immigration, and they welcome it instead, those funds should be cut because they are using the money for things other than illegal immigration.

Ray, take a deep breath. Answer my question:

Where do you get your Rights from?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:

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

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.

Then why did the federal courts support DumBama's suit against Arizona?

Tell me what ruling you are in reference to and answer my questions, then I'll read your case citation and explain it to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You can't use something that isn't there. Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs. However a wall is not just for drugs. A wall is not just for illegals. A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.

Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner stole from you?

Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers. They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road. In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?

Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world. Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?

I'm very aware of that. However supply and demand comes into play. If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.

Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply. Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases. Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.

Ray, are you dense? As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.

Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts. So, let me ask you: Where do you get your Rights from?

Why do you REALLY want a wall?

You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board. You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.

As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.

Opioid products have been around my entire life. When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available. The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get. In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. Coke? Here and there but very few had it.

Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day. But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

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

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.

Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:

• Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
  
  
• Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  
  
• Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  
  
• Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
  
  
• Medicaid
  
  
• Medicare
  
  
• Social Security
  
  
• Welfare

Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.

Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:

• Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
  
  
• Schooling
  
  
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.

No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, they'll just
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?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out. They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.

If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them. But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.

How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?

Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics. They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket. Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).

When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions. After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch? Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?

 

[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.

Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.

Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

No point in apprehending if your just going to release them again, in country.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You can't use something that isn't there. Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs. However a wall is not just for drugs. A wall is not just for illegals. A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.

Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner stole from you?

Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers. They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road. In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?

Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world. Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?

I'm very aware of that. However supply and demand comes into play. If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.

Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply. Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases. Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.

Ray, are you dense? As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.

Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts. So, let me ask you: Where do you get your Rights from?

Why do you REALLY want a wall?

You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board. You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.

As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.

Opioid products have been around my entire life. When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available. The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get. In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. Coke? Here and there but very few had it.

Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day. But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.

So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts. That's a stretch there buddy.