Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The administration argued the Arizona law, which requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant, is unconstitutional and would sap law enforcement resources.

The Republican-controlled Arizona legislature passed the controversial law to try to stem the flood of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross its border from Mexico and to cut down on drug trafficking and other crimes in the area.

The lawsuit is part of a broader approach by President Barack Obama to deal with the 10.8 million illegal immigrants believed to be in the country, arguing that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government not each state.

Obama administration sues Arizona over immigration law | Reuters

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.

.

 

[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.

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'll take jobs for substandard wages, construction, UBER, Taxi, etc and make it hard for Americans to get a living wage. And because they bear anchor babies, collect welfare and will bankrupt our government or force us to get rid of welfare so even Americans who need it don't get it.

 

[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.

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

No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place. The government doesn't create addicts.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

That's what we are trying to do now, only legally. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority. No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright. A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.

I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups. There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it. In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in. If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.

 

[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.

No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place. The government doesn't create addicts.

As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.

What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply? Most of those drugs are legally dispensed. If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground. It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff. You need some new material.

Do you have ANY facts?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.

anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.

 

[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.

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

They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.

Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?" BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?

Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.

 

[dblack]

anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.

So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

That's what we are trying to do now, only legally. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority. No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright. A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.

I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.

That may be, but the point is that every other group outside of whites vote heavily Democrat. Whites are in the way, so in effort to make the US a one-party government, they need to get rid of us for the first time in US history.

Once they accomplish that (unless we fight hard enough) our country will quickly become Socialist, and then Communist. What we are looking at today with this border issue is the end of the Great Experiment. That's why it's a fight worth fighting.

So the Democrat plot is to get as many of these foreigners into the country legal or not, and grant blanket citizenship once they get power of the federal government. Citizenship comes with voting rights, and the Republican party will be history after that point.

While we are trying to save this country, the anti-wall people are trying to destroy it forever.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups. There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it. In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in. If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.

And I will be happy to draw you a picture of how big money power brokers are playing you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.

anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.

The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups. There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it. In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in. If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.

And I will be happy to draw you a picture of how big money power brokers are playing you.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.

Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?" BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?

Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.

Anchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.
You are wrong.
That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.

 

[Slyhunter]

anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.

So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.

requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

That's what we are trying to do now, only legally. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority. No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright. A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.

I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.

That may be, but the point is that every other group outside of whites vote heavily Democrat. Whites are in the way, so in effort to make the US a one-party government, they need to get rid of us for the first time in US history.

Once they accomplish that (unless we fight hard enough) our country will quickly become Socialist, and then Communist. What we are looking at today with this border issue is the end of the Great Experiment. That's why it's a fight worth fighting.

So the Democrat plot is to get as many of these foreigners into the country legal or not, and grant blanket citizenship once they get power of the federal government. Citizenship comes with voting rights, and the Republican party will be history after that point.

While we are trying to save this country, the anti-wall people are trying to destroy it forever.

Again, you are consistently wrong. You've argued in favor of socialism, communism and have dodged my questions. You really should answer my questions and see if we can't get on the same page. This one you really screwed the pooch on.

 

[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.

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.

Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.