Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
So who's giving up liberty? Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
It won't restrict my liberty in the slightest. In fact, it will reduce the need for checking identification in the interior, which means it will actually enhance my liberty.Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
So who's giving up liberty? Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
It won't restrict my liberty in the slightest. In fact, it will reduce the need for checking identification in the interior, which means it will actually enhance my liberty.Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
So who's giving up liberty? Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
You're totally full of shit.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally. Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
So who's giving up liberty? Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally. Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
So who's giving up liberty? Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
You still didn't give me one example of any lost liberty by a wall, and you never will because it's a phony claim.
For the longest time, the left has told us they were for border control and security and doing the exact opposite. Tearing down a wall will eliminate that false claim and everybody in the country will know where they stand.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally. Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
Have you been to Big Bend national park? There's a really beautiful hiking trail that goes along the Rio Grande. Kiss it goodbye.
Again, you might not want to exercise your liberty, that doesn't mean it's not been limited.
Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally. Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
So, you're changing your mind already? Flippin' and floppin.
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.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.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- 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
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
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.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
.
The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face. When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient. When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again. Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
"The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners. Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those? Yes, they do. But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside. I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services. And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well. They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care. And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here. Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
How can I? It's a left vs right issue.Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.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.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.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- 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
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
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.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
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.
Wrong again, it was the courts that bastardized the 14th.
.
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and if ignorant people like you had stayed at home or got educated before you got in the fight, the patriot community was taking the 14th Amendment off the table. We could have won that issue over a decade ago.
Read all of it.
.
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.
.
As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection. I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO
.
That criticism was a blatant lie. Do you have ANY capacity for the truth?
What Amendment changed that?
Yeah? So what? Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?Actually, no there are no quotas. Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories. However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident. Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent. But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans. Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave. So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
Those treaties were all defunct long ago. Our government isn't bound by any of them.
Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.
If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?
Not sure. I don't know what Canada's travel policies are. If I was desperate to make a living for my family, and if Canada had all the good jobs, and if Canada passed laws preventing me from working there legally - I suppose I'd avoid their check points.
First — site for me the specific law you’re “suggesting” that was passed by Congress, the year it took place, the president who signed it, that allowed illegals to work here “legally”.
Second your claim “all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally.“ is incorrect. Let’s be crystal clear, if you are crossing the border to enter a country through Intentionally avoiding designated entry points, then you are NOT crossing the border “legally”. There hasn’t been provided any valid example to prove otherwise, because we are a nation of laws which includes customs laws and passports or work visas provided through the government for entry.
It’s not about your list of “IF’s” .... this is about government enforcement of Federal law passed through Congress and signed into law through executive signature. Each nation has their own laws surrounding border crossings and enforcement, and I have yet to see the opposition provide one valid argument on this thread.
I have used Canada as an example of how another nation enforces their border, which even DEBUNKS this notion that somehow it prevents an individual from freely crossing the border. Has allowing designated entry points through the use of passports, to aid in securing THEIR own border actually prevented an individual’s “ability to travel freely”? No. Such a claim is absurd to suggest, as there is no evidence of such. It the same as having certain designated entry points at our southern border.
Now with regard to encouraging illegals to come here, perhaps you are not aware of California TGREATENING companies which follow Federal laws in preventing illegals from reviving and maintaining employment.
California attorney general threatens $10,000 fine for businesses that share employee information with immigration agents
Unlike you, I have actually done the research on this subject surrounding illegal immigration. I have plenty more links and evidence to back up my point.
Not only is that obstruction of justice, it's a 1st amendment violation, every citizen has a right to report a crime to appropriate authorities.California TGREATENING companies which follow Federal laws in preventing illegals from reviving and maintaining employment.
They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
Your permission or mine? Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
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
