Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Facts to substantiate this?

You are calling people "illegals" before they come here. So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.

.

They have a choice right now.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Facts to substantiate this?

You are calling people "illegals" before they come here. So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities. Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.

Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness. BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.

It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:

There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it. There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities. Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.

Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness. BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.

It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:

There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it. There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.

Guess we’ll see what they choose to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman. So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?

Who are you going to try and make believe that? Me or you?

You're not suspending anything. We Americans have the right to have a secure border and to permit (or deny) foreigners of entry by wall or any means. It's been going on for generations.

OMG. Again? Really? How many times are you going to have to be schooled on this? How many times can you deny reality and expect people to take you seriously? How many times does this have to be explained to you? Do you realize that some posters have stooped down to a fifth grade level to explain this to you and you STILL deny it?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities. Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.

Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness. BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.

It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:

There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it. There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.

Guess we’ll see what they choose to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just remember this: the patriot and constitutionalists were winning this war BEFORE those selling you the cow dung being slung on this thread came along, we were winning this war.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Facts to substantiate this?

You are calling people "illegals" before they come here. So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.

.

ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.

Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty. Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from. If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is. Are you nucking futs or what!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.

How can I? It's a left vs right issue.

It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.

Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.

If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.

Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines? If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence. But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter. Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall. Everybody on the right does. After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.

dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

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.

You're totally full of shit.

Your liberty is limited whether you want to use it or not. Again, understanding this requires an understanding of inalienable rights - something that's evaded you so far.

How is my liberty limited?

 

[bripat9643]

The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.

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.

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.

Yeah? So what? Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?

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.

Does not work that way.
Treaties have to be ratified by Congress and then become US law.
The only way for them to become defunct is for a party to fall into default, in which case the treaty is negated, and the states return to Mexican ownership.
That is the way law works.
It is not transient.

Really? We made hundreds of treaties with the Native Americans. Which ones are still in force?

 

[OKTexas]

Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Facts to substantiate this?

You are calling people "illegals" before they come here. So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea. For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first. Now, they are admitting it.

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.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread. So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.

Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities. Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.

Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness. BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.

Except the courts have already ruled that providing administrative information to federal law enforcement is NOT a commandeering of local resources.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.

How can I? It's a left vs right issue.

It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.

Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.

If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.

Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines? If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence. But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter. Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall. Everybody on the right does. After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.

dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.

Both moderates.

 

[Flopper]

No, they'll just

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.

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.

That's an interesting version

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman. So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?

Who are you going to try and make believe that? Me or you?

You're not suspending anything. We Americans have the right to have a secure border and to permit (or deny) foreigners of entry by wall or any means. It's been going on for generations.

OMG. Again? Really? How many times are you going to have to be schooled on this? How many times can you deny reality and expect people to take you seriously? How many times does this have to be explained to you? Do you realize that some posters have stooped down to a fifth grade level to explain this to you and you STILL deny it?

 

[nat4900]

A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)


U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."

"Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."

Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.

"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with. So YOU are making a leftist argument.

I didn't say my job in particular, I'm talking about American jobs. Jobs created in this country belong to the people that live in this country. We may be a global economy, but we are not a global country. If an employer wants to hire foreigners, let that employer move to where the foreigners are. Many have done so already.

You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower. In FACT, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.

For the time being, but that's not always the case, is it? This economy will die down at some point, and then we will be stuck with a bunch of foreigners here who will compete against Americans (who belong here) and then those Americans will end up on some social program. So indirectly, foreigners will be putting Americans on social programs. We simply don't need that. We have enough working capable people on those programs as it is.

The path you've chosen has guaranteed an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.

No, we on the right are trying to preserve that. You are trying to turn our country into a third world nation. And if it's inevitable, then you are accelerating it tenfold.

There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me. It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response. You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.

The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day. You think they are trick questions.

What questions are that?

Where do you get your Rights from? Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.

Don't give you a list but I should tell you why I want a wall?

 

[Flopper]

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.

Most heroin that comes over the southern border is hidden in vehicles comming through ports of entry. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot some walking through ports of entry and some crossing over walls and fences. Cartels send the shipments across the border as oppose to using planes and boats because it's easy and and cheap. If we close off the border they will bring it in using other routes. The profits are so huge, there is no way you can seriously reduce the flow by stopping it in route. Just one cargo container will hold enough uncut heroin to supply US demand for a year.

And Yes, the user is responsible for his habit. Most heroin users get hooked not because drug dealers force their product on them. They search out dealers looking a higher high or a replacement for other drugs.

 

[WillowTree]

Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?

 

[nat4900]

Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?

Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Walls work. China built a wall thousands of years ago and they still have no Mexicans.

 

[Kondor3]

Walls work. Ask the Israelis.

Walls here make sense in high-traffic areas. They don't make much sense elsewhere.

We'd do better to start prosecuting employers of Illegals, and Sanctuary City mayors, and stopping money-wire-transfers to Mexico.