Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[dblack]

Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?

I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?

That could make our roads look awfully funny.

Not necessarily. Believe it or not, problems like that can be resolved without resorting to violence.

Care to elaborate?

I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.

 

[Nova78]

I have a message for all these illegal invaders

-Geaux

Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.

Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.

Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today

Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population

Not to worry. Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions. We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing. Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.

So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?

I will chime in, yes .

 

[bripat9643]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

Yep, given enough time and resources, but they remain and impediment to the progress of illegals.


.

Not enough to be worth $5 bill. You won’t watch the wall after you build it so it will eventually become a huge mistake.

What you mean is that Dims won't provide the funding to have it guarded. However, an unguarded wall will still work 1000 times better than an unguarded nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?

That's a great question actually. I think it's like a lot of things that feel 'so right', but really aren't - or at least have dangerous costs associated. Drug addiction is a good example. People know, rationally that what they're doing is bad, for them and for others, but it feels so right, and the allure is so strong that all reason and perspective is lost.

What are the "dangerous costs" of The Wall?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Absolutely not. We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense. Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.

Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?

.

No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need. It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border. Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs. We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time. That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border. By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.

I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.

.

Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?

No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?

You mean, like extramarital sex?

 

[Slyhunter]

Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?

.

No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need. It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border. Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs. We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time. That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border. By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.

I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.

.

Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?

No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

I have a message for all these illegal invaders

-Geaux

Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.

Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.

Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today

Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population

Not to worry. Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions. We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing. Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.

So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?

Of course I agree with that. In fact in the past, I have suggested that women get fixed first before they get one dime on any social program. After all, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. How can we ever solve poverty if we encourage people to make more children that are likely to be poor?

Watch people on both sides would tell us it’s immoral for us to suggest they get fixed. Blacks would claim eugenics.

Nonsense.

I wouldn’t make them until after their second child. They can have foodstamps for two but that’s it. So you don’t have to get fixed if we are just feeding one but when you ask for food for two kids then you have to show you hav3 fixed yourself before you get food for the second kid.

Also no more social security at 67 for people who took welfare for 18 years. They have to pay the social security administration back before they start receiving payments. So someone’s retirement might be 72 or 70 rather than 67.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are lying. It's ONE of your laundry list reasons for being for the wall

EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall! I honestly don't see what the debate is about:

Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities? THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here? THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here? THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall? THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Being for the wall? Are you kidding me? This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty. If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? LET ONE PERSON HERE tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system? LET ONE PERSON HERE tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.

Being for the wall? The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. The wall makes us more secure with it than without it. Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.

Better ways to do it? BULL.

Cheaper ways to do it? BULL?

Immoral? Go fuck yourself.

Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot. Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people. That's about 4% of the population. Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.

Like all things, you get what you fund. We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force. The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.

Enough. End it now. Its the LAW. Defend the borders. I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government. Trump: tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle! It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do. If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine. When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.

But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK. And they don't WANT it to work. Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS? Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board. Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh. Now down to business:

1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall

2) This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything

3) Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true

4) EVERY non - partisan study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress. NOW, let me show you how this works:

"Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash"

file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf

(I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)

See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source? Notice how the study figures in not only the cost, but the contribution of the foreigner as well? When you do that, you get a different economic picture.

You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them? That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.

5) The goalposts are once again being moved. As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another. My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest. Yours is absolute stupidity.

This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are WILLINGLY doing business with the foreigners. There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give

6) Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it

7) You can go fuck yourself too. I'd prefer to have said that in person

8) I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here

9) Your dumbassery is really showing. THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump. So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.

10) Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder. You should know the history of the arguments you're making.

It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies. Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny. I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.

A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.

Here's a live link: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf

And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.

.

Well champ, the joke is now on you. That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board. I chose to read it.

Thank you for being dishonest about it. It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is. left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.

Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be. I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one. It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep. All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming. Any attack is as good as another. You just cannot accept the facts. The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier? Years ago I worked in a warehouse. The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.

The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.

We are NOT talking border security with the wall. What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships. You'd be better served with some regulation. No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.

We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes. Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We have NEVER tried regulation. You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.

The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board. Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come. BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response. Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.

If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side. Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.

1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here. Penalized businesses for hiring them. The I-9 form. They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids. A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals. When caught workers get deported and come right back

That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control. Here is what is wrong with what happened there:

The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.) That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.

The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security. So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.

There is difference between control and regulation. Control is shutting off a road. Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.

The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here. The Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent. The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here. Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known. That or something like that could very well fix that problem. When they can't work they will self deport.

OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.

Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.

The majority of people disagree with your proposition. If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.

View attachment 238920

Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1) Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something other than Christian. The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable. They have been interpreted differently by our courts. Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2) It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3) In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out. This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration. It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out. Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors. He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5) Ray says he would like to preserve our culture. Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion. Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray. Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands. And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall. Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

 

[Slyhunter]

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.

View attachment 238920

Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1) Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something other than Christian. The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable. They have been interpreted differently by our courts. Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2) It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3) In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out. This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration. It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out. Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors. He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5) Ray says he would like to preserve our culture. Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion. Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion. Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands. And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall. Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need. It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border. Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs. We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time. That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border. By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.

I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.

.

Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?

No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?

WTH are you talking about? I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread. I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious: a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table. I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.

View attachment 238920

Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1) Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something other than Christian. The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable. They have been interpreted differently by our courts. Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2) It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3) In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out. This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration. It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out. Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors. He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5) Ray says he would like to preserve our culture. Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion. Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray. Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands. And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall. Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

Suggestion: Keep your day job. You'd make a terrible detective.

 

[eagle1462010]

We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes. Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We have NEVER tried regulation. You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.

The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board. Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come. BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response. Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.

If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side. Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.

1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here. Penalized businesses for hiring them. The I-9 form. They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids. A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals. When caught workers get deported and come right back

That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control. Here is what is wrong with what happened there:

The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.) That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.

The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security. So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.

There is difference between control and regulation. Control is shutting off a road. Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.

The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here. The Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent. The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here. Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known. That or something like that could very well fix that problem. When they can't work they will self deport.

OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.

Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.

The majority of people disagree with your proposition. If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.

It was not in control. Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it. They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke. Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama. Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again. Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated. ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to get them proceeded in under 20 days. Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.

That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control. Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs. Those proposed contracts are reasonable.

One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents. Needing more communication towers.

Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.

 

[eagle1462010]

I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.

.

Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?

No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?

WTH are you talking about? I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread. I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious: a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table. I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.

That is an opinion and I disagree.......It is needed according to the CBP and they have been asking for improvements for over a decade.......The project in San Diego has been requested for at least a decade........Which needed Pedestrian bridges and walks as it is a POE.

They say where their is better infrastructure it works.....Should I listen to you or them. I choose them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have a message for all these illegal invaders

-Geaux

Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.

Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.

Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today

Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population

Not to worry. Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions. We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing. Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.

So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?

Of course I agree with that. In fact in the past, I have suggested that women get fixed first before they get one dime on any social program. After all, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. How can we ever solve poverty if we encourage people to make more children that are likely to be poor?

Watch people on both sides would tell us it’s immoral for us to suggest they get fixed. Blacks would claim eugenics.

Nonsense.

I wouldn’t make them until after their second child. They can have foodstamps for two but that’s it. So you don’t have to get fixed if we are just feeding one but when you ask for food for two kids then you have to show you hav3 fixed yourself before you get food for the second kid.

Also no more social security at 67 for people who took welfare for 18 years. They have to pay the social security administration back before they start receiving payments. So someone’s retirement might be 72 or 70 rather than 67.

I look at it this way: Responsible people wouldn't mind being fixed if they had no choice but to go on some sort of assistance. What kills me is when I go to the grocery store, see some fat lady with four kids, and then whipping out food stamps for $300.00 of groceries.

Some of these people have children exclusively to get more government goodies. Afterwards they are trapped. If they later decide to go out and work, anything they earn comes out of their stipend. So it makes no sense to work.

It's called rewarding failure and penalizing success. Working people have to limit their family size to accommodate their income. I have several family members and friends that told me they'd love to have more children, it's just they couldn't afford it. In the meantime, Welfare Wilma has three, four, and five kids because she gets us to pay for them.

If there were such things as aliens from another planet, and they were to study our society, the first question they'd probably ask is why are we breeding unproductive people and limiting our breed on productive people? It makes absolutely no sense from a logic perspective. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to society if we did the exact opposite? Furthermore, why are the productive people paying for the unproductive people to breed more unproductive people?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.

View attachment 238920

Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1) Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something other than Christian. The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable. They have been interpreted differently by our courts. Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2) It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3) In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out. This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration. It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out. Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors. He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5) Ray says he would like to preserve our culture. Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion. Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion. Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands. And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall. Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.

I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist. Rush Limbaugh said:

"If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.

You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."

Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.

View attachment 238920

Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1) Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something other than Christian. The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable. They have been interpreted differently by our courts. Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2) It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3) In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out. This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration. It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out. Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors. He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5) Ray says he would like to preserve our culture. Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion. Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray. Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands. And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall. Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

Suggestion: Keep your day job. You'd make a terrible detective.

You didn't take us through any process to deny the findings.

 

[eagle1462010]

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

That is projection. You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time. You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY. You don't destroy yourself to save them. That is just plain stupid. We have safety nets and they use them. Costs the Feds and States more money. That is Reality.

They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it. They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.