Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

No, it did not. Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right. If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by. They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.

Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

 

[eagle1462010]

Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

LOL

80 Trillion............

$5 billion? Lolololol

 

[sealybobo]

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

 

[eagle1462010]

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

You don't listen well then..............I've supported that ........even put up bills that would do that.......But you go with blinders on here?

 

[LilOlLady]

A&B mostly. Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot. And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.

So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.

That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest. Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;

Jobs during the construction
Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
Irrigation
Commerce
National Security.


All a pipe dream.
It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.

Space Force!

Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A&B mostly. Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot. And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.

So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.

That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest. Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;

Jobs during the construction
Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
Irrigation
Commerce
National Security.


All a pipe dream.
It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.

Space Force!

Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.

That portion of America who commit crimes are the ones who get a criminal record - that NEVER goes away. That's because the build the wall advocates wanted it.

With a criminal record, they cannot get a job. So, the majority of unemployed people are equivalent to the number of foreigners, who, in turn, end up taking the job. THAT offends the build the wall crowd. If someone is unemployable due to the build the walls efforts, deporting the guy who took the job does not magically transform the unemployable into qualified.

The build the wall people worship that damn wall, but don't have a clue as to WHY they have symptoms of their own making that are drawing the foreigners here. Furthermore, what walls, laws and stupid bigots don't understand is that you're not going to keep "them" out. You will either devise sensible regulation measures OR lose. Even if you build a wall, it will come down within a generation because, unlike other countries, Americans are willingly inviting foreigners to come here.

 

[eagle1462010]

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.

WTF??? You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do? HYPOCRITE. It is in the above quoted exchange. You don't have to go back several pages to find the link. It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times. The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro. You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll NEVER post again.

Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state. Right there in red for anyone to see.

“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. “


How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread. I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red). To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration. No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.

Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics. Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.

 

[candycorn]

A&B mostly. Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot. And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.

So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.

That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest. Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;

Jobs during the construction
Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
Irrigation
Commerce
National Security.


All a pipe dream.
It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.

Space Force!

Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.

Not sure where I mentioned crime in the post you replied to.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

WTF??? You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do? HYPOCRITE. It is in the above quoted exchange. You don't have to go back several pages to find the link. It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times. The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro. You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll NEVER post again.

Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state. Right there in red for anyone to see.

“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. “


How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread. I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red). To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration. No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.

Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics. Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.

Damn son, you ARE stupid. I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled. It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the AUTHORITY to take power and grant it to Congress. That is NOT interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.

When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

 

[OKTexas]

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.

If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.

The same can be said about your roads.

.

 

[OKTexas]

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.

Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.

Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.

Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.

.

You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.

Texas should pay for it. States rights.

Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.

.

1. We don't need a wall. This is a manufactured crisis
2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing. $5 bill is just the down payment. Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall? Really?
3. So you want your taxes to go up?
4. Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them. So we should build a wall first?
5. This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind. Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
7. This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
9. We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.

Still can't address what I said, but your deflection is noted. Have a great day.

.

You could name off ten other ideas and I would agree with most of them but building a wall is a dumb idea. Even when democrats proposed it.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

 

[otto105]

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

Thank you for such a terrific laugh. For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure. Build the wall guys DENIED it! Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 BILLION Dollar a year budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws? Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security. I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly? It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out. I'm loving it. You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to. I have a feeling I can count on you. You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available. Are you SURE you aren't being played? Maybe there is more to the story?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.

I bet you watched 60 Minutes on CBS and /or watched them fact check Trump's news conference, didn't you?

 

[OKTexas]

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.

It doesn't matter, years ago it was mostly working aged males crossing from Mexico, most could be easily deported, now it's mostly family units and unaccompanied minors. We can't quickly deport them, thus the strain on detention facilities, the immigrations courts and all other resources. And yes it was answered earlier in the thread.

.