Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Taz]

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.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.

Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.

 

[LilOlLady]

A wall would pay for itself by creating jobs and stopping the flow of illegals that is costing this country over $200 billion a year.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?

It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.

i heard they can learn how to ski.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.

Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.

only lousy right wing management does that.

we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism. only socialism does that.

 

[danielpalos]

A wall would pay for itself by creating jobs and stopping the flow of illegals that is costing this country over $200 billion a year.

we should have no illegals Because we have an express naturalization clause not any form of immigration clause. lousy right wing management is the problem, like usual.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

 

[Taz]

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?

It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.

i heard they can learn how to ski.

I've NEVER seen a beaner on a ski slope in Canada or the US.

 

[Taz]

Of course we're losing money

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.

Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.

only lousy right wing management does that.

we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism. only socialism does that.

feeding and housing all the illegals. Plus the courts, border guards... What do beaners bring? A lack of education, no money, no skills... Can't make money off of such massive losers.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course we're losing money

our northern border is even less secure.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.

Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.

only lousy right wing management does that.

we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism. only socialism does that.

feeding and housing all the illegals. Plus the courts, border guards... What do beaners bring? A lack of education, no money, no skills... Can't make money off of such massive losers.

Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing. Capital opportunities can happen every day for true capitalists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be. The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship. I don't believe in it. There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be. The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship. I don't believe in it. There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.

Baloney

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Borders are a Fed responsibility.

They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border. States rights.

 

[Taz]

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.

Borders are a Fed responsibility.

They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border. States rights.

Ya, all the states are going to wall themselves off.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.

Oh, easy out. You didn't like the Hitler reference? I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth. The FACT is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was founded, financed, and had its talking points made by National Socialists.

Now, you can lie about it or admit that you REALLY don't know as much as you claim.

Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be. The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship. I don't believe in it. There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.

Baloney

You're are full of it - on that we agree.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.

Oh, easy out. You didn't like the Hitler reference? I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth. The FACT is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was founded, financed, and had its talking points made by National Socialists.

Now, you can lie about it or admit that you REALLY don't know as much as you claim.

Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.

.

You wish my work were some other guy's blog.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.

Oh, easy out. You didn't like the Hitler reference? I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth. The FACT is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was founded, financed, and had its talking points made by National Socialists.

Now, you can lie about it or admit that you REALLY don't know as much as you claim.

Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.

.

You wish my work were some other guy's blog.

You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.

Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be. The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship. I don't believe in it. There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.

Baloney

You're are full of it - on that we agree.

We agree to disagree. You dont get to pick and choose laws you will Obey. Hiring illegals is ILLEGAL

 

[sealybobo]

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.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

Sponsor them. Pay the fees. Do it legal or not at all. You are trying to justify breaking the law. Pound sand.

Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be. The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship. I don't believe in it. There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.

Baloney

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Borders are a Fed responsibility.

They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border. States rights.

Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are. If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.