Wall or No wall?

[Legacy User]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/43-pe ... s-illegal/

Steelafan, I ask you this sincerely: Do you knowingly post false information to further your beliefs, or have you been duped into believing that this nonsense is true? Donnie and I have unraveled your argument with a few google searches.

I am really grateful that my life isn't so horrible that I need to create boogeyman to blame for my problems.

[jebrick]

Still waiting on how tens of thousands of people marching on our border is a “manufactured” crisis.

It’s been happening and will continue.

do the 10,000 people caravans cross illegally at ports-of-entry or just sneak across the unwalled border?

How many tunnels have been found under existing border walls?

Are the 10,000 people caravans looking to sneak across or ask for asylum?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illeg ... tatistics/

how much could be solved by forcing employers to follow the e-verify system? Why has this not been done?

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration ... f-e-verify
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... 91734.html

Everyone is for border security. To build a wall just to support a campaign meme is wasteful. If they spend money make it at the ports-of-entry and the urban areas where most of the problem would be. The congress has already approved funding for a wall in the Rio Grande valley which is the place with the highest crossing rate that is not an urban area.

The real issue will be the National Emergency. If Congress lets it stand, in protection of current power, they basically have ceded their Article 1 power to the President. When the Climate National Emergency or the Gun National Emergency is declared, there should not be an issue. Right?

[fritzthecat]

Since this is the General Discussion, I'd like to share something I came across the other day.
"Heaven has a wall, a gate, and strict immigration policy. Hell has open borders, Let that sink in."

[COR-TEN]

Since this is the General Discussion, I'd like to share something I came across the other day.
"Heaven has a wall, a gate, and strict immigration policy. Hell has open borders, Let that sink in."

That's nice. Too bad heaven and hell are fabricated fantasy lands. Otherwise, your quote might have some kind of meaning.

[alancac98]

Well, Trump is going to build the wall despite the Dems. Only, he really doesn't have to use the State of Emergency order. Obama gave him a way if he chooses to invoke 10 US code 284. It could justify using money for a wall.

Here's a link from Cornell law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/284?fbclid=IwAR2UyIjOdNuOJAqMSF8a4PN0A2S3luxZuiN6Q9ytz6kbNrearLgqkqXzFtw

[Legacy User]

Since this is the General Discussion, I'd like to share something I came across the other day.
"Heaven has a wall, a gate, and strict immigration policy. Hell has open borders, Let that sink in."

Is it accurate that hell has open borders?

[COR-TEN]

Since this is the General Discussion, I'd like to share something I came across the other day.
"Heaven has a wall, a gate, and strict immigration policy. Hell has open borders, Let that sink in."

Is it accurate that hell has open borders?

Actually it doesn't. The only way in without burning yourself is through the front door. Otherwise, you have to enter the walls of fire and brimstone. But then again, that's pretty much what hell is, right? Or is it experiencing something bad over and over again, in which case you don't need borders for that.

[955876]

Or is it experiencing something bad over and over again

If that’s the case, then we’ve all been in hell watching Tomlin try to lead this team.

Different year, same blunders.

[955876]

Everyone is for border security. To build a wall just to support a campaign meme is wasteful.

To the first part, ummm not really. Would be really hard to argue “everyone” is for border security. And I don’t know about you but policy such as “catch & release” doesn’t exactly illustrate any type of security nor enforcement to me.

To the second part, I think it is taking a rather nieve approach to associate border security and/or the wall with but a “campaign meme.

Not sure where you live but I live out here in CA and we see the impact of illegal immigration all the time. I also know several sheriff, PD, and CHP officers and each and every one of them will tell you the #1 contributor to violence & drugs are the Mexican drug cartels operating in our community. And I live nowhere near the border.

Tell the family of Kate Steinle that the wall and border security is but a “campaign meme” or a “manufactured crisis”. The man that killed her was deported what, 5 times prior? Multiple felon?

Yet he keeps getting back in. Over and over. Maybe if it was a bit tougher to get into the country Kate’s father would not have had to watch his daughter die in his arms all because they had the horrible misfortune of crossing paths with the illegal that decided he was going to squeeze off a round down by the warf.

Or the young wife and son that just lost their husband & father to the hands of multiple dui offender and illegal “immigrant” gang member. Corporal Singh immigrated here legally and started a family. Killed working Christmas night by someone here illegally. Think that widow will enjoy another Christmas?

Border security isn’t a meme. It impacts real lives.

I don’t know what the answer is. I do know that as a resident of one of the states that this impacts most what happens along our southern border is not a “meme” to me. I’ve walked that pier with my family where Kate Steinle lost her life. I don’t personally want felons that have been several times deported in my community. The community I pay lots of taxes to support. They don’t. They are unemployable. They survive here by crime.

Stronger security along our border can and would save lives.

How that is best accomplished I dunno.

I do however know that the people who have lost loved ones at the hands of someone that illegally entered the country don’t think it’s a “meme” either.

[fritzthecat]

Is it accurate that hell has open borders?

I'm not a bible scholar nor bible thumper, but I do know it is stated that after the Christ died, "He descended into hell" and on the third day....and so on.
So, I would say that, Yes, Hell has open borders and I'm sure Lucifer will allow anyone in.

[Legacy User]

Is it accurate that hell has open borders?

I'm not a bible scholar nor bible thumper, but I do know it is stated that after the Christ died, "He descended into hell" and on the third day....and so on.
So, I would say that, Yes, Hell has open borders and I'm sure Lucifer will allow anyone in.

Yeah but Christ is part of the divine trinity. Has diplomatic immunity and goes wherever the fuck he pleases.

Seems to me that not just anyone gets into hell anymore than just anyone gets into heaven. Seems like an ill thought analogy.

Further, is a divine place of punishment anything like a man-made political polity? That also seems problematic.

Finally, we don’t have open borders and no one advocates for open borders. Another strike against the analogy.

[955876]

we don’t have open borders

And yet we don’t have a secure border either.

[COR-TEN]

Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration.

“Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande ... 99333e4415

[Legacy User]

we don’t have open borders

And yet we don’t have a secure border either.

But the two are different in kind.

And it’s not like the borders are not secure like Libya’s borders are not secure.

[955876]

When someone that’s been deported 5 times already and is a multiple felon can slip right back into the country and then end up killing someone the borders are not nearly secure enough.

And that has nothing to do with what side of the isle you land politically.

[Legacy User]

When someone that’s been deported 5 times already and is a multiple felon can slip right back into the country and then end up killing someone the borders are not nearly secure enough.

And that has nothing to do with what side of the isle you land politically.

I don’t have beef with this. But from a utilitarian point of view, US citizens have more to fear from each other than such as you post.

Trump isn’t operating on a ranking of worst to least evils.

He’s operating on campaign memes.

And that doesn’t mean that the border should not be made more secure.

[955876]

It wasn’t a campaign meme that murdered Corporal Singh this past Christmas. It was a gang affiliated illegal that was also a two time DUI offender. A man that immigrated here legally, learned the language, became a police officer and was out protecting the community gets murdered in cold blood doing what should have been a routine traffic stop.

The illegal that finds welcoming sanctuary in our state thought it better to leave a young mother and little boy without a husband and father rather than face a 3rd dui arrest.

We have the mayor of Oakland tipping scumbags such as this off prior to an ICE raid.

So while those words “build the wall” might be a campaign meme, the reasons behind it most certainly are not. I know cops that just went to that funeral. It was such a senseless loss of life. Especially because Corporal Singh and his family truly represented a legal immigration success story.

That is till an illegal here safely due to sanctuary policies snuffed out his life. Then all of a sudden he decided he wanted to be back in Mexico. Ironic. After he ruined some young family’s life of course.

I don’t want wasteful spending on a wall either. But I also most certainly don’t want to continue paying some of the highest state taxes in the country only to have our political leaders in this state do all they can to shield & protect the scumbags that kill a Kate Steinle or a Corporal Singh.

And yes, I realize the statistics say there is a greater chance of getting killed by some teenager texting and driving. I am aware.

However, the loss of life I’m referring to above could have been prevented with stronger border security and an end to nonsense sanctuary policy that literally shields felons from the authorities.

The extremism that is Donald Trump and his wall would not be needed if maybe the extremist sanctuary policies from the left weren’t inviting them into our communities.

I don’t recall “sanctuary” ever being on my ballot.

[Legacy User]

Nothing in your response refutes the claims in the post to which it is a response, however.

No one denies these are horrible acts committed by people who should not be here.

But in terms of utilitarianism, not high on the list of worst evils. Trump is not operating according to a rational ranking of evils, but according to campaign memes.

You may post more hideous anecdotes. My position is still right.

Hell, traffic safety is still killing WAAAAY more folks than illegals. Traffic safety does not motivate base voters, however.

Not saying we shouldn’t have secure borders. Not saying we should not care that illegals have murdered citizens.

I am saying we should prioritize problems and focus and multitask accordingly.

[Donnie Brasco]

N

I am saying we should prioritize problems and focus and multitask accordingly.

Isn't that the crux of the problem: One man's priorities are another's....trash?

Trump feels it's a priority and a wall will solve the issue (some disagree and that is ok). But previous Prez's have felt security and immigration have been ignored for far too long. Unsure if much of that was lip service or not, but like it or lump it Trump is taking actions. Again, we've debated the merits of the actual wall here...

[jebrick]

You still end up with the question of is building the wall going to solve the problem?

Or should the question be how do we secure our borders, track visa holders, and punish businesses who hire illegals. Give that people tunnel under the existing walls to either smuggle drugs or enter the country. Give that over 90% of the tunnels are in urban areas. Is building a wall in the middle of no where, taking someone's land to do it, is that an effective way of solving the issue?

[Legacy User]

N

I am saying we should prioritize problems and focus and multitask accordingly.

Isn't that the crux of the problem: One man's priorities are another's....trash?

Trump feels it's a priority and a wall will solve the issue (some disagree and that is ok). But previous Prez's have felt security and immigration have been ignored for far too long. Unsure if much of that was lip service or not, but like it or lump it Trump is taking actions. Again, we've debated the merits of the actual wall here...

The problem is all he is doing is feeling.

I'm objectively right that more Americans are lost due to traffic safety. There's no argument about that. Further, more Americans die due to inner city gun crime. That is also a fact.

So, you're appeal to relativism, which undercuts whatever you think should be a priority as well because it's now after all just your subjective feeling, does not work against the argument I am making.

You still end up with the question of is building the wall going to solve the problem?

Or should the question be how do we secure our borders, track visa holders, and punish businesses who hire illegals. Give that people tunnel under the existing walls to either smuggle drugs or enter the country. Give that over 90% of the tunnels are in urban areas. Is building a wall in the middle of no where, taking someone's land to do it, is that an effective way of solving the issue?

Indeed. There has been absolutely no desire actually to work out what kind of matrix will have the best ratio of advantage to disadvantage.

[955876]

The problem is all he is doing is feeling.

I'm objectively right that more Americans are lost due to traffic safety. There's no argument about that. Further, more Americans die due to inner city gun crime. That is also a fact.

So, you're appeal to relativism, which undercuts whatever you think should be a priority as well because it's now after all just your subjective feeling, does not work against the argument I am making.

It’s also objectively right that more blacks are killed by the hand of other blacks than they are the police. It’s also objectively right that a police officer is many times more likely to be killed by a black man than a black man is likely to be killed by a police officer.

So BLM and all the Kaepernick kneeling should be placed at the back of the line while the more serious issues take priority.

Is that the argument being made here?

[alancac98]

Why is it so hard to understand that if we take away an illegals free "life card" to the tune of over 100+ million dollars per year, we could build a wall, hire more border patrol officers, invest in devices to detect tunneling operations, get more drug sniffing dogs, and a whole lot more. My son has $35,000 in college debt to pay. Illegal's kids go to college for free - how's that even possible?I agree Lit., we should not be focused on a wall. We should be focused on bills that no longer support illegals in any way - no housing, no food, no medical. Then, maybe we will need a wall. But... I doubt the Dems go for that! Would you be okay with that?

[jebrick]

Congress does not take a dump for $100M per year. That is pocket change in a 22 trillion dollar debt.

The US does not pay for illegal immigrates housing and food. They pay for immigrants seeking asylum to stay in the US while waiting for a hearing. That is close to your $100m figure.

Not sure where you came up with the free college thing. I see that some places like Chicago have offered free tuition at their community colleges and are getting a lot of undocumented students. But anyone who lives in Chicago can do that.

Chicago’s scholarship is a “last dollar” program, meaning students are required to submit a FAFSA — if eligible — so that any federal financial aid could be applied before the city issues its tuition and book fee waiver. A similar percentage of the scholarship winners who enrolled in the previous two years of the program — 21% for 2016-17 school year and 24% for 2015-16 — also reported they were ineligible for federal aid and filled out Chicago’s alternative financial aid form, according to the data.

Only a half dozen states — California, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington — currently allow undocumented students to receive state-funded financial aid, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eighteen states allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition fees, according to the NCSL.

[955876]

Only a half dozen states — California, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington — currently allow undocumented students to receive state-funded financial aid,

Meanwhile, the tax paying citizens in states like CA get to see the tuition bill for their own kids go higher and higher and higher....

[Legacy User]

The problem is all he is doing is feeling.

I'm objectively right that more Americans are lost due to traffic safety. There's no argument about that. Further, more Americans die due to inner city gun crime. That is also a fact.

So, you're appeal to relativism, which undercuts whatever you think should be a priority as well because it's now after all just your subjective feeling, does not work against the argument I am making.

It’s also objectively right that more blacks are killed by the hand of other blacks than they are the police. It’s also objectively right that a police officer is many times more likely to be killed by a black man than a black man is likely to be killed by a police officer.

So BLM and all the Kaepernick kneeling should be placed at the back of the line while the more serious issues take priority.

Is that the argument being made here?

The argument is that your citation of illegals killing citizens is by no means the biggest fish to fry if were concerned about keeping Americans safe. The fact that those inner city deaths are intercommunal and in black communities does nothing to harm my argument, unless you think black lives matter less. Which, of course you do not. We'd save WAY more lives by tackling those communal problems.

But even those likely pale to traffic fatalities.

From a pure numbers perspective and operating under the assumption that every citizen's life is equally valuable, the murders due to illegals are not at the top of the totem pole.

I'm honestly confused you're taking any issue with this. It's pretty plain.

[Legacy User]

Congress does not take a dump for $100M per year. That is pocket change in a 22 trillion dollar debt.

The US does not pay for illegal immigrates housing and food. They pay for immigrants seeking asylum to stay in the US while waiting for a hearing. That is close to your $100m figure.

Not sure where you came up with the free college thing. I see that some places like Chicago have offered free tuition at their community colleges and are getting a lot of undocumented students. But anyone who lives in Chicago can do that.

Chicago’s scholarship is a “last dollar” program, meaning students are required to submit a FAFSA — if eligible — so that any federal financial aid could be applied before the city issues its tuition and book fee waiver. A similar percentage of the scholarship winners who enrolled in the previous two years of the program — 21% for 2016-17 school year and 24% for 2015-16 — also reported they were ineligible for federal aid and filled out Chicago’s alternative financial aid form, according to the data.

Only a half dozen states — California, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington — currently allow undocumented students to receive state-funded financial aid, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eighteen states allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition fees, according to the NCSL.

We should give all illegals with no gang affiliation or criminal history free tuition at Navy Seal School College and then promptly send them back to their home countries with a care package.

I'm not serious, but the idea amuses me.

[955876]

I’m not taking issue with your argument Lit. I’m simply pointing out that focusing on the “bigger fish to fry” can be applied to many arguments facing us today.

It seems you are reducing the severity of something based on the frequency of occurance.

[Legacy User]

I’m not taking issue with your argument Lit. I’m simply pointing out that focusing on the “bigger fish to fry” can be applied to many arguments facing us today.

It seems you are reducing the severity of something based on the frequency of occurance.

That's precisely what I'm doing.

We SHOULD be weighing the biggest problems and fighting them accordingly, not focusing on whatever we think is going to get us elected or keep power or please this or that base.

I'm serious. How many traffic death a year? How many by inner city crime? Now how many by illegal aliens?

Politics runs on emotion, not reason. Always has, always will. Nor am I immune. But I know I'm not immune.

[955876]

I’m in agreement with you. But then, why do I not hear the same argument made when debating the merits of BLM or anthem kneelers?

Because black on black violence greatly exceeds what is argued the police are doing.

So can Kaepernick be told to have a seat until the bigger fish are fried?

Why can’t BLM be told to focus on the MUCH larger problem of black on black violence before making such a huge issue out of the extremely small (by number and by %) amount of unjustified use of force by the police?

If we can reduce the life of a Kate Steinle or Corporal Singh because the statistics say they had a much greater chance of being killed by a teenage driver then one can also disregard the outrage over a police shooting a person of color.

That person was more likely to be killed by AB throwing something from his balcony or whatever else stat of the week shows they were in greater danger from.

I’m not looking for further clarification of your position, I’m asking what then differenciates when an issue can and should be addressed or when it gets pushed to the back of the line due to “bigger fish” to worry about?