Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dog said:

By impeding the flow of illegals.

 

So here is my simple arky texture analogy:  You report the house is filling up with water. I propose we repair/rebuild the roof. You state we need to build more walls.

background data: it is not flooding it is raining.  In this case it's raining asylum seekers. 

edit: oh wait - now if we build some walls across Guatemala and Mexico that might slow them down.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be all in for spending $5.7 billion on building a wall in the US...   between church and state.    That would do a helluva lot more to keep us safe than the Trump Maginot L

It's troubling that you support Milo being able to go where ever he wants but don't want hard working immigrants looking for a better life into our country. If these folks were trying to get into

Posted Images

Crappy as it is, the current border situation is better than a big wall and all those migrants piling up on the Mexican side for years to come. All the border towns I've seen are shitholes already. 

Maybe that's what Rump meant about Mehico payin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

The ones I looked at said most drugs come through points of entry.

What portions of this vaunted wall will be constructed on "points of entry"?

(hint- I think you mean "ports of entry".  Those are the words the folks involved are using.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

What portions of this vaunted wall will be constructed on "points of entry"?

(hint- I think you mean "ports of entry".  Those are the words the folks involved are using.)

Not belabor the point but while most drugs flow through ports of entry not all do,  and stemming the flow of drugs is not the only purpose of a barrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not belabor the point but while most drugs flow through ports of entry not all do,  and stemming the flow of drugs is not the only purpose of a barrier.

Drug smuggling from south of the border is cited as a justification for us needing the wall. 

I am just one of many who are pointing out how that claim is bullshit.

You seem to want to hold onto hope that, by repeating the bullshit argument, it will magically morph into truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Drug smuggling from south of the border is cited as a justification for us needing the wall. 

I am just one of many who are pointing out how that claim is bullshit.

You seem to want to hold onto hope that, by repeating the bullshit argument, it will magically morph into truth.

It's a rightwing thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Not belabor the point but while most drugs flow through ports of entry not all do,  and stemming the flow of drugs is not the only purpose of a barrier.

So in other words, we need to build the wall because it will help stop the flow of drugs, but not very much, and besides the wall will do other stuff too.

If somebody other than a Republican suggested this to you, I hope you would recognize it for stupidity. Because it is.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dog said:
17 hours ago, d'ranger said:

And more wall helps this how?  A couple of random thoughts:

Build more infrastructure to handle the people

Find out why they are coming and address those issues - from what I have read Trump has cut what little aid the US had in this area.  It's a basic get to the root of the problem kind of thing, really old fashioned I know.

By impeding the flow of illegals.

Did you not agree a while back that a speed bump in a remote desert area isn't much of an impediment because it's so easy to go over or under or through?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Did you not agree a while back that a speed bump in a remote desert area isn't much of an impediment because it's so easy to go over or under or through?

I agreed that there are probably places where a barrier is not required. That's probably not where 430 people are apprehended in 5 minutes...

"Agents apprehended 2 large groups within 5 minutes of one another in El Paso Sector early this morning. The groups totaled 430 individuals—mostly Central American families and unaccompanied children".

https://twitter.com/hashtag/BorderPatrol?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1108158361013489666&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fborder%2F2019%2F03%2F20%2F400-migrants-apprehended-within-five-minutes-in-el-paso-sector%2F

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So in other words, we need to build the wall because it will help stop the flow of drugs, but not very much, and besides the wall will do other stuff too.

If somebody other than a Republican suggested this to you, I hope you would recognize it for stupidity. Because it is.

-DSK

If anyone framed the issue like that I would recognize it as stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I agreed that there are probably places where a barrier is not required. That's probably not where 430 people are apprehended in 5 minutes...

So Trump doesn't want to put a wall in such stupid places? Wow. Why does he keep saying he does?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Importunate Tom said:

So Trump doesn't want to put a wall in such stupid places? Wow. Why does he keep saying he does?

It was not Trump who agreed that there are places where a wall is not required, that was me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dog said:
25 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

So Trump doesn't want to put a wall in such stupid places? Wow. Why does he keep saying he does?

It was not Trump who agreed that there are places where a wall is not required, that was me.

Maybe you could talk to him for us?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Will you talk to the idiots who think a wall is useless, racist, immoral and a monument to white supremacy?

I don't know any, except the newsdroids at Fox. Better ask them, they seem to know everything anyway

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Did you not agree a while back that a speed bump in a remote desert area isn't much of an impediment because it's so easy to go over or under or through?

Really should have been using the purple back there....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the GOP got $ for a wall, would they then start to work on real problems, at least those that worry economists, scientists, middle class folks living paycheck to paycheck, diplomats, the sick, our veterans & our transportation experts? Or would they continue to restrict women’s access to healthcare and anointing a moral reprobate and national embarrassment while crying “Lock Her Up” and pissing on the graves of our war veterans judged national heroes?

Develop the stones for real leadership, the morals for fair governance and compassion for the least among us and you’d have approval for a wall sketched out in a bipartisan deal in a day.

Stay assholes and it’s game on. Go Pelosi, stick it to ‘em.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

If the GOP got $ for a wall, would they then start to work on real problems, at least those that worry economists, scientists, middle class folks living paycheck to paycheck, diplomats, the sick, our veterans & our transportation experts? Or would they continue to restrict women’s access to healthcare and anointing a moral reprobate and national embarrassment while crying “Lock Her Up” and pissing on the graves of our war veterans judged national heroes?

Develop the stones for real leadership, the morals for fair governance and compassion for the least among us and you’d have approval for a wall sketched out in a bipartisan deal in a day.

Stay assholes and it’s game on. Go Pelosi, stick it to ‘em.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237389/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dog said:
21 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

So Trump doesn't want to put a wall in such stupid places? Wow. Why does he keep saying he does?

It was not Trump who agreed that there are places where a wall is not required, that was me.

Oh.

20 hours ago, Dog said:

Will you talk to the idiots who think a wall is useless,

And inform them that you agree it can be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The surge has maxed out the capacity of existing detention centers, and the Department of Homeland Security is now in negotiations with the Department of Defense to detain and care for the overflow on U.S. military bases, according to a DHS official and two other U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.

The Department of Health and Human Services has requested DOD support for bed space for up to 5,000 children, but DOD has not yet approved the request, according to a defense official".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/daily-border-crossings-undocumented-migrants-hit-13-year-highs-n987396

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

"The surge has maxed out the capacity of existing detention centers, and the Department of Homeland Security is now in negotiations with the Department of Defense to detain and care for the overflow on U.S. military bases, according to a DHS official and two other U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.

The Department of Health and Human Services has requested DOD support for bed space for up to 5,000 children, but DOD has not yet approved the request, according to a defense official".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/daily-border-crossings-undocumented-migrants-hit-13-year-highs-n987396

Quote

On March 19, CBP officers and agents stopped or apprehended 3,974 immigrants, the highest single day since the beginning of the Trump administration. Six other days since mid-February have topped 3,595, surpassing the daily average of 3,530 in fiscal year 2006.

Oh dear. We've been in a state of PANIC since the mid 2000's and I didn't notice. Was it worse in the 1990's like other PANIC situations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Do we have a problem yet?

"EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Border Patrol confirms it is holding asylum seekers in a "transitional" camp under the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge".

https://www.kvia.com/news/el-paso/border-patrol-holding-migrants-under-paso-del-norte-bridge/1062830341

Or, we could give them a day in court.  How odd is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hasher said:

Or, we could give them a day in court.  How odd is that?

That would defeat the purpose of having all those people in custody, which is to show what a huge problem it is when you have hundreds of people in caravans and two clerks doing all the processing. I gather the concept of hiring more processing power has escaped them, since the answer to every problem is obviously The Wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

That would defeat the purpose of having all those people in custody, which is to show what a huge problem it is when you have hundreds of people in caravans and two clerks doing all the processing. I gather the concept of hiring more processing power has escaped them, since the answer to every problem is obviously The Wall.

Of course - it's wrong and racist to suggest that the people who are ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally bear any culpability whatsoever for their resultant plights.  

Drivel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - it's wrong and racist to suggest that the people who are ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally bear any culpability whatsoever for their resultant plights.  

Drivel. 

You might begin by understanding our legal system.  Where are your ancestors from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hasher said:

Or, we could give them a day in court.  How odd is that?

"A staggering 92 percent of family members failed to appear at their deportation hearings in the months since September, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican".

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/28/92-percent-illegal-immigrant-families-ignore-depor/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - it's wrong and racist to suggest that the people who are ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally bear any culpability whatsoever for their resultant plights.  

Drivel. 

Read the post I was referring to, the post Dog made that hasher responded to.

"EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Border Patrol confirms it is holding asylum seekers in a "transitional" camp under the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge".

We had this discussion while you were away. Asylum seekers are not " ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally". They are asylum seekers and they have been placed in a holding pattern seemingly as a political tool. To deliberately slow down processing is not a good way of dealing with them.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

"A staggering 92 percent of family members failed to appear at their deportation hearings in the months since September, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican".

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/28/92-percent-illegal-immigrant-families-ignore-depor/

Who cares what lies Graham says? He's just making shit up now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hasher said:

You might begin by understanding our legal system.  Where are your ancestors from?

peasant fisherfolk on the west coast of England on the maternal side, Scots/Irish, American Indian and likely buffalo on the paternal side.  That tangent's not really germaine, though, is it?  If the folks come legally and request asylum, then the process should afford them the asylum hearing before any determination of deportation is considered.  If they enter the country illegally?   IMHO that negates the consideration that they otherwise might have been due, and immediate deportation is appropriate.  

I've already said what I think needs to change in our immigration system, but, that's a tanget as well. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Read the post I was referring to, the post Dog made that hasher responded to.

"EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Border Patrol confirms it is holding asylum seekers in a "transitional" camp under the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge".

We had this discussion while you were away. Asylum seekers are not " ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally". They are asylum seekers and they have been placed in a holding pattern seemingly as a political tool. To deliberately slow down processing is not a good way of dealing with them.



We agree on this - if they come here legally - then they are due the appropriate considerations of due process.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Read the post I was referring to, the post Dog made that hasher responded to.

"EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Border Patrol confirms it is holding asylum seekers in a "transitional" camp under the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge".

We had this discussion while you were away. Asylum seekers are not " ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally". They are asylum seekers and they have been placed in a holding pattern seemingly as a political tool. To deliberately slow down processing is not a good way of dealing with them.

 

 

 

 

Little don loves to suspend the rule of law.  Patriots do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Read the post I was referring to, the post Dog made that hasher responded to.

"EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Border Patrol confirms it is holding asylum seekers in a "transitional" camp under the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge".

We had this discussion while you were away. Asylum seekers are not " ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally". They are asylum seekers and they have been placed in a holding pattern seemingly as a political tool. To deliberately slow down processing is not a good way of dealing with them.

 

 

 

 

Ummm...yes they are. They cross the border illegally if apprehended they claim asylum knowing they will be released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And meanwhile - the billions for more wall is still stupid. Have an extra $5 billion? The AF needs that much for hurricane repair.  The US infrastructure needs help, there a  host of areas that actually need $$ to improve. Healthcare reform, Drug Overdose - now has passed traffic in # of deaths.

Building Trump's Moronic wall isn't one of them.  Oh yeah, addressing the push/pull of immigration. None of which has anything to do with the Trump promise of building his big beautiful wall, only slightly less stupid than Lock Her Up.

as Eva Dent.

edit: Here is an idea:  Start a thread about immigration and I will stop pointing out the idiocy of Trump's wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

And meanwhile - the billions for more wall is still stupid. Have an extra $5 billion? The AF needs that much for hurricane repair.  The US infrastructure needs help, there a  host of areas that actually need $$ to improve. Healthcare reform, Drug Overdose - now has passed traffic in # of deaths.

Building Trump's Moronic wall isn't one of them.  Oh yeah, addressing the push/pull of immigration. None of which has anything to do with the Trump promise of building his big beautiful wall, only slightly less stupid than Lock Her Up.

as Eva Dent.

edit: Here is an idea:  Start a thread about immigration and I will stop pointing out the idiocy of Trump's wall.

Are there places where a wall makes sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Are there places where a wall makes sense?

Yes. And the great news is!!!! They are there. Could there be some additional? Perhaps which is why Congress approved more $$ until Trump did his petulant Shut down. Trump is a con, a clown and his supporters are just sheep being fleeced - the bleating of the fleeced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one of the youngest populations on the planet.

Young population is good for the future.

My interaction with the immigrant population has been very positive.  I know it represents nothing.  

I expect old white guys will disappear.  My children and grandchildren will prosper because they work hard and believe in their neighbor.  I'm sorry you are so sad about your life.  Maybe you should sail?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

We have one of the youngest populations on the planet.

Young population is good for the future.

My interaction with the immigrant population has been very positive.  I know it represents nothing.  

I expect old white guys will disappear.  My children and grandchildren will prosper because they work hard and believe in their neighbor.  I'm sorry you are so sad about your life.  Maybe you should sail?

Immigration is great (I'm one)....tresspassing, not so great.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - it's wrong and racist to suggest that the people who are ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally bear any culpability whatsoever for their resultant plights.  

Drivel. 

If they enter illegally they are summarily deported.

If they claim asylum, well, then it's no longer illegal, is it?

How does a Wall help with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

Immigration is great (I'm one)....tresspassing, not so great.

I'm surprised we don't check for mythomania at the border....

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

If they enter illegally they are summarily deported.

If they claim asylum, well, then it's no longer illegal, is it?

How does a Wall help with that?

If the entirety of the conversation was centered around legally entering asylum seekers, you'd have a point.  Its not, though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We agree on this - if they come here legally - then they are due the appropriate considerations of due process.  

You might want to apologize for that "Drivel" comment, since it was based on your lack of understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

If the entirety of the conversation was centered around legally entering asylum seekers, you'd have a point.  Its not, though.  

Right. The wall works. Thanks for the reminder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
4 hours ago, Ishmael said:

That would defeat the purpose of having all those people in custody, which is to show what a huge problem it is when you have hundreds of people in caravans and two clerks doing all the processing. I gather the concept of hiring more processing power has escaped them, since the answer to every problem is obviously The Wall.

Of course - it's wrong and racist to suggest that the people who are ignoring our laws and are crossing into the country illegally bear any culpability whatsoever for their resultant plights.  

Drivel. 

Speaking of drivel - your response to Ishmael fits the definition to a 't'.

The post didn't say the wall was racist. The post didn't say the people entering illegally bear no culpability for their plight. The post pointed out that the resources needed to deal with the problem in question (as raised by Dog) are not being given in order to to manufacture a crisis in order to justify 'The Wall'. You know how you complain about people arguing against something not said - time to direct some of that sanctimony at your own comments.

Whether you like or dislike other things Ishmael has said in the past - the post you quoted and responded to has a point. Perhaps try addressing that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:
4 hours ago, hasher said:

Or, we could give them a day in court.  How odd is that?

"A staggering 92 percent of family members failed to appear at their deportation hearings in the months since September, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican".

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/28/92-percent-illegal-immigrant-families-ignore-depor/

Irrelevant to the asylum seekers being detained. Try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This country was formed on the idea of freedom for all, and welcoming in the poor, the wretched, the hungry, the oppressed, etc.

 Why now do we only want the wealthy Scandinavians?

 Personally, I find the people I meet who are immigrants of wherever, are all pretty grateful to be here. Yeah, Buxsom blonds with tight thighs are pretty, but I like skinny black women with tight chests too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Sure, just like there are miles and miles of border, some privately owned, where it makes no sense and is opposed by locals.

I suggested that Puerto Rico needs a stupid seawall. What do you think?

So the question is not whether walls work, they do. The question is where will they work. Who do you think is best qualified to answer that question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Irrelevant to the asylum seekers being detained. Try again.

Irrelevant perhaps to some guy sitting at his computer in Australia but not irrelevant to anyone seriously considering border security in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Irrelevant perhaps to some guy sitting at his computer in Australia but not irrelevant to anyone seriously considering border security in the US.

Nor to anyone seriously wondering if his land will be taken and cut in half for no good reason.

There's a whole thread about this, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would suggest that the border patrol has the bigger picture.

I would suggest that it's hard to focus on the big picture when the heavy equipment arrives in your lawn.

We've already agreed that some of those lawns are pretty stupid places to build a wall due to the remote locations.

But we still need a BIG NATIONAL PANIC to seize property from those people and build a stupid wall?

No we don't. And if distant bureaucrats are saying we do, it didn't persuade you before. Does it now, or do we still agree that the wall would be stupid in some places?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I would suggest that it's hard to focus on the big picture when the heavy equipment arrives in your lawn.

We've already agreed that some of those lawns are pretty stupid places to build a wall due to the remote locations.

But we still need a BIG NATIONAL PANIC to seize property from those people and build a stupid wall?

No we don't. And if distant bureaucrats are saying we do, it didn't persuade you before. Does it now, or do we still agree that the wall would be stupid in some places?

As I understand it it was the Border patrol, not distant politicians, that designated where additional walls would be helpful.

I'm not in a position to say what the best solution to the problem is but I know it's not denial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

As I understand it it was the Border patrol, not distant politicians, that designated where additional walls would be helpful.

I'm not in a position to say what the best solution to the problem is but I know it's not denial.

The Border Patrol is part of the exec branch and Trump is their boss. I don't know who you're talking about but they're less local than people who call the border their yard.

He said he wants a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

As I understand it it was the Border patrol, not distant politicians, that designated where additional walls would be helpful.

I'm not in a position to say what the best solution to the problem is but I know it's not denial.

The Border Patrol is part of the exec branch and Trump is their boss. I don't know who you're talking about but they're less local than people who call the border their yard.

He said he wants a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea.

And, it appears they are not as clear on what they feel is effective as Dog would have us believe.

A union that represents Border Patrol agents recently deleted a webpage that said building walls and fences along the border to stop illegal immigration would be “wasting taxpayer money.”

The deleted webpage, posted in 2012, argued that border barriers don’t tackle the root causes of migration — and could potentially encourage more migrants to enter the U.S. fraudulently or overstay visas.

The webpage was taken down after the union's president endorsed the wall at a White House news briefing earlier this month.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/border-patrol-union-deleted-2012-webpage-opposing-walls-and-fences-1081250

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

The Border Patrol is part of the exec branch and Trump is their boss. I don't know who you're talking about but they're less local than people who call the border their yard.

He said he wants a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea.

That the border patrol is part of the executive branch has no influence on illegal immigration or any potential solutions to it. Individual property owners might know the situation on their property but that really doesn't qualify them as expert on a national problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dog said:

Irrelevant perhaps to some guy sitting at his computer in Australia but not irrelevant to anyone seriously considering border security in the US.

My location is also irrelevant. You were responding to a post discussing the article you brought up regarding detained asylum seekers. You response was irrelevant to what you quoted and that remains true regardless of who points it out from where.

But hey, tell you what, let's say we ask hasher and if he was talking about "detainment of asylum seekers" and not as you posit "border security in the US" - you spend a week away. If the opposite is true, I spend the week away. I know you don't have the balls to take up that deal, because you're both gutless and know you're wrong, but think of how good it would feel to prove me wrong about both yourself and the topic... or scurry away like a coward again. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

My location is also irrelevant. You were responding to a post discussing the article you brought up regarding detained asylum seekers. You response was irrelevant to what you quoted and that remains true regardless of who points it out from where.

But hey, tell you what, let's say we ask hasher and if he was talking about "detainment of asylum seekers" and not as you posit "border security in the US" - you spend a week away. If the opposite is true, I spend the week away. I know you don't have the balls to take up that deal, because you're both gutless and know you're wrong, but think of how good it would feel to prove me wrong about both yourself and the topic... or scurry away like a coward again. :lol: 

It's not just your location that's irrelavent...."You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

That the border patrol is part of the executive branch has no influence on illegal immigration or any potential solutions to it. Individual property owners might know the situation is on their property but that really doesn't qualify them is expert on a national problem.

They'll say what the boss wants them to say, as Bus Driver showed.

As for individual property owners, some agree that better border protection is needed but they still don't want a stupid wall. Have you read about Mauricio Vidaurri?

On 1/24/2019 at 9:59 AM, Importunate Tom said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

You might want to apologize for that "Drivel" comment, since it was based on your lack of understanding.

Ish - you're right I do owe ya an explanation.   My reply wasn't constrained in its scope to your single comment - and if you thought it was, you're justified in your reaction. 

The bigger picture is that the collective who oppose immigration enforcement, who oppose improving border security HAVE collectively said that the wall is Racist, immoral, and that immigration enforcement is responsible for the plight of the illegal immigrants - they are quick to blame everything EXCEPT the people who made the decision to willingly violate our immigration laws responsible and hold them even partially responsible for the outcome of their own behavior and actions.  

So - in the strict context of your comment?  you're right - it's not drivel, and I apologize, I didn't mean to suggest that that specific comment was.  in the context of the larger discussion?  I still think that much of it is drivel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

And, it appears they are not as clear on what they feel is effective as Dog would have us believe.

A union that represents Border Patrol agents recently deleted a webpage that said building walls and fences along the border to stop illegal immigration would be “wasting taxpayer money.”

The deleted webpage, posted in 2012, argued that border barriers don’t tackle the root causes of migration — and could potentially encourage more migrants to enter the U.S. fraudulently or overstay visas.

The webpage was taken down after the union's president endorsed the wall at a White House news briefing earlier this month.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/border-patrol-union-deleted-2012-webpage-opposing-walls-and-fences-1081250

The discussion of root causes is appropriate - but, it doesn't negate the need for improved physical security on our southern border. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

They'll say what the boss wants them to say, as Bus Driver showed.

As for individual property owners, some agree that better border protection is needed but they still don't want a stupid wall. Have you read about Mauricio Vidaurri?

 

Well our detention centers are full and they keep coming...

"The number of migrant families and children entering the U.S. from Mexico is so high that Border Patrol is immediately releasing them instead of transferring them to the agency responsible for their release, forcing local governments to help coordinate their housing, meals and travel"

What do you suggest instead. I'm all for tougher sanctions on hiring illegals and taxing remittances. That might help but no one is advocating it. It's almost as if some in power don't want to solve the problem.

https://apnews.com/f4349e2a13a740afac03c5cbbf3ace49

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
46 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

And, it appears they are not as clear on what they feel is effective as Dog would have us believe.

A union that represents Border Patrol agents recently deleted a webpage that said building walls and fences along the border to stop illegal immigration would be “wasting taxpayer money.”

The deleted webpage, posted in 2012, argued that border barriers don’t tackle the root causes of migration — and could potentially encourage more migrants to enter the U.S. fraudulently or overstay visas.

The webpage was taken down after the union's president endorsed the wall at a White House news briefing earlier this month.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/border-patrol-union-deleted-2012-webpage-opposing-walls-and-fences-1081250

The discussion of root causes is appropriate - but, it doesn't negate the need for improved physical security on our southern border. 

My post was in response to Dog stating the Border Patrol folks are in favor of the Wall.  

They didn't feel that way in the past, changed their tune after the Union President had a chat with the President, and then they "disappeared" the evidence of their prior position.  Now, had they been open about the reversal, and offered a rationale for the change in their stance, I wouldn't be so suspicious.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

My post was in response to Dog stating the Border Patrol folks are in favor of the Wall.  

They didn't feel that way in the past, changed their tune after the Union President had a chat with the President, and then they "disappeared" the evidence of their prior position.  Now, had they been open about the reversal, and offered a rationale for the change in their stance, I wouldn't be so suspicious.  

I appreciate that perspective - but, that's not the whole story either.  The USCBP has published budgets for many years pre-dating Trump requesting improved border security.   Here's one cite that describes their ask:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/bp_strategic_plan.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I appreciate that perspective - but, that's not the whole story either.  The USCBP has published budgets for many years pre-dating Trump requesting improved border security.   Here's one cite that describes their ask:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/bp_strategic_plan.pdf

 

I figured this section would be where I should look for their view on "securing the border" -

Goal 1: Secure America’s Borders

The U.S. Border Patrol plays a critical role in securing our Nation’s borders between Ports of Entry (POEs) against all threats. We approach this mission from a risk-based orientation, allowing the Border Patrol to apply Information, Integration and Rapid Response in the most targeted, effective, and efficient manner. The measurable objectives of this goal are to:

• Prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between the POEs through improved and focused intelligence-driven operations, as well as operational integration, planning, and execution with law enforcement partners;

• Manage risk through the introduction and expansion of sophisticated tactics, techniques, and procedures. These include methods of detecting illegal entries such as using “change detection” techniques, increased mobile-response capabilities, and expanded use of specially trained personnel with “force multiplying” skills and abilities;

• Disrupt and degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations by targeting enforcement efforts against the highest priority threats and expanding programs that reduce smuggling and crimes associated with smuggling;

• Expand CBP’s situational awareness at and between the POEs and employ a comprehensive and integrated “whole-of-government” approach; and

• Increase community engagement by participating in community programs and engaging the public to assist the U.S. Border Patrol.

 

 

I see no mention of a wall, fence, or other physical barrier.  If that were essential, as Dog suggests, it would be part of the plan, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ish - you're right I do owe ya an explanation.   My reply wasn't constrained in its scope to your single comment - and if you thought it was, you're justified in your reaction. 

The bigger picture is that the collective who oppose immigration enforcement, who oppose improving border security HAVE collectively said that the wall is Racist, immoral, and that immigration enforcement is responsible for the plight of the illegal immigrants - they are quick to blame everything EXCEPT the people who made the decision to willingly violate our immigration laws responsible and hold them even partially responsible for the outcome of their own behavior and actions.  

So - in the strict context of your comment?  you're right - it's not drivel, and I apologize, I didn't mean to suggest that that specific comment was.  in the context of the larger discussion?  I still think that much of it is drivel. 

Oppose immigration enforcement?  Here are some facts:  Over the past 24 years, the amount of money spent on border security has increased 14 times; the number of border patrol agents have increased 500 percent; the amount of border wall has grown from 77 miles to 700 miles since 2000; and the number of people being apprehended trying to cross the border have decreased by four-fifths.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-wall-would-add-billions-u-s-spends-border-n640251 

And:  Violate our immigration laws?  

Right of asylum
The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by their own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.  This is from Wikipedia but there are multiple sources.
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I figured this section would be where I should look for their view on "securing the border" -

Goal 1: Secure America’s Borders

The U.S. Border Patrol plays a critical role in securing our Nation’s borders between Ports of Entry (POEs) against all threats. We approach this mission from a risk-based orientation, allowing the Border Patrol to apply Information, Integration and Rapid Response in the most targeted, effective, and efficient manner. The measurable objectives of this goal are to:

• Prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between the POEs through improved and focused intelligence-driven operations, as well as operational integration, planning, and execution with law enforcement partners;

• Manage risk through the introduction and expansion of sophisticated tactics, techniques, and procedures. These include methods of detecting illegal entries such as using “change detection” techniques, increased mobile-response capabilities, and expanded use of specially trained personnel with “force multiplying” skills and abilities;

• Disrupt and degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations by targeting enforcement efforts against the highest priority threats and expanding programs that reduce smuggling and crimes associated with smuggling;

• Expand CBP’s situational awareness at and between the POEs and employ a comprehensive and integrated “whole-of-government” approach; and

• Increase community engagement by participating in community programs and engaging the public to assist the U.S. Border Patrol.

 

 

I see no mention of a wall, fence, or other physical barrier.  If that were essential, as Dog suggests, it would be part of the plan, right?

I have not argued that walls are essential. I have argued that they are not racist, immoral, monuments to white supremacy or as Tom would have us believe, stupid. I have argued that they can be an effective tool in achieving the above goals. If border security can be achieved without them fine, but I don't buy that yet and the only one I've seen advocating removing the ones we have also eats dirt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I have not argued that walls are essential. I have argued that they are not racist, immoral, monuments to white supremacy or as Tom would have us believe, stupid. I have argued that they can be an effective tool in achieving the above goals. If border security can be achieved without them fine, but I don't buy that yet and the only one I've seen advocating removing the ones we have also eats dirt.

While you may not have used the word "essential", that sure as hell seems to be your position.  Your posts certainly project a stance that the wall is a necessary step.

Between January 2017 and January 2019, the GOP held the reins.  The wall was not so damned important, then.  What changed?

Oh, right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, hasher said:

Oppose immigration enforcement?  Here are some facts:  Over the past 24 years, the amount of money spent on border security has increased 14 times; the number of border patrol agents have increased 500 percent; the amount of border wall has grown from 77 miles to 700 miles since 2000; and the number of people being apprehended trying to cross the border have decreased by four-fifths.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-wall-would-add-billions-u-s-spends-border-n640251 

And:  Violate our immigration laws?  

Right of asylum
The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by their own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.  This is from Wikipedia but there are multiple sources.

So - what point are you trying to make in pointing out that the country has and is continuing to spend money on border enforcement?  What does "right of asylum" have to do with illegal entry into our country?   

How does what you shared in any way negate my observation of the collective comments and attitudes that have been expressed?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

While you may not have used the word "essential", that sure as hell seems to be your position.  Your posts certainly project a stance that the wall is a necessary step.

Between January 2017 and January 2019, the GOP held the reins.  The wall was not so damned important, then.  What changed?

Oh, right.

It has never been my view that border security is unimportant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

While you may not have used the word "essential", that sure as hell seems to be your position.  Your posts certainly project a stance that the wall is a necessary step.

Between January 2017 and January 2019, the GOP held the reins.  The wall was not so damned important, then.  What changed?

Oh, right.

Just to reiterate my position - The USCBP has had plans in place for many years pre-dating Trump to improve the physical security of our southern border.   I think that those plans are prudent and appropriate, and that too many "well intentioned" individuals are quick to scrap that plan so they can "oppose the wall".   

A wall from the Gulf to the Pacific isn't what's necessary, and it's a dumb idea, but, politicizing this issue to the point that long-establihsed plans of the USCBP are negated isn't appropriate eiither.  Border enforcement isn't immoral, racist or any of the other things that Trump's detractors like to claim in their efforts to gin up support for their collective perspective - it's a valid and necssary function.    I've also previously shared what changes to our immigration policy should include - and nothing in my perspective has been to "keep the brown people out".  

So - my refusal to accept the "no wall" perspective is based on my opposition to the idea that we ought to welcome everyone with open arms and give them everything they want no matter how they get here.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Just to reiterate my position - The USCBP has had plans in place for many years pre-dating Trump to improve the physical security of our southern border.   I think that those plans are prudent and appropriate, and that too many "well intentioned" individuals are quick to scrap that plan so they can "oppose the wall".   

A wall from the Gulf to the Pacific isn't what's necessary, and it's a dumb idea, but, politicizing this issue to the point that long-establihsed plans of the USCBP are negated isn't appropriate eiither.  Border enforcement isn't immoral, racist or any of the other things that Trump's detractors like to claim in their efforts to gin up support for their collective perspective - it's a valid and necssary function.    I've also previously shared what changes to our immigration policy should include - and nothing in my perspective has been to "keep the brown people out".  

So - my refusal to accept the "no wall" perspective is based on my opposition to the idea that we ought to welcome everyone with open arms and give them everything they want no matter how they get here.    

 

Agree about not politicizing the issue..... in fact I feel that way about most issues.....

but opposing something that nobody is trying to propose is just silly. That's a huge straw man.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Agree about not politicizing the issue..... in fact I feel that way about most issues.....

but opposing something that nobody is trying to propose is just silly. That's a huge straw man.

-DSK

Let's poke at that for a minute, if ya don't mind.  I agree - my comments are a slight exaggeration of how I think most folks feel, but I'd also add that they should be considered as a measure of frustration with the people who are so firmly entrenched in their opposition to a thing that they refuse to sensibly and rationally consider addressing the real problems.    That's politics though, ain't it?  Hold out on supporting something until you're certain you can get the maximum benefit for something YOU want down the road.  

Edited because I hit "SEND" too soon.  

The question I wanted to pull at is to ask how do you think comments like "the wall is racist and immoral" and the "open borders initiative" should be interpreted and rationalized into the discussion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I agree - my comments are a slight exaggeration of how I think most folks feel, 

 

"my opposition to the idea that we ought to welcome everyone with open arms and give them everything they want no matter how they get here." 

What is that a slight exaggeration of, exactly?  Or to put another way, how precisely do you think most folks feel on the subject?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

So the question is not whether walls work, they do. The question is where will they work. Who do you think is best qualified to answer that question?

That is not the question you mythomaniac. The question is: Is there a National Emergency that requires the President to expand his powers so as to act as both the legislative and executive branch. 

The answer to that is clear, unless you hate our system of gov't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

"my opposition to the idea that we ought to welcome everyone with open arms and give them everything they want no matter how they get here." 

What is that a slight exaggeration of, exactly?  Or to put another way, how precisely do you think most folks feel on the subject?

  

I think that there are those who are quite vocal in opposing immigration enforcement who advocate taking measures not to fix the immigration policy, but, to limit the ability of enforcement agencies to carry out those responsibilities - ie limiting detention space to force CBP to retain fewer individuals, outside any consideration for how those individuals came to be in custody.   People who adhere to that perspective are the ones that I'm referring to in my comment. 

I think that most people understand that we simply can't take in everyone who would rather be here then where they are. There are also plenty who emphatically disagree, and think that any desire to manage intake numbers is nothing more than thinly veiled racism.   Those who argue against enforcement/border improvements seem to want to discount that "let 'em all in" perspective does exist, and refer to any mention of such as whimsical imagination, or a strawman.  

I've said many times what I think needs to be changed in our immigration policy, where I think enforcement priorities should be, and what rights/protections should be afforded those who are here legally.  Anyone who's interested can do a quick search thru the archives - I don't feel like repeating myself now. Where I think "we" seem to come into the biggest disagreement is that I think that the only rights that someone who willingly and illegally enters the country should be afforded are humane treatment while in short-term detention awaiting immediate deportation, and others express the perspective that because out immigration system isn't as efficient as it should be, that that warrants bypassing it.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - what point are you trying to make in pointing out that the country has and is continuing to spend money on border enforcement?  What does "right of asylum" have to do with illegal entry into our country?   

How does what you shared in any way negate my observation of the collective comments and attitudes that have been expressed?   

how many illegals are entering and not being caught?