A question for Trump wall supporters

[Acadia]

They are not leaving the Stalinist lifestyle you described making your question a bit dishonest. Most of them coming here are doing so for the economic opportunities America offers. They are fleeing poverty.

I really cant answer what I would do if I were living under those circumstances. I do know that they are not entitled to circumvent our laws. Traveling a 1000 miles on foot is irrelevant.

Will a wall stop them from coming, probably not. What it does do is act as deterrent and it reduces how many illegally cross our border.

The government has an obligation to protect our sovereignty. Offering illegal aliens access to our social safety nets, giving them the privilege to vote, and offering them sanctuary from prosecution are all in direct conflict and is a dereliction of duty by our government.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Criminally so.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is a large, growing faction in American liberalism that advocates open borders. There is a growing hatred of immigration enforcement, in general.

According to CNN,

I don't see any link to CNN, I see Xyce the BS artist claiming CNN said it.

This includes AOC, the darling of the left, and the current figurehead of liberalism:

Abolishing ICE does not = support for open borders.
I'm abolishing the TSA, but not because I am against air travel security, but because I think, as an agency, it is a dysfunctional mess that can't find it's ass with a roadmap and a flashlight.
Similarly, we can do better than ICE, start over, do the job right.

It's not logically unsound to extrapolate that a majority of Democrats openly will call for open borders. There are some prominent names who already have.

Says who? Show me, I'm pretending I am from Missouri.

Your responses are amateurish. Might have worked in other forums, doesn't work here.
Where are you from, Stormfront?

 

[NotreDame]

You aren’t as smart as you think you are. The fact of the matter is that a wall will almost certainly be ineffective in stemming the illegal flow by any meaningful measure. Eminent domain is a problem and the roi is not even close. Of course none of this matters because Mexico is going to pay for it, right?

The fact of the matter is that a wall will almost certainly be ineffective in stemming the illegal flow by any meaningful measure.

A few problems. First “meaningful measure” is ambiguous. Perhaps “meaningful measure” means one person has been “stemmed” from unlawful entry, in which case your argument evaporates.

Second, Mexico paying for the wall is irrelevant to my argument.

Eminent domain is equally not germane to my position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How am I not supporting my argument? What do you think those tunnels are used for? Are they just used to help people get across the border, or are they used to funnel drugs across the border? And what do you think officials do when they discover the tunnels? Do they just shrug and walk away, or do they cave them in? How long do you think it takes to make those tunnels?

I know what they're used for, I know what they cost, I know who pays for them and I know how long it takes to build them.
I also know that a good many of them are multi-purpose. But most of all, the vast majority of illegals who come here don't come over walls or sneak across the Rio Grande.
The vast majority come trough ports of entry, through airports and by boat.

Ever gone fishing in Baja? I have.

 

[maxparrish]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

Of course a wall as a cornerstone of a patrolled and barriered security system in Mexico would discourage me, just as they discourage determined terrorists and others on Israel's borders. Whether or not I'd try would to breach a wall depends on what would happen to me in the attempt, and how I thought I'd be treated if I made it.

Now, if I knew Mexico had 200 sanctuary governments, aid to illegals, and that even if they caught me would do no worse than take years to deport me (if they ever do) then it would make the attempt all the more attractive.

Not so much, however, if Mexico used deadly force to stop my illegal border crossing and, if I lived, a hefty stay in a Mexican prison at hard labor. Then I'd very likely not even try.

See some lessons in your heuristic thought experiment?

 

[trixare4kids]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

Pretty telling that the majority of responses to your question are from Trump haters.

:lol:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Lvet's use the opposite to prove that: List below all Democratic proposals for stopping illegal border crossing; particularly those in the wilderness areas along the border. Failure to do so proves the proposition.

Since I didn't ask for "ALL Democratic or liberal proposals, I'll post two, I said that none of you had posted ANY research proving that liberals and Democrats are majority for open borders

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html

https://www.wola.org/analysis/eight-border-security-proposals/

 

[Xyce]

I don't see any link to CNN, I see Xyce the BS artist claiming CNN said it.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html

Abolishing ICE does not = support for open borders.
I'm abolishing the TSA, but not because I am against air travel security, but because I think, as an agency, it is a dysfunctional mess that can't find it's ass with a roadmap and a flashlight.
Similarly, we can do better than ICE, start over, do the job right.

Abolishing ICE is just one of many examples of the growing liberal faction within the Democrat party for an open border policy. Many liberals, for example, equate being against illegal immigration to being against immigration. Many liberals justify Mexicans illegally entering the US because we stole a lot of their land during the Mexican-American War. There is a lot of evidence to extrapolate that the Democrats, if that faction gets large enough, will outright be in favor of an open border policy. Keith Ellison, former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, once wore a shirt that read, "I don't believe in borders." (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-ellison-sports-i-dont-believe-in-borders-t-shirt). The evidence is mounting. The Democrat party, more and more, are in favor of open borders.

Where are you from, Stormfront?

Looks like I'm getting under your skin, because you are losing this argument. :lamo

 

[Saladin4]

I don't see you supporting your argument, just making wild claims, like that one about Trump's wall being 50 feet high.
You didn't support that one either.

What?....Even trump isn't claiming that...He is king of the liars...50 ft high?...What a joke

 

[Saladin4]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html





Abolishing ICE is just one of many examples of the growing liberal faction within the Democrat party for an open border policy. Many liberals, for example, equate being against illegal immigration to being against immigration. Many liberals justify Mexicans illegally entering the US because we stole a lot of their land during the Mexican-American War. There is a lot of evidence to extrapolate that the Democrats, if that faction gets large enough, will outright be in favor of an open border policy. Keith Ellison, former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, once wore a shirt that read, "I don't believe in borders." (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-ellison-sports-i-dont-believe-in-borders-t-shirt). The evidence is mounting. The Democrat party, more and more, are in favor of open borders.



Looks like I'm getting under your skin, because you are losing this argument. :lamo

Traffic is terrible at every border crossing...Where is the open border?....Please explain, ...Surely you must know?

 

[Xyce]

[video]https://pmd.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/politics/2018/07/02/ice-explainer-van-jones-vpx.cnn_2163028_768x432_1300k.mp4[/video]

 

[aks]

A few problems. First “meaningful measure” is ambiguous. Perhaps “meaningful measure” means one person has been “stemmed” from unlawful entry, in which case your argument evaporates.

Second, Mexico paying for the wall is irrelevant to my argument.

Eminent domain is equally not germane to my position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your position is that if the wall stops a single person the roi is sufficient then you are irrational. Full stop.

 

[aks]

Of course a wall as a cornerstone of a patrolled and barriered security system in Mexico would discourage me, just as they discourage determined terrorists and others on Israel's borders. Whether or not I'd try would to breach a wall depends on what would happen to me in the attempt, and how I thought I'd be treated if I made it.

Now, if I knew Mexico had 200 sanctuary governments, aid to illegals, and that even if they caught me would do no worse than take years to deport me (if they ever do) then it would make the attempt all the more attractive.

Not so much, however, if Mexico used deadly force to stop my illegal border crossing and, if I lived, a hefty stay in a Mexican prison at hard labor. Then I'd very likely not even try.

See some lessons in your heuristic thought experiment?

Good post. The fact of the matter is that there are really only two options to stop the illegal flow:
1. Make life worse for them here
2. Make life better for them there

 

[Xyce]

More proof that the Democrat party is becoming the party of open borders. 36% of Democrats support "basically open borders."

In a recent interview, Ellison suggested that because corporations “can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages,” regular people should be able to “go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages.” Not only is this statement in itself completely detached from reality, but it seems to suggest that if we cannot have wide open borders, then we must not have free trade at all. These remarks come just weeks after Ellison wore a shirt that read “yo no creo en fronteras,” which in English translates into “I do not believe in borders.”

Troublingly, these views on immigration are not far out of line with the Democratic Party as a whole. In fact, a Harvard Harris poll last month states that a striking 36 percent of Democrats support “basically open borders.” This is an inflammatory policy that is dangerously out of line with mainstream thinking. Indeed, these extreme statements not only convey a deeply troubling sentiment, but moreover, they are strategically bad for the party.

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigra...n-borders-wind-up-closing-doors-for-democrats

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Of course a wall as a cornerstone of a patrolled and barriered security system in Mexico would discourage me, just as they discourage determined terrorists and others on Israel's borders. Whether or not I'd try would to breach a wall depends on what would happen to me in the attempt, and how I thought I'd be treated if I made it.

Now, if I knew Mexico had 200 sanctuary governments, aid to illegals, and that even if they caught me would do no worse than take years to deport me (if they ever do) then it would make the attempt all the more attractive.

Not so much, however, if Mexico used deadly force to stop my illegal border crossing and, if I lived, a hefty stay in a Mexican prison at hard labor. Then I'd very likely not even try.

See some lessons in your heuristic thought experiment?

Yes, the lesson is that a wall alone won't do anything. And that's my point.

Walls in other countries work because they guarded. They are needed to slow down those who try to reach them because we're not talking about the vast distances we have along the Mexican border.

This is just common sense and basic rationality. An unguarded wall along a 2,000-mile border is useless without guards to react to those who attemp to scale the wall. Why can't you admit this obvious fact?

Why not focus on using drones and sensors and guards to defend the border instead of wasting money on a wall that won't do anything?

 

[Xyce]

Yes, the lesson is that a wall alone won't do anything. And that's my point.

Walls in other countries work because they guarded. They are needed to slow down those who try to reach them because we're not talking about the vast distances we have along the Mexican border.

This is just common sense and basic rationality. An unguarded wall along a 2,000-mile border is useless without guards to react to those who attemp to scale the wall. Why can't you admit this obvious fact?

Why not focus on using drones and sensors and guards to defend the border instead of wasting money on a wall that won't do anything?

You're making a straw man argument. No one here, at least not me, said the wall alone is enough to deal with people illegally crossing our border. It's just a fundamental part to complete border security. I want the wall and drones and sensors and guards. I want all that and a bag of potato chips.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Good post. The fact of the matter is that there are really only two options to stop the illegal flow:
1. Make life worse for them here
2. Make life better for them there

All you have to do is throw people who employ illegal immigrants in prison. Problem solved. They come here for jobs.

Or you could give out guest worker permits and throw those who use illegals without permits in prison.

The reality is Trump and other Republicans have no interest in solving the problem. It pays off politically to keep complaining about illegals while exploiting their labor.

Conservative voters just don't' realize they're being played for fools.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You're making a straw man argument. No one here, at least not me, said the wall alone is enough to deal with people illegally crossing our border. It's just a fundamental part to complete border security. I want the wall and drones and sensors and guards.

Here is your straw man



The point is if you have the drones and sensors and guards, why do you need a wall?

The absurd idea that Democrats reject is Trump's ridiculous 2,000 mile 30 foot wall. Why can't we all admit that's absurd and move on with our lives?

Democrats agreed to money for border security. A wall, as Trump defines it, is not an integral part of that.

 

[Xyce]

All you have to do is throw people who employ illegal immigrants in prison. Problem solved. They come here for jobs.

Or you could give out guest worker permits and throw those who use illegals without permits in prison.

The reality is Trump and other Republicans have no interest in solving the problem. It pays off politically to keep complaining about illegals while exploiting their labor.

Conservative voters just don't' realize they're being played for fools.

I agree that there are elements of the Republican party that like the cheap labor of illegals from Mexico. But that also swings the other way. There are Democrats who like to exploit the cheap labor. In fact, the exploitation of cheap labor for cheap food is a liberal talking point in favor of illegal immigration.

Here's an article from the Democrat outlet The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-for-food-under-trump/?utm_term=.e8e7132df763

Here's a quote from the article:

Trump’s deportation promises, if fulfilled, would ripple far beyond the lives of illegal immigrants. Deportations would affect vast swaths of the economy — with a particularly dramatic impact on agriculture.

As a result, Americans could see the cost of some fruits and vegetables soar.

But I think Democrats like illegal immigration more. Because once they give them amnesty, they're Democrat voters for life.

 

[NotreDame]

If your position is that if the wall stops a single person the roi is sufficient then you are irrational. Full stop.

That isn’t what I said. Full stop. That wasn’t my point. Full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I agree that there are elements of the Republican party that like the cheap labor of illegals from Mexico. But that also swings the other way. There are Democrats who like to exploit the cheap labor. In fact, the exploitation of cheap labor for cheap food is a liberal talking point in favor of illegal immigration.

Here's an article from the Democrat outlet The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-for-food-under-trump/?utm_term=.e8e7132df763

Here's a quote from the article:

But Democrats have proposed immigration reform that would make provisions for immigrant labor. It's Republicans who refuse. Why fix the problem when you can use it politically to score points? Why fix the problem when you can make absurd proposals like building some gigantic wall?

Did you watch this video that takes you through a flight over the entire border to see how enormous this task would be?

Just seeing the border makes obvious the absurdity of this wall.

Why not just focus on intelligent approaches to border security? Drones and artificial intelligence are technologies that evolving very quickly. Why waste billions of dollars on a dumb expensive 3rd-century solution?

 

[Xyce]

Here is your straw man



The point is if you have the drones and sensors and guards, why do you need a wall?

The absurd idea that Democrats reject is Trump's ridiculous 2,000 mile 30 foot wall. Why can't we all admit that's absurd and move on with our lives?

Democrats agreed to money for border security. A wall, as Trump defines it, is not an integral part of that.

But drones and sensors are not enough. According to FactCheck.org, 303,916 people illegally crossed the border in 2017. So, clearly, drones and sensors are not enough. Logically, a wall would make it logistically more difficult to cross the border, which would logically bring down the numbers.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html





Abolishing ICE is just one of many examples of the growing liberal faction within the Democrat party for an open border policy. Many liberals, for example, equate being against illegal immigration to being against immigration. Many liberals justify Mexicans illegally entering the US because we stole a lot of their land during the Mexican-American War. There is a lot of evidence to extrapolate that the Democrats, if that faction gets large enough, will outright be in favor of an open border policy. Keith Ellison, former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, once wore a shirt that read, "I don't believe in borders." (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-ellison-sports-i-dont-believe-in-borders-t-shirt). The evidence is mounting. The Democrat party, more and more, are in favor of open borders.



Looks like I'm getting under your skin, because you are losing this argument. :lamo

Looks like you're stretching a weak argument. Throwing out terms like "many liberals" doesn't work.

"Many conservatives" want to outlaw Democrats from even holding elected office, "many conservatives" believe in biblical government. Although a lot of Trump supporters actually DO believe in that stuff, (they are fond of comparing Trump to Saul, who became Paul) there are plenty of conservatives who do not. Sadly, a lot of them have indeed left the Republican Party but that doesn't mean that they aren't conservatives.

Abolishing ICE, as I mentioned before, is similar to disgust with the TSA, an agency which isn't doing their job properly. How many Democrats want the Border Patrol disbanded along with ICE? (Few to none)
If the majority wanted open borders, it stands to reason they would also demand an end to the Border Patrol, too.

There is a lot of evidence to extrapolate that the Democrats, if that faction gets large enough, will outright be in favor of an open border policy.

Ahhh, the slippery slope argument, do you also believe that "there is lot of evidence to extrapolate that Democrats favor communism, too?

I'm not losing an argument, you're resorting to failed logic, logical fallacies and straw men in your weak argument.
Throwing out some distorted rhetoric and then making an argument that was not presented by that opponent in the first place, or presenting an extremely distorted view that doesn't exist and then arguing that you won the debate is "A STRAW MAN".

What's next, demanding that I disprove a negative?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

But drones and sensors are not enough. According to FactCheck.org, 303,916 people illegally crossed the border in 2017. So, clearly, drones and sensors are not enough. Logically, a wall would make it logistically more difficult to cross the border, which would logically bring down the numbers.

well, I fact checked your fact check. Here's the actual quote...

Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 303,916 in 2017.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/

Those are the people they caught.

And the fact is that the numbers of people crossing the border illegals have already dropped dramatically since 2000.

Did you watch the video that shows you the entire border from a helicopter? For people willing to cross such vast territory, a wall is just a minor obstacle on the way.

 

[aks]

That isn’t what I said. Full stop. That wasn’t my point. Full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You haven’t said much of anything other than spout empty platitudes.