• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long will it take for Mexico to secure its southern border against illegal invaders?

How long will it take for Mexico to secure its southern border against illegal invaders

  • Less than A month

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Less than 3-months

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Less than 5-months

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Less than 8-months

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Less than 10-months

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
Democrats don't want open borders. That is just a politicians talking point. We do want more humane treatment of immigrants. Good luck tilting at windmills. The days of US expansionism are over.

But expansionism is what we need. There are literally billions of people in the world who have it worse than if they came to the US. We don't have room our the money in our country for these people. We already owe 20 trillion dolalrs! And, you conveniently didn't answer my question. Don't you think Hondurans and the Guatemalans would rather stay where they are and have us bring the US to them instead of them having to come here? Isn't that what THEY would prefer? And, yes, Democrats ARE for open borders. They make sanctuary cities. They make sanctuary states. They even allow illegal immigrants to vote in local elections and they want illegals to be counted on the US census and be represented in the US Congress. Please explain to me how that means Democrats don't want open borders. They do.
 
I did not realize being faithful to the original intent of The Constitution was “red neck philosophy”.

Helps further shine light on Leftist “thought”.

Thanks for that.

How does this translate into your concerns about decisions? Would you get rid of Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, various civil rights decisions, etc.? “Original intent” generally translates into “I don’t like the way the world is changing.”
 
You made charges which are nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

In fact, just the opposite.

The Constitution is the bedrock of our Republic. Destroy it, and you destroy the nation. The law is the only thing binding us... and it’s not surprising Leftists don;t like the Constitution, as it limits their power.

Just look at your post below. It seems you have little reverence for the Constitution... or understanding of it, or the Bill of Rights.

O....quit preaching. wrong choir. Nothing wrong with being silly even you. If a judge or circuit makes a ruling Trump doesn't like they are Obama or Clinton judges. If a judge or appeals circuit makes a ruling you don't like they are activist judges. You beat everyone on this forum over the head with the Constitution. Those judges you call activist were up held by The SCOTUS. Which by the way is stacked Conservative. You just blab endlessly about the Constitution but never cite what part of the Constitution is being abridged when you squeal about activist judges blocking Trump.
 
But expansionism is what we need. There are literally billions of people in the world who have it worse than if they came to the US. We don't have room our the money in our country for these people. We already owe 20 trillion dolalrs! And, you conveniently didn't answer my question. Don't you think Hondurans and the Guatemalans would rather stay where they are and have us bring the US to them instead of them having to come here? Isn't that what THEY would prefer? And, yes, Democrats ARE for open borders. They make sanctuary cities. They make sanctuary states. They even allow illegal immigrants to vote in local elections and they want illegals to be counted on the US census and be represented in the US Congress. Please explain to me how that means Democrats don't want open borders. They do.

I'm a Democrat, I don't want open borders. All people want secure borders. I just think expansionism is a throw back idea that ended in the 19th century. I think more attention should be paid to what the problems are in the three countries. Trump wants to stop aid to them or has stopped aid. There hasn't been a citizenship question on the census since 1950. Such a question added in the next census will cause non participation by non citizens. Non participation favors the goals of the Trump Administration. Democrats want participation. It determines apportionment, and distribution of federal funds, and many other things. As always Americans divide along partisan lines in our views of immigrants and immigration. Those in the country have been here for many years in many cases. The amount of non citizens who vote in elections of any kind is not significant. Claims that it is otherwise is just talking points. It is against the law for non citizens to participate in federal elections. If you are a non citizen you sure don't want to come to the attention of federal authorities in this climate. Why would you want to come to the attention of any authority in this climate? Americans? views of immigrants marked by widening partisan, generational divides | Pew Research Center
 
O....quit preaching. wrong choir. Nothing wrong with being silly even you. If a judge or circuit makes a ruling Trump doesn't like they are Obama or Clinton judges. If a judge or appeals circuit makes a ruling you don't like they are activist judges. You beat everyone on this forum over the head with the Constitution. Those judges you call activist were up held by The SCOTUS. Which by the way is stacked Conservative. You just blab endlessly about the Constitution but never cite what part of the Constitution is being abridged when you squeal about activist judges blocking Trump.

You are welcomed. Original intent? Like do away with all these new fangled ideas that arrived after the Kawnstitution was written? Like return to slavery and owning human beings as property? Put women back in their place? Freedom to discriminate against anyone? Gettysburg didn't change anything? New inventions didn't happen? Lets just go back to the way Jefferson wanted it, agrarian gentleman farmers across a pastoral land. What a sweet idyllic picture. No child labor laws. Low taxes, wow conservatives would be in heaven.

You illustrated you’re not up to speed on the Constitution, and even seemed to hold it in contempt.

I didn’t force you to write those things. You did so voluntarily.

Congress is in the business of writing law, not the court.

The Constitution is the floor board for making decisions. If it cannot be found there, it is the job of Congress to write said law.



PS. The Democrats do not want judges who interpret the Constitution in its Originalist, textual form.

Why is that?

Because it limits their power. It means Democrats must pass laws through Congress... (which is a major problem) instead of through what they see as a Politburo of 9 robed men.

This is why they went ape-**** crazy with Kavanaugh, and will be even more ape-**** crazy should a Leftist, activist judge leave the court.
 
Last edited:
How does this translate into your concerns about decisions? Would you get rid of Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, various civil rights decisions, etc.? “Original intent” generally translates into “I don’t like the way the world is changing.”

Roe v Wade was judicial overreach.


JFK’s appointed judge to the SCOTUS, Judge White writes in dissent:

“With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dis-entitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power...
 
Does Mexico want to secure its southern border against illegal invaders?

Considering the above, and the problems just a few thousand invaders have caused in Tijuana, how long will it take for Mexico to secure their southern border from illegal invaders?

Mexico's southern border is much shorter than the US/Mexico border, & so should be much more manageable than the US/Mexico border. It's still tough terrain.

Mexico may lack the political will to play along with the US on the Mexican border question. I notice that Mexico is back & forth on whether they'll allow immigrants crossing Mexico to reach the US to stay in Mexico while their asylum application moves forward. That's a very slow process; & I'm not clear how Mexico is going to pay the costs of having potential US asylees waiting around in Mexico for the US to accept their applications for asylum.

For historical reasons, Mexico isn't in any hurry to comply with US wishes - & Lopez Obrador (the Mexican president) just started his term. He won't be in any hurry to blow up his political honeymoon with the Mexican legislature before it's fairly begun.
 
Roe v Wade was judicial overreach.


JFK’s appointed judge to the SCOTUS, Judge White writes in dissent:

He’s entitled to his opinion. What did the majority say to back up their decision?

To get personal, my wife and I terminated a pregnancy some years ago. Diagnosis was a birth defect the fetus had that wouldn’t have had her survive in the womb. 1- under a system you would have us live under, what hoops would you have our doc and us jump through?, and 2- who goes to jail under laws pro-lifers would like to see?
 
He’s entitled to his opinion. What did the majority say to back up their decision?

To get personal, my wife and I terminated a pregnancy some years ago. Diagnosis was a birth defect the fetus had that wouldn’t have had her survive in the womb. 1- under a system you would have us live under, what hoops would you have our doc and us jump through?, and 2- who goes to jail under laws pro-lifers would like to see?

Where is abortion stated as legal in the Constitution?

It is not there. In fact, it’s been illegal in every state for as long as the country was created.

That means, if you want a law which legalizes abortion, you must elect officials to pass said law.

That Leftists fail to understand how government is supposed to work illustrates how:

1. Our schools fail miserably at basic civics.

2. How our media fails to inform its citizens.

Complete and utter failure on something that is very simple... which has produced ignorant citizens, and usurps the foundation of the country.
 
Re: Does Mexico want to secure its southern border against illegal invaders?

Mexico's southern border is much shorter than the US/Mexico border, & so should be much more manageable than the US/Mexico border. It's still tough terrain.

Mexico may lack the political will to play along with the US on the Mexican border question. I notice that Mexico is back & forth on whether they'll allow immigrants crossing Mexico to reach the US to stay in Mexico while their asylum application moves forward. That's a very slow process; & I'm not clear how Mexico is going to pay the costs of having potential US asylees waiting around in Mexico for the US to accept their applications for asylum.

For historical reasons, Mexico isn't in any hurry to comply with US wishes - & Lopez Obrador (the Mexican president) just started his term. He won't be in any hurry to blow up his political honeymoon with the Mexican legislature before it's fairly begun.

Asylum seekers or economic migrants are not “invaders”, despite the rhetoric of the right wing. The US sent troops and otherwise interfered in the domestic life and politics of the Central American countries in question. Our troops never got visas. Central Americans are repaying the favor. Bob Dylan’s lyric, “How does it feel” applies here. Maybe it would help to think of the economic migrants as foreign investors seeking a better return on their labor. Think of the asylum seekers as Jews and Gypsies fleeing mini-holocausts. Or if you are Christian, think in this season of Jose, Maria and Hay-zoos as fleeing Herod to Egypt.

Carl Reiner as the reporter: “what was the main means or transportation 2000 years ago?

Mel Brooks as the 2000-year old man: “Fear.”

Not much has changed.
 
Where is abortion stated as legal in the Constitution?

It is not there. In fact, it’s been illegal in every state for as long as the country was created.

That means, if you want a law which legalizes abortion, you must elect officials to pass said law.

That Leftists fail to understand how government is supposed to work illustrates how:

1. Our schools fail miserably at basic civics.

2. How our media fails to inform its citizens.

Complete and utter failure on something that is very simple... which has produced ignorant citizens, and usurps the foundation of the country.

Constitution does not have to be explicit on every issue, for example on segregation or all the rights of the accused.
 
Constitution does not have to be explicit on every issue, for example on segregation or all the rights of the accused.

That I believe is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

All men are created equal...

Abortion is not in the Constitution. It has been illegal in every state since the country’s founding.

You want to change a law, elect representatives to do so.

This is why Leftists want activist judges. They can;t elect men to change the law, so they seek to have their Politburo in black robes do so. Hence the heads afire behavior of Leftists regarding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
 
You just hear your own words. All I have been talking about is laws that Congress wrote in regards to Asylum. You repeat your self over and over again. With you there is no conversation. All you do is get on a kick about the Constitution with no real context and put it on repeat over and over again. Next
 
That I believe is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

All men are created equal...

Abortion is not in the Constitution. It has been illegal in every state since the country’s founding.

You want to change a law, elect representatives to do so.

This is why Leftists want activist judges. They can;t elect men to change the law, so they seek to have their Politburo in black robes do so. Hence the heads afire behavior of Leftists regarding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Zimmer has his on agenda. He just wants to talk about the Constitution and activist judges. Hears nothing else.
 
You illustrated you’re not up to speed on the Constitution, and even seemed to hold it in contempt.

I didn’t force you to write those things. You did so voluntarily.

Congress is in the business of writing law, not the court.

The Constitution is the floor board for making decisions. If it cannot be found there, it is the job of Congress to write said law.



PS. The Democrats do not want judges who interpret the Constitution in its Originalist, textual form.

Why is that?

Because it limits their power. It means Democrats must pass laws through Congress... (which is a major problem) instead of through what they see as a Politburo of 9 robed men.

This is why they went ape-**** crazy with Kavanaugh, and will be even more ape-**** crazy should a Leftist, activist judge leave the court.


Zimmer has his own agenda. All he wants to talk about is the Constitution and activist judges. Hears nothing else.
 
That I believe is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

All men are created equal...

Abortion is not in the Constitution. It has been illegal in every state since the country’s founding.

You want to change a law, elect representatives to do so.

This is why Leftists want activist judges. They can;t elect men to change the law, so they seek to have their Politburo in black robes do so. Hence the heads afire behavior of Leftists regarding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Zimmer has his own agenda. He just wants to talk about the constitution and activist judges. Hears nothing else.
 
They’re fed up in Tijuana already.

Watch... it’ll be a month or so.

They’re not as dimwitted as Congressional Democrats and their equally obtuse base.

Says a guy who believed Trump when he said Mexico would pay for a wall...
 
Zimmer has his own agenda. All he wants to talk about is the Constitution and activist judges. Hears nothing else.

Let’s say that is 100% true. So what?

It’s www.debatepolitics.com, and The Constitution is the contract between our government and its citizens.

Do you dislike this discussion because you learn things which disrupts your world view?
 
Says a guy who believed Trump when he said Mexico would pay for a wall...

I didn’t care if Mexico paid for it, or we paid for it.

We spend 1/4 TRILLION annually on illegals. The wall will pay for itself.

One thing is becoming obvious. Democrats have run out of arguments to support their Open Border mentality.
 
Democrats don't want open borders. That is just a politicians talking point. We do want more humane treatment of immigrants. Good luck tilting at windmills. The days of US expansionism are over.

Everyone wants humane treatment of immigrants, legal or illegal. What we don't or shouldn't want is illegal
 
It was tremendously effective for almost 50-years.

The Wall came down because Communism creates such misery, the USSR could ill afford to prop up that failed state, East Germany couldn’t stand on its own, and when Gorby abandoned the DDR, its people rose up to drive a stake through the ****hole state.

But the wall was incredibly effective.

And our wall will be incredibly effective too, and will stand strong because the country is prosperous and it is keeping people out, not enslaving people.

PS. You Leftists really are not strong in the critical thinking department... or understanding of history ... are you?

PS - as usual, your posts are fill of ****. I am not a leftist. You Nazis are all alike.
 
Love that change. However, that was ONE country being divided.
You obviously don't understand the concept of synergy.
 
I didn’t care if Mexico paid for it, or we paid for it.

We spend 1/4 TRILLION annually on illegals. The wall will pay for itself.

One thing is becoming obvious. Democrats have run out of arguments to support their Open Border mentality.

That "open border mentality" is a fiction that you get from the same vast wasteland of idiocy (wingnut media) that tells Trump what to do every day. Try something different for a change.

Kudos for admitting Trump lied repeatedly about Mexico paying for it. Now, go find the money.
 
Back
Top Bottom