• 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!

Pelosi: Democrats Are Not Going To Fund Trump's "Immoral" Border Wall

Do you think a wall would really deter those people who have easily returned before in a significant way? Your ideas, while I may not fully agree with them, would at least be a more logical approach than starting with building a wall.

Absolutely - a physical barrier (a wall or fence) is a natural and important part of any security system. Should we remove the "immoral" walls and fences from our public schools? Will dear Nancy Pelosi remove the "immoral" wall around her own home?

image.jpg
 
In today's nearly daily shocking statements here is another that makes average Americans shake their heads in wonder....

What exactly is "immoral" about wanting to construct a wall on our border to protect it from illegal entry?

I don't agree with her calling it "immoral". From my perspective it is an insanely expensive solution to a problem which can be resolved without a costly physical barrier tax payers will have to pay for years to come; and no one has even brought up the cost to staff and maintain it.
 
In today's nearly daily shocking statements here is another that makes average Americans shake their heads in wonder....

What exactly is "immoral" about wanting to construct a wall on our border to protect it from illegal entry?

Making future generations permanently fund such a wasteful project is immoral.
 
The wall will actually pay for itself because the people that it stops will save the money we would have spent on them for both processing and government benefits.

I'm not interested in that kind of theoretical. Let Trump fund it as he initially claim it would be funded, and let the theoretical "it will pay for itself" be demonstrated.
 
I dont agree with you about the wall but I respect that you feel that way. Many people felt that everyone who is here illegally (including daca) should be rounded up and deported. Compromises and concessions are going to need to be made by both sides or this can turn much uglier than it needs to be.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We have to. It's our own fault it's come to this. I am pretty liberal on immigration but I am more hard on enforcing the laws. I have no problems with people who want to work hard, live as a good citizen, and not take any benefits.
 
In today's nearly daily shocking statements here is another that makes average Americans shake their heads in wonder....

What exactly is "immoral" about wanting to construct a wall on our border to protect it from illegal entry?

"immoral" is not a word I would use to describe Trump's great maga vanity wall. There are other reasons not to fund it - starting with the fact that it's not a good use of tax money.
 
True but if we want to at least start to solve our long term problems it's not wise to start with building and maintaining a huge wall. That's only going to increase our problems.

Having a wall will not increase problems, it decreases problems. That's why we need the wall.
 
Do you think a wall would really deter those people who have easily returned before in a significant way? Your ideas, while I may not fully agree with them, would at least be a more logical approach than starting with building a wall.
The wall restricts access points and makes it more manageable for border security to control the flow. That's reasonable. Suggesting we find ways to reduce the flow by decreasing demand is also reasonable.

Something I find interesting about those that argue that going after employers will greatly reduce the problem. That is an admission of sorts that these asylum claims are bogus. They are not coming here to escape danger they are coming here out of greed. They want our money.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
It's not right to many of us to build a huge wall that will not fully solve our long term problems with immigration and drugs.

To fix a problem you need to get to the root of the problem, no? It's good to have border control yes but we don't need a wall for that. People are coming here for work and to get benefits and then there's trafficking. Focus more on cutting down on those problems internally and the foot traffic would decrease so border patrol would be more effective.

So what is the root of the problem? Let everyone in? If automation is going to make low skill labor obsolete, why import workers for these positions?

They are here to get jobs. And they are willing to work at lower wages than they are paying you. An ocean of labor begging for work is not conducive to wage increases.

https://legalaidatwork.org/factsheet/undocumented-workers-employment-rights/

Do anti-discrimination laws protect undocumented workers?

Yes. Under Federal and California anti-discrimination laws, employers cannot illegally discriminate against any worker, including undocumented workers. Therefore, even if you are an undocumented worker, your employer cannot fire you, refuse to hire you, harass you, or take other action against you because of your national origin (including your English language capabilities) , race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, age, or disability, or (under California law) for other reasons such as your sexual orientation, gender identity (e.g., transgender status) marital status, and political beliefs. However, if you were fired by your employer as part of the discrimination, it’s less clear whether you can recover the income you lost because you were fired, or whether you can get your job back.

Once they get here they own us.
 
What is the "real solution" you speak of?

When my ancestors came from Italy they were greeted at Elis Island, while that was no picnic they were treated humanely and efficiently; they were scrutinized and those that were deemed undesirable were sent back. The truth is we need immigrant labor, we have during my 67 years and will for the foreseeable future. Rather that pretend we don't we need to regulate it and offer a legal way for more immigrants to work here.
 
The only way your plan will work is if we cut down on the fact that these people are better off in the US than in their other countries. Let's destroy America and turn it into sh!thole country and then they won't want to come here. Brilliant idea. As long as people are better off here, they will continue to come here illegally.

Not really. If you think going after employers who hire illegals, taking away welfare from any household that has an illegal, and working to better our drug policies rather than build a wall will make America a ****hole, I just can't understand the logic there.
 
It's not right to many of us to build a huge wall that will not fully solve our long term problems with immigration and drugs.

To fix a problem you need to get to the root of the problem, no? It's good to have border control yes but we don't need a wall for that. People are coming here for work and to get benefits and then there's trafficking. Focus more on cutting down on those problems internally and the foot traffic would decrease so border patrol would be more effective.

The wall is a mere token. If Pelosi is interested in improving our immigration system, i.e. make the application process more efficient, as well as focusing on taking away incentives (which she isn't interested in doing, because she feigns more compassion for foreigners than our own citizens), perhaps she'd have room to talk about morals. Thus far, she is no poster child of any worthwhile values and morals.
As an independent, I must state again and again that I will not consider voting for anyone D until Pelosi is retired.
 
Do you think a wall would really deter those people who have easily returned before in a significant way? Your ideas, while I may not fully agree with them, would at least be a more logical approach than starting with building a wall.

Democrats believe it. That's why they are opposed to the wall. Democrats don't give a crap about 5 billion dollars. They never have cared about 5 billion dollars.
 
Easiest answer: our infrastructure needs to be repaired and upgraded, and our health and education services need to be funded. Diverting one dollar to a wall is immoral when things people actually benefit from are neglected.
That's BS nobody has suggested diverting any funding from any of those things to pay for the wall. You're making a dishonest argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Absolutely - a physical barrier (a wall or fence) is a natural and important part of any security system. Should we remove the "immoral" walls and fences from our public schools? Will dear Nancy Pelosi remove the "immoral" wall around her own home?

View attachment 67245766

Walls are good in one situation and therefore good in all situations!!!

Jesus, really?
 
When my ancestors came from Italy they were greeted at Elis Island, while that was no picnic they were treated humanely and efficiently; they were scrutinized and those that were deemed undesirable were sent back. The truth is we need immigrant labor, we have during my 67 years and will for the foreseeable future. Rather that pretend we don't we need to regulate it and offer a legal way for more immigrants to work here.

America was starving for labor during the industrial revolution, and also needed a larger population for national security reasons.
 
Absolutely - a physical barrier (a wall or fence) is a natural and important part of any security system. Should we remove the "immoral" walls and fences from our public schools? Will dear Nancy Pelosi remove the "immoral" wall around her own home?

View attachment 67245766

I've never seen a school with a wall around it. Maybe a fence, which I have no issue with but not a wall. Plus you can't really compare the size of a school with the size and climate of our border. If Nancy feels like she should have wall, then that's on her for doing as she says not as she does. I would never build a wall around my house.
 
That's BS nobody has suggested diverting any funding from any of those things to pay for the wall. You're making a dishonest argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And if Mexico ends up paying for it as Trump said they would, you will be absolutely correct.
 
Easiest answer: our infrastructure needs to be repaired and upgraded, and our health and education services need to be funded. Diverting one dollar to a wall is immoral when things people actually benefit from are neglected.

Oh please. You know darn well that is just major spin. Both sides just add money to the national debt. 5 Billion dollars added onto the debt is peanuts and, the wall actually pays for itself by decreasing dollars spent on illegals via processing and government benefits. In the long run the wall actually pays dividends.
 
Oh please. You know darn well that is just major spin. Both sides just add money to the national debt. 5 Billion dollars added onto the debt is peanuts and, the wall actually pays for itself by decreasing dollars spent on illegals via processing and government benefits. In the long run the wall actually pays dividends.

Cool. When Mexico pays for the wall and it's built, we can see if you're right.
 
State sovereignty is immoral. You heard it here first.
 
Having a wall will not increase problems, it decreases problems. That's why we need the wall.

The only problems it will decrease will be for the contractors who would be getting the billions of dollars we'd be paying to fund that boondoggle. I'm with Americanwoman on this one... if it's border security you're worried about, there are far better ways to spend the money.
 
It won't work, it would be immoral to waste that much money when real solutions could be funded.

Oh please. We already owe over 20 trillion dollars and both sides don't seem to think that is immoral so don't give me any crap that a measly 5 billion is immoral. If you guys spent 5 billion on the homeless you would not consider that immoral. The only difference in your thoughts is the wall, not the 5 billion.
 
Cool. When Mexico pays for the wall and it's built, we can see if you're right.

If we were to close the southern border for security reasons, i.e. masses of people trying to storm our border, would Mexico reconsider?
 
It's not right to many of us to build a huge wall that will not fully solve our long term problems with immigration and drugs.

To fix a problem you need to get to the root of the problem, no? It's good to have border control yes but we don't need a wall for that. People are coming here for work and to get benefits and then there's trafficking. Focus more on cutting down on those problems internally and the foot traffic would decrease so border patrol would be more effective.

Would you be willing to disband all police forces and just work on getting to the root of crime?

I mean if you can get to the root of why somebody kills somebody else, it won't happen, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom