- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 177
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
That you are asking these questions shows how little you understand.We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Mexico gets about 400 million in foreign aid. South Central America gets lessWe’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Mexico gets about 400 million in foreign aid. South Central America gets less
If the aid stopped, no wall in the world could keep out the hungry. It would be a cruel act of futility.
There is a fundamental moral disconnect in your "thinking". If I were a Republican who had a moral compass, I'd distance myself from those who write and think like you do because you are a stereotype of low, conservative processing power that goes a long way to support the opinions of liberals, who can dismiss your thoughts as typically narrow and petty in true repub fashion. It's really two different ways of saying the same thing.
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?
• Let's start with a key fact: Southern border crossings are significantly down since 2000.
That wasn't due to enforcement, by the way. It's mostly because Mexico's economy improved.
I.e. you can either scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (by those jobs moving to Mexico, which improves Mexico's economy) or you can scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (as a result of higher immigration, due to poor economic prospects in Mexico). Sorry, you can't have both. Moving on....
• Another key fact: Physical walls don't stop anyone, that's a fantasy. In fact, if your goal is to reduce the permanent migrant population, they backfire. When people can cross the border easily, they spend a few months in the US to work (usually in agriculture) then go home, because the costs involved are low. The tougher it is to cross, the greater the incentive to stay in the US.
• Another key fact: $5 billion will barely build anything resembling a wall along the border. Seriously. Just think about basic cost overruns and delays on any big infrastructure project, then delay it by 10 years as the government faces a barrage of lawsuits over environmental impacts and eminent domain. We'd be lucky if it only cost $70 billion.
• Most undocumented immigrants now are coming from Asia. They fly to the US, and overstay their visa. Walls don't help with that one.
• Like it or not, asylum is a human right that is part of US law -- and that is not likely to change any time soon. Even if we spend $70 billion on a massive wall, even if it somehow works, it's going to wind up creating a massive human rights crisis on the border, that Mexico will not want to pay for. And hey! Already there. Wanna bet it won't stop next year's caravans?
Sounds to me like if you really don't want brown people crossing the southern border, the best policy is to improve their lives in their home nations, so they have less incentive to migrate.
That president would be impeached for violating the Constitution. Congress, not the POTUS, decides how public money is to be allocated and spent.
Show me in the United States constitution because I cannot remember where it states that the United States must give money to others
That's not the issue; it is one of process where Congress makes those decisions and not the president, so he doesn't have the power to stop that funding in the way you're suggesting.
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
So what how’s your fundamental moral connection difference between mine? I can flip it around and, say that you are disconnected? I’m sorry but, what about those people in Africa and, undeveloped countries who don’t have anything and what do they get?
If the aid stopped, no wall in the world could keep out the hungry. It would be a cruel act of futility.
There is a fundamental moral disconnect in your "thinking". If I were a Republican who had a moral compass, I'd distance myself from those who write and think like you do because you are a stereotype of low, conservative processing power that goes a long way to support the opinions of liberals, who can dismiss your thoughts as typically narrow and petty in true repub fashion. It's really two different ways of saying the same thing.
Various African countries get aid too. My morals are fundamentally different than yours because I don't think the answer to need is to build a big ****ing wall around your hoard of food and money and keep the others out. I am a humanist and an investment in human need should be prioritized over the hundreds of billions wasted blowing **** up.
That you are asking these questions shows how little you understand.
So it’s our job to take care of everyone?
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?
• Let's start with a key fact: Southern border crossings are significantly down since 2000.
That wasn't due to enforcement, by the way. It's mostly because Mexico's economy improved.
I.e. you can either scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (by those jobs moving to Mexico, which improves Mexico's economy) or you can scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (as a result of higher immigration, due to poor economic prospects in Mexico). Sorry, you can't have both. Moving on....
• Another key fact: Physical walls don't stop anyone, that's a fantasy. In fact, if your goal is to reduce the permanent migrant population, they backfire. When people can cross the border easily, they spend a few months in the US to work (usually in agriculture) then go home, because the costs involved are low. The tougher it is to cross, the greater the incentive to stay in the US.
• Another key fact: $5 billion will barely build anything resembling a wall along the border. Seriously. Just think about basic cost overruns and delays on any big infrastructure project, then delay it by 10 years as the government faces a barrage of lawsuits over environmental impacts and eminent domain. We'd be lucky if it only cost $70 billion.
• Most undocumented immigrants now are coming from Asia. They fly to the US, and overstay their visa. Walls don't help with that one.
• Like it or not, asylum is a human right that is part of US law -- and that is not likely to change any time soon. Even if we spend $70 billion on a massive wall, even if it somehow works, it's going to wind up creating a massive human rights crisis on the border, that Mexico will not want to pay for. And hey! Already there. Wanna bet it won't stop next year's caravans?
Sounds to me like if you really don't want brown people crossing the southern border, the best policy is to improve their lives in their home nations, so they have less incentive to migrate.
We send $10 billion to Mexico?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?