Bernie Sanders Says He Will “Look At” Tearing Down Existing U.S/Mexico Border Wall

[bripat9643]

The Great Wall of China kept the Mongol hoards out of the country for hundreds of years, and they kept rebuilding and extending it for 1500 years.

It seems the Chinese believed they worked.

What is your evidence that the walls of Jericho didn't work, the Bible?

What is the most invaded country in history?
ad by TruthFinder

Have you ever googled yourself? Do a "deep search" instead.
This new search engine reveals so much more. Type in your name, wait 8 seconds, brace yourself.
Learn More
36 Answers

Kang-Lin Cheng, studied at University of California, Irvine (2012)
Answered May 6, 2018 · Author has 782 answers and 5.4m answer views
The big country of China.

Now most people go around or fly over, but any wall can be breached. It is not a cost effective solution.

The Great Wall of China would obviously be too expensive to build today. The Israeli wall is much more economical, and it's 100% effective.

How is the quantity "most invaded" measured?

First came across this claim reading "Thunder Out of China" by Theodore H White and Annale Jakoby, in the prologue. Everybody under the sun has conquered and tried to impose outside rule there at one time or another, with and without the great wall.

What horseshit. Until about 1100 CE, no foreign power ever conquered China. The Europeans came by sea in the late 1700s. That's it.

And wall did not stop it. Just like wall did not stop Japan or Great Britain or anyone else. General Patton was right. You are wrong. We must stop them from wanting to come. Attack the employers, #1.

The wall stopped it for 1100 years, moron. And then after 1300 it stopped it for another 400 years. The British and the Japanese had steam powered battleships, and the Japanese had airplanes. Did you really believe that anyone was saying a wall could stop a battleship on the Yangtze river? The wall was originally constructed 1800 years before the British and the Japanese arrived.

It's truly hilarious that you were getting all smug about your knowledge of history. You don't know jack shit about history.

Patton never said anything about stopping illegal aliens from wanting to come.

 

[bripat9643]

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

It's far easier to come by boat. As long as the jobs are here they will get here.

Wrong, scum bag. Spotting a boat in the open ocean is the easiest thing in the world. If it was easier, then why do so few come that way?

Costs more. They will come. They came and made it from Cuba by the boat loads.

It doesn't cost more, and boat owners don't want to risk their boats.

 

[White 6]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

I was a capitalist before you were born. When not military, I worked exclusively for large corporations. I just know that attracting and using cheap foreign illegal labor externalizes costs incurred on society, just as dumping wasted into the air, rivers, and lakes does. You are baking up the wrong tree. Did you take economics, or did you graduate at all? You do realize you sound like that little kid railing against his parents when you start throwing out the right wing banty chicken names, right? Didn't your daddy ever slap you back from the table when you started that stuff at home. You were not raised right or have rejected how you were brought up.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a hell of an improvement. Between threatening aid to Mexico and changing the application to apply for asylum, it's been a great success. Now we just have to wait for the results of 2019, and I'm sure we will see a nice improvement there as well.

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

So your solution is destroying thousands of businesses? Not only are you an imbecile, but you're also a fucking douchebag.

 

[pknopp]

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

It's far easier to come by boat. As long as the jobs are here they will get here.

Wrong, scum bag. Spotting a boat in the open ocean is the easiest thing in the world. If it was easier, then why do so few come that way?

Costs more. They will come. They came and made it from Cuba by the boat loads.

It doesn't cost more, and boat owners don't want to risk their boats.

Truck drivers do it every day.

 

[White 6]

No they don't. Didn't you take classes on breaching obstruction?

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

I admit to limited effectiveness in small areas. More effective would be attacking the employers, so there is no hope of under the table jobs, coupled with denial of benefits and deportation. I would be proud to have my tax dollar support that. It has not been tried by really injuring the white collar criminals supporting it, and could really be a money maker, in my opinion. You support paying for the wall and I get that, but you know where I am coming from. I do not think either party wants to solve the causative issue as much as fund raise on the food fight.

If we really wanted to stop the problem, we would make being here illegally a felony. It would carry a minimum of five years in prison for the first offense, and I stress the word minimum.

If we could pass such a bill today without challenges from the courts, we would give all illegals here until April 1st to be out of the country. After that, no excuses.

This would take care of our border problem because nobody would want to be caught here. It would take care of the 20 million already here. It would take care of our Visa overstay problems that account for more than half the illegals in the country. We wouldn't have to worry about employers hiring them because there would be so few around.

Adopt my plan, and I guarantee we would see at the minimum, a 90% reduction of illegals in the country, and I would guess that it would be closer to 98%. No wall needed.

Couple that with attacking the employers of the illegal aliens and I would vote for you in a heartbeat.

No you wouldn't. He's not a Democrat.

When you pound your little fists, and jump and down, your parents must have thought it so cute.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

It's far easier to come by boat. As long as the jobs are here they will get here.

Wrong, scum bag. Spotting a boat in the open ocean is the easiest thing in the world. If it was easier, then why do so few come that way?

Costs more. They will come. They came and made it from Cuba by the boat loads.

Most of the time they came in rafts. Boats are easier to spot in open water with a good set of binoculars or a telescope.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

I was a capitalist before you were born. When not military, I worked exclusively for large corporations. I just know that attracting and using cheap foreign illegal labor externalizes costs incurred on society, just as dumping wasted into the air, rivers, and lakes does. You are baking up the wrong tree. Did you take economics, or did you graduate at all? You do realize you sound like that little kid railing against his parents when you start throwing out the right wing banty chicken names, right? Didn't your daddy ever slap you back from the table when you started that stuff at home. You were not raised right or have rejected how you were brought up.

Actual capitalists don't believe working for a corporation makes them a capitalist. That's the argument of a poser.

Your imbecile economic theories aside, except for the dumbest of leftwingers, we all know why importing cheap foreign labor drives down the wages of Americans. The question being discussed here is how do we stop it. Trying to deport them after they've already entered the country is the stupid way. It's the way someone who doesn't really want to solve the problem would propose.

You sound like a lying douchebag to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

I admit to limited effectiveness in small areas. More effective would be attacking the employers, so there is no hope of under the table jobs, coupled with denial of benefits and deportation. I would be proud to have my tax dollar support that. It has not been tried by really injuring the white collar criminals supporting it, and could really be a money maker, in my opinion. You support paying for the wall and I get that, but you know where I am coming from. I do not think either party wants to solve the causative issue as much as fund raise on the food fight.

If we really wanted to stop the problem, we would make being here illegally a felony. It would carry a minimum of five years in prison for the first offense, and I stress the word minimum.

If we could pass such a bill today without challenges from the courts, we would give all illegals here until April 1st to be out of the country. After that, no excuses.

This would take care of our border problem because nobody would want to be caught here. It would take care of the 20 million already here. It would take care of our Visa overstay problems that account for more than half the illegals in the country. We wouldn't have to worry about employers hiring them because there would be so few around.

Adopt my plan, and I guarantee we would see at the minimum, a 90% reduction of illegals in the country, and I would guess that it would be closer to 98%. No wall needed.

Couple that with attacking the employers of the illegal aliens and I would vote for you in a heartbeat.

No you wouldn't. He's not a Democrat.

When you pound your little fists, and jump and down, your parents must have thought it so cute.

Your parents must have thought they were going to have to send you to a special school.

 

[pknopp]

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

The largest problem is people crossing on foot. Anyone who starts bleating about other sources is a douchebag.

You just hate corporations. You're not fooling anyone.

It's far easier to come by boat. As long as the jobs are here they will get here.

Wrong, scum bag. Spotting a boat in the open ocean is the easiest thing in the world. If it was easier, then why do so few come that way?

Costs more. They will come. They came and made it from Cuba by the boat loads.

Most of the time they came in rafts. Boats are easier to spot in open water with a good set of binoculars or a telescope.

Your argument is that when a (D) is elected they won't care. Who is going to be using the binoculars?

 

[pknopp]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

So your solution is destroying thousands of businesses? Not only are you an imbecile, but you're also a fucking douchebag.

So it seems you support the idea of some people being above the law.

That is sad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a hell of an improvement. Between threatening aid to Mexico and changing the application to apply for asylum, it's been a great success. Now we just have to wait for the results of 2019, and I'm sure we will see a nice improvement there as well.

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

They come here for other reasons as well. Some times they come just to be with legal family members, and they take care of the home and children. Some are gang members or drug pushers. Women come to this country to have anchor babies. There is a industry in the US where pregnant women come here, drop the kid, and take them back home. In some cases it's just so the child can be an American, in other cases it's more nefarious, particularly when Chinese or middle-eastern women have anchor babies. They take them back home, raise them to be radicalized, and when of age, can walk right through our front door to cause us harm, and no questions asked.

 

[White 6]

No they don't. Didn't you take classes on breaching obstruction?

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

I admit to limited effectiveness in small areas. More effective would be attacking the employers, so there is no hope of under the table jobs, coupled with denial of benefits and deportation. I would be proud to have my tax dollar support that. It has not been tried by really injuring the white collar criminals supporting it, and could really be a money maker, in my opinion. You support paying for the wall and I get that, but you know where I am coming from. I do not think either party wants to solve the causative issue as much as fund raise on the food fight.

That hasn't worked at all up to this point, so why should anyone believe it will work in the future? The wall, on the other hand, is 99% effective.

Your powers of judgement aren't very good.

My judgement has been proven just fine. Attacking the employers has not been actual policy by either party in power, not wanting to reap the wrath of financial supporters.

Denial of benefits and a free trip back to the boarder for support from their own country makes sense, but the left would fight tooth and nail. Since non-citizens cannot legally vote, I have never understood why. There has got to be something I am missing other than what the screaming right says about importing Democrats. I think both sides profit off of illegal immigration. We must attack the profit motivation.

It never will be the actual policy since every Democrat mayor and governor will do everything in their power to undermine it. The problem has to be resolved at its source, not after the aliens have managed to get into the country. It's 100 times harder to remove them than to keep them from coming in. That's why you favor the former policy rather than the later.

There have been minor prosecutions that were successful, often after raids. They were always under federal law, in federal court. Mayors and governors were not a problem. It was just harassment, slapping the wrist, not enforcement. Let the employers, CEOs,CFOs take long worm shower showers with the iron pumping skinheads and it will have some effect.

 

[White 6]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

So your solution is destroying thousands of businesses? Not only are you an imbecile, but you're also a fucking douchebag.

Welcome to IGNORE.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

So your solution is destroying thousands of businesses? Not only are you an imbecile, but you're also a fucking douchebag.

Welcome to IGNORE.

Run away, Chicken Little.

 

[White 6]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Every 100,000 aliens that get across will cost us at least $ 1 billion, so saving the cost of the wall only takes a few years. Your concern about the cost is disingenuous, to say the least.

Your claim that you opposed illegal immigration doesn't pass the smell test. No one who genuinely wants to stop illegal immigration opposes the wall.

Those who want to "attack the draw card" simply hate big business. They are communist scumbags.

Multi-million dollar fines that have potential to wipe away all financial benefit or the business entity itself along with prison sentences for owners, even short ones locke in Gen Pop with Bubba, Big Mogumba, and horny Guido will stop the practice of using illegals, discouraging them from coming for the employment.

They come here for other reasons as well. Some times they come just to be with legal family members, and they take care of the home and children. Some are gang members or drug pushers. Women come to this country to have anchor babies. There is a industry in the US where pregnant women come here, drop the kid, and take them back home. In some cases it's just so the child can be an American, in other cases it's more nefarious, particularly when Chinese or middle-eastern women have anchor babies. They take them back home, raise them to be radicalized, and when of age, can walk right through our front door to cause us harm, and no questions asked.

True

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a hell of an improvement. Between threatening aid to Mexico and changing the application to apply for asylum, it's been a great success. Now we just have to wait for the results of 2019, and I'm sure we will see a nice improvement there as well.

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

Look at it this way: The cost of the food stamp program in 2018 was over 65 billion dollars. We spend that every year plus or minus. The cost to build a wall is about 12 billion, and we only spend that once.

In other words, for what we pay for food stamps for less than three months, we could have a wall across strategic sections of our southern border.

In our system of government, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to employers busted with illegal immigrants, you have to prove they knew the employees were illegal. Fake ID's and documents are a big business in this country. Even if the employer suspects the documentation if less than authentic, it's good enough to get a not guilty verdict in a court of law.

Fake ID market bypasses anti-fraud measures | TechRadar

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

So your solution is not as easy as that. It comes with a lot of complications, especially for employers.

 

[pknopp]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

Look at it this way: The cost of the food stamp program in 2018 was over 65 billion dollars. We spend that every year plus or minus. The cost to build a wall is about 12 billion, and we only spend that once.

In other words, for what we pay for food stamps for less than three months, we could have a wall across strategic sections of our southern border.

In our system of government, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to employers busted with illegal immigrants, you have to prove they knew the employees were illegal. Fake ID's and documents are a big business in this country. Even if the employer suspects the documentation if less than authentic, it's good enough to get a not guilty verdict in a court of law.

Fake ID market bypasses anti-fraud measures | TechRadar

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

So your solution is not as easy as that. It comes with a lot of complications, especially for employers.

I've covered this many times. Wal Mart had no clue their contractors were using illegals. They still got busted.

Wal-Mart to Pay U.S. $11 Million in Lawsuit on Illegal Workers

Not that it will stop you from using the same argument in the future.

Even if it was true (it's not), Trump could be pushing for mandatory e-verify. He never even suggests it.

Nobody is calling for it. Nobody wants to stop the low wage train.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

Asylum seekers are not those sneaking across for jobs.

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

A ladder and 15 seconds and you are over the wall.

I prefer to make them take the ladder and do the climbing. At least for those 15 seconds they make an easy target.

Jo

Not only that, but people have gotten seriously injured trying to climb over the walls we already have. Most people here have never been 30 feet in the air and had to be creative on getting down. I worked in construction earlier in my life. Let me tell you, 30 feet looks a lot higher when your up there than when you're on the ground looking up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe not, but what asylum seekers did was get into the country legally to await their trial, and disappear never to be seen again. Most of them realize they don't qualify to get asylum in the US. But they came anyway hoping to have their application accepted for a court date. When their final court date came up, nowhere to be found.

Trump changed that. If you want to apply for asylum, fine. Make the application out at the US embassy in your own country. Also, Trump changed the rules that if you crossed a country to get here, and they offered you asylum and you refused, you are disqualified for US asylum.

Really did the trick.

It helped and did not cost us 8 gazillian dollar$. Much more cost effective than the wall. I am against illegal immigration, I just don't support the effectiveness of the wall over not attacking attacking the draw card for political reasons.

Well let me explain the problem and why the wall is the solution: Yes, we can put effective policies in place, but it won't have as good of a result as the wall. If Democrats get in charge of the country again, removing regulations and changing them back to their favor is less than a week process. Tearing down the wall however would be a huge process.

This is why the Democrats are so hell bent on stopping the wall; because it's not something that they can easily reverse.

I hear you and understand, but do not think the wall is the answer. Before Trump came in, one of the absolute largest problems was student, workers, visitors coming in overstaying their welcome and joining the underground economy and still is, and unless addressed in the way i proposed always will be. Cheap labor is a valuable resource. By supporting these underground employees, possibly collecting benefits while working the underground side or not working at all, the American public is footing the bill to the benefit of employers making money on the cheap labor source, in other words externalizing the true cost of the labor to society at large. Like one of my points about the wall, I am too frugal with my money to support externalized costs of employment, I am not benefiting from.

Look at it this way: The cost of the food stamp program in 2018 was over 65 billion dollars. We spend that every year plus or minus. The cost to build a wall is about 12 billion, and we only spend that once.

In other words, for what we pay for food stamps for less than three months, we could have a wall across strategic sections of our southern border.

In our system of government, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to employers busted with illegal immigrants, you have to prove they knew the employees were illegal. Fake ID's and documents are a big business in this country. Even if the employer suspects the documentation if less than authentic, it's good enough to get a not guilty verdict in a court of law.

Fake ID market bypasses anti-fraud measures | TechRadar

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

So your solution is not as easy as that. It comes with a lot of complications, especially for employers.

I've covered this many times. Wal Mart had no clue their contractors were using illegals. They still got busted.

Wal-Mart to Pay U.S. $11 Million in Lawsuit on Illegal Workers

Not that it will stop you from using the same argument in the future.

Even if it was true (it's not), Trump could be pushing for mandatory e-verify. He never even suggests it.

Nobody is calling for it. Nobody wants to stop the low wage train.

Read my first link. As it states, some of these ID"s are foolproof. As to your link, it's a paywall. I'm not joining up to read it yet alone pay it.