Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall

[Correll]

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.


YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.


My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.


D'uh.

What a pantload!

While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.

Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.

As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to. When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious. Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)

When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic. Prove it. Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation. If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention. I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

 

[Faun]

What a pantload!

While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.

Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.

As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to. When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious. Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)

When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic. Prove it. Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation. If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention. I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

 

[Correll]

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

What is it running at? 400,000 arrests a year?


That that is considered a win, is a sign of how much of a fucking disaster it is.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

What is it running at? 400,000 arrests a year?


That that is considered a win, is a sign of how much of a fucking disaster it is.

Arrests for what, illegal. There is no express immigration clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the whole litany of phony pretexts upon which to justify your obsessive religion. So, why keep having the same discussion? How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?

I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.


You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.

Best as I can tell.


That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.


If that is your intent.


Otherwise, I just do see it at all.

Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics. With politicians, it is a world of give and take. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."

Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.

Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:

Donald Trump cannot walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense. At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.

ONE possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law. So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"

That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.

HOWEVER, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing. Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.

Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money. One of those options is to take money collected from ASSET FORFEITURES.

To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy. Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban. The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress. So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.

Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,

You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief. You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.

Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.


The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.


But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on your assumptions on how this will play out,


seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.

I'm not making assumptions. Maybe you can show us something different. Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall

Connect the dots. Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General. Barr's views on asset forfeiture?

"I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual," (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)

Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture

My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G. The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.

Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.

Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.


But we need the Wall.


You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.

The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic. It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy Capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you STILL struggling to find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth? The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.

Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it. Today it is less of an issue and rejected by most of the affected states.

The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it. Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.

Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on. That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.

For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.

I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.


Thus it stands as the final word.


saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is NOT a reason for scuttling support for it. Okay, I can live with that.

But, WHY did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?

Democrats are about control and dependence on government. Democrats are for gun control because it's control, NOT because it will save lives, but because it is about control. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate. Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes. What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "legalization process" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?

If you want to recoup $175,000 after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more. Politicians are no different. With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.

Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up. We will NOT be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children. THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court. AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor. So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.

You need a permanent solution. You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers. There is NO CASE that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency. IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.

1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.

2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.

3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.

4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.

There are 2 MILLION Dreamers. Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.

Figure it out, those 2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people. That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook. That is just one class of people.

You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics. You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall. Without us, the Israelis would be history. You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What a pantload!

While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.

Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.

As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to. When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious. Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)

When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic. Prove it. Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation. If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention. I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.

Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical. You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "open border." OTOH, I think you are playing semantics. An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.

Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" General George Patton

 

[Correll]

I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.


You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.

Best as I can tell.


That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.


If that is your intent.


Otherwise, I just do see it at all.

Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics. With politicians, it is a world of give and take. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."

Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.

Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:

Donald Trump cannot walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense. At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.

ONE possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law. So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"

That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.

HOWEVER, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing. Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.

Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money. One of those options is to take money collected from ASSET FORFEITURES.

To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy. Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban. The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress. So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.

Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,

You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief. You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.

Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.


The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.


But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on your assumptions on how this will play out,


seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.

I'm not making assumptions. Maybe you can show us something different. Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall

Connect the dots. Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General. Barr's views on asset forfeiture?

"I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual," (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)

Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture

My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G. The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.

Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.

Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.


But we need the Wall.


You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.

The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic. It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.

You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.


1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.


2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow because of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.

 

[Correll]

Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it. Today it is less of an issue and rejected by most of the affected states.

The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it. Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.

Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on. That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.

For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.

I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.


Thus it stands as the final word.


saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is NOT a reason for scuttling support for it. Okay, I can live with that.

But, WHY did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?

Democrats are about control and dependence on government. Democrats are for gun control because it's control, NOT because it will save lives, but because it is about control. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate. Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes. What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "legalization process" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?

If you want to recoup $175,000 after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more. Politicians are no different. With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.

Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up. We will NOT be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children. THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court. AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor. So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.

You need a permanent solution. You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers. There is NO CASE that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency. IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.

1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.

2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.

3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.

4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.

There are 2 MILLION Dreamers. Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.

Figure it out, those 2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people. That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook. That is just one class of people.

You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics. You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall. Without us, the Israelis would be history. You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.

1. I completely understand the changing demographics.

2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.

3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.

4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.

 

[Correll]

Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.

Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical. You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "open border." OTOH, I think you are playing semantics. An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.

Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.

Mmm, interesting.


Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".

 

[Correll]

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" General George Patton

Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. Why does the right wing Only have general defense solutions not common defense solutions?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics. With politicians, it is a world of give and take. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."

Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.

Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:

Donald Trump cannot walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense. At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.

ONE possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law. So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"

That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.

HOWEVER, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing. Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.

Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money. One of those options is to take money collected from ASSET FORFEITURES.

To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy. Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban. The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress. So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.

Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,

You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief. You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.

Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.


The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.


But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on your assumptions on how this will play out,


seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.

I'm not making assumptions. Maybe you can show us something different. Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall

Connect the dots. Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General. Barr's views on asset forfeiture?

"I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual," (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)

Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture

My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G. The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.

Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.

Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.


But we need the Wall.


You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.

The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic. It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.

You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.


1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.


2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow because of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.

I assume NOTHING. I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977. You?

When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people. You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.

When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the BEST reason to avoid it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it. Today it is less of an issue and rejected by most of the affected states.

The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it. Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.

Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on. That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.

For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.

I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.


Thus it stands as the final word.


saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is NOT a reason for scuttling support for it. Okay, I can live with that.

But, WHY did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?

Democrats are about control and dependence on government. Democrats are for gun control because it's control, NOT because it will save lives, but because it is about control. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate. Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes. What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "legalization process" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?

If you want to recoup $175,000 after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more. Politicians are no different. With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.

Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up. We will NOT be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children. THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court. AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor. So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.

You need a permanent solution. You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers. There is NO CASE that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency. IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.

1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.

2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.

3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.

4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.

There are 2 MILLION Dreamers. Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.

Figure it out, those 2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people. That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook. That is just one class of people.

You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics. You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall. Without us, the Israelis would be history. You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.

1. I completely understand the changing demographics.

2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.

3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.

4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.

1) Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics. Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation. You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s. They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were

2) Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:

A) Dreamers will ultimately become citizens

B) Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families. So, that alone gives you another 6 MILLION new Hispanic voters. Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes. While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding

3) Trump is not God. He cannot circumvent the destiny of America. Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate POLICE STATE and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders

4) I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.

Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical. You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "open border." OTOH, I think you are playing semantics. An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.

Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.

Mmm, interesting.


Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".

The new mantra of the masses starts out "I don't care what color you are, what religion you are", etc. So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)

You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state. Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3. Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally. But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.

The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" General George Patton

Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?

Of course not. If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States. You'll never get it. The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market. Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.

If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living. The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs. You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.

Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining. You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.

Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)

Wake up dude. I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch. If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place. Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs. They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit. If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."

The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job. I'm not the only one. Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills. These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.

They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up. Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income. If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys. Do you even know how America really works?

 

[Correll]

Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.



That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.



Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.


The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.


But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on your assumptions on how this will play out,


seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.

I'm not making assumptions. Maybe you can show us something different. Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall

Connect the dots. Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General. Barr's views on asset forfeiture?

"I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual," (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)

Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture

My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G. The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.

Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.

Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.


But we need the Wall.


You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.

The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic. It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.

You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.


1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.


2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow because of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.

I assume NOTHING. I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977. You?

When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people. You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.

When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the BEST reason to avoid it.

Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.

 

[Correll]

For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.

I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.


Thus it stands as the final word.


saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.

Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is NOT a reason for scuttling support for it. Okay, I can live with that.

But, WHY did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?

Democrats are about control and dependence on government. Democrats are for gun control because it's control, NOT because it will save lives, but because it is about control. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate. Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes. What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "legalization process" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?

If you want to recoup $175,000 after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more. Politicians are no different. With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.

Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up. We will NOT be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children. THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court. AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor. So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.

You need a permanent solution. You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers. There is NO CASE that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency. IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.

1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.

2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.

3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.

4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.

There are 2 MILLION Dreamers. Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.

Figure it out, those 2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people. That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook. That is just one class of people.

You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics. You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall. Without us, the Israelis would be history. You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.

1. I completely understand the changing demographics.

2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.

3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.

4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.

1) Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics. Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation. You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s. They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were

2) Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:

A) Dreamers will ultimately become citizens

B) Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families. So, that alone gives you another 6 MILLION new Hispanic voters. Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes. While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding

3) Trump is not God. He cannot circumvent the destiny of America. Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate POLICE STATE and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders

4) I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.

1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.

INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.


2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.


3. What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders now.


4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.