What are "Open Borders?"

[BuddyColt]

Okay, so far four criticisms and not one person to tell you what it is they support.

They used the term "regulated border," but that is what I've been advocating for the past number of years.

I've been being criticized for being against a militarized border. It's a little late to jump onto my bandwagon and try to claim it as your own.

I used the term 'regulated border', not 'they'. I. Not hard... I am an individual. I speak for myself, not others - not 'they'. Idiot.

And, we have regulated borders - ie, people who come into the country by the front door are welcome. You - with the 'open border' bullshit - think we should allow anyone to come here without reference to their reasons for coming, whether they will drain our resources or add value to our society, whether they seek to harm us.... that's what 'open border' means.... I'd call you a halfwit but I'm not convince you're smart enough to qualify.

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

 

[BuddyColt]

Oh shes spot on, you are one dumb ass motherfucker.

Don't complain. You brought your family into this, not me.

What in Gods name are you babbling about now loser?

You should only call upon those you have a relationship with. "In God's name?" In God's name, can you act like a human being?

 

[High_Gravity]

Don't complain. You brought your family into this, not me.

What in Gods name are you babbling about now loser?

You should only call upon those you have a relationship with. "In God's name?" In God's name, can you act like a human being?

Wow you are completely off the grid, have you been trying bath salts?

 

[High_Gravity]

Okay, so far four criticisms and not one person to tell you what it is they support.

They used the term "regulated border," but that is what I've been advocating for the past number of years.

I've been being criticized for being against a militarized border. It's a little late to jump onto my bandwagon and try to claim it as your own.

I used the term 'regulated border', not 'they'. I. Not hard... I am an individual. I speak for myself, not others - not 'they'. Idiot.

And, we have regulated borders - ie, people who come into the country by the front door are welcome. You - with the 'open border' bullshit - think we should allow anyone to come here without reference to their reasons for coming, whether they will drain our resources or add value to our society, whether they seek to harm us.... that's what 'open border' means.... I'd call you a halfwit but I'm not convince you're smart enough to qualify.

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

Yeah retard our unemployment is so low we can just afford to start hiring people from overseas to work in McDonalds.

 

[tjvh]

"What are Open Borders"? That's the places Democrats go to replace people who keep leaving their ranks. It's the "sole" reason they fight tooth, and nail against requiring ID cards for voters, it's not about the poor.

 

[BuddyColt]

Having been accused on this board of being "for Open Borders," I thought I'd take a minute to figure out what it is people mean by "open borders."

If one is not "for" Open Borders, it stands to reason that they are for CLOSED BORDERS. The opposite of open is closed. Right?

Congress listened to the anti - immigrant crowd and came to the same conclusion. So, the top anti - immigrant activist in the United States (who is both an attorney and a U.S. Congressman) introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" which is also subtitled "Protecting the Border."

The so - called "Patriot Act" spawned efforts to spend more and more money on the border until you wound up with kooky ideas like manning the border, building a fence around America and militarizing the borders. Yes, I am opposed to that.

Make no mistake, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act. To prove to you that Sensenbrenner is anti - immigrant, Sensenbrenner is the Congressman that introduced HR 4437 - a bill that would have made improper entry into the United States a criminal act.

I oppose these fence building / wall building / border militarizing schemes because those behind the ideas are not only anti - immigrant, but they are pro POLICE STATE as well. For example, Michael Chertoff, the co - author of the so-called "Patriot Act" and as one article states:

"A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research division of the Library of Congress, said that the unchecked delegation of powers to Chertoff was unprecedented: "After a review of federal law, primarily through electronic database searches and consultations with various CRS experts, we were unable to locate a waiver provision identical to that of §102 of H.R. 418—i.e., a provision that contains 'notwithstanding' language, provides a secretary of an executive agency the authority to waive all laws such secretary determines necessary, and directs the secretary to waive such laws.

...Michael Chertoff has been an advocate of enhanced technologies, such as full body scanners."

Michael Chertoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm going to have to looked upon as a bad guy for opposing a POLICE STATE, then so be it. I remain convinced that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is certainly big enough to take it from you.

The bolded illustrates why the poster is not to be taken seriously. Best to simply laugh at such shit-flinging monkey.

If it were best to do simply laugh, why bother harassing me? You realize that is the truth when you bolded those words rather nervously, realizing that only on this board could you make such a statement.

When you FEAR people, they control you. When you take away your name calling and lynch mob mentality, you do not have any issue. You're just a lost Democrat in a lynch mob, too afraid to conduct a civil discussion.

 

[Pho_King]

Okay, so far four criticisms and not one person to tell you what it is they support.

They used the term "regulated border," but that is what I've been advocating for the past number of years.

I've been being criticized for being against a militarized border. It's a little late to jump onto my bandwagon and try to claim it as your own.

I used the term 'regulated border', not 'they'. I. Not hard... I am an individual. I speak for myself, not others - not 'they'. Idiot.

And, we have regulated borders - ie, people who come into the country by the front door are welcome. You - with the 'open border' bullshit - think we should allow anyone to come here without reference to their reasons for coming, whether they will drain our resources or add value to our society, whether they seek to harm us.... that's what 'open border' means.... I'd call you a halfwit but I'm not convince you're smart enough to qualify.

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

what a load of bullshit. our immigration policy, with the exception of asylum, is intended to benefit Americans. Not foreigners looking to work at McDonalds. Indeed, those are exactly the types of foreigners our immigration policy is intended to keep out. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. neither is there anything "anti-immigrant" about it. Change your panties.

 

[BuddyColt]

What in Gods name are you babbling about now loser?

You should only call upon those you have a relationship with. "In God's name?" In God's name, can you act like a human being?

Wow you are completely off the grid, have you been trying bath salts?

Have you ever tried washing your mouth out with soap or maybe just asking yourself why you get such pleasure from the same form of cowardly harassment and mob rule of a discussion board? Is your life that dull and meaningless that the only pleasure you get is to check in here each day and screw with people you've never met?

 

[Pho_King]

Having been accused on this board of being "for Open Borders," I thought I'd take a minute to figure out what it is people mean by "open borders."

If one is not "for" Open Borders, it stands to reason that they are for CLOSED BORDERS. The opposite of open is closed. Right?

Congress listened to the anti - immigrant crowd and came to the same conclusion. So, the top anti - immigrant activist in the United States (who is both an attorney and a U.S. Congressman) introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" which is also subtitled "Protecting the Border."

The so - called "Patriot Act" spawned efforts to spend more and more money on the border until you wound up with kooky ideas like manning the border, building a fence around America and militarizing the borders. Yes, I am opposed to that.

Make no mistake, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act. To prove to you that Sensenbrenner is anti - immigrant, Sensenbrenner is the Congressman that introduced HR 4437 - a bill that would have made improper entry into the United States a criminal act.

I oppose these fence building / wall building / border militarizing schemes because those behind the ideas are not only anti - immigrant, but they are pro POLICE STATE as well. For example, Michael Chertoff, the co - author of the so-called "Patriot Act" and as one article states:

"A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research division of the Library of Congress, said that the unchecked delegation of powers to Chertoff was unprecedented: "After a review of federal law, primarily through electronic database searches and consultations with various CRS experts, we were unable to locate a waiver provision identical to that of §102 of H.R. 418—i.e., a provision that contains 'notwithstanding' language, provides a secretary of an executive agency the authority to waive all laws such secretary determines necessary, and directs the secretary to waive such laws.

...Michael Chertoff has been an advocate of enhanced technologies, such as full body scanners."

Michael Chertoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm going to have to looked upon as a bad guy for opposing a POLICE STATE, then so be it. I remain convinced that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is certainly big enough to take it from you.

The bolded illustrates why the poster is not to be taken seriously. Best to simply laugh at such shit-flinging monkey.

If it were best to do simply laugh, why bother harassing me? You realize that is the truth when you bolded those words rather nervously, realizing that only on this board could you make such a statement.

When you FEAR people, they control you. When you take away your name calling and lynch mob mentality, you do not have any issue. You're just a lost Democrat in a lynch mob, too afraid to conduct a civil discussion.

First, Im no Democrat, monkeyboy. Second, I understand why you think I am harrassing you. That is exactly how a monkey contemplating his laughing observers would be expected to think.

 

[Pho_King]

You should only call upon those you have a relationship with. "In God's name?" In God's name, can you act like a human being?

Wow you are completely off the grid, have you been trying bath salts?

Have you ever tried washing your mouth out with soap or maybe just asking yourself why you get such pleasure from the same form of cowardly harassment and mob rule of a discussion board? Is your life that dull and meaningless that the only pleasure you get is to check in here each day and screw with people you've never met?

The responses you have received are all your post deserves.

Hey- If you will do a somersault I will flip you a cashew.....

 

[BuddyColt]

I used the term 'regulated border', not 'they'. I. Not hard... I am an individual. I speak for myself, not others - not 'they'. Idiot.

And, we have regulated borders - ie, people who come into the country by the front door are welcome. You - with the 'open border' bullshit - think we should allow anyone to come here without reference to their reasons for coming, whether they will drain our resources or add value to our society, whether they seek to harm us.... that's what 'open border' means.... I'd call you a halfwit but I'm not convince you're smart enough to qualify.

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

what a load of bullshit. our immigration policy, with the exception of asylum, is intended to benefit Americans. Not foreigners looking to work at McDonalds. Indeed, those are exactly the types of foreigners our immigration policy is intended to keep out. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. neither is there anything "anti-immigrant" about it. Change your panties.

I realize that this comes as a great big surprise to you, but it is not the duty of private employers to provide jobs to Americans.

Besides that, if you understood the economics of your own country, you would realize that foreigners working at those low end jobs are creating jobs in a free market economy. It's a different debate, but I would gladly debate it with you in a debate forum... if you have the intestinal fortitude.

 

[Pho_King]

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

what a load of bullshit. our immigration policy, with the exception of asylum, is intended to benefit Americans. Not foreigners looking to work at McDonalds. Indeed, those are exactly the types of foreigners our immigration policy is intended to keep out. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. neither is there anything "anti-immigrant" about it. Change your panties.

I realize that this comes as a great big surprise to you, but it is not the duty of private employers to provide jobs to Americans.

Besides that, if you understood the economics of your own country, you would realize that foreigners working at those low end jobs are creating jobs in a free market economy. It's a different debate, but I would gladly debate it with you in a debate forum... if you have the intestinal fortitude.

You are making no sense. What does the statement concerning it not being the duty of American companies to hire Americans have to do with anything? Or are you just chattering?

 

[Ravi]

I could double the manpower on the border without spending a dime of taxpayer money; eliminate virtually every improper entry; reduce the money we spend on that silly ass issue by 75 percent and do so in a single piece of legislation.

How?

 

[BuddyColt]

Why are you starting another thread on the same subject retard? you already started a thread similar to this where Liability tore you a new asshole.

Liability hurt himself. That's why he has to keep posting and posting. He feels threatened that the whole truth will be told. He can't have that. So he entertains you with a circus, smoke and mirrors and other distractions.

Title 8 USC 1325 and "Open Borders" are worlds apart. If you could actually read, you'd know that. Can you focus on the topic?

Actually Liability was correct and right on the money, you on the other hand looked like a brain dead retard eating his own shit and drinking his own piss.

No, actually Liability, was dead wrong. He won't leave this board and try his hand in a real debate, so he only wins because those of you who like to derail every thread are concealing the truth with the circus like atmosphere you've created.

 

[BuddyColt]

I could double the manpower on the border without spending a dime of taxpayer money; eliminate virtually every improper entry; reduce the money we spend on that silly ass issue by 75 percent and do so in a single piece of legislation.

How?

At last, a responsive post. Thank You

1) Legalize and tax drugs. Now the Mexican government has a vested interest in manning the border and reducing the influence of drug cartels. The Mexican government would rather tax the drugs and have the money than to let drug lords get it. Cost to the U.S.? Nothing

2) According to the Socialist Security Administration's chief actuary, about 75 percent of those in the United States without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the taxes, etc. just like you.

Creating the applicable visas that allow for Guest Workers with no automatic path to citizenship eliminates the bulk of undocumented workers. They've already shown their intent by getting the Taxpayer Identification Numbers, paying their bills, etc.

3) Reinstate an individual land owner's Right to protect their own private property. The government wants to tell individuals that only the government is allowed to protect property lines, taking away the Right and the obligation of the land owner to protect their land.

BTW, a special amendment to the new Guest Worker visa would stipulate that any offspring born to the immigrant retains the citizenship of their native country eliminates birth citizenship.

 

[High_Gravity]

Liability hurt himself. That's why he has to keep posting and posting. He feels threatened that the whole truth will be told. He can't have that. So he entertains you with a circus, smoke and mirrors and other distractions.

Title 8 USC 1325 and "Open Borders" are worlds apart. If you could actually read, you'd know that. Can you focus on the topic?

Actually Liability was correct and right on the money, you on the other hand looked like a brain dead retard eating his own shit and drinking his own piss.

No, actually Liability, was dead wrong. He won't leave this board and try his hand in a real debate, so he only wins because those of you who like to derail every thread are concealing the truth with the circus like atmosphere you've created.

Nah Liability pretty much put you in a skirt and made you his bitch.

 

[California Girl]

"What are Open Borders"? That's the places Democrats go to replace people who keep leaving their ranks. It's the "sole" reason they fight tooth, and nail against requiring ID cards for voters, it's not about the poor.

Yep.

 

[Ravi]

I could double the manpower on the border without spending a dime of taxpayer money; eliminate virtually every improper entry; reduce the money we spend on that silly ass issue by 75 percent and do so in a single piece of legislation.

How?

At last, a responsive post. Thank You

1) Legalize and tax drugs. Now the Mexican government has a vested interest in manning the border and reducing the influence of drug cartels. The Mexican government would rather tax the drugs and have the money than to let drug lords get it. Cost to the U.S.? Nothing

2) According to the Socialist Security Administration's chief actuary, about 75 percent of those in the United States without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the taxes, etc. just like you.

Creating the applicable visas that allow for Guest Workers with no automatic path to citizenship eliminates the bulk of undocumented workers. They've already shown their intent by getting the Taxpayer Identification Numbers, paying their bills, etc.

3) Reinstate an individual land owner's Right to protect their own private property. The government wants to tell individuals that only the government is allowed to protect property lines, taking away the Right and the obligation of the land owner to protect their land.

BTW, a special amendment to the new Guest Worker visa would stipulate that any offspring born to the immigrant retains the citizenship of their native country eliminates birth citizenship.

1. Good
2. Good
3. Property owners already have a right to protect their property

Your BTW, bad. We need loyal American citizens and current American citizens have a very low birth rate.

 

[California Girl]

Okay, so far four criticisms and not one person to tell you what it is they support.

They used the term "regulated border," but that is what I've been advocating for the past number of years.

I've been being criticized for being against a militarized border. It's a little late to jump onto my bandwagon and try to claim it as your own.

I used the term 'regulated border', not 'they'. I. Not hard... I am an individual. I speak for myself, not others - not 'they'. Idiot.

And, we have regulated borders - ie, people who come into the country by the front door are welcome. You - with the 'open border' bullshit - think we should allow anyone to come here without reference to their reasons for coming, whether they will drain our resources or add value to our society, whether they seek to harm us.... that's what 'open border' means.... I'd call you a halfwit but I'm not convince you're smart enough to qualify.

While you're making this a personality contest, you are showing your abject ignorance of the subject matter. Read this very slowly:

1) The United States demands that people come here "properly"

2) The United States has never created that "proper" method. In order to move past the bullshit and get to the brass tacks, here is a list of the visas:

List of american nonimmigrant and temporary visas

Presuppose that you are an immigrant wanting to come into the United States. You have a job offer from MickeyDs. Which visa would allow you to take that job?

3) Once you've figured out that, given the terms, no visa is applicable, you find out that there is no "proper" method whereby you can enter.

A visa system that allows one employer to hire a foreigner, but not allow another employer to hire foreigners is clearly unconstitutional. American employers have responded AND they have a legal and constitutional RIGHT to disobey unconstitutional laws.

The way you fix this is to create the applicable visa and regulate those who come here, get a Taxpayer Identification Number and play by the same rules as everybody else.

An immigrant wanting to come into the US to work at McDonalds? Why? Are you honestly trying to tell me that there are no Americans that can fill the job at McDonalds? Are you absolutely fucking nutz?

 

[BuddyColt]

How?

At last, a responsive post. Thank You

1) Legalize and tax drugs. Now the Mexican government has a vested interest in manning the border and reducing the influence of drug cartels. The Mexican government would rather tax the drugs and have the money than to let drug lords get it. Cost to the U.S.? Nothing

2) According to the Socialist Security Administration's chief actuary, about 75 percent of those in the United States without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the taxes, etc. just like you.

Creating the applicable visas that allow for Guest Workers with no automatic path to citizenship eliminates the bulk of undocumented workers. They've already shown their intent by getting the Taxpayer Identification Numbers, paying their bills, etc.

3) Reinstate an individual land owner's Right to protect their own private property. The government wants to tell individuals that only the government is allowed to protect property lines, taking away the Right and the obligation of the land owner to protect their land.

BTW, a special amendment to the new Guest Worker visa would stipulate that any offspring born to the immigrant retains the citizenship of their native country eliminates birth citizenship.

1. Good
2. Good
3. Property owners already have a right to protect their property

Your BTW, bad. We need loyal American citizens and current American citizens have a very low birth rate.

I don't see how I'm being "bad." The real issue with this lynch mob is that most of them don't like birth citizenship. The reality of our times is simple: Virtually every Mexican has an American citizen relative. Eventually those people can petition to get any relative with a clean record into the U.S.

America being part Hispanic is an inevitability that is cast in stone, barring a war between the United States in Mexico. I'm more concerned with maintaining my constitutional Liberties and unalienable Rights than I am giving the Hispanics a hard time, based upon nothing but class warfare.

BTW, factually I am right. In 2003 a man lost his ranch to some Salvadorans when the border watch group he enlisted got arrested for "violating the civil rights of those Salvadorans who were trespassing and coming into the U.S. improperly."

Had the government allowed property owners to defend their property, it would mean fewer miles that drug runners would have since private property owners would shoot first and ask questions later. Instead, we allow the government to do a job they can't do competently do it even worse. BTW, here is a link to what happened. I use that link since those guys won the case. Had the National Association of White People won it, I would have used their link:

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue | Southern Poverty Law Center