In regards to the wall, which is it?

[Norman]

Everyone at this point knows that the wall is very effective and the symbol of morality. Two reasons why the leftists want nothing to do with it.

 

[MarathonMike]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Jesus, dude. The most conservative politicians have done their homework and have come to the conclusion it is a complete waste. Think VISAS.

Yes let's consult the true experts on our border, the politicians. Uh, no. Hey here's a novel idea. Let's listen to the people whose job it is to work at the border in charge our nation's security. Or the people who live along the border, the ranchers and other citizens who have been finding the dead bodies of immigrants on their land. They ALL say build a BETTER wall. We do have one you know, it is for the most part a glorified cattle fence.

 

[edward37]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

 

[SmokeALib]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Something can't be both stupid and immoral at the same time?

The Democratic party?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Jesus, dude. The most conservative politicians have done their homework and have come to the conclusion it is a complete waste. Think VISAS.

Name them

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Jesus, dude. The most conservative politicians have done their homework and have come to the conclusion it is a complete waste. Think VISAS.

Wrong. Only establishment RINO douchebags have said that. You know, the kind Trump easily defeated in the primaries.

LMAO! And who lost the House? Hmmm, Bripat? M'kay. Who?

By FAR LESS than Bill Clinton or Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Jesus, dude. The most conservative politicians have done their homework and have come to the conclusion it is a complete waste. Think VISAS.

Wrong. Only establishment RINO douchebags have said that. You know, the kind Trump easily defeated in the primaries.

LMAO! And who lost the House? Hmmm, Bripat? M'kay. Who?

Not Trump, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

 

[Indeependent]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Jesus, dude. The most conservative politicians have done their homework and have come to the conclusion it is a complete waste. Think VISAS.

Conservatives love cheap labor as much as Liberals.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If I punch a baby under the assumption that candy will come out of it like a piñata,

is that stupid, immoral, or both?

 

[edward37]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

 

[Rigby5]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

 

[edward37]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

Do republicans have any idea of what ramifications could take place if dump calls for a national emergency?

 

[bripat9643]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

Do republicans have any idea of what ramifications could take place if dump calls for a national emergency?

Such as?

 

[bripat9643]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

You must be delusional enough to believe the Constitution is still in force in this country.

 

[edward37]

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

Do republicans have any idea of what ramifications could take place if dump calls for a national emergency?

Such as?

5th century solution to a 21st century problem Nice going trump you schmuck

The wheel is a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem. Do you realize how utterly stupid that argument is?

Wall opponents need to “do a better job of marketing and selling their alternative to the Trump border agenda,” Turner said. “Until they push a coherent immigration agenda that has a few key marketable goals, we will be trapped in this false choice between building a wall and opening the borders completely.”

I agree with that. So while I’m no Trump-level marketer, here’s my sales pitch.


Liberals, give to conservatives a mandatory E-Verify system, a national database that would be used to vet work eligibility in the country. Yes, the current voluntary system has its data and privacy flaws, but these presumably could be fixed. The beauty of work verification is it could stem a lot of our illegal-immigration issues without the need for any wall.

In return, though, conservatives would have to give the undocumented immigrants already here a path to citizenship (yeah, amnesty), and also would have to agree to permit more legal immigration every year than is now allowed.


These two proposals fit hand in glove. The main opponents to E-Verify are big businesses and agriculture, because they love the undocumented labor. An example is Trump himself, who was found by The New York Times to be employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs. (Another report foundthat of the 565 companies in Trump’s business organization, only five are signed up to even use E-Verify.) But if we give businesses a steady supply of workers via an increase in visa programs and more legal immigration, problem solved all around.

So that’s my plan. More immigration. Stricter work rules. No wall.

OK so that may not quite fit on a T-shirt. Definitely no one is going to chant it at arena rallies.

But Trump’s wall never made any practical sense, as most illegal immigration is from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across borders. The wall’s strength is solely symbolic. It signifies nationalism. It means keep out. That building the wall would be a waste of money and wouldn’t keep anybody out has always been beside the point.

I think Trump is in as much political peril now from this symbol potentially dying as he is in legal peril from the various investigations. Because the wall is what his base cares about. It’s why he’s president.

That thing about setting t-shirt-simple goals — it does make it a cinch to get what the mission is. But it has a flip side. It’s also obvious to all when the mission fails.

While a lot of countries do use very strict employment rules, you can't do that in the US.
The individual rights are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not based on citizenship or privileges, but universal concepts of individual rights for ALL individuals. That means you can't legally restrict the ability to work. It would be inherently illegal. The right to work is part of the right to life, and without it you die.
The founders would be shocked anyone would even consider limiting immigration, or show any prejudiced in the legal system to anyone, regardless of citizenship.
Not that the founders can use followed entirely either, since they discriminated by race and sex.

Do republicans have any idea of what ramifications could take place if dump calls for a national emergency?

Such as?

For example
What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

I don't understand your confusion as to why both can't be true at the same time.

 

[Godboy]

The intention is immortal, the execution is ineffective.

You're welcome.

As long as they cant be pushed down, they seem to be highly effective. Look at all those people being stopped. Imagine if it was 20 feet higher!

 

[Geaux4it]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

Immoral while aborting babies lol

-Geaux

 

[Godboy]

I've heard Dims attack the notion of a border wall using to different approaches. They either say it is ineffective and stupid or immoral.

How can it be both? Either the wall does not keep people out and is stupid, or it keeps people out that Dims think should immigrate to the US and is therefore immoral.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

I don't understand your cofusion as to why both can't be true at the same time.

Youre missing the point. How can something be immoral if it has no negative impact? If walls wont stop them, then no one should be complaining that walls are immoral.