Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[bripat9643]

ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger. He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS. Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together. The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.

You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.

You'd have to prove the author of the article is
Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.

Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.

BWHAHAHAHAH! And you support the most visible proven lying machine on earth and beyond...Donald Trump.

Personal attacks are about the only arrow you have in your quiver.

WTF? You start a fire, get burned and then scream at me for pissing on you to douse the flames consuming your sorry ass.

I got burned? That's news to me.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There has been considerable fact checking
showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.

Wrong. Even the factcheck link doesn't make that claim.

 

[Humorme]

Why would anyone oppose chain migration?

Why should anyone be for it? Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Every immigrant takes an American job. We don't need any more people here. The country is full.

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

not everyone who applies is automatically accepted for citizenship.

You miss the point. Not everyone should have to apply just to be here. Neither should we allow the government to extend the privileges / immunities / benefits of citizenship to non-citizens.

Every foreign national in the US should have a federal id.

Fines and fees can offer market based metrics.

The right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to applied capitalism, at every opportunity.

Either way, both of you are going to the same destination

 

[Humorme]

You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?

Chain migration. That's going to end.

Why would anyone oppose chain migration?

Why should anyone be for it? Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Every immigrant takes an American job. We don't need any more people here. The country is full.

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

 

[Humorme]

Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history. It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.

The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.) Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.

Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country. Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it. Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.

ROFL! The wall isn't going to destroy America. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite. the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.

The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds. All you open-borders douchebags know that. The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.

Who do you think you're fooling?

If you had a case you could make it without the name calling. You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it. Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand. If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.

The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger. I'm more right of center than you are. So, there is your first problem. The Bible puts it this way:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13

You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are. The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat. The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists. BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter. His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all. And Tanton is pro-eugenics.

So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists. Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today. But, it was YOUR SIDE that brought us tyranny on the installment plan. YOUR SIDE took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle. And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.

Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.

Please spare me. You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am. There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.

Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis. That's your conception of logic.

You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.

Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life. And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you ***** about all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

Chain migration. That's going to end.

Why would anyone oppose chain migration?

Why should anyone be for it? Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Every immigrant takes an American job. We don't need any more people here. The country is full.

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! The wall isn't going to destroy America. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite. the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.

The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds. All you open-borders douchebags know that. The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.

Who do you think you're fooling?

If you had a case you could make it without the name calling. You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it. Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand. If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.

The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger. I'm more right of center than you are. So, there is your first problem. The Bible puts it this way:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13

You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are. The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat. The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists. BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter. His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all. And Tanton is pro-eugenics.

So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists. Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today. But, it was YOUR SIDE that brought us tyranny on the installment plan. YOUR SIDE took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle. And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.

Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.

Please spare me. You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am. There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.

Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis. That's your conception of logic.

You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.

Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life. And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you ***** about all the time.

What "progress" are you referring to?

 

[Humorme]

Why would anyone oppose chain migration?

Why should anyone be for it? Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Every immigrant takes an American job. We don't need any more people here. The country is full.

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

 

[Humorme]

Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.

. Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end. What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down. I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.

Bullshit. All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective. The great wall was highly effective. It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries. Hadrians wall was effective. The wall around Rome was effective. The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective. Tell us which walls weren't effective. I'm dying to know.

The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.

The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.

We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.

You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger. Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.

War and fear, it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.

Our situation don't have squat to do with any "open borders crowd.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they ALL favored what you want to call open borders. It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should anyone be for it? Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Every immigrant takes an American job. We don't need any more people here. The country is full.

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[bripat9643]

. Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end. What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down. I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.

Bullshit. All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective. The great wall was highly effective. It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries. Hadrians wall was effective. The wall around Rome was effective. The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective. Tell us which walls weren't effective. I'm dying to know.

The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.

The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.

We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.

You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger. Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.

War and fear, it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.

Our situation don't have squat to do with any "open borders crowd.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they ALL favored what you want to call open borders. It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.

Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?

 

[Humorme]

1) You're dreaming. As long as their are people from the third world here - ESPECIALLY with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here

2) Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country

3) WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you

4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster. It's pretty much the same principle.

Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.

Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.

. Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end. What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down. I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.

Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history. It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.

The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.) Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.

Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country. Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it. Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.

ROFL! The wall isn't going to destroy America. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite. the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.

The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds. All you open-borders douchebags know that. The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.

Who do you think you're fooling?

I'm not the one posting easily proven B.S. and telling people a shit sandwich is sirloin. That honor would be left up to you.

 

[Humorme]

Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

 

[Humorme]

Bullshit. All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective. The great wall was highly effective. It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries. Hadrians wall was effective. The wall around Rome was effective. The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective. Tell us which walls weren't effective. I'm dying to know.

The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.

The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.

We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.

You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger. Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.

War and fear, it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.

Our situation don't have squat to do with any "open borders crowd.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they ALL favored what you want to call open borders. It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.

Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?

Don't have to. While ALL of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state. They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.

NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

It wasn't until EVERY founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab. That happened in 1876.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

You just quoted them, dumbass. Congress sets immigration policy, not the states. Obama went to court to prove it.

 

[Humorme]

If you had a case you could make it without the name calling. You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it. Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand. If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.

The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger. I'm more right of center than you are. So, there is your first problem. The Bible puts it this way:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13

You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are. The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat. The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists. BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter. His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all. And Tanton is pro-eugenics.

So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists. Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today. But, it was YOUR SIDE that brought us tyranny on the installment plan. YOUR SIDE took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle. And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.

Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.

Please spare me. You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am. There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.

Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis. That's your conception of logic.

You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.

Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life. And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you ***** about all the time.

What "progress" are you referring to?

Dude, really, if this immigration stuff is your religion, you better start thinking it over.

1) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought and won cases proving that one did not have to have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops..."Social Security Number"

2) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against National ID and won against the battle to put the SSN on identification

3) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against the 14th Amendment and the two classes of citizenship it created along with the efforts to make all of us subjects of the 14th Amendment with NO unalienable Rights

4) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought to expand private property Rights

5) Conservatives / constitutionalists fought to preserve the Fourth Amendment

What did your side do?

1) So - called "Patriot Act"

2) National ID / REAL ID Act with every American being forced to have an SSN

3) Your side has expanded the 14th Amendment - even supported it

4) The whole strategy you rely on came from an assault on private property Rights that the anti-immigrant side threw the towel in over and admitted defeat

5) You've supported the Constitution Free Zone and the evisceration of the doctrine of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Hell, if I keep going, we'll have a book.

 

[Humorme]

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

You just quoted them, dumbass. Congress sets immigration policy, not the states. Obama went to court to prove it.

Dumbass? Spewing shit you wouldn't say to someone's face is purely a cowardly act. Not everyone who washes up on our shores needs to be, wants to be or should be a citizen. You don't even know what the **** immigration is. Let me define it for you:

"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

You seem to have this fascination with this idea that everybody that comes here should become a citizen. You're calling me a dumbass and you don't know basic freaking U.S. history??????

In 1790 the first Naturalization Act was passed. Only whites could become citizens. Yet between then and the passage of the 14th Amendment MILLIONS of people came here and worked without becoming citizens. Most of them did not qualify.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Don't have to. While ALL of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state. They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.

NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

It wasn't until EVERY founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab. That happened in 1876.

Why do you suppose the Articles of Confederation had section 4?

Elaborates upon the intent "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union," and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which they travel. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.

Looks like the feds said who could cross state lines and who could be limited.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it. Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand. If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.

The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger. I'm more right of center than you are. So, there is your first problem. The Bible puts it this way:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13

You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are. The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat. The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists. BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter. His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all. And Tanton is pro-eugenics.

So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists. Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today. But, it was YOUR SIDE that brought us tyranny on the installment plan. YOUR SIDE took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle. And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.

Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.

Please spare me. You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am. There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.

Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis. That's your conception of logic.

You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.

Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life. And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you ***** about all the time.

What "progress" are you referring to?

Dude, really, if this immigration stuff is your religion, you better start thinking it over.

1) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought and won cases proving that one did not have to have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops..."Social Security Number"

2) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against National ID and won against the battle to put the SSN on identification

3) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against the 14th Amendment and the two classes of citizenship it created along with the efforts to make all of us subjects of the 14th Amendment with NO unalienable Rights

4) The conservatives / constitutionalists fought to expand private property Rights

5) Conservatives / constitutionalists fought to preserve the Fourth Amendment

What did your side do?

1) So - called "Patriot Act"

2) National ID / REAL ID Act with every American being forced to have an SSN

3) Your side has expanded the 14th Amendment - even supported it

4) The whole strategy you rely on came from an assault on private property Rights that the anti-immigrant side threw the towel in over and admitted defeat

5) You've supported the Constitution Free Zone and the evisceration of the doctrine of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Hell, if I keep going, we'll have a book.

1) A SS # is only needed for certain things, sure you can live without one, but it is very difficult. SHRUG

2) So.....

3) ?? SMFH There is no 2 classes of citizenship. There is but one National Citizenship. The 14th citizenship clause merely made the 1866 CRA declared law in all states.

4) Private property rights have always been what they are, they predate the USC and the forming of the US.

5) The 4A is and always has been what it is, there is nothing about it that has been usurped.

You don't seem to like the laws that have been in place since the inception of this nation, you some how claim they are unconstitutional and the founders would be against them, yet the founders are the ones that put them in place. I suggest you read The Federalist Papers and learn basic founder principals and ideals verse spouting your Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protester hyperbole.

 

[Crixus]

The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.

We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.

You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger. Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.

War and fear, it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.

Our situation don't have squat to do with any "open borders crowd.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they ALL favored what you want to call open borders. It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.

Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?

Don't have to. While ALL of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state. They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.

NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

It wasn't until EVERY founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab. That happened in 1876.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Nuff said. Period. If you don’t like the laws, then take it up with law makers. You will just have to deal with that cup cake.