Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[bripat9643]

Actually, no you don't. You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently. There are regulations that prevent that.

Indeed there are. And they violate my rights. Yours too, but presumably you don't care.

If you think there are no limits to what you can do with your property, you are sadly mistaken. You can't have 10 or 20 people who aren't related to you living there. You can have immediately family members, and that's it. Anything more has an impact on your neighbors. That's why they don't allow it. That doesn't violate your rights.

 

[bripat9643]

You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others. The same goes for ex cons. Why is it OK for one but not the other?

Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.

You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.

I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?

You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.

Nope. You have quite an imagination.

What does "reasonable" have to do with anything? If they have a right to be here, then they have a right to be here. It doesn't matter whether they are criminals or not. According to you our government has no authority to prevent entry.

 

[Slyhunter]

You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others. The same goes for ex cons. Why is it OK for one but not the other?

Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.

You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.

I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?

You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.

Nope. You have quite an imagination.

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

 

[dblack]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

 

[Flopper]

Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.

I'm not afraid of anything. YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall. There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in??? How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face??? You've lost all credibility here.

If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob! I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.

The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.

Trump sees a great beautiful wall that will stop illegal immigration. What democrats see is a 212 mile 4 billion dollar wall that's 6 feet hiring than existing reinforced fencing that will most probably not even be complete during Trump's term in office. That will leave the border barriers in 1800 miles of border the same as they are now.

The real problems in immigration such as immigration law, illegal entry through ports of entry, 10 million illegal immigrants living in the country, millions overstaying visas, a 300,000 case backlog in immigration court, and an E-Verify system that's uselessly to most employers all untouched.

 

[dblack]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

 

[Slyhunter]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.

 

[dblack]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.

It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.

 

[bripat9643]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

 

[dblack]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.

 

[bripat9643]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.

How does that define what a "legal wall" is?

 

[dblack]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.

How does that define what a "legal wall" is?

It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?

 

[bripat9643]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.

How does that define what a "legal wall" is?

It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?

Try dealing in reality. What distinguishes a "legal wall" from an "illegal wall?"

 

[dblack]

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.

The "legal walls?" What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.

How does that define what a "legal wall" is?

It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?

Try dealing in reality. What distinguishes a "legal wall" from an "illegal wall?"

I have no idea what has you confused. I'm referring to visa application rules the prevent legal entry. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

 

[Flopper]

Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.

I'm not afraid of anything. YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.

I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for. You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.

How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online

https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders

List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia

In Opinion: Why Nations need to control their borders

West Texas sheriff says U.S. only nation not to use military to secure 'our border'

The POSTED PENALTY for Illegally Crossing the Border ~ Thunder Pig

This last one is most significant. If we assume the conservative estimate of 10.5 million illegals (some estimates go to 12), and at having committed a federal crime punishable by $5,000, if we simply collected on that ONE PENALTY ALONE, we'd have FIFTY-THREE BILLION DOLLARS. Enough to build the wall three times over. And Mexico would have paid for it.


View attachment 238441 View attachment 238442 View attachment 238443 View attachment 238444 View attachment 238445

The whole point to borders, ANY borders, be they between states or countries, is to DELINEATE TERRITORY. Territory defines responsibility and control. To all the quacked up fuckheads calling it doom and gloom just because the USA wants to actually CONTROL who crosses our border like most other countries, I say:


UP YOURS, Mental Cases.

fences not walls. Look at your link

 

[Slyhunter]

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?

The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.

It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.

No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.

 

[Flopper]

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

 

[longknife]

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

We welcome those who come here LEGALLY!

 

[Slyhunter]

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.

 

[longknife]

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.

If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.

Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.