Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 have a right to harbor foreigners.....any foreigners, tell me where that right is written.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Good. The more the merrier.

Are you on record then that you support a militarized border, the POLICE STATE, and severe limitations on unalienable Rights?

 

[Flopper]

No, they'll just

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.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

No, they'll just buy a ladder. We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years. Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.

So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall. In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.

Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:

How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall. In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.

Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?

Illegal immigration, drugs, keeping our pay scales lower, taking our jobs, foreigners sending American dollars back to their country......is that good enough for you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they'll just

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.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

No, they'll just buy a ladder. We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years. Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.

So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out. They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.

If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them. But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Good. The more the merrier.

Are you on record then that you support a militarized border, the POLICE STATE, and severe limitations on unalienable Rights?

Nobody outside of our country has any rights to be here. That's why Congress created laws to stop them. That's why we have checkpoints to enter this country. That's why we have immigration courts; because you have no inalienable right to be here.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Hmmmm. Must be one desperate trucker to do that:

Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.

Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences

Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.

Less than 1% of the vehicles are searched and most of those searches are for suspected drug transportation not people. Getting into the US in a truck hauling freight is relatively easy. Hiding in trunks and storage compartments is even more common. To catch them you have to search the vehicle and with more 50,000 vehicles a day crossing and most of them during peak periods, there is not enough people are facilities to search a high percent of vehicles. Migrants certainly do pay truckers and vehicle operators to take them across.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.

The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire. I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here. In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.

About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light. Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear. The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops. His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.

When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop. His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there. I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.

So don't say it's a state issue. It's not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Hmmmm. Must be one desperate trucker to do that:

Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.

Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences

Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.

Less than 1% of the vehicles are searched and most of those searches are for suspected drug transportation not people. Getting into the US in a truck hauling freight is repetitively easy.

Oh come on. The dogs that aid our border patrol are trained to find both: drugs and people. A German Shepard can hear a human heartbeat from over 15 feet away.

The truth is very few try to smuggle illegals into our country. The penalty is too great just for some spending money. Let me ask: would you be willing to do anything for a hundred fifty bucks if failure meant spending over ten years in prison?

 

[OKTexas]

Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.

The Courts disagree with you on that one. So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?

Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?

What court disagree with me? Do illegals have rights to be here or not? Do they have right to vote?

Where did you get that I am uncomfortable answering? I told you that I see where you're heading with it and I stay with my statement that illegals don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.

Now, you asked where my rights come from?

To answer that question, can you clarify what you considering that "rights" are?

America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above. Where do YOUR Rights come from?

Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights. So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights. If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from. I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect. I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.

Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here? I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?

I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong. I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like. I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.

That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take you semantics game and shove it.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall. In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.

Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?

Illegal immigration, drugs, keeping our pay scales lower, taking our jobs, foreigners sending American dollars back to their country......is that good enough for you?

It will be good enough IF that is the pretexts you choose to stand by. See, Ray, here is the problem:

If one poster says they want the foreigners out is for control, which they have, I must take him at his word. Now you come around with a laundry list accusing the drug problem being the foreigners fault; that the foreigners reduce our pay scale and they send dollars to foreign countries.

The question in the OP is WHY IS BUILDING THE WALL WRONG?

How can anyone respond to that until they know exactly why those of you who have made this their religion explain why you want it put up in the first place? So, I need to ask you:

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner stole from you?

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.

That's what we are trying to do now, only legally. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority. No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright. A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.

 

[OKTexas]

These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.

Where do you get YOUR Rights from?

Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege. What do you think? Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?

Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going. If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.

The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.

End of story.

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, they'll just

Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing. After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck. The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.

No, they'll just buy a ladder. We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years. Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.

So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.

When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out. They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.

If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them. But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.

How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Where do you get YOUR Rights from?

Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege. What do you think? Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?

Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going. If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.

The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.

End of story.

Based upon what, exactly?

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.

Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.

Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:

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

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.