Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[dblack]

I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.

But it is the most efficient and cost effective, especially for long term planning.

I don't agree. Coercion can be the most efficient way to get things done in the short term. But those who live by the sword, die by the sword, and mutual cooperation is more sustainable in the long term.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

That is projection. You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time. You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY. You don't destroy yourself to save them. That is just plain stupid. We have safety nets and they use them. Costs the Feds and States more money. That is Reality.

They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it. They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.

You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.

What you absolutely cannot do is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.

Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people. It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.

Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply. You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one. Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.) I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.

You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me. You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.

You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here. Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor. The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them. It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.

Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.

We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing. That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people. If you don't understand something, ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat. You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.

I've not advocated people break ANY law. That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills. You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded. In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.

 

[OKTexas]

No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?

WTH are you talking about? I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread. I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious: a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table. I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.

That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.

Do you have a mental problem? I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall. I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:

AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS. AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK. I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION.

If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.

The only way to get that is throw all the commies out of congress, they will never pass the necessary laws.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.

Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly. When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.

 

[The Original Tree]

All Great Empires and Civilizations have Walls and defenses on their borders.

The Chin Dynasty

The Roman Empire

Babylon

America

America’s wall used to be The Pacific and Atlantic.

We cannot rely on that anymore in The Transportation Age.

We need another physical barrier, A Wall System.

If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand history.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

That is projection. You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time. You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY. You don't destroy yourself to save them. That is just plain stupid. We have safety nets and they use them. Costs the Feds and States more money. That is Reality.

They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it. They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.

You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.

What you absolutely cannot do is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.

Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people. It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.

Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply. You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one. Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.) I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.

You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me. You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.

You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here. Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor. The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them. It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.

Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.

We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing. That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people. If you don't understand something, ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat. You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.

I've not advocated people break ANY law. That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills. You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded. In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people. What court case did you cite that you think means what? I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up. I miss a few posts.

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?

WTH are you talking about? I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread. I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious: a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table. I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.

That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.

Do you have a mental problem? I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall. I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:

AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS. AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK. I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION.

If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.

The only way to get that is throw all the commies out of congress, they will never pass the necessary laws.

.

We are required to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.

In the process you cannot forfeit your Rights, give the enemies of America jurisdiction over you (though they will THINK they still have it.)

If I have to draw you a picture from that point, forward, you should step aside and let others handle it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

All Great Empires and Civilizations have Walls and defenses on their borders.

The Chin Dynasty

The Roman Empire

Babylon

America

America’s wall used to be The Pacific and Atlantic.

We cannot rely on that anymore in The Transportation Age.

We need another physical barrier, A Wall System.

If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand history.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

That is projection. You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time. You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY. You don't destroy yourself to save them. That is just plain stupid. We have safety nets and they use them. Costs the Feds and States more money. That is Reality.

They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it. They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.

You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.

What you absolutely cannot do is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.

Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people. It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.

Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply. You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one. Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.) I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.

You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me. You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.

You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here. Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor. The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them. It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.

Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.

We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing. That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people. If you don't understand something, ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat. You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.

I've not advocated people break ANY law. That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills. You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded. In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.

You're late to the party; I understand history quite well; you might want to get some of the facts before you start trying to claim any titles:

See posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 for starters. Then get back to me.

 

[OKTexas]

Here's a live link: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf

And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.

.

Well champ, the joke is now on you. That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board. I chose to read it.

Thank you for being dishonest about it. It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is. left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.

Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be. I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one. It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep. All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming. Any attack is as good as another. You just cannot accept the facts. The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.

Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.

.

All the "facts" change daily. Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.

For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with. None of it changes the truth. I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself. I came here asking for answers. My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)

BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.

I just remembered who the other guy that was on Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.

And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.

But it is the most efficient and cost effective, especially for long term planning.

I don't agree. Coercion can be the most efficient way to get things done in the short term. But those who live by the sword, die by the sword, and mutual cooperation is more sustainable in the long term.

BS you can't get 10 people to agree what to have for breakfast, much less thousands on where to build a road.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well champ, the joke is now on you. That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board. I chose to read it.

Thank you for being dishonest about it. It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is. left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.

Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be. I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one. It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep. All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming. Any attack is as good as another. You just cannot accept the facts. The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.

Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.

.

All the "facts" change daily. Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.

For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with. None of it changes the truth. I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself. I came here asking for answers. My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)

BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.

I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.

And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.

.

More fudged figures. OMG. I already presented two non-partisan studies. Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ? And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points. The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash." That was the term used in several studies over the years. Those are the studies Congress sees.

So are we arguing walls OR costs? Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts? Save your pecking. Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.

This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious. Come up with something that has not been responded to. Can you answer any of my questions?

Where do your unalienable Rights come from?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.

Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly. When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.

I got YOUR answer. I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you. Thank you for your input. I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.

Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist. I agreed. Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well. You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.

I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. without being a Nationalist. At the same time, you cannot be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights. You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be. I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one. It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep. All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming. Any attack is as good as another. You just cannot accept the facts. The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.

Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.

.

All the "facts" change daily. Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.

For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with. None of it changes the truth. I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself. I came here asking for answers. My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)

BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.

I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.

And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.

.

More fudged figures. OMG. I already presented two non-partisan studies. Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ? And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points. The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash." That was the term used in several studies over the years. Those are the studies Congress sees.

So are we arguing walls OR costs? Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts? Save your pecking. Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.

This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious. Come up with something that has not been responded to. Can you answer any of my questions?

Where do your unalienable Rights come from?

I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.

Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly. When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.

I got YOUR answer. I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you. Thank you for your input. I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.

Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist. I agreed. Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well. You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.

I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. without being a Nationalist. At the same time, you cannot be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights. You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.

Let's put that baby to bed right now:

Unalienable / Inalienable

The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be. I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one. It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep. All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming. Any attack is as good as another. You just cannot accept the facts. The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.

Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.

.

All the "facts" change daily. Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.

For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with. None of it changes the truth. I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself. I came here asking for answers. My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)

BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.

I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.

And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.

.

More fudged figures. OMG. I already presented two non-partisan studies. Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ? And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points. The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash." That was the term used in several studies over the years. Those are the studies Congress sees.

So are we arguing walls OR costs? Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts? Save your pecking. Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.

This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious. Come up with something that has not been responded to. Can you answer any of my questions?

Where do your unalienable Rights come from?

I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.

.

Maybe you should have reread that post before making it. Let me put this to you another way:

You can cite all the monetary costs you want. THAT, sir, is THE DISCONNECT.Why are foreigners in the United States working? Foreigners come here because it's profitable. Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BOTH SIDES OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.

That is how you're being proven wrong. You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture. When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable. That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.

If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS. I am fighting for YOUR Rights. You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.

Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly. When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.

I got YOUR answer. I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you. Thank you for your input. I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.

Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist. I agreed. Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well. You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.

I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. without being a Nationalist. At the same time, you cannot be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights. You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.

Let's put that baby to bed right now:

Unalienable / Inalienable

The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

Okay, let us put it to bed.

"At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them."

“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”

"There is significant evidence that inalienable “. . . is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one’s consent.” [Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952)]. This means that an inalienable right is a right that is incapable of being surrendered unless one consents. This is very Hobbesian. Keep this in mind.

There is significant evidence that unalienable means exactly the same thing with one caveat, a caveat which changes the whole picture. A number of people turn to Black’s Law 6th Edition but lets start with the Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776). George Mason wrote:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
..
.Unalienable Vs Inalienable - Tea Party Tribune

.Despite the fact that at the time of the Declaration unalienable rights were considered to be for white men only, the word, unalienable, refers to rights inherent to all humans, no matter gender or race. I find it interesting how the word unalienable is rarely used anymore and how modern versions of the Declaration now use the word inalienable. Even President Obama uses the word inalienable. What’s up with that?

...[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101, 1952] In this decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals defined inalienable rights as those rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one’s consent."

Unalienable not Inalienable rights in the Declaration of I | National Myth

Please read that above link as it will refute Ray's entire argument.

Only socialists and Democrats defend the use of the word inalienable.

Notice that the above is the words of people on the right: Tea Party and right wing scholars. I am not, in any way, changing their words nor their intent.

Ray presumes that since I'm questioning the talking points of the build the wall guys, I must be a liberal and a heretic to the build the wall people. Once you closely examine WHO is promoting the build the wall idea, you begin to see why it is necessary to question the REAL costs of the wall - AND THOSE ARE NOT ECONOMIC COSTS. Your Liberty - even your life is in danger due to the unintended consequences of following this build the wall strategy. Ray is pro big government - a government that, once that damn wall is built, can never be challenged or resisted. And none of you seem to even want to know how the liberals can twist the laws to commit genocide against us.

The one question that Ray dares not ask me reveals either his complete ignorance of this subject OR what he believes in (or maybe both.) He clearly is not a Christian, constitutionalist OR a patriot at this time.
...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?

Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.

Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.

Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier? Years ago I worked in a warehouse. The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.

The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.

We are NOT talking border security with the wall. What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships. You'd be better served with some regulation. No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.

#1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
#2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
#3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.

He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.

.

No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is. YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.

Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.

Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier? Years ago I worked in a warehouse. The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.

The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.

We are NOT talking border security with the wall. What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships. You'd be better served with some regulation. No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.

#1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
#2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
#3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.

He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.

.

No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is. YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.

Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.

You need some new material. Reread this thread. I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the REAL reasons people wanted the wall. When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on. You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations. We'll get along better if you read the whole story first. National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries. It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it. WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?

See these exapmles: posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731. Read those and then join the conversation.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier? Years ago I worked in a warehouse. The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.

The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.

We are NOT talking border security with the wall. What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships. You'd be better served with some regulation. No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.

#1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
#2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
#3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.

He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.

.

No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is. YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.

Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.

You need some new material. Reread this thread. I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the REAL reasons people wanted the wall. When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on. You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations. We'll get along better if you read the whole story first. National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries. It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it. WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?

See these exapmles: posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731. Read those and then join the conversation.

Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.

No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.

Bigotry is not a virtue. Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.

I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.

Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.

You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.

Look, this is no diversionary tactic. It's plain and it's simple. Either people have a Right to Liberty or they do not. As long as people are engaging in the free enterprise system, I do not think of them as "sneaking" in. Had you actually READ this thread, you would know exactly what I think. That way, you would not have to make ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to ask me a question based upon a hypothetical straw man. So, do this, read post # 2806. That should tell you my feelings toward immigration laws in general. Then read these posts:

3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, and 3731. It does little for me to keep repeating the same points over and over every day.

We need to document and understand who the people who come in here are. Ever see the gates at an airport? You are just trolling now.

we have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause.

 

[danielpalos]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

Capitalism is worthless if we need a wall.

It’s just another ism.

But just like it’s not fair china manipulates it’s currency and pays workers $1 a day, Mexico doesn’t pay its masses well. They workers have yet to rise up. Too much corruption.

So it’s not fair American blue collar workers have to compete with Mexicans who will live ten in an apartment and work for half what the American will work.

It’s undermining the middle class.

Only a well regulated capitalism by people who represent we the people is a good ism. Every country protects its vital industries so why do you think America didn’t? Because we had the highest paid workers in the world. The unions. Republicans wanted to send all those union jobs overseas. Break the union and reneg on pensions.

we don't have an express wall building power or an immigration clause. if you don't care about capitalism you will have to care about the law.