Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[candycorn]

No it doesn’t . Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.

If we were talking 20 miles . Fine . We are talking 1,400 miles!!!

It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings

-Geaux

But at what cost ?? You know the “wall” plan includes drones and all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards . It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Clearly you do not. Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day? Whatever it is…it’s too much.

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it. That is all.
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago; Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet. Ever. But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.

Damn
You
Are
Stupid.

In other words open boarders are fine with you!

If they rent a room from me, they can be as open as they like I suppose

 

[candycorn]

But at what cost ?? You know the “wall” plan includes drones and all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards . It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Clearly you do not. Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day? Whatever it is…it’s too much.

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it. That is all.
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago; Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet. Ever. But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.

Damn
You
Are
Stupid.

In other words open boarders are fine with you!

Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
I don't
Is that what knees news spews out?

You don’t capitalize the p in president. A lot of liberals if not the majority of them are for open borders.

Not me.

 

[Leo123]

I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall

You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then. The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it. The American people will be paying for it. That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.

$4,000 raises? That's a new one on me. I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.

So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today? Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?

And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones? Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem? Start the wall talk again? Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?

Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall

Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again? You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions. When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work? It's painfully transparent.

 

[Issa]

I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself, I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
They are more productive than lot of fat **** racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.

 

[Issa]

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then. The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it. The American people will be paying for it. That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.

$4,000 raises? That's a new one on me. I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.

So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today? Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?

And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones? Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem? Start the wall talk again? Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?

Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?

Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then. The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it. The American people will be paying for it. That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.

$4,000 raises? That's a new one on me. I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.

So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today? Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?

And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones? Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem? Start the wall talk again? Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?

Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?

Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself, I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
They are more productive than lot of fat **** racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.

Well outside of the US, the population of the rest of the world is 7.2 billion people. How many of those 7.2 billion would you be willing to give a green card to?

 

[Issa]

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then. The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it. The American people will be paying for it. That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.

$4,000 raises? That's a new one on me. I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.

So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today? Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?

And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones? Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem? Start the wall talk again? Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?

Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?

Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.

It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

Criminal records ARE government records. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition. You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.

One last time: the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO. By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.

You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative. It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.

Wow, you really are off your rocker. Public records equate to a New World Order? And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.

Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people. It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people. But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.

If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure. You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion. Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths. For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. You won't believe that either, but it's true. The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't. If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it. You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you. IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record." Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking? HELL NO. It will be just like a "criminal record." Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent. I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes

You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject. It's something you can live with without taking medication. We were talking about criminal records, not mental records. You keep detouring the subject all the time.

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred. Criminal records are not. Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river. The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt. The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it. The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety. So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.

No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person. It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.

No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous. The government is we the people. When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail. We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.

So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous? A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous? Only in Ray's world.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure. You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion. Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths. For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. You won't believe that either, but it's true. The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't. If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it. You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you. IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record." Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking? HELL NO. It will be just like a "criminal record." Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent. I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes

You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject. It's something you can live with without taking medication. We were talking about criminal records, not mental records. You keep detouring the subject all the time.

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred. Criminal records are not. Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river. The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt. The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it. The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety. So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.

You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.

Mental health records are not sacred. There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights. WHEN it happens, get back to me.

Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.

And neither does criminal records being public.

The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs. You have admitted that, sir.

What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.

In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea. If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.

Because government doesn't make my decisions for me. I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have. One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con. I don't. I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.

It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you. Rush Limbaugh does that. But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.

 

[toobfreak]

It’s a waste of money .

It's a waste of skin.

Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border. The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.

AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.

PROVE ME WRONG. Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall

Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again? You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions. When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work? It's painfully transparent.

I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea. The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate. When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.

Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve. When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point. Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.

Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing. If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.

I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans. The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in. Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.

For everything you gain there is something lost. Trump isn't God. He is playing the Art of the Deal. You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It’s a waste of money .

View attachment 236224
It's a waste of skin.

Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border. The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.

AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.

PROVE ME WRONG. Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.

It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security. Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.

The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue. History has already proven you wrong.

The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense. Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE. How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?

Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government. With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them. I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax. And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes? Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS. Yet you don't learn from history.

 

[toobfreak]

a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.

looking for a problem to solve

looking for a problem to solve

looking for a problem to solve

looking for a problem to solve

**** YOU, Rockhead. We're sick of your blind obtuseness, your refusal to face reality, while attacking anyone who differs with you with the claim of having a "low IQ." If you want these people so much, MOVE THEM INTO YOUR BACKYARD. I don't want these unskilled, uneducated, disease-ridden losers taking up my hard-won land and tax dollars.

 

[Leo123]

I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself, I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
They are more productive than lot of fat **** racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.

So you are an illegal alien?

 

[Issa]

I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself, I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
They are more productive than lot of fat **** racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.

So you are an illegal alien?

Nope. What if I was ?

 

[Issa]

a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.

looking for a problem to solve

View attachment 236231

looking for a problem to solve

View attachment 236232

looking for a problem to solve

View attachment 236233


looking for a problem to solve

View attachment 236234


**** YOU, Rockhead. We're sick of your blind obtuseness, your refusal to face reality, while attacking anyone who differs with you with the claim of having a "low IQ." If you want these people so much, MOVE THEM INTO YOUR BACKYARD. I don't want these unskilled, uneducated, disease-ridden losers taking up my hard-won land and tax dollars.

Cut the military budget if you dont want your tax money wasted.

 

[Synthaholic]

For one thing it a wall would be an ecological disaster for wildlife and the Rio Grande.