cop, legal immigrant, murdered by illegal immigrant in xmas day

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The liberal arguments here, are laughably absurd. Read them, and think honestly about them for a minute. Because the wall won't reduce illegal immigration to zero, that means its not a good idea? we have laws against murder, but people still get murdered. So should we do away with those laws?

I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument.

Even the govt’s own study last year concluded we didn’t need a wall. It’s a campaign stunt not immigration policy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings,

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

Just another example of Trump's base buying into the misinformation and fear.. of brown people

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.

No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Upper end of what you'd be OK forgiving? Multiple DUIs?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?"

So unless the wall can fix every aspect of immigration, as well as cure cancer, it's not worth building?

People still escape from prison despite the existence of prison guards, so should we do away with prison guards (see what I did there? I used your "logic").

No ne said the wall was perfect, and that it would reduce illegal immigration to zero. What people are saying (thoughtful, sane people that is),is that it will help. I keep seeing that between 1,000 and 3,000 people a day cross the border. Some of them will have the ability to bypass a wall. Some will not. The wall will help. It won't reduce the number of people crossing illegally to zero, but it will reduce it from where it is today.

It's obvious common sense. You really disagree with that?

Trump is the only person in the conversation lacking common sense

that a Wall doesn’t work. It does, and properly built, almost 100%! They say it’s old technology - but so is the wheel.

or “Jeb Bush just talked about my border proposal to build a ‘fence,’” he tweeted. “It’s not a fence, Jeb, it’s a WALL, and there’s a BIG difference!” or President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!

...The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, to bad there is no wall around the house

we could go all day now his people are backpedaling again

“To be honest, it’s not a wall,” Kelly said, adding that the mix of technological enhancements and “steel slat” barriers the president now wants along the border resulted from conversations with law enforcement professionals.

Graham “the wall has become a metaphor for border security” and referred to “a physical barrier along the border.”

this is my favorite to bad he might not have said it but i can't be 100 % Sure

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by basswipe

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...017/924316002/

Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017

here is reality Trump and his administration have focused far more on building a wall along the southern border with Mexico,

why would that be??????

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...017/924316002/

Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017

here is reality Trump and his administration have focused far more on building a wall along the southern border with Mexico,

why would that be??????

Your article points out, rather quietly, that Trump addressed the overstay problem, and that the numbers have gone down since 2016.

Why do you say that the administration has focused far more on building a wall? It focused on the overstay and Congress has quietly implemented, as your article states, the "biometric entry-exit tracking system that would better monitor foreigners who legally visit the United States. Completion of that system, which uses fingerprints and iris scans to more accurately capture when people enter and exit the country, was included in an executive order he signed shortly after being sworn in as president."

But Congress is not cooperating on the wall, that's why the focus seems to be so large on building the wall.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fact Check.org has quoted the estimate that about 44% of the "undocumented population" are those who overstayed their visas.

Of Course, government "estimates" are ridiculously low for various reasons (political to hiding incompetence). There are probably way, way, more illegals than the low ball official estimates.

In any case, whether the % is visa overstay or border crossing, either is a large number and both have to be addressed, as has been the visa overstay issue.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We know he was arrested twice for DUI but I don’t know if he was ever convicted. If the DUIs didn’t have aggravating factors I’m not sure that just because he’s illegal makes much of a difference. If he got a third he could have faced harsher charges that didn’t have any protection.

Yay, you said "illegal", but, then, of course, you question if being illegal makes any difference. The premise being . . . oh, I dunno . . . that he actually has the right to be here?

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about being illegal is the line?

[wdmso]

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says Pelosi & Schumer have "blood on their hands" for refusing to secure the border: “Democrats have an open borders philosophy, they don’t believe in border security, they believe this is the way to change the American electorate in order to win elections.”

And once again as if on cue the conspiracy theory's flow

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your article points out, rather quietly, that Trump addressed the overstay problem, and that the numbers have gone down since 2016.

Why do you say that the administration has focused far more on building a wall? It focused on the overstay and Congress has quietly implemented, as your article states, the "biometric entry-exit tracking system that would better monitor foreigners who legally visit the United States. Completion of that system, which uses fingerprints and iris scans to more accurately capture when people enter and exit the country, was included in an executive order he signed shortly after being sworn in as president."

But Congress is not cooperating on the wall, that's why the focus seems to be so large on building the wall.

Despite those gradual improvements, the report acknowledges that there is "no specific cause that can be directly attributed to the decrease in overstay rates" in 2017. Guess you missed that

and executive orders once deemed bad are not a replacement for legislation .. which some how could not be passed by his own party ...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument.

Even the govt’s own study last year concluded we didn’t need a wall. It’s a campaign stunt not immigration policy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument."

Everyone is making that argument, saying that people can circumvent the wall by going under or over. Using that logic, we should all leave our doors wide open at night, because some burglars know how to bypass deadbolts.

yOu used a different argument, that "so many" police chiefs support it. But you provided zero evidence to support that made up, self serving statement.

The wall is a campaign stunt? I'd bet my life, in return for 50 cents on your end, that you didn't say that when Schumer and Bernie supported a wall. Was it merely a campaign stunt then?

Spence, do you have ANY principles. other than agree with what liberals are saying at the moment? Is that literally the only thing that guides you?

I don't know that we "need" a wall. But it would help reduce illegal immigration.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Despite those gradual improvements, the report acknowledges that there is "no specific cause that can be directly attributed to the decrease in overstay rates" in 2017. Guess you missed that

No I didn't miss that. I also did not miss that the administration addressed the problem and that the overstay rates decreased. "Specific" causes often cannot be verified. If you cannot verify a specific cause then you cannot specifically say that desired results are not caused by an implemented policy. If you don't know why the good thing happened, you cannot categorically say that it was not the result of the policy.

Of course, if you want to slant in the direction that the policy was not the cause, you can weasel word your denial by saying that you cannot "attribute" the connection, rather than definitively saying that the policy was absolutely not the cause.

I responded to your accusation or implication that Trump was focusing "far more" on the wall and why was that so. The administration addressed the overstay problem, and the problem decreased. Spin it however you want, but the fact remains.

and executive orders once deemed bad are not a replacement for legislation .. which some how could not be passed by his own party ...

His party did pass wall funding in the House. The Senate required the other party's help--which was not given.

And executive orders are bad or wrong only when they order something that does not fall within the purview of Article 2 of the Constitution. That is still the case, regardless of who trespasses that restraint, nor of which party allows it to stand. Unfortunately, party power concerns and judicial corruption and inertia have been letting the abuse stand.

That's one of the reasons that the Constitution is barely hanging on, as they say, by a thread--or a few threads.

[detbuch]

Interesting article in the LA Times on a new migration pattern:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mi...cid=spartanntp

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How about being illegal is the line?

Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Fact Check.org has quoted the estimate that about 44% of the "undocumented population" are those who overstayed their visas.

Of Course, government "estimates" are ridiculously low for various reasons (political to hiding incompetence). There are probably way, way, more illegals than the low ball official estimates.

In any case, whether the % is visa overstay or border crossing, either is a large number and both have to be addressed, as has been the visa overstay issue.

I think 44 percent is the overall population with the ratio being much higher in recent years. Likely a result of illegal border crossings being so historically low the last decade.

Still, it’s roughly half which supports wdmso’s statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument."

Everyone is making that argument, saying that people can circumvent the wall by going under or over. Using that logic, we should all leave our doors wide open at night, because some burglars know how to bypass deadbolts.

yOu used a different argument, that "so many" police chiefs support it. But you provided zero evidence to support that made up, self serving statement.

The wall is a campaign stunt? I'd bet my life, in return for 50 cents on your end, that you didn't say that when Schumer and Bernie supported a wall. Was it merely a campaign stunt then?

Spence, do you have ANY principles. other than agree with what liberals are saying at the moment? Is that literally the only thing that guides you?

I don't know that we "need" a wall. But it would help reduce illegal immigration.

Since when were Schumer and Sanders big wall proponents?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think 44 percent is the overall population with the ratio being much higher in recent years. Likely a result of illegal border crossings being so historically low the last decade.

This is very authoritative sounding verbal mish mash.

Still, it’s roughly half which supports wdmso’s statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When dealing with millions, 44% vs. 50% is a big difference. And its way different than the 60% you were pretty sure of. But, in any case, either is huge in itself and needs fixing. Comparison, any way, is irrelevant. Fixing one is not at the expense of the other. The border problem needs its own solution. Trying to compare it to another problem in a negative way does not diminish it. It's just a misdirection attempting to disparage the need for a wall.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Since when were Schumer and Sanders big wall proponents?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When dealing with millions, 44% vs. 50% is a big difference. And its way different than the 60% you were pretty sure of. But, in any case, either is huge in itself and needs fixing. Comparison, any way, is irrelevant. Fixing one is not at the expense of the other. The border problem needs its own solution. Trying to compare it to another problem in a negative way does not diminish it. It's just a misdirection attempting to disparage the need for a wall.

It’s not a misdirection, rather it highlights Trump’s motivation is mostly political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.

It doesn’t mean they have a specific right to be here, but it’s an acceptance they they are here, they are an important part of our economy and their presence as undocumented isn’t a crime. It’s a complex systems issue not something you can just boil down to extremes. Reagan understood this, HW understood this, Clinton understood this, W understood this and Obama understood this. Trump, not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha
Love this post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aug 25, 2015 07:39:01 AM Jeb Bush just talked about my border proposal to build a "fence." It's not a fence, Jeb, it's a WALL, and there's a BIG difference!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s not a misdirection, rather it highlights Trump’s motivation is mostly political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it is a misdirection from the wall to the overstays. Each has their own solutions. If it were, as you say, that there is a 50/50 split in how many of each are here, then each is equally important to solve. To deke from one to another as if to say the previous is not valid but merely political is deliberate misdirection.

And OMG, pointing out that a politician's motive is mostly political . . . what a revelation!!! Mostly any politician's motive is mostly political. Pelosi's and Schumer's motives are mostly political. Probably more mostly than Trump's.

(And BTW, "mostly" of something indicates there is more of other somethings. In this case, a need to control illegal border crossings. Your slippery, indefinite verbiage notwithstanding.)

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It doesn’t mean they have a specific right to be here, but it’s an acceptance they they are here,

If not a "specific" right, then what "general" right do they have to be here? And why must we accept that they are here? If we must accept their being here, isn't that tantamount to saying that they have a right to be here?

they are an important part of our economy and their presence as undocumented isn’t a crime.

They distort our economy as well as straining the resources we have to serve "legal" residents. Our economy would work without them. It would, in my opinion, raise the value of the work they actually do if done by "legal" Americans who would demand higher wages. The so-called middle class problem we are supposed to be experiencing could be lessened. And our resources, including welfare care of all kinds would not be stretched to include the extra many millions of illegals.

And the issue is not criminal, it is "legal." Because something is illegal, doesn't mean it is necessarily a crime. They are illegal aliens. The apologetic rhetoric you always use to justify the difficulty we must go through to stop the flow of illegal residents reminds me of an immigration lawyer I dealt with who was really, when push came to shove, in favor of mass immigration from south of the border and from impoverished countries. He absolutely felt that they had a right to come and stay here and become citizens. He used the criminal and economic gibberish that you couch your apologetics with to make it sound legal and right. But he basically actually believes we have an obligation to accept the vast majority of them.

That he made his money off of them might be a factor, but I think his motives were "mostly" idealistic.

It’s a complex systems issue not something you can just boil down to extremes. Reagan understood this, HW understood this, Clinton understood this, W understood this and Obama understood this. Trump, not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do realize they all had "mostly" political motivations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, a vague insult with nothing specific about why I was wrong. It's almost all you do.

Spence, let me ask you this...what's the most significant policy agenda item, on which you completely disagree with liberalism? I completely disagree with conservatives on gay marriage and the death penalty, and I have disagreements with conservatism on gun control and on the obligation to provide healthcare to everyone. I can think for myself, which is why I'd never agree 100% of the time with any one party.

How about you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, a vague insult with nothing specific about why I was wrong. It's almost all you do.

Spence, let me ask you this...what's the most significant policy agenda item, on which you completely disagree with liberalism? I completely disagree with conservatives on gay marriage and the death penalty, and I have disagreements with conservatism on gun control and on the obligation to provide healthcare to everyone. I can think for myself, which is why I'd never agree 100% of the time with any one party.

How about you?

I don’t think of liberalism as some monolithic block. Mostly I’m a centrist, not a liberal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Completely false on both points.
.
Are you sure or just "pretty sure"?.Big difference between the two...one is an opinion and the other is a fact.