U.S. Senate Turns Back On Border Fence

[encmetalhead]

By: Joe Murray, The Bulletin
01/02/2008

In a quiet act of defiance, the Senate approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill that removed legal requirements mandating the federal government fund 854 miles of a double layer border fence spanning America's southwestern border.
Advertisement


The funding requirement was codified into law when Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act (SFA) in 2006.

When the spending bill, which combines appropriations for a number of federal agencies, reached the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) attached S.Amdt. 2466 to the measure in order to silently gut the SFA's spending requirement.

The Hutchison amendment reads, "Nothing in this paragraph shall require the secretary of homeland security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location." Thus, critics argue the amendment results in a de facto repeal of the SFA.

"The Hutchison amendment gives DHS virtually total discretion over how and where the fence is built," commented Steve Elliott, president of Grassfire.org. "In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location - and the double-layer mandate is totally gone."

The double-layer border fence, which was premised on the fence erected outside San Diego, consists of two layers of fencing with a border patrol access road separating the fencing. California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who is also running for the Republican nomination, was instrumental in building the fence in San Diego and boasts the fence reduced the smuggling of drugs and people into San Diego by 90 percent. Mr. Hunter further contends his fence is virtually impenetrable.

"If you get over my fence, we sign you up for the Olympics immediately," Mr. Hunter repeatedly jokes on the campaign trail. The success of the San Diego fence was so great that Mr. Hunter wrote the SFA to extend it all the way across the southwest border.

But with the Senate's amendment, the fate of the fence remains in limbo and sets the stage for another congressional showdown on immigration now that the amended Senate version comes back to the House for consideration.

"Congress truly pulled the rug out from under us while we were doing our last-minute holiday shopping, deceiving the American people and only showing goodwill to the 12 million lawbreakers living among us," sates Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Mr. Simcox had pledged to rally his Minutemen to secure funding for the fence, and Mr. Hunter is prepared to do battle as well.

"If Congress is to reverse its border stance after just one year, what message does that send to illegal immigrants and drug smugglers who are watching to see how serious we are about protecting America's borders?" Mr. Hunter asked.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19161424&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=618959&rfi=6

[Akira]

Great news.
That damn fence always sounded like a bad satire to me.

[encmetalhead]

what the hell are you talking about? that's bad news, we need to stop the wave of illigal immigrants from entering the country

[Akira]

With a giant fence?

How about we reform the immigration system so that Mexicans who don't want anything but the opportunity to come here, work hard, and make better lives actually can.

[TheDarkHorse]

How about we reform the immigration system so that Mexicans who don't want anything but the opportunity to come here, work hard, and make better lives actually can.

but isn't that what the typical immigrant wants?

and 'illegal immigrants' and 'mexicans' are not synonymous. Its not directed towards you, I'm just stating this so people don't senselessly call anyone a racist.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If we could get a system that could do that we might as well solve world hunger while were at it.

Edit: To akira

[J Rad]

This is bullshit. The fence obviously works and it's a good idea, so what the hell is the problem? **** Congress and everyone in it.

[encmetalhead]

i just think they're trying to hide this from the public since 95% of the general public wants the fench and they chooce the week that the carcuss is happening to pass the bill with this rider

[TheDarkHorse]

This is bullpoop. The fence obviously works and it's a good idea, so what the hell is the problem? **** Congress and everyone in it.

the people who think the fence is a 4 foot tall, flimsy-wire gate are the problem.
i just think they're trying to hide this from the public since 95% of the general public wants the fench
stats please? I think thats way off

[bleep_bloop]

a fence is a terrible idea

[WhoDidTheElf]

Why?

[Danger Bird]

I can't believe people are falling all over themselves to spend billions to add 3 minutes of travel time to an illegal immigrant's trip.

[Mr. Ron]

what the hell are you talking about? that's bad news, we need to stop the wave of illigal immigrants from entering the country
lmfao


"There's a 10 foot high fence in our way!"



"Get the 11 foot ladder!"

[Amit]

haha yeah seriously

[TheDarkHorse]

I can't believe people are falling all over themselves to spend billions to add 3 minutes of travel time to an illegal immigrant's trip.
what do you think the billions will be spent on?

it won't be that easy

lmfao


"There's a 10 foot high fence in our way!"



"Get the 11 foot ladder!"
you do know this fence comes with other physical barriers, cameras, and sensors?

[Danger Bird]

what do you think the billions will be spent on?

it won't be that easy
Um, I think billions will be spent on building a fence across the entire US/Mexico border.

Fencing the border, originally proposed in the debate over how to stop illegal immigration, is controversial. The Bush administration argues that a Berlin Wall-style barrier would be a huge waste of money — costing up to $8 billion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-17-border-fence_x.htm

And yes. It would be that easy.

you do know this fence comes with other physical barriers, cameras, and sensors?

In what universe is this practical? Does the US not have enough debt or something?

[encmetalhead]

we're never going to gt out of debt anyway with the current political system(with Republicans around) so who cares if we go deeper in debt?

screw Republicans and just be democrats it will keep more evironmental space and get us out of debt

[spitfirejunky]

we're never going to gt out of debt anyway with the current political system(with Republicans around) so who cares if we go deeper in debt?

...

[Akira]

...

Any time is a good time for an trendy GOP slam.

[TheDarkHorse]

Um, I think billions will be spent on building a fence across the entire US/Mexico border.

you think its some lame garden fence?


In what universe is this practical? Does the US not have enough debt or something?
1. Look at Israel's border fence
2. Read HR 6061 and realize how much technology the wall will contain
3. Has money EVER been an issue for our incompetent government?

[Invicta_Veritas]

How about we simply actually enforce the immigration laws already on the books.

We might not need a stupid fence then.

[Mr. Ron]

what do you think the billions will be spent on?

it won't be that easy


you do know this fence comes with other physical barriers, cameras, and sensors?
It was a joke, and yes I've read about the plans. It won't stop any real numbers of immigrants coming in.

[Smokey D]

The fence is an expensive band aid that won't solve the underlying issues of illegal immigration. It won't change the fact that there are already something like 11 million illegals in the States, nor will it change the fact that the American economy has come to rely on the cheap labour provided by illegals and that there remain considerable incentives for companies to hire illegals over citizens.

[Invicta_Veritas]

The fence is an expensive band aid that won't solve the underlying issues of illegal immigration. It won't change the fact that there are already something like 11 million illegals in the States, nor will it change the fact that the American economy has come to rely on the cheap labour provided by illegals and that there remain considerable incentives for companies to hire illegals over citizens.

Truth be told :thumb:.


I believe we need to target the issues that are already present within our borders regarding the subject....as well as my earlier statement of enforcing legislation already on the books...then a bloody fence wouldn't be necessary.

In order to have an effective solution, you must target the problem, and the problem is us, tbqh.

[Det_Nosnip]

Whoa...something good came from Texas other than me? :p

Good for you, Hutchinson.

btw the solution to illegal immigration is legalization.

[Invicta_Veritas]

btw the solution to illegal immigration is legalization.

Define legalisation. If you allow anyone who wants to enter the country to do so, you severely threaten national security.

Not to mention you will practically hand over Arizona and New Mexico to the Mexican government.

[Det_Nosnip]

Nope. Immigration and national security are completely unrelated.

Your second part makes no sense, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.

[Invicta_Veritas]

Nope. Immigration and national security are completely unrelated.

A freer population flow makes it easier for radicals and revolutionaries to take hold within our borders.

Your second part makes no sense, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.

You're talking about basically opening the floodgates, as if that hasn't been done enough through our own lack of control. Those two states would basically be overrun by the Mexican populous, and also be subsequently controlled by Mexican ideals, despite the fact that this is America, not Mexico.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense.

[Cain]

lmfao


"There's a 10 foot high fence in our way!"



"Get the 11 foot ladder!"

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. Ron again.

[Against Miik!]

I thinks we are way to lenient with illegals. I'm sorry its not being racist. Legal immigration is fine by me. Fix the law to make it reasonable to get into this country legally. If that happens, and large amounts of illegals are still coming over, then we have to take more serious actions. And if we do catch them now, please, don't put them in our prisons. Its such a drain of our own resources. Just send em back. And if they come back here, send em back again, I don't care.

[Invicta_Veritas]

I thinks we are way to lenient with illegals. I'm sorry its not being racist. Legal immigration is fine by me. Fix the law to make it reasonable to get into this country legally. If that happens, and large amounts of illegals are still coming over, then we have to take more serious actions. And if we do catch them now, please, don't put them in our prisons. Its such a drain of our own resources. Just send em back. And if they come back here, send em back again, I don't care.

This. Except the law is reasonable to get into this country already...there's just a horridly long list and waiting period. Other than that, I completely agree with you. We have decent immigration laws, we need to actually enforce them. Deportation costs far less than supporting them in our prisons and our medical care, and I'm sorry, but also our welfare programs. This is one of the main reasons taxes here in Arizona are so freaking high...

[Det_Nosnip]

A freer population flow makes it easier for radicals and revolutionaries to take hold within our borders.
This country was founded by radicals and revolutionaries. I also have yet to see a significant radical or revolutionary who came from the southern border and posed a significant threat to the US...

Most of 'em seem to be coming from planes. I mean, honestly...who do you think is planning the next attack? Pancho Villa? :lol:


You're talking about basically opening the floodgates, as if that hasn't been done enough through our own lack of control.
The lack of control is inevitable. It simply is not realistic to control immigration, particularly given the dire straits many of these people are in. The 10 ft/11 ft wall joke is actually pretty accurate, metaphorically speaking.

Those two states would basically be overrun by the Mexican populous, and also be subsequently controlled by Mexican ideals, despite the fact that this is America, not Mexico.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense.

Not really. Neither the populous nor the ideals equate to the government of Mexico...which basically means that your real problem is that people of the Mexican RACE would be living in the area, which reinforces the fact that nearly all anti-immigration arguements contain an underlying layer of anti-Hispanic racism.

Did this become an Irish country when immigrants poured in by the thousands in the 19th century? Did it become an Italian country? Polish? German? No. Mexicans aren't any different from any of these populations, aside from the proximity of their country of origin.

Which is still irrelevant.

[Danger Bird]

you think its some lame garden fence?


1. Look at Israel's border fence
2. Read HR 6061 and realize how much technology the wall will contain
3. Has money EVER been an issue for our incompetent government?

The solution to out of control spending is not more spending.

[Invicta_Veritas]

Not really. Neither the populous nor the ideals equate to the government of Mexico...which basically means that your real problem is that people of the Mexican RACE would be living in the area, which reinforces the fact that nearly all anti-immigration arguements contain an underlying layer of anti-Hispanic racism.

There are plenty of people in the argument that are racist, yes; don't make the assumption that there is any racist intent in my views though.

My real problem is that jobs are difficult enough to get here in Arizona, and it's only getting worse...especially part time and labor work that college kids like myself need.

Taxes are high enough in Arizona, because of the overdependence of the immigratory populous on civil services such as medical care and police protection.

The majority of crime in the Phoenix area comes from two sources: gangs (To be expected) and the latino community (of which an alarming number are illegal immigrants).

And anyone who lives in Arizona or New Mexico every days sees the negative impact of the flood of illegal immigration. We are literally on the front lines and have to deal with it every day, while the rest of the nation and the world sits and speculates about it.

Did this become an Irish country when immigrants poured in by the thousands in the 19th century? Did it become an Italian country? Polish? German? No. Mexicans aren't any different from any of these populations, aside from the proximity of their country of origin.


It would be different if it wasn't 8,000 people per day. But it is. Do the math. We have a far more serious situation here than anything ever before.

[Det_Nosnip]

There are plenty of people in the argument that are racist, yes; don't make the assumption that there is any racist intent in my views though.
It's not an assumption; it's an extrapolation.

My real problem is that jobs are difficult enough to get here in Arizona, and it's only getting worse...especially part time and labor work that college kids like myself need.
Yeah, I'm SURE you need the work more than they do.

Taxes are high enough in Arizona, because of the overdependence of the immigratory populous on civil services such as medical care and police protection.
You're right...it's all their fault.

The majority of crime in the Phoenix area comes from two sources: gangs (To be expected) and the latino community (of which an alarming number are illegal immigrants).
The majority of crime in Chicago comes from African Americans. Does this mean that we should restrict African American population growth?

And anyone who lives in Arizona or New Mexico every days sees the negative impact of the flood of illegal immigration. We are literally on the front lines and have to deal with it every day, while the rest of the nation and the world sits and speculates about it.
Hmm...I'm originally from San Antonio, TX. 60% (last I checked...probably higher now) of the town is Hispanic, many of which are illegal. Chicago also has an enormous hispanic population. I'd say I'm on the front lines as well, and I've dealt with it every day. My experience has been that most of the Mexicans I've encountered work 10x harder for 10x less pay than any whiteboy I've ever met, and complain about 100x less. They also make awesome food.


It would be different if it wasn't 8,000 people per day. But it is. Do the math. We have a far more serious situation here than anything ever before.
Actually, it's nearly identical to the situation in the 1800s. Any idiot who looks at general immigration trends throughout history will realize that the immigration wave will eventually stabalize and everyone will forget about it in 20 years.

[Against Miik!]

Its a bit different than the 1800s when 85% of the country was still uninhabited

[Amit]

you say that like as if there's no room left in this country for people to live lmao

[Against Miik!]

Well its not about physical space any more. Its about resources.

[Amit]

that's not a problem either

it might be if we didn't have tons of really cheap labor

but thank god for illegal immigration

[Mr. Ron]

I thinks we are way to lenient with illegals. I'm sorry its not being racist. Legal immigration is fine by me. Fix the law to make it reasonable to get into this country legally. If that happens, and large amounts of illegals are still coming over, then we have to take more serious actions. And if we do catch them now, please, don't put them in our prisons. Its such a drain of our own resources. Just send em back. And if they come back here, send em back again, I don't care.
would that be ethical?

[Amit]

man i wonder how the native americans of this country must have felt when all those god damn illegal immigrants flooded their country and actually posed a threat to their way of life

[Against Miik!]

Well thats a whole other issue. Intelligent people understand we basically invaded this land. But its a new day, with different circumstances.

[Amit]

yeah you're right they're different circumstances

they aren't killing 90% of our population with disease or warfare

so we should let them in

[Mr. Ron]

yeah you're right they're different circumstances

they aren't killing 90% of our population with disease or warfare

so we should let them in

and who knows, maybe they will have blankets minus the small pox! :D

[Against Miik!]

yeah you are right we should all probably leave instead.

edit: actually instead of blankets with smallpox, they just bring the disease in on their skin

[Mr. Ron]

No, we should just let them in and let them become productive citizens.

[Against Miik!]

Thats called legal immigration bro, which we are all fine with, except complete morons

[Mr. Ron]

Thats called legal immigration bro, which we are all fine with, except complete morons

You don't understand how ****ed up the immigration process is to get into this country from Mexico, do you?

[Against Miik!]

I really don't. I've never immigrated (or emigrated? i dunno) anywhere. But thats why I said in another thread that a better option would be to create a better immigration system. We shouldn't make it easy to get in. Just reasonable. You have to be able to control the flow of people into your country, and at least keep tabs on them a little bit once they get here. At least in the early 1900s we had Ellis Island.

[Danger Bird]

and who knows, maybe they will have blankets minus the small pox! :D

I have a mexican blanket on my floor, it's really nice.

[TheDarkHorse]

The solution to out of control spending is not more spending.
spending is a means, not a solution

You don't understand how ****ed up the immigration process is to get into this country from Mexico, do you?
Its fairly easy, actually, if you're talking about visiting.

Naturalization is difficult, though. But hey, if others can do it, so can they.

[Amit]

lol @ naturalization being difficult

have you ever tried it

[TheDarkHorse]

lol @ naturalization being difficult

have you ever tried it

you must think its easy getting your visa

[Amit]

no i mean

that's quite the understatement you made about it being difficult

the US naturalization process is all shades of supreme retarded

[Valhall]

The bottom line is, what's illegal is illegal. If you're not supposed to be here, then American taxes should not support you, you should not hold an American job, you should not have access to American public services, and you should not be granted any constitutional rights. That's the entire point.

I'm so sick of these liberal idiots claiming we should be "tolerant", "accepting", "forgiving", and "giving" in every way shape and form. In the meantime, we cut ourselves in the throat.

Go look up the story of Richard Gonzales, Louis Gomez, andCarlos Reyna. They were patrol agents who did thier job well for years. They were fined and jailed for "not giving adequate medical attention" to an illegal alien who was injured in an attempt to flee them after being caught sneaking across the border. Not to mention, the "victim" and his family were allowed to sue in U.S. court and won over 2 million dollars! How backwards is this?

Det Nosip: This is not a normal "migration trend". It's on massive proportions never before seen. Go look up the statistics. 3 million a year. 15-20 Million already here. If you can calmy state that this doesn't put an unnatural strain on the economy, you are either lying, or honestly ignorant.

And it's not just about the illegal immigration. It's also about border security period. Three-quarters of the cocain and heroin in this country come across the U.S.-Mexico border. Why? Because our border security is crap, and to make matters worse, federal law now states that border patrol cannot fire upon immigrants or drug cartels (even if fired upon). It's also the most lax security for terrorists to enter through. The 9/11 Commission reports even uncovered that a number of highly ranked Al-Qaida figureslived in Tuscon, attended UA, and were accepted into the state's flight schools...even though they were here illegally.

Tell me none of this is a problem.

In case you are wondering, this is all very accessible information from the Arizona Republic's archives, Time Magazine articles, the 9/11 Comission's report, and various government pages.

[Against Miik!]

Three quarters of cocaine and heroin is brought here by the CIA. But your point still stands.

[Det_Nosnip]

and who knows, maybe they will have blankets minus the small pox! :D

Mexican blankets FTW

yeah you are right we should all probably leave instead.

edit: actually instead of blankets with smallpox, they just bring the disease in on their skin

You're ****ing kidding me...please tell me you're not citing that ridiculous Lou Dobbs piece?

That was proven completely wrong BTW.

[TheDarkHorse]

Three-quarters of the cocain and heroin in this country come across the U.S.-Mexico border. Why?
you did hear of the numerous border patrol agents who were paid to help smuggle drugs across right?

This is a corruption issue, not security.

[Valhall]

you did hear of the numerous border patrol agents who were paid to help smuggle drugs across right?

This is a corruption issue, not security.

Corruption is a security issue, I'm confused as to what your point is.

[Det_Nosnip]

The bottom line is, what's illegal is illegal.
lol...that statement is textbook Stage 4 moral development mentality. How old are you...15? Don't worry...I'm sure in a few years your brain will develop enough to realize how completely invalid your position is. :thumb:


If you're not supposed to be here, then American taxes should not support you, you should not hold an American job, you should not have access to American public services, and you should not be granted any constitutional rights. That's the entire point.
lol.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&q=US+Constitution


I'm so sick of these liberal idiots claiming we should be "tolerant", "accepting", "forgiving", and "giving" in every way shape and form.
Oh, how I LOVE confused conservative tantrums! Please, continue.

In the meantime, we cut ourselves in the throat.
lol emo politics


Go look up the story of Richard Gonzales, Louis Gomez, andCarlos Reyna. They were patrol agents who did thier job well for years. They were fined and jailed for "not giving adequate medical attention" to an illegal alien who was injured in an attempt to flee them after being caught sneaking across the border. Not to mention, the "victim" and his family were allowed to sue in U.S. court and won over 2 million dollars! How backwards is this?
Yeah, human rights are SO passe.

Det Nosip: This is not a normal "migration trend".
Yes it is.

It's on massive proportions never before seen.
Actually, it's about proportionate to all of the other immigration waves.

Go look up the statistics.
Already have.

3 million a year.
OMG!

15-20 Million already here.
OMG!

If you can calmy state that this doesn't put an unnatural strain on the economy, you are either lying, or honestly ignorant.
This doesn't put an unnatural strain on the economy.
BTW
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unnatural

And it's not just about the illegal immigration. It's also about border security period. Three-quarters of the cocain and heroin in this country come across the U.S.-Mexico border. Why?
Because 99.99999% of it is grown in Colombia?! :lol:

Because our border security is crap, and to make matters worse, federal law now states that border patrol cannot fire upon immigrants or drug cartels (even if fired upon). It's also the most lax security for terrorists to enter through. The 9/11 Commission reports even uncovered that a number of highly ranked Al-Qaida figureslived in Tuscon, attended UA, and were accepted into the state's flight schools...even though they were here illegally.

Tell me none of this is a problem.
None of this is a problem.

In case you are wondering, this is all very accessible information from the Arizona Republic's archives, Time Magazine articles, the 9/11 Comission's report, and various government pages.

I'm sure.

[Against Miik!]

You're ****ing kidding me...please tell me you're not citing that ridiculous Lou Dobbs piece?

That was proven completely wrong BTW.

I actually was kidding. Did Lou Dobbs say something along those lines?

Lou Dobbs is jackass. He has the right idea, maybe. But he's a jackass.

[Valhall]

lol...that statement is textbook Stage 4 moral development mentality. How old are you...15? Don't worry...I'm sure in a few years your brain will develop enough to realize how completely invalid your position is. :thumb:


The statement that the law should be upheld? Are you a 13-year-old "anarchist"? Seriously.

And the passiveness of people like you are the reason things happen under everyone's noses and nothing gets accomplished or dealt with. Refusal to ignore events that cause issues is proving to be the undermining of this nation.

Unless you want to offer up a better plan that would not compromise security, would restrict drug flow, would protect our citizens, and would spend our tax dollars better, don't lower yourself to insults.

Until then, enforcing deportation and enabling our border patrols to protect themselves and the country while doing thier job seems like a pretty good plan to me.

By the way, a completely legal American citizen who can speak our national language fluently, has a clean record, and has a proven work ethic/history gets routinely snuffed because an employer is willing to hire an illegal with no papers or legal right to even be here simply because he will take less pay. How is this not an issue? I understand it's capitalism, but capitalist economy it shouldn't trump established law. How is this not an issue?

[Det_Nosnip]

I actually was kidding. Did Lou Dobbs say something along those lines?


Yes...he reported that illegal immigrants were carrying the Bubonic plague.

[TheDarkHorse]

Corruption is a security issue, I'm confused as to what your point is.

my point is that a wall will not change the influx of drugs because the real problem is corruption.

Corruption is a personal issue within the border patrol unit, not a security issue that blankets the entire nation.

[Det_Nosnip]

The statement that the law should be upheld? Are you a 13-year-old "anarchist"? Seriously.
lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Man, I'm doing all of your research for you...I should start charging you by the hour.

And the passiveness of people like you are the reason things happen under everyone's noses and nothing gets accomplished or dealt with.
omg I'm so sorry.

Refusal to ignore events that cause issues is proving to be the undermining of this nation.
Huh? :confused:
Unless you want to offer up a better plan that would not compromise security, would restrict drug flow, would protect our citizens, and would spend our tax dollars better, don't lower yourself to insults.
Ok. Legalize them.

Until then, enforcing deportation and enabling our border patrols to protect themselves and the country while doing thier job seems like a pretty good plan to me.
Well, yeah...but anything sounds like a good idea when you're an idiot.

By the way, a completely legal American citizen who can speak our national language fluently, has a clean record, and has a proven work ethic/history gets routinely snuffed because an employer is willing to hire an illegal with no papers or legal right to even be here simply because he will take less pay. How is this not an issue? I understand it's capitalism, but capitalist economy it shouldn't trump established law. How is this not an issue?

Because the illegal would lose all of his supposed advantages if he were simply made legal.

[Against Miik!]

What advantages? Like the advantage of reaping the benefits of this country for nothing in return? Wow, I wish I had those advantages.

[Danger Bird]

Go look up the story of Richard Gonzales, Louis Gomez, andCarlos Reyna. They were patrol agents who did thier job well for years. They were fined and jailed for "not giving adequate medical attention" to an illegal alien who was injured in an attempt to flee them after being caught sneaking across the border. Not to mention, the "victim" and his family were allowed to sue in U.S. court and won over 2 million dollars! How backwards is this?
Somebody non-violently breaking the law does not give you license to let a man die. That's like saying if somebody falls in a well, they shouldn't get help because they shouldn't have been playing near the well.

[Valhall]

What advantages? Like the advantage of reaping the benefits of this country for nothing in return? Wow, I wish I had those advantages.

Rofl.


That's like saying if somebody falls in a well, they shouldn't get help because they shouldn't have been playing near the well.

That's actually what I do think. If I do something wrong/stupid/illegal, it's my own damn fault, and I don't expect anyone to carry me/pick me up afterwards. I hold that standard to everyone.

[Smokey D]

You're talking about basically opening the floodgates, as if that hasn't been done enough through our own lack of control. Those two states would basically be overrun by the Mexican populous, and also be subsequently controlled by Mexican ideals, despite the fact that this is America, not Mexico.



If it's full of Mexicans, it makes sense it has Mexican values. Not that Mexican values are very different from American values.

Go look up the story of Richard Gonzales, Louis Gomez, andCarlos Reyna. They were patrol agents who did thier job well for years. They were fined and jailed for "not giving adequate medical attention" to an illegal alien who was injured in an attempt to flee them after being caught sneaking across the border. Not to mention, the "victim" and his family were allowed to sue in U.S. court and won over 2 million dollars! How backwards is this?

Um, they broke the law and left themselves liable to a civil claim. That's how it's meant to work. And of course his family should pursue the case in a US court. Why wouldn't they?


What advantages? Like the advantage of reaping the benefits of this country for nothing in return? Wow, I wish I had those advantages.

They pay a lot and reap less benefits than you too.

That's actually what I do think. If I do something wrong/stupid/illegal, it's my own damn fault, and I don't expect anyone to carry me/pick me up afterwards. I hold that standard to everyone.

That's a stupid way of thinking.

[encmetalhead]

I'm so sick of these liberal idiots claiming we should be "tolerant", "accepting", "forgiving", and "giving" in every way shape and form. In the meantime, we cut ourselves in the throat.

I'm sorry but this democrat doesn't accept this response since Bush and the senator(sp?) that wrote this rider up are both Republicans. So who it tolerant and accepting now?

[Det_Nosnip]

What advantages? Like the advantage of reaping the benefits of this country for nothing in return? Wow, I wish I had those advantages.

Actually, I was referring to his supposed hiring advantages (lower pay, etc). If he were legal, he would be accounted for, and therefore entitled to federal minimum wage along with his whitey buddies.

[Iskandar]

By the way, a completely legal American citizen who can speak our national language fluentlyYou don't have a national language.

[Akira]

You don't have a national language.

That one kind of shocked me.

[Det_Nosnip]

Really? Why? I thought it was common knowledge...hence why so many conservos are gunning for its establishment. Or were you shocked that he didn't know that? :p

[Amit]

By the way, a completely legal American citizen who can speak our national language fluently

i can't stop laughing

[Valhall]

Bu national language, I meant the language that is accepted and used by the vast majority of the nation. I'm sorry, but the rest of us shouldn't have to struggle to understand someone who hasn't been naturalized. One of the requirements for valid citizenship (which isn't enforced) is the ability to speak English fluently, which very few of them possess). It's not that demanding of a requirement, and it's there for a reason.


Det Nosip: The fact that you don't seem to care what or who crosses our border is ridiculous.

A large convoy of Al Qaida agents appears at the border, visibly armed, with a truck that has a big, bold sign on it: "This is a bomb, we're headed for an airport".

Det Nosip's response?

"Welcome to America, boys! Give me a hug. By the way, Sky Harbor International is that way!"

Due to his overwhelming open arms and "peaceful" mentality, Det Nosip becomes president.

"Sir, a terrorist just snuck into the country and blew up the pentagon".

Det Nosip's response?

"So?"


That's why you're a "mod" on an internet forum, and not in any kind of position of political power.

[Iskandar]

Bu national language, I meant the language that is accepted and used by the vast majority of the nation. I'm sorry, but the rest of us shouldn't have to struggle to understand someone who hasn't been naturalized.I mean the language that is accepted and used by the vast majority of the immigrants. I'm sorry, but the rest of us shouldn't have to struggle to understand someone who hasn't been born here.

One of the requirements for valid citizenship (which isn't enforced) Then it's irrelevant, isn't it?

[Valhall]

I mean the language that is accepted and used by the vast majority of the immigrants. I'm sorry, but the rest of us shouldn't have to struggle to understand someone who hasn't been born here.

Paraphrase me to make me look like the bad guy all you want, but when a country has had an accepted and established form of communication, that isn't something that should change because a bunch of people want to move in, whether we like it or not, and refuse to conform to our society.

Then it's irrelevant, isn't it?

But it should be, for above reasoning.

[Iskandar]

Paraphrase me to make me look like the bad guy all you want, but when a country has had an accepted and established form of communication, that isn't something that should change because a bunch of people want to move in, whether we like it or not, and refuse to conform to our society.You don't like it? Then don't talk to them. Or better, learn some Spanish. You want them to learn your language, they probably would like you to learn theirs too. Quid pro quo.

[Valhall]

Or better, learn some Spanish. You want them to learn your language, they probably would like you to learn theirs too.

I didn't choose to go to a Spanish Speaking country. They chose to come to an English speaking country.

[Iskandar]

I didn't choose to go to a Spanish Speaking country. They chose to come to an English speaking country.If you went to Spain, would you expect to get by exclusively in English?

[Valhall]

If you went to Spain, would you expect to get by exclusively in English?

No. But I don't plan on going to Spain, therefore I don't have the need to learn Spanish. Your argument holds no water.

[Iskandar]

No. But I don't plan on going to Spain, therefore I don't have the need to learn Spanish. Your argument holds no water.Sure it does. If you're going to be in contact with a large group of speakers of whatever language, it helps to know a bit of their lingo. As they say, When in Rome...

[Valhall]

Sure it does. If you're going to be in contact with a large group of speakers of whatever language, it helps to know a bit of their lingo. As they say, When in Rome...

When you choose to be in contact... should be the correct line of thought. I shouldn't be forced into anything if I didn't have a conscious choice.


By your same argument then, immigrants should learn to fluently speak english.

[RockAndRoll]

When you choose to be in contact... should be the correct line of thought. I shouldn't be forced into anything if I didn't have a conscious choice.

No, whether it's a choice or not it's still helpful to learn the language. I didn't chose to be born where I was, but it still helped for me to learn the local language.

[Valhall]

You're ignoring the fact that immigrants are bound by your same logic, thus supporting my point.

[RockAndRoll]

I never said it wouldn't be helpful for immigrants to learn english though. I don't think anyone did.

[Valhall]

Oh **** my bad. I thought that post was by Iskander.

He did though. Well, he said that regarding everyone else; but appears to claim for some reason that illegal immigrants are somehow exempt from his reasoning.

[Iskandar]

By your same argument then, immigrants should learn to fluently speak english.Of course they should. When did I say otherwise? It works both ways,

This is called tolerance.

[Amit]

Bu national language, I meant the language that is accepted and used by the vast majority of the nation. I'm sorry, but the rest of us shouldn't have to struggle to understand someone who hasn't been naturalized. One of the requirements for valid citizenship (which isn't enforced) is the ability to speak English fluently, which very few of them possess). It's not that demanding of a requirement, and it's there for a reason.

sorry kid that's not what a national language is

[Valhall]

//sheds a tear.

Ahh, now we've moved on to the liberal "tolerance" argument.


Anyway, why are you on my case for expecting them to fluently speak my language here then, if you feel the same way?

Amit: Yes, I know, my apologies for incorrect use of the term. However, I explained what I meant, so there's no further discussion to be had there.

[Iskandar]

Darn. Now that Amit's here, we're going to have to learn Bangla.

Ahh, now we've moved on to the liberal "tolerance" argument.Oh yes, tolerance is such a bad thing.


Anyway, why are you on my case for expecting them to fluently speak my language here then, if you feel the same way?Because you're on their case for speaking Spanish yet Americans by and large refuse to learn that magnificent tongue.

[Amit]

bangla is a far better and more expressive language than english anyway

[Mr. Ron]

//sheds a tear.

Ahh, now we've moved on to the liberal "tolerance" argument.


Anyway, why are you on my case for expecting them to fluently speak my language here then, if you feel the same way?

Amit: Yes, I know, my apologies for incorrect use of the term. However, I explained what I meant, so there's no further discussion to be had there.
can you please stop sounding like Bill O'reilly for like, one second?

[Iskandar]

can you please stop sounding like Bill O'reilly for like, one second?Another hopeless right-winger for us to remake in our own image, Ronald.

[Valhall]

can you please stop sounding like Bill O'reilly for like, one second?

Probably not, because I agree with 75% of what he says. Of course it's going to sound similar.

[Amit]

haha you agree with bill o'reilly

hahaha

[Mr. Ron]

Probably not, because I agree with 75% of what he says. Of course it's going to sound similar.
Wait, does any of that 75% include his phone sex he engaged in with unwilling interns or?

[Valhall]

No. It also doesn't include his Christian propaganda.

[Iskandar]

I give him three months before he's one of us.

[Valhall]

I give him three months before he's one of us.

Not likely. I was raised around liberal idiots (which ironically, is why I do hold some extreme leftist beliefs), so if I can tolerate that, I can put up with a bunch of idealistic kids on an internet forum.

[Mr. Ron]

Not likely. I was raised around liberal idiots (which ironically, is why I do hold some extreme leftist beliefs), so if I can tolerate that, I can put up with a bunch of idealistic kids on an internet forum.

Nonsense! I am a 20 year old man with chest hair and a Hyundai elantra!

[Iskandar]

Not likely. I was raised around liberal idiots (which ironically, is why I do hold some extreme leftist beliefs), so if I can tolerate that, I can put up with a bunch of idealistic kids on an internet forum.You hold some extreme leftist beliefs.

Like ... ?

[RockAndRoll]

Not likely. I was raised around liberal idiots (which ironically, is why I do hold some extreme leftist beliefs), so if I can tolerate that, I can put up with a bunch of idealistic kids on an internet forum.

We're idealist kids? You do realize that you think it's okay to let anyone buy nukes because you just need to keep the terrorists out, right? You're aware you hold that belief?

[monkeysonmars.]

lol

he's in a corner guys, get out your prodding sticks

[Valhall]

You hold some extreme leftist beliefs.

Like ... ?

Abortion should be completely legal, no questions asked.

[Mr. Ron]

Abortion should be completely legal, no questions asked.

I don't see how that is "extreme".

[Valhall]

I don't see how that is "extreme".

It's far left, in today's society. But that's hardly a huge argument or point I'm trying to make. I was just answering a question...

[Amit]

omg liberal idiots omg

[Iskandar]

It's far left, in today's society. But that's hardly a huge argument or point I'm trying to make. I was just answering a question...No it's not.

Anarcho-communism is an example of a far-left idea.

[Valhall]

Anarcho-communism is an example of a far-left idea.

But that's far from an established mainstream political stance, at least in America. In America, if you're extreme pro-choice, then you're considered extreme left.

[Amit]

umm how can you be extreme pro-choice

haha

I AM EXTREME PRO-PUBLIC LIBRARIES

[encmetalhead]

LIberals are far beter then conservatives

so bra will soon become a liberal

[Amit]

wait so vaghall is that bra guy everyone hates in r&m

no wonder he's trying to shack up in the pony forums

[Iskandar]

But that's far from an established mainstream political stance, at least in America. In America, if you're extreme pro-choice, then you're considered extreme left.The whole point of being extreme is that you're outside of normal political discourse.

[Valhall]

The whole point of being extreme is that you're outside of normal political discourse.

And saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion is realistically outside of the normal idealistic realm, at least around here.

[Amit]

umm no it isn't

[monkeysonmars.]

lol america is so ****ed up.

[Valhall]

Anywhere I have lived, it is. That's why I referred to it that way.

We can only speak of what we know and of our environment, sorry. If it's not extreme in the grand scheme of things, then fine. I wasn't aware of this.

[spitfirejunky]

lol Valhall, you have to get around.

[encmetalhead]

you've said it but it still is better then the middle east

[monkeysonmars.]

this is the country that makes steven think he's moderate

[Amit]

you've said it but it still is better then the middle east

um have you even lived in the middle east

[Knifeboy]

If you believe in abortion, no questions asked, up until right before the baby is actually born, then yeah, that would be extreme actually

But I don't see how that's being to the left, being against abortion got more to do with religious beliefs than the political spectrum

[Iskandar]

If you believe in abortion, no questions asked, up until right before the baby is actually born, then yeah, that would be extreme actuallyIn Canada it's legal until the third trimester, I believe.

[Valhall]

If you believe in abortion, no questions asked, up until right before the baby is actually born, then yeah, that would be extreme actually

But I don't see how that's being to the left, being against abortion got more to do with religious beliefs than the political spectrum


I do.

And supporting abortion doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with religious beliefs. Those who equate the two mix church and state uneccessarily.

I simply support it. Doesn't have anything to do with religion.

[Knifeboy]

I do.

And supporting abortion doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with religious beliefs. Those who equate the two mix church and state uneccessarily.

I simply support it. Doesn't have anything to do with religion.

You seem to be very anti-religious, and you're extremely pro-choice, kinda proving what I was saying

But regardless of that, I still say that abortion stance says close to nothing about political affiliation

In Canada it's legal until the third trimester, I believe.

I doubt it's no questions asked though
And are you sure? because third trimester abortions are kinda brutal

[Valhall]

You seem to be very anti-religious, and you're extremely pro-choice, kinda proving what I was saying

But regardless of that, I still say that abortion stance says close to nothing about political affiliation

The two are completely seperate in my mind, tbh.

And it does, considering it's a major political issue that tends to manifest itself differently in opposite political parties.

[encmetalhead]

in the US abortion does put you right or left but in the world it probably doesn't

[Knifeboy]

Opposite political parties in america, but that doesn't count.
There's as many pro-lifers on the left, as on the right, here in denmark

[Valhall]

Opposite political parties in america, but that doesn't count.
There's as many pro-lifers on the left, as on the right, here in denmark

Well that's what I was saying earlier, I'm from America, so that's why I referred to myself in that manner. I really don't know stances on abortion in other countries..

[Iskandar]

I doubt it's no questions asked though
And are you sure? because third trimester abortions are kinda brutalI believe it is no questions asked.

It's until the third trimester begins. After that, it's no longer an option.

[Knifeboy]

Ah okay, I think it's only the first trimester here.. But I think they're currently trying to change that, because there's a new test you can get at week 15-18, that shows if there's a big risk the child will be mentally handicapped

[J Rad]

Whoa...something good came from Texas other than me? :p

Good for you, Hutchinson.

btw the solution to illegal immigration is legalization.

Yeah man, amnesty! It's the way to go!

Forget national security and the on going efforts of local law enforcement agencies to keep illegals with violent criminal histories or a history of drug trafficking out of the country, let's just let them all in. You're such a smarty pants.

[encmetalhead]

J Rad's comment = :|

[monkeysonmars.]

give nuclear weapons to mexican terrorists for purpose of abortions

[Det_Nosnip]

Det Nosip: The fact that you don't seem to care what or who crosses our border is ridiculous.
I'm more concerned about who lands in our airports.

A large convoy of Al Qaida agents appears at the border, visibly armed, with a truck that has a big, bold sign on it: "This is a bomb, we're headed for an airport".
RIGHT.
Det Nosip's response?

"Welcome to America, boys! Give me a hug. By the way, Sky Harbor International is that way!"

Due to his overwhelming open arms and "peaceful" mentality, Det Nosip becomes president.

"Sir, a terrorist just snuck into the country and blew up the pentagon".

Det Nosip's response?

"So?"


That's why you're a "mod" on an internet forum, and not in any kind of position of political power.

lol. You literally are a self-parody.

[Valhall]

RIGHT.


Apparently you didn't see the blatant exaggeration in an attempt to unravel your uncaring attitude. Obviously they aren't going to roll up with a banner saying "this is a bomb, we're headed for an airport". Unfortunately for you, things aren't that obvious. God, for all your complaing of my idiocy, you truly don't seem to have a mind.

And if you truly are concerned with who lands in our airports, why were you so dismissive (and I quote: "So?") about the 9/11 Comission's reports on Al-Qaida figures entering the country illegally and learning to fly in Arizona flight schools?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Just a question out there, how do we keep illegals out? I mean a fence doesn't seem to fly well, so what will?

[Iskandar]

Make them legal.

[monkeysonmars.]

the uk is covered by water all the way around so as long as we have 'international territory' areas in all ports and airports we can reject even legitimate claims of asylum \:D/

[WhoDidTheElf]

Hell yeah, build a mote! That'd kick ***. We could like put great whites in it, and like have giant man eating squids and ****, that'd own.

[Amit]

moat*

[Iskandar]

Hell yeah, build a mote! That'd kick ***. We could like put great whites in it, and like have giant man eating squids and ****, that'd own.Racist.

[Det_Nosnip]

Apparently you didn't see the blatant exaggeration in an attempt to unravel your uncaring attitude. Obviously they aren't going to roll up with a banner saying "this is a bomb, we're headed for an airport". Unfortunately for you, things aren't that obvious. God, for all your complaing of my idiocy, you truly don't seem to have a mind.
lol. Actually, I was dismissing the very idea that they would roll up over the Mexican border in the first place.


And if you truly are concerned with who lands in our airports, why were you so dismissive (and I quote: "So?") about the 9/11 Comission's reports on Al-Qaida figures entering the country illegally and learning to fly in Arizona flight schools?

Because it doesn't have anything to do with illegal immigration...

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Just a question out there, how do we keep illegals out? I mean a fence doesn't seem to fly well, so what will?

Shoot them.

[Valhall]

Because it doesn't have anything to do with illegal immigration...

They were illegal immigrants, you dolt. Are you that retarded?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Shoot them.

I mean like a serious answer.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

My solution works wonders.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Granted it does, I just have a feeling the rest of the population won't see it in the best light.

[Smokey D]

Here's some interesting facts about illegal immigration.

Paul Rubin, Professor of Economics and Law at Emory University , has written for the Washington Post, "Economists have... long argued that the economics of immigration—immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people's labor—is positive sum. Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose. This zero-sum thinking leads us to see trade and immigration as conflict ("trade wars," "immigrant invaders") when trade and immigration actually produce cooperation and mutual benefit, the exact opposite of conflict.

Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes in a 2006 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Tax Lawyer of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "undocumented immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has discovered that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime.[42] However, crime rates from 1994 to 2005 have declined slightly, despite the fact that both legal and illegal immigration have increased.[43] Robert Sampson, Professor in Social Sciences at Harvard University, writes in Harvard Magazine in 2006 that being in the country illegally might give illegal aliens an "extra incentive to keep a clean record and not commit crimes, in order to avoid deportation".

[Valhall]

Shoot them.

QFT, tbh :lol:.

//waits for Tojes to come crashing through the ceiling...

[Amit]

Here's some interesting facts about illegal immigration.

Paul Rubin, Professor of Economics and Law at Emory University , has written for the Washington Post, "Economists have... long argued that the economics of immigration—immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people's labor—is positive sum. Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose. This zero-sum thinking leads us to see trade and immigration as conflict ("trade wars," "immigrant invaders") when trade and immigration actually produce cooperation and mutual benefit, the exact opposite of conflict.

Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes in a 2006 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Tax Lawyer of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation that the belief that und0cumented migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "und0cumented immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has discovered that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime.[42] However, crime rates from 1994 to 2005 have declined slightly, despite the fact that both legal and illegal immigration have increased.[43] Robert Sampson, Professor in Social Sciences at Harvard University, writes in Harvard Magazine in 2006 that being in the country illegally might give illegal aliens an "extra incentive to keep a clean record and not commit crimes, in order to avoid deportation".

funny how valhall won't ever respond to this

[Valhall]

Because I've thrown a large amount of facts out there. Honestly, we can toss facts and studies back and forth at each other all day long; those alone won't prove either one of us right. Therefore, we must argue based on reasoning and idealism, because there studies and statisctics to be had for both sides, that can be thrown back and forth til the cows come home.

I'm done with the game of "who can post more statistics in thier favour".

I have other things to do with my life than spend all day looking up more statistics to prove my point, when all someone is going to do is come back with a different number from a different study.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

But that's how true arguments and debates are...

[Valhall]

But that's how true arguments and debates are...


Which is why they go in circles and no one wins...

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Not if you kill all the people that disagree with you.

[Smokey D]

If you're relying on gut instinct and idealism and refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence or facts, then there's no point you being here.

[Valhall]

If you're relying on gut instinct and idealism and refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence or facts, then there's no point you being here.

I'm not. All I'm saying is what is the point of us throwing statistics back and forth as we have been? At some point you have to incorporate reason and common sense into your arguments, because each side has an equal amount of statistics to back themselves up.

[Smokey D]

Okay, but the info I posted is well reasoned. In fact, it's not statistics at all.

[Valhall]

Which is why I haven't commented on it until I can find a better arguement :thumb:.

However, common sense tells me that, unlike Det Nonsip's argument, we can't just drop all border security and not give a crap....that's a threat to national security for reasons other than just illegal immigration...

[TheDarkHorse]

Okay, but the info I posted is well reasoned. In fact, it's not statistics at all.

its from a reasonable standpoint, however not grounded in much fact.

Our government in actuality is spending more on illegals. For every dollar they spend, we spend 3 on them, so we can't say they're an economic wonder.

[Smokey D]

Cool. Do you have those stats?

[TheDarkHorse]

Cool. Do you have those stats?

sure. Its in the Heritage foundation study.

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=182919&Disp=8

if you want the original link ill find that for you

[Amit]

Which is why I haven't commented on it until I can find a better arguement :thumb:.

However, common sense tells me that, unlike Det Nonsip's argument, we can't just drop all border security and not give a crap....that's a threat to national security for reasons other than just illegal immigration...

common "sense" is a horrible horrible horrible way to analyze any sort of policy

[monkeysonmars.]

sure. Its in the Heritage foundation study.

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=182919&Disp=8

if you want the original link ill find that for you



that d0cument is arguing that low skilled workers are bad for the economy therefore illegal immigration would be harmful because they are generally low skilled workers. however you assume that all illegal immigrants are of the highschool dropout model i.e. low skilled, therefore paying ~$9,000 in taxes and receiving ~$30,000 in benefits. Those sums would only be for nationals, illegal immigrants wouldn't receive these state benefits, they'd receive some, but not the same as American born low skilled workers.

i guess that means you need illegals to try and save your economy from your average joe. :p

[encmetalhead]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo

[Mr. Ron]

QFT, tbh :lol:.

//waits for Tojes to come crashing through the ceiling...

wait what

[gregulus]

wait what

i think he just called tojes fat.

[monkeysonmars.]

oh what and cos he's black all he eats is KFC that he stole at gun point from a screaming female at the cash register? it's all coming out now.

[ringworm]

You don't understand how ****ed up the immigration process is to get into this country from Mexico, do you?
so any law I deem as ****ed up I can freely sidestep?

but the point is, try crossing a border illegally in another country and see what happens, are they just as ignorant for wanting you documented or following their laws like many people portray Americans?

and after reading this thread, I am firmly convinced that only a few people actually understand what the problems are and what needs to be done, the rest of you are just repeating crap you've heard someone else say on TV or some other political humor show

[Mr. Ron]

so any law I deem as ****ed up I can freely sidestep?

but the point is, try crossing a border illegally in another country and see what happens, are they just as ignorant for wanting you documented or following their laws like many people portray Americans?

and after reading this thread, I am firmly convinced that only a few people actually understand what the problems are and what needs to be done, the rest of you are just repeating crap you've heard someone else say on TV or some other political humor show

People who live in a shanty, near a polluted river, who have several children in need of medical care etc etc etc, shouldn't have to abide by our ****ed up laws and should break them. There, I said it.

[Valhall]

People who live in a shanty, near a polluted river, who have several children in need of medical care etc etc etc, shouldn't have to abide by our ****ed up laws and should break them. There, I said it.

And the most idiotic post of the day goes to....

There's people with that plight in the U.S. already. When did we become everybody's caretakers? They need to abide by our laws if they want to be here, regardless of what they "think" of them. We have enough of our own problems to take care of.

[132WalrusesInMexico]

Instead of jumping the gun and making a physical barrier, why not take away motivations for illegals to enter the US? Perhaps we could attempt to improve the economy in Mexico.

[Mr. Ron]

And the most idiotic post of the day goes to....

There's people with that plight in the U.S. already. When did we become everybody's caretakers? They need to abide by our laws if they want to be here, regardless of what they "think" of them. We have enough of our own problems to take care of.
Human life is above law.

[Valhall]

That's up to Mexico, not us. It's not up to us to spend more money on other countries. We're already in debt and we have plenty of internal matters to spend money on.

@Walruses

Mr. Ron: The defense of America's soveriegnity is beyond our "responsibility" to pay for other countries in any way, regardless of thier plight. That's what Mexico has a government for; it's Mexico's deal and they need to deal with it, instead of making it our issue.

[132WalrusesInMexico]

Yeah but building a huge wall will also put us farther into debt. Either way we're going to have to spend money to crack down on illegals.

[Valhall]

Yeah but building a huge wall will also put us farther into debt. Either way we're going to have to spend money to crack down on illegals.

We spend 10 Million dollars a year in services for Illegal immigrants. A 10 million dollar wall won't be effective, but I do think it's cheaper than several more years of spending on illegals.

What we need to do is fill a fleet of Boeings and fly them back to wherever they came from. Much cheaper solution. Then, enforce the laws we already have instead of trying to create new ones.

[132WalrusesInMexico]

If it's not effective, than what is the point?

[Valhall]

I never supported the fence. I was just making the point that we spend far more on doing nothing.

The fence is a load of crap. There are other, more effective means.

[ringworm]

And the most idiotic post of the day goes to....
yep, that was pretty bad

but i saw worse on the previous pages :p

[132WalrusesInMexico]

I never supported the fence. I was just making the point that we spend far more on doing nothing.

The fence is a load of crap. There are other, more effective means.
Okay, I guess you make more sense to me than.:thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

yep, that was pretty bad

but i saw worse on the previous pages :p

I don't think its that crazy of an opinion that human life is far more important than abiding by laws that would keep people from living.

[monkeysonmars.]

i'm going to pick up my book on the ethics and politics of asylum when i go round to my student house this evening, it's really good. there's a really funny letter from the home office they got hold of which is a reply to a man's request for asylum (you can claim asylum if the state cannot secure your life from non-state actors) and it basically says 'we understand that you have already been shot in the leg, however, due to the non-lethal nature of this attack we feel your life is not in imminent danger'. :lol:

[ringworm]

I don't think its that crazy of an opinion that human life is far more important than abiding by laws that would keep people from living.
I did say I've seen worse :)

but its not that, its just the manner

immigration debates have turned into an attack on personalities instead of real ideas and solutions, as soon as everyone will stop acting like children with the same repetative copy paste remarks that attempt to discredit rational concerns with insults on your beliefs, the people in charge of fixing it may change to, until then, they will be as indecisive and ineffective as we are

[encmetalhead]

easier solution: build a river and but puranas in it

[Mr. Ron]

yeah man totally

[gregulus]

Piranas? I say we fill the river with 18M hydrochloric acid.

[Babble]

Which is why I haven't commented on it until I can find a better arguement :thumb:.


If this is how you decide your political ideals, you are an icon of the mentality that's wrong with the United States.

You method seems to be thus:

-Take a position
-Hear questions
-Do research
-Field questions in defense of your position

when it should be

-Hear questions
-Do research
-Field questions
-Take position that agrees with the logical outcome of the questioning

if there is still further disagreement, it starts over. If you want to feild questions, you should relinquish your position long enough to get a full, unbiased few of the material.

[TheDarkHorse]

I don't think its that crazy of an opinion that human life is far more important than abiding by laws that would keep people from living.

hah

healthcare's free in mexico.

my dentist is across the border. Cheap as hell

[Mr. Ron]

hah

healthcare's free in mexico.

my dentist is across the border. Cheap as hell

by laws I mean our immigration policy.

[TheDarkHorse]

but I was referencing to that post you made about "need medical care"

[Hababi]

We spend 10 Million dollars a year in services for Illegal immigrants.


And in return they sustain the economy of California. Yeah, when you're living in the country and working, why should you not be able to send your kids to school?

Illegal immigration allows farmers and ranchers in the west to get by. Without their presence, production is diminished, because there is a shortage of labor.

[ringworm]

i'll ask again

is it possible, in other countries, western mostly, that other borders as wide open for crossing as our US Mexican border?

Could someone freely walk from one European country to another with no checks or interference and then request public service with the limited hassle that the US does?

[Hababi]

i'll ask again

is it possible, in other countries, western mostly, that other borders as wide open for crossing as our US Mexican border?

Could someone freely walk from one European country to another with no checks or interference and then request public service with the limited hassle that the US does?

The way the EU works they basically can ;)

[Iskandar]

The EU has freedom of movement within its borders, as far as I know.

[Smokey D]

Could someone freely walk from one European country to another with no checks or interference and then request public service with the limited hassle that the US does?

Yes. Except between Britain and the rest of Europe.

Anyway, the cost of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, shouldn't be measured in the cost of services meted out to them, but in terms of what they contribute as labourers and as consumers to the economy.

[Iskandar]

You should consider yourselves lucky to get cheap labour to exploit.

[ringworm]

what about like Germany to France?

[Valhall]

Here's the other side of things....if 8,000 illegals can cross our borders unchecked each day, is it really so hard to believe that other people/things can as well? I've stated alarming things before in this thread that nobody seemed to notice, but the fact remains that border security a national security issue.

[Iskandar]

what about like Germany to France?Yes, because they're both EU members and thus have freedom of movement between each other. Plus they share a border.

[ringworm]

completely unhindered?

[Valhall]

Here's the other side of things....if 8,000 illegals can cross our borders unchecked each day, is it really so hard to believe that other people/things can as well? I've stated alarming things before in this thread that nobody seemed to notice, but the fact remains that border security a national security issue.
...

[Iskandar]

completely unhindered?Pretty much.

[gregulus]

...
Yes, so building a fence will solve everything. Don't have to worry about terrorists anymore. We might as well build a wall along the outline of the country. Maybe even a dome. Like the Simpson's movie except without the quarantine (preferably with Spider Pig). Or some Mission Impossible laser beam ****. We might as well stop immigration all together, too. No one leaves or enters the country. It's a national security risk. No person of color should be able to speak with any other person of color, either. Especially if they have a beard. It's a national security risk. All white males should be armed with an assault rifle at all times as well. Gotta have that militia ready. National security is important.

[Smokey D]

completely unhindered?

Yes.

View Post
Here's the other side of things....if 8,000 illegals can cross our borders unchecked each day, is it really so hard to believe that other people/things can as well? I've stated alarming things before in this thread that nobody seemed to notice, but the fact remains that border security a national security issue.

I doubt increased vigilance on the border is really going to stop anyone who wants to harm your country from getting in, since most of them would just fly in unmolested.

[ringworm]

my plan is completely falling apart :p

could you hear my balloon popping, lol

[Valhall]

I don't support the fence :confused:

I've said repeatedly that's ineffective.

@gregulus

[ringworm]

i dont support a miserable attempt at it, maybe not even a fence alltogether, but i do support getting a handle on the situation

[Valhall]

I doubt increased vigilance on the border is really going to stop anyone who wants to harm your country from getting in, since most of them would just fly in unmolested.

That doesn't mean we should just let them have that avenue.

The excuse that "they're going to get in anyway" is absurd.

[gregulus]

Yes.



I doubt increased vigilance on the border is really going to stop anyone who wants to harm your country from getting in, since most of them would just fly in unmolested.

That's what the dome is for, dude.

[Smokey D]

That doesn't mean we should just let them have that avenue.

The excuse that "they're going to get in anyway" is absurd.

I'd propose using the money that would have been spent on better vigilance (not that there shouldn't be better vigilance, but it isn't a panacea) to consolidate gains in other areas.

[Knifeboy]

completely unhindered?

They have border patrol that randomly checks peoples baggage and spots criminals and stuff like that.
so maybe not -completely- unhindered :p

[monkeysonmars.]

tight border controls will stop illegals, not terrorists, therefore tight border controls should not be defended on the grounds they will keep terrorists out.

it's not absurd.

[Valhall]

tight border controls will stop illegals, not terrorists, therefore tight border controls should not be defended on the grounds they will keep terrorists out.

it's not absurd.

Terrorists and criminals are using the same avenue (border) to get in. I fail to see how increasing security will stop one but not the other.

And yes, "they'll get in anyway so why bother" is absurd. In that case, we should care about security at all.

Apparently we didn't learn a thing from 9/11.

[RockAndRoll]

Here's the other side of things....if 8,000 illegals can cross our borders unchecked each day, is it really so hard to believe that other people/things can as well? I've stated alarming things before in this thread that nobody seemed to notice, but the fact remains that border security a national security issue.

I just don't see how you can be so scared about people crossing your border, and yet be willing to give people nuclear weapons.

[gregulus]

Apparently we didn't learn a thing from 9/11.

Sure we did. We probably should stick our nose where it doesn't belong. We also probably shouldn't invade countries with no ties to anything related to attacks on us.

[Smokey D]

Terrorists and criminals are using the same avenue (border) to get in. I fail to see how increasing security will stop one but not the other.

And yes, "they'll get in anyway so why bother" is absurd. In that case, we should care about security at all.

Apparently we didn't learn a thing from 9/11.

9/11 has nothing to do with illegals since they were all in the states legally.

[monkeysonmars.]

Terrorists and criminals are using the same avenue (border) to get in. I fail to see how increasing security will stop one but not the other.

And yes, "they'll get in anyway so why bother" is absurd. In that case, we should care about security at all.

Apparently we didn't learn a thing from 9/11.

what 9/11 taught was that there is literally no security against terrorism except for removing its cause. so no, apparently you learned nothing from 9/11

[Hababi]

Terrorists and criminals are using the same avenue (border) to get in. I fail to see how increasing security will stop one but not the other.

And yes, "they'll get in anyway so why bother" is absurd. In that case, we should care about security at all.

Apparently we didn't learn a thing from 9/11.

How many of the 9/11 terrorists came through the Mexican border?

[Danger Bird]

But we sent over a messy, aggressive military campaign against a third world country for dubious reasons

That will stop hatred of the US, right?

[Valhall]

How many could have? Just because it didn't happen that way doesn't mean it's not an issue.

Do you want to wait until someone who got in illegally blows up the White House?

We can't keep waiting for bad stuff to happen to acknowledge it's a possibility to be concerned with.

[Danger Bird]

How many could have? Just because it didn't happen that way doesn't mean it's not an issue.
It sorta does, yeah

[monkeysonmars.]

it is not an issue because border controls will not stop terrorism.

[Hababi]

How many could have? Just because it didn't happen that way doesn't mean it's not an issue.


The point is that when you say

Terrorists and criminals are using the same avenue (border) to get in.


you're using rhetoric that doesn't have factual backing. Terrorists don't need to make an arduous and risky journey across the Mexican border because there are easier ways to get in, entirely legally.


Do you want to wait until someone who got in illegally blows up the White House?

FEAR


We can't keep waiting for bad stuff to happen to acknowledge it's a possibility to be concerned with.

You're presuming that I'm against improving border security. I am not. But don't conflate the issue with transparent fear mongering.

[Smokey D]

Introducing terrorism is just a way to sidestep the important issues since terrorists are most likely to be legal anyway.

[Valhall]

there are easier ways to get in

Yea, like stuffing money into the pockets of the Mexican military to give them an armed escort in a fleet of Hummers across the desert, knowing that law actually prohibits U.S. Border security from firing upon them even if fired upon.

Betcha didn't know that, did ya? No, because news media have better things to do, like cover the 2nd O.J. Simpson trial and other hogwash.

[monkeysonmars.]

but back to the point at hand...

[Det_Nosnip]

Do you want to wait until someone who got in illegally blows up the White House?


You say that like it would be a bad thing. :confused:

[monkeysonmars.]

:eek:

it's a pretty building

[Danger Bird]

Yea, like stuffing money into the pockets of the Mexican military to give them an armed escort in a fleet of Hummers across the desert, knowing that law actually prohibits U.S. Border security from firing upon them even if fired upon.

Betcha didn't know that, did ya? No, because news media have better things to do, like cover the 2nd O.J. Simpson trial and other hogwash.

Because that's entirely likely...

[Valhall]

"Allowing anyone-even one person-to sneak into America in a post 9-11 world is nothing short of suicidal. What if that illegal alien was carrying a nuclear device, sarine gas, or any number of biowarfare agents in his backpack?"

--Michael Savage, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Might I add, "or in his military escorted hummers".

And we're not just talking about veggie-picking Mexican poor people.

Because that's entirely likely...

Believe it.

500 million dollars in bribes to the Mexican military. Washington Times, "Chaos Along the Border"

[Danger Bird]

wtf
1. nice source
2. why would an illegal alien be carrying a nuclear device that is the most ridiculous neo-con garbage i've ever heard, bordering on self-parody
3. Why in God's name would the Mexican military support islamic terrorists?

[Hababi]

You say that like it would be a bad thing. :confused:
Just look at what illegal aliens can do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OEsO1TzBhYo

"Allowing anyone-even one person-to sneak into America in a post 9-11 world is nothing short of suicidal. What if that illegal alien was carrying a nuclear device, sarine gas, or any number of biowarfare agents in his backpack?"


That's called fear mongering.


--Michael Savage, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


Alcoholic fascist who said we should kill 100 million Muslims.


And we're not just talking about veggie-picking Mexican poor people.

You were just advocating deporting them all, so yeah, we are.

[monkeysonmars.]

wow that guy thinks people own nuclear weapons too

[Hababi]

wow that guy thinks people own nuclear weapons too

That grape picker might be hiding a dirty bomb!

[Danger Bird]

500 million dollars in bribes to the Mexican military. Washington Times, "Chaos Along the Border"

That article's about mexican drug cartels not terrorists

[Valhall]

That article's about mexican drug cartels not terrorists You're completely missing the point. The point is that anything can get across our borders right now.

[Danger Bird]

The point is that bribing cops to ignore drug trading is not the same as terrorists bribing the military to escort them into the us with a truckload of nuclear weapons.

"A fleet of Hummers" where do you get this stuff?

Good god.

[monkeysonmars.]

why are we still relating mexican border crossings to terrorism aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

[RockAndRoll]

"Allowing anyone-even one person-to sneak into America in a post 9-11 world is nothing short of suicidal. What if that illegal alien was carrying a nuclear device, sarine gas, or any number of biowarfare agents in his backpack?"

--Michael Savage, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

But you said that nuclear weapons should be legal!

[Valhall]

The point is that bribing cops to ignore drug trading is not the same as terrorists bribing the military to escort them into the us with a truckload of nuclear weapons.


The possibility even existing that Mexican military can also be bribed to effectively get anything into the country, including WMD's, is not tolerable.

[Smokey D]

But so can US border guards.

[Danger Bird]

It's not a possibility, it's an insane dream. They weren't even bribing they military, the were bribing POLICE OFFICIALS. You honestly believe they could buy a military escort of a "fleet of hummers" into this country?

[Valhall]

But so can US border guards.

That's not tolerable either.

[Knifeboy]

I think Valhall is a very very elaborate gimmick account made by Steve, to make his claim that he's a moderate more believable

[RockAndRoll]

The possibility even existing that Mexican military can also be bribed to effectively get anything into the country, including WMD's, is not tolerable.

But... you said that WMD's should be legal.

[Hababi]

I think Valhall is a very very elaborate gimmick account made by Steve, to make his claim that he's a moderate more believable

:lol: You wish.

[Smokey D]

That's not tolerable either.

So shoot the border guards?

[monkeysonmars.]

if you're really worried about security I'd be bribing the hell out of mexico. their four greatest strategic allies, canada, mexico, the atlantic and the pacific.