Is there or isn’t there a crisis on the border?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigration is more a result of people overstaying visas than illegally crossing the southern border. How many times does that have to be typed, a wall isn't going to curtail the issue.

That is why the left is opposed, not because it doesn't oppose illegal immigration but because the multi-billion dollar wall won't address or repair the issues taking place. It is a waste of money.

The goal is to make illegal immigrants feel unwelcome.

Honestly that needs to be coupled with mandatory e-verify and fining companies, including Trump's companies and GOP donors, that hire illegals.

And, sanctuary cities do that how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:reparations and immigration is going to really mess dems up in 2020.

And those "meh" moderates who don't have an opinion.

Generalizations are your thing, I see.

As a moderate, I have an opinion. As a first gen, I believe in LEGAL immigration, too. But more importantly, we need to handle the issues WITHIN our borders first. If you have 5 kids of your own with chronic illnesses, you don't adopt 5 more.

sounds rough, eh? cruel? callous? Well, it's the truth that many don't want to hear. Strong nations can be humanitarian. I fail to see what we've done to address - in a constructive manner - poverty, gender inequity, racism, and prisoner reformation.

Ah, the thoughtless privilege of someone whose parents had the option to come here legally.

So now we're slamming people who SAVED money to come over LEGALLY, fully intending to learn the language and become productive citizens. (aka - no handouts)

Slam away, honey! I'm proud of my parents and aunts, uncles and cousins. impoverished, manual laborers, but skilled in a trade . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigration is more a result of people overstaying visas than illegally crossing the southern border. How many times does that have to be typed, a wall isn't going to curtail the issue.

That is why the left is opposed, not because it doesn't oppose illegal immigration but because the multi-billion dollar wall won't address or repair the issues taking place. It is a waste of money.

The goal is to make illegal immigrants feel unwelcome.

Honestly that needs to be coupled with mandatory e-verify and fining companies, including Trump's companies and GOP donors, that hire illegals.

And, sanctuary cities do that how?

They don't but neither do the companies like Trump hotels and R owned farmers who hire them. They aren't coming here because of sanctuary cities. They are coming here because they know someone will give them a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

I do agree that Dems use it as a wedge issue, but a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of border security money, unless of course, MX pays for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/border-patrol-rio-grande-overcrowding

Article I read tonight in the NYT. Why has the border been busier the past month? Because reading this alarms me, a moderate Democrat. I see Trump using this to his benefit.

The administration abandoned catch and release and started holding everyone, but never made a plan for what they were going to do with those people. So now the facilities are full up, they still do t have a plan, so they’ve started releasing detainees in large numbers to make room. If they’d been releasing people all along, it would have been a smaller, steadier flow the surrounding areas could manage more easily. But instead, they built a dam, then broke the dam, and now are shocked at the flooding,

+1000 - Thank you for nailing it down so everyone can understand. This, this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

There are a lot of other places that need wall not on the Rio Grande and you know it. These people are walking across deserts way out in remote areas. Those places need wall.

Trump wants to use 'high tech gizmos'too.. in addition to a wall. To stop the hundreds of people flooding the border daily. None of the high tech gizmos will physically stop people or even slow them down.

None of this explains why a wall is immoral now but not back when they voted for it. Most people agree that the places that are walled saw a drop in illegal crossings. In fact humanitarian groups have said that is why there has been an increase in deaths... because people are pushing out to more remote places with no wall to cross and end up dying in the heat... because the wall is so effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/border-patrol-rio-grande-overcrowding

Article I read tonight in the NYT. Why has the border been busier the past month? Because reading this alarms me, a moderate Democrat. I see Trump using this to his benefit.

The administration abandoned catch and release and started holding everyone, but never made a plan for what they were going to do with those people. So now the facilities are full up, they still do t have a plan, so they’ve started releasing detainees in large numbers to make room. If they’d been releasing people all along, it would have been a smaller, steadier flow the surrounding areas could manage more easily. But instead, they built a dam, then broke the dam, and now are shocked at the flooding,

+1000 - Thank you for nailing it down so everyone can understand. This, this.

Um no. There is an increase in the number of people coming across. It was reported that this month there will be 100,000 crossings in March.

[Anonymous]

Also now that coyotes know that our Congress is worthless they are ferrying people to the border in groups 100+ as a distraction to get drugs across while the border agents are processing the people. Or using children as a distraction most recently dropping young kids across the border to distract the agents then sending a larger group of adults in while they are distracted. These are not asylum seekers. I can only guess why a group of men wants to come undetected. Lord only knows what crimes they have been convicted of. And this is the scenario Democrats are fighting to maintain. Drones and other technology would do nothing but allow border agents to watch as more people and criminals flood in. They will sit on their hands unwilling to give Trump anything and will pay in 2020 for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

There are a lot of other places that need wall not on the Rio Grande and you know it. These people are walking across deserts way out in remote areas. Those places need wall.

Trump wants to use 'high tech gizmos'too.. in addition to a wall. To stop the hundreds of people flooding the border daily. None of the high tech gizmos will physically stop people or even slow them down.

None of this explains why a wall is immoral now but not back when they voted for it. Most people agree that the places that are walled saw a drop in illegal crossings. In fact humanitarian groups have said that is why there has been an increase in deaths... because people are pushing out to more remote places with no wall to cross and end up dying in the heat... because the wall is so effective.

1. The areas that don't have any border fencing is along the Rio Grande. Even the "fundthewall" site shows this.

2. If Trump was serious about border security he would've taken the $24 billion that funded not just high tech gizmos but 50 additional immigration judges to hurry the deportation along. There was an article I read about the ROI on the wall and how many illegal immigrants it might stop. The ROI was ridiculous. No one with any common sense would want that kind of ROI. Trump, being a businessman, wouldn't want that kind of ROI for his business projects. But, since it's not his money (he pays no taxes), he doesn't care all that much. It's more important for him to be seen as keeping campaign promise than doing something that makes sense.

As you stated, illegal immigrants will find ways to circumvent a wall. But even if it was mostly effective, the cost to build and maintain a wall from sea to shining sea would be astronomical. Perhaps if Trump/Rs didn't give rich people such a massive tax cut, we could afford to build some of that wall. But nope, he wants his cake and eat it, too. Or, he could make MX pay for the wall. That was also his campaign promise.


3. I'm not sure what Pelosi was referring to when she said the wall was immoral... was she saying it was immoral because Trump wanted to keep out the poor brown people from sh1thole countries but didn't care about the thousands of Canadians overstaying their visas every year? Then yes, that wall for Trump's purpose is immoral. Is the wall in and of itself immoral? No, I would disagree. But I'm not sure what she was exactly referring to.

4. Perhaps Dems have learned that trying to build a wall on people's private property isn't worth it. There are still active lawsuits against the federal government for eminent domain cases back when the Bush administration tried to build the wall along private property.

Good luck trying to take private property from Texans.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/When-the-Government-Comes-Calling-on-the-Mexico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

There are a lot of other places that need wall not on the Rio Grande and you know it. These people are walking across deserts way out in remote areas. Those places need wall.

Trump wants to use 'high tech gizmos'too.. in addition to a wall. To stop the hundreds of people flooding the border daily. None of the high tech gizmos will physically stop people or even slow them down.

None of this explains why a wall is immoral now but not back when they voted for it. Most people agree that the places that are walled saw a drop in illegal crossings. In fact humanitarian groups have said that is why there has been an increase in deaths... because people are pushing out to more remote places with no wall to cross and end up dying in the heat... because the wall is so effective.

1. The areas that don't have any border fencing is along the Rio Grande. Even the "fundthewall" site shows this.

2. If Trump was serious about border security he would've taken the $24 billion that funded not just high tech gizmos but 50 additional immigration judges to hurry the deportation along. There was an article I read about the ROI on the wall and how many illegal immigrants it might stop. The ROI was ridiculous. No one with any common sense would want that kind of ROI. Trump, being a businessman, wouldn't want that kind of ROI for his business projects. But, since it's not his money (he pays no taxes), he doesn't care all that much. It's more important for him to be seen as keeping campaign promise than doing something that makes sense.

As you stated, illegal immigrants will find ways to circumvent a wall. But even if it was mostly effective, the cost to build and maintain a wall from sea to shining sea would be astronomical. Perhaps if Trump/Rs didn't give rich people such a massive tax cut, we could afford to build some of that wall. But nope, he wants his cake and eat it, too. Or, he could make MX pay for the wall. That was also his campaign promise.


3. I'm not sure what Pelosi was referring to when she said the wall was immoral... was she saying it was immoral because Trump wanted to keep out the poor brown people from sh1thole countries but didn't care about the thousands of Canadians overstaying their visas every year? Then yes, that wall for Trump's purpose is immoral. Is the wall in and of itself immoral? No, I would disagree. But I'm not sure what she was exactly referring to.

4. Perhaps Dems have learned that trying to build a wall on people's private property isn't worth it. There are still active lawsuits against the federal government for eminent domain cases back when the Bush administration tried to build the wall along private property.

Good luck trying to take private property from Texans.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/When-the-Government-Comes-Calling-on-the-Mexico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying or are being disingenuous. Fencing is not the same as a 30 ft wall. Some of those areas depicted are only meant to stop vehicles and people easily hop over.

The Democrats had no issues before putting up a wall with Mexico before and they have always been a brown country. This wasn't a recent change. It is no more immoral now than it was then and you know it.

As to whether land can be taken, it can and it should. If these people just stopped in Texas and stayed there no one would care but they are coming all over the US and dragging down schools and neighborhoods. So yeah , the rest of us shouldn't suffer because someone with border property doesn't want to give it up for the greater good. If it came down to Texans or the US government, I'm pretty sure the feds have more firepower and weapons regardless of those squawking about the second amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

There are a lot of other places that need wall not on the Rio Grande and you know it. These people are walking across deserts way out in remote areas. Those places need wall.

Trump wants to use 'high tech gizmos'too.. in addition to a wall. To stop the hundreds of people flooding the border daily. None of the high tech gizmos will physically stop people or even slow them down.

None of this explains why a wall is immoral now but not back when they voted for it. Most people agree that the places that are walled saw a drop in illegal crossings. In fact humanitarian groups have said that is why there has been an increase in deaths... because people are pushing out to more remote places with no wall to cross and end up dying in the heat... because the wall is so effective.

1. The areas that don't have any border fencing is along the Rio Grande. Even the "fundthewall" site shows this.

2. If Trump was serious about border security he would've taken the $24 billion that funded not just high tech gizmos but 50 additional immigration judges to hurry the deportation along. There was an article I read about the ROI on the wall and how many illegal immigrants it might stop. The ROI was ridiculous. No one with any common sense would want that kind of ROI. Trump, being a businessman, wouldn't want that kind of ROI for his business projects. But, since it's not his money (he pays no taxes), he doesn't care all that much. It's more important for him to be seen as keeping campaign promise than doing something that makes sense.

As you stated, illegal immigrants will find ways to circumvent a wall. But even if it was mostly effective, the cost to build and maintain a wall from sea to shining sea would be astronomical. Perhaps if Trump/Rs didn't give rich people such a massive tax cut, we could afford to build some of that wall. But nope, he wants his cake and eat it, too. Or, he could make MX pay for the wall. That was also his campaign promise.


3. I'm not sure what Pelosi was referring to when she said the wall was immoral... was she saying it was immoral because Trump wanted to keep out the poor brown people from sh1thole countries but didn't care about the thousands of Canadians overstaying their visas every year? Then yes, that wall for Trump's purpose is immoral. Is the wall in and of itself immoral? No, I would disagree. But I'm not sure what she was exactly referring to.

4. Perhaps Dems have learned that trying to build a wall on people's private property isn't worth it. There are still active lawsuits against the federal government for eminent domain cases back when the Bush administration tried to build the wall along private property.

Good luck trying to take private property from Texans.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/When-the-Government-Comes-Calling-on-the-Mexico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying or are being disingenuous. Fencing is not the same as a 30 ft wall. Some of those areas depicted are only meant to stop vehicles and people easily hop over.

The Democrats had no issues before putting up a wall with Mexico before and they have always been a brown country. This wasn't a recent change. It is no more immoral now than it was then and you know it.

As to whether land can be taken, it can and it should. If these people just stopped in Texas and stayed there no one would care but they are coming all over the US and dragging down schools and neighborhoods. So yeah , the rest of us shouldn't suffer because someone with border property doesn't want to give it up for the greater good. If it came down to Texans or the US government, I'm pretty sure the feds have more firepower and weapons regardless of those squawking about the second amendment.

We'll see how that goes. I'm sure all those landowners at the Texas border are a bunch of shrinking violets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no political benefit to Trump to actually come up with a sensible solution to illegal immigration. It's far more useful to him to use simple-minded ideas like the wall to keep his base riled up.

As if democrats arent using it as a wedge issue.

Trump has that covered better than anyone.

Democrats absolutely use it as a wedge issue too to the same degree.

Mind you there is already a wall on the border that most of them voted for previously. Democrats somehow only find this particular piece of border wall immoral and ineffective. But for some odd reason they aren't talking about tearing down the wall sections they voted for previously.

Probably because back when they voted for it,

1. they weren't going to build along the Rio Grande, which would be really difficult and expensive

2. we didn't have the type of high tech gizmos we have today. Even the military uses more high tech gear today than they did 8 years, which Trump btw wants us to go back to using tanks and steam power for our weapons.

There are a lot of other places that need wall not on the Rio Grande and you know it. These people are walking across deserts way out in remote areas. Those places need wall.

Trump wants to use 'high tech gizmos'too.. in addition to a wall. To stop the hundreds of people flooding the border daily. None of the high tech gizmos will physically stop people or even slow them down.

None of this explains why a wall is immoral now but not back when they voted for it. Most people agree that the places that are walled saw a drop in illegal crossings. In fact humanitarian groups have said that is why there has been an increase in deaths... because people are pushing out to more remote places with no wall to cross and end up dying in the heat... because the wall is so effective.

1. The areas that don't have any border fencing is along the Rio Grande. Even the "fundthewall" site shows this.

2. If Trump was serious about border security he would've taken the $24 billion that funded not just high tech gizmos but 50 additional immigration judges to hurry the deportation along. There was an article I read about the ROI on the wall and how many illegal immigrants it might stop. The ROI was ridiculous. No one with any common sense would want that kind of ROI. Trump, being a businessman, wouldn't want that kind of ROI for his business projects. But, since it's not his money (he pays no taxes), he doesn't care all that much. It's more important for him to be seen as keeping campaign promise than doing something that makes sense.

As you stated, illegal immigrants will find ways to circumvent a wall. But even if it was mostly effective, the cost to build and maintain a wall from sea to shining sea would be astronomical. Perhaps if Trump/Rs didn't give rich people such a massive tax cut, we could afford to build some of that wall. But nope, he wants his cake and eat it, too. Or, he could make MX pay for the wall. That was also his campaign promise.


3. I'm not sure what Pelosi was referring to when she said the wall was immoral... was she saying it was immoral because Trump wanted to keep out the poor brown people from sh1thole countries but didn't care about the thousands of Canadians overstaying their visas every year? Then yes, that wall for Trump's purpose is immoral. Is the wall in and of itself immoral? No, I would disagree. But I'm not sure what she was exactly referring to.

4. Perhaps Dems have learned that trying to build a wall on people's private property isn't worth it. There are still active lawsuits against the federal government for eminent domain cases back when the Bush administration tried to build the wall along private property.

Good luck trying to take private property from Texans.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/When-the-Government-Comes-Calling-on-the-Mexico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying or are being disingenuous. Fencing is not the same as a 30 ft wall. Some of those areas depicted are only meant to stop vehicles and people easily hop over.

The Democrats had no issues before putting up a wall with Mexico before and they have always been a brown country. This wasn't a recent change. It is no more immoral now than it was then and you know it.

As to whether land can be taken, it can and it should. If these people just stopped in Texas and stayed there no one would care but they are coming all over the US and dragging down schools and neighborhoods. So yeah , the rest of us shouldn't suffer because someone with border property doesn't want to give it up for the greater good. If it came down to Texans or the US government, I'm pretty sure the feds have more firepower and weapons regardless of those squawking about the second amendment.

We'll see how that goes. I'm sure all those landowners at the Texas border are a bunch of shrinking violets.

Yeah I'm sure those hunting rifles will hold up well against federal weapons

[Anonymous]

Trump is an opportunist, he doesn’t care about curbing illegal immigration, but the saddest thing is that nobody else does either. Middle class is supposed to share their resources while the richest hide in prohibitively expensive neighborhoods and behind walls of their own.