Single Issue Voter: Controlling The Borders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the MAGAs wake up to the fact that the wall is just a symbol, it's all mental - and not actually a barrier.

You know, this fatalistic attitude you liberals have concerning the wall reminds me of the gun control debate. I bet it drives you crazy when people say, "Well, criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what, so there's no need to put into place (more) gun control laws." Right?

+1,000
Crickets…

+10000

-11,000

It's a stupid analogy built on a strawman. So much for your crickets.

DP. It's actually a very apt analogy that you're unable to address. So much for your silly dismissal.

WRONG. It's a strawman argument because only utter and complete morons would make a completely ridiculous argument like "criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what so no need to put into place more gun laws." That much cannot be argued with... unless you yourself are an utter and complete moron.

And, as such, it becomes a stupid analogy, BECAUSE it is built on a moronic strawman.

Go back to school and learn some logic and critical thinking.

(reposting prior broken response)

+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Ironically, Biden got a billion dollars for drones and other technology to use on the border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

This is not partisan. George W Bush also wanted open borders. Reportedly there was some satellite technology they could use to stop drug smuggling, but it was vetoed when they realized it would stop illegal immigrants as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

The wall at the tune of 6 BILLION dollars, has rusted out already in many locations and fallen over in others. It was a total waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

Thank you. This is the "border wall system" that was proposed and Democrats opposed.
PP is clueless about what Trump had proposed.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

“It takes a special kind of stupid…”

No, it takes a special kind of immoral POS.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

Thank you. This is the "border wall system" that was proposed and Democrats opposed.
PP is clueless about what Trump had proposed.

The democrats opposed the wall. They have supported more border personnel, more things like drones and night vision equipment and more support services, judges etc to facilitate the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the MAGAs wake up to the fact that the wall is just a symbol, it's all mental - and not actually a barrier.

You know, this fatalistic attitude you liberals have concerning the wall reminds me of the gun control debate. I bet it drives you crazy when people say, "Well, criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what, so there's no need to put into place (more) gun control laws." Right?

+1,000
Crickets…

+10000

-11,000

It's a stupid analogy built on a strawman. So much for your crickets.

DP. It's actually a very apt analogy that you're unable to address. So much for your silly dismissal.

WRONG. It's a strawman argument because only utter and complete morons would make a completely ridiculous argument like "criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what so no need to put into place more gun laws." That much cannot be argued with... unless you yourself are an utter and complete moron.

And, as such, it becomes a stupid analogy, BECAUSE it is built on a moronic strawman.

Go back to school and learn some logic and critical thinking.

It's clear you don't understand what an analogy is.
"Only utter and complete morons would make a completely ridiculous argument like "immigrants will enter the country illegally no matter what so no need to put into place any barrier that might inhibit them or even slow them down." That much cannot be argued with... unless you yourself are an utter and complete moron.

Read that slowly. I have faith in you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the MAGAs wake up to the fact that the wall is just a symbol, it's all mental - and not actually a barrier.

You know, this fatalistic attitude you liberals have concerning the wall reminds me of the gun control debate. I bet it drives you crazy when people say, "Well, criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what, so there's no need to put into place (more) gun control laws." Right?

+1,000
Crickets…

+10000

-11,000

It's a stupid analogy built on a strawman. So much for your crickets.

DP. It's actually a very apt analogy that you're unable to address. So much for your silly dismissal.

WRONG. It's a strawman argument because only utter and complete morons would make a completely ridiculous argument like "criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what so no need to put into place more gun laws." That much cannot be argued with... unless you yourself are an utter and complete moron.

And, as such, it becomes a stupid analogy, BECAUSE it is built on a moronic strawman.

Go back to school and learn some logic and critical thinking.

(reposting prior broken response)

+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

And no one has argued that we should have absolutely zero gun control, either. What *has* been argued is that we should enforce the (many) laws we ALREADY have in the books re: gun control.

You people are really missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worth the watch.....

At what point will you admit that Fox News is not really news and thus shouldn't be counted on for real and verifiable information?

DP. Exactly what was incorrect about what Sen. Lankford is saying? We'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is going on with our border should be more than enough to impeach Biden.

+1
Democrats wanted to do just that to Trump over the border issue - now we hear crickets from the same loudmouths referring to Trump's border as "concentration camps."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the border patrol is doing its job. Thanks Joe!

Question is.... how many have gotten through? There was another person detected in the brush. No word on whether they got him.

Texas DPS and TX National Guard were also credited with helping to catch these scumbags.
And, several other states are sending National Guard troops to TX to help - FL, AR, VA, TN, and others. All because Biden won't do his job.

It is conjecture as to "how many got through" - the fact is almost everyone coming through is seeking asylum, so want to get into the system. The right wing hyperbole machine would have you believe no one gets caught, no one gets deported, no drugs are recovered etc, in other words, no faith that the border patrol is doing its job. Facts matter, apprehensions, deportations and drug interdictions are all up from the Trump Administration.

OMG. That's because the number of people attempting illegal entry has VASTLY increased under the Biden administration. It only follows that of course all of the bolded are up - there are FAR MORE people at the border, thus there are FAR MORE apprehensions. Logic is not your strong suit, obviously.
DP

No, it really hasn't. That is conjecture.

You can’t be serious. This has been documented over and over. “Conjecture”? More like denial, on your part.

In fiscal year 2021, which included Mr. Biden's first eight full months in office, Border Patrol recorded 1.66 million arrests along the southern border, surpassing the previous all-time high of 1.64 million arrests set in 2000, CBP data show.

During the first 10 months of fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol agents along the Mexican border reported more than 1.8 million apprehensions, a new record high that will likely surpass 2 million when fiscal year 2023 starts in October, according to the CBP figures.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-us-mexico-border/

He’s arresting more. You don’t like that?

....And releasing them into our country. It's more of an "encounter," not arrest.
These people break our laws and are rewarded with free food, free health care, free housing, and free transportation to the places they want to go.

What you call "releasing into the country" most places call "temporary asylum" until their case can be heard. If you don't like that, change the international law, or, get more money for admininstrative judges to hear the cases faster.

According to international law, they do not have to be released into the country, and can be rejected immediately, unless they are from Mexico.
It is Biden that wants to let them in, and appoints administrative judges who will let them in, regardless of the validity of their case.
And the cases are bogus, with different groups at the border providing them training on what to say.
There is a reason the flow went up after Biden became president, and it was not because of a lack of judges, or a sudden increase in refugees.
They heard that it was an open border.

THIS. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply gaslighting, as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 and I have yet to see anyone here make an argument that we should have absolutely zero border enforcement, control or protection whatsoever. What people have said is that the wall, as it stands, has been ineffective. And I agree, it's ineffective. I have said from the start that we need better technologies, like surveillance and monitoring. Trump on the other hand didn't include or discuss any of that in his wall proposals. That's what makes the gun control stupidity above very much NOT an "apt analogy."

Trump added surveillance and monitoring. This also included intercepting people as they were trying to scale the wall/ cut the fence. It also became easier as they cut the overall flow, so harder for people to slip through. The wall has been effective. No one expected 100% to be stopped. It is just an improvement over what Obama built under the Secure Fence Act,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/images/mexico-wall-vehicular-image1.jpg

This is not partisan. George W Bush also wanted open borders. Reportedly there was some satellite technology they could use to stop drug smuggling, but it was vetoed when they realized it would stop illegal immigrants as well.

Really? Post links to those "reports."