It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thinline
The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?
Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.
As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.
what makes it a stupid idea? It's how every country on this earth protects it's borders.
As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax moneyand an embarrassment for this nation. An80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.
The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?
My questions is, why are give special treatment to Mexicans?
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thinline
The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?
Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.
As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.
what makes it a stupid idea? It's how every country on this earth protects it's borders.
Those executive actions are selective and only apply to non-violent criminals are intended not to break up families. Which laws has he refused to enforce exactly? Care to name the exact ones?
originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: kaylaluv
If people who come here from Mexico are working hard and are not stealing from or killing or raping or otherwise hurting anyone, they should be allowed to stay.
That is the thing you are not understanding. Without a legal process, the criminals also make it in. To only bring in law abiding Mexicans means they have to go through the hoops to see WHO they are.
originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Those executive actions are selective and only apply to non-violent criminals are intended not to break up families. Which laws has he refused to enforce exactly? Care to name the exact ones?
Non-violent criminals are criminals, no?
Hence, may the laws you seem to be asking for be the ones that initially label them "criminals".
Additionally, family unity does not supersede US sovereignty. There lies the fault with your premise.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Every country on earth has walls separating their borders? Eh... I think you may want to rethink your rhetoric a tad. I'm sure Japan (or most of the 3rd world for that matter) would disagree with you.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thinline
The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?
Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.
As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.
what makes it a stupid idea? It's how every country on this earth protects it's borders.
originally posted by: RomeByFire
I know it may not be a popular opinion, but Obama has deported more illegals than any other president in the history of the U.S. of A. So
One cannot say things such as "white privilege," or discuss such implications without being called "RACIST," yet I have seen ZERO comments regarding the brazen racism of "Mexican privilege."
originally posted by: reldra
No, that's my Wartune city. I don't know of any countries like this.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Every country on earth has walls separating their borders? Eh... I think you may want to rethink your rhetoric a tad. I'm sure Japan (or most of the 3rd world for that matter) would disagree with you.
You're right, we should be more like 3rd world countries. You guys are impossible to discuss anything with because you actively deny reality and purposely play dumb.
?????
willful, purposeful dishonesty I'm talking about
Of course WE know that a wall can mean ANY barrier to separate borders and improve security.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: reldra
No, that's my Wartune city. I don't know of any countries like this.
See? This is the kind of willful, purposeful dishonesty I'm talking about. When you say wall, they hold you to the strict definition of "Wall" in order to continue their deception. Of course WE know that a wall can mean ANY barrier to separate borders and improve security.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: reldra
No, that's my Wartune city. I don't know of any countries like this.
See? This is the kind of willful, purposeful dishonesty I'm talking about. When you say wall, they hold you to the strict definition of "Wall" in order to continue their deception. Of course WE know that a wall can mean ANY barrier to separate borders and improve security.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: reldra
No, that's my Wartune city. I don't know of any countries like this.
See? This is the kind of willful, purposeful dishonesty I'm talking about. When you say wall, they hold you to the strict definition of "Wall" in order to continue their deception. Of course WE know that a wall can mean ANY barrier to separate borders and improve security.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
First, Obama has passed to executive actions that allow illegals to stay. Secondly, he has repeatedly refused to enforce laws he doesn't believe in. The deportation numbers seem high because Obama changed how we measure them. We now consider deportations sending people back we catch at the border, and that was never the case before. We have sanctuary cities where law enforcement are told not to contact ICE.
Those executive actions are selective and only apply to non-violent criminals are intended not to break up families. Which laws has he refused to enforce exactly? Care to name the exact ones?
Obama has also hired more border enforcement than previously too. Our border enforcement is at its highest staffing ever. I know you are trying to dismiss Obama's increased deportation numbers with these caveats, but I'm not going to let you slide away from this one. The fact remains that under Obama deportations have increased. Sure some of it may be due to changed metrics, but you are liar if you are going to sit there and claim that those increases don't also have to do with an increased size of our border enforcement.
Sanctuary cities are city governance level thing and don't fall under Obama's domain, so blaming them on Obama is dishonest. He may not be condemning them, but he certainly has no responsibility with setting them up. That is a decision that residents of said city made with their city legislature.