It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


30 years after the fall of the Soviet Iron Curtain, another one projected to exist in North America

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 09:17 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: The angel of light

I agree. Isolationism is bad for social progress and holds a country back.

Isolationism has nothing to do with a wall. Stop spreading BS.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:41 AM

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude said stregthening the borders was an agenda.

Trump's open ambition was a wall.

Dude didn't disagree then.

That's how it happened and you remembered incorrectly.

Whatyever politics they're playing now whatever.

FACT: The two way flow of cash and drugs and guns is fueling the Mexican cartel wars. Period. It has severely destabilized their government, law enforcement and society as a whole. PERIOD.

Therefore, if you actually gave a hoot about Mexico and Mexican's you'd be all about stopping the drug flow at the borders.

You do not.

Lol. I want to end the war on drugs. PERIOD. Who cares about drugs flowing over the border when they are legal? Stop making it a crime and the cartels won't be able to make as much of a profit off of it. But thanks for telling me my opinion. AGAIN.

I dont care about padded data from border towns. I know for a FACT there are countless Mexican gangbangers in US inner cities & prisons, that they feed off the cartel's border wars operations, that there is a correlation between open border policies and gangbangers, that more immigrants compete with everyone for jobs (including blacks & other immigrants), and that it drives up crime and oppression in urban cities.

Of course you don't care about anything that conflicts with your worldview. If you don't look at it then it doesn't exist, right? Can't risk looking at it and maybe finding out you were wrong right?

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:52 AM

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: The angel of light

I agree. Isolationism is bad for social progress and holds a country back.

Isolationism has nothing to do with a wall. Stop spreading BS.

A wall is the very DEFINITION of isolationism. You couldn't get more of a figurehead that says, "ISOLATIONISM" than with a wall. A wall says, "Do not come in!" and "No outsiders!"

You are literally arguing with reality here.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 07:07 AM

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: The angel of light

My favorite part is how the Chinese shouldn't have built a wall to try and prevent the Mongols from dominating them. Your next piece should argue that societies shouldn't have built armies to protect themselves from invading imperialists.

Actually the great wall of China was very successful. Only a fool that doesnt understand history would think otherwise. It meant border skirmishes stopped without having to maintain massive troops at the border. Its construction also enabled a lot of fertile plains such present day south Shaanxi to become stable agrarian centres.Add to that manned walls meant invasion forces were easily spotted. Yes individuals could get around or bribe their way through but it was never intended to stop 1 person.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 07:11 AM
If you are against the War on Drugs you have to be for the wall and against unlimited immigration whether legal or illegal. The illegal immigrants in particular and immigrants in general are FOR the War on Drugs and letting them in in unlimited numbers is basically the only possible way to prevent the War on Drugs from ending in the next decade or so. Immigrants are the only way to reverse the demographic trends that are currently going against the War on Drugs.

The wall is just the right policy. It's not the nicest thing, but it's an essential thing, the responsible thing, and a very smart thing. It's grounded in the reality of the cold hard numbers that can't be avoided. This thread's approach to the topic is just more proof that the left's opposition to the wall is completely reactionary and highly irrational. This irrational opposition is fueled by propaganda funded by anti-American internationals who are completely against the prosperity of the people of the United States and have been dragging us down for decades now, but that's another story.

Just consider how it really should fit into the basic leftist viewpoint rationally:

-Let in unlimited rural Catholics of the most uneducated and religiously conservative sort and as much as possible, allow them to take over the Democratic party in order to win elections at any cost. I mean that's completely ridiculous from a leftist viewpoint. They cross a few tipping points in regional demographics and gay marriage will never be legal again; to the extent that it exists in Latin America, the policy is unpopular and imposed top down. In Brazil this top down approach has succeed in creating increased attacks on homosexuals and transsexuals. The Democrats winning this way means neither major party will favor socially moderate policies, for the rest of the millennial lifetime.

-Completely doom socialism from a virtually unlimited supply of benefits seekers, of takers from the system. A generous sort of socialism of the kind that is extremely important to the millenial left in particular is completely incompatible with unlimited illegal immigration from central/South America. It is basic math. Socialism is a management heavy policy. Management must be excellent and precise for it to succeed. Benefits must be supported and an unlimited flow of new benefits seekers dooms any socialist system to bankruptcy and total failure.

-labor rights AND unlimited illegal immigration? Ridiculous. Do I really need to make a case for that?

So to sum them up, without stopping illegal immigration, there will soon be no socially liberal party, no worker's rights and more practically speaking, the market for labor will continue to trend from bad to horrible, and a socialism of generous benefits is completely doomed to fail. Before this age of propaganda, the left was always against immigration by default.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 07:13 AM

originally posted by: 11andrew34
If you are against the War on Drugs you have to be for the wall and against unlimited immigration whether legal or illegal. The illegal immigrants in particular and immigrants in general are FOR the War on Drugs and letting them in in unlimited numbers is basically the only possible way to prevent the War on Drugs from ending in the next decade or so. Immigrants are the only way to reverse the demographic trends that are currently going against the War on Drugs.

I'm going to stop you here. The bolded is a false correlation.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 08:51 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0tThey are only criminals in the same way that a drug user is a criminal. Because the government said so. Not because of any sort of immorality or violation of ethics though. Criminality like that can change with the stroke of a pen.

Yes, it can--all criminality can change with the stroke of a pen. That's the crazy thing about laws--they exist only because of the government, so of course someone only commits a crime because the government deems it as such.

The immigration laws exist for a pretty decent reason, so while I certainly don't place a border-jumper on the same level as, say, a child rapist or a murderer or an animal abuser, they are still criminals the minute that they enter our country illegally or stay past their legal authority to do so.

This is why we should be focusing more on stopping immigrant exploitation than kicking them out. When we focus on kicking them out, it makes it harder to identify and fix these problems because the immigrants never speak out and identify them out of fear of deportation.

I tend to (generally) align with the known champion (in California, at least) of farm workers' rights, CCesar Chavez on his view of illegal immigrants and how they affect working conditions, pay, and all of that:

The UFW during Chavez's tenure was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers. Since the Bracero Program ensured a constant supply of cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants. Later during the 1980s, while Chavez was still working alongside Huerta, he was key in getting the amnesty provisions into the 1986 federal immigration act.

On a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts.[25] During one such event, in which Chavez was not involved, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically attacked the strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not to cross the border failed.

Now, I'm not a major champion of amnesty across the board, but his points about expendable labor and exploitation of illegals is spot on. Also, I'm not a fan of the part that mentions that refusal to join the UFW was a reason that he would report illegals to INS, but still, there was/is some validity to his concerns, regardless if I disagree with all of his tactics. Like with most unions, they did some good and some bad.

I wish there were other options, but if we are kicking them out of the country THAT is the route they go through.

Of course not (in response to me saying that you really don't think there are only two options), but discussions like clamping down on immigrant exploitation never arise because we are so focused on the discussion of straight up kicking them out of the country.

So, which is it, are there other options, or not? (I know that answer, I'm just pointing out a semi-frustrating inconsistency)

I think that the major problem is that a lot of America, especially in the mass urban centers that are our most populated areas, never see nor experience what many of these illegal immigrants go through and are put through and how they are treated--in all honesty, most people wouldn't treat their pets like many, including their employers, treat illegal workers. They know that, at any time, they could report them to INS and have them deported--many of the employers have a god complex over these people, and the workers, in turn, understand that this power over their lives exists, so they don't complain.

I mean, seriously, how hellish does their home country have to be in order for that sort of treatment to be the better option??? It's sad, honestly.

We can't just kick them out of the country and expect things to be the same or get better for the legal citizens.

Better is in the eye of the beholder--the fiscal bottom line isn't always the metric by which people judge "better."

I approach the "better" aspect for the country, like I noted before, from a moral standpoint--a human rights issue, if you will. Our nation, and how it turns a blind eye to employment of illegal immigrants to save the consumer a buck, is tantamount to approval of human rights violations. We know that people are being employed under conditions that fall well short of federal standards, yet we do notadamnthing about it. I don't see this as okay.

If we want to use the legal avenue as a cudgel to beat the illegals over the head with, then we first need to seriously overhaul how it works and make it more accessible for less affluent immigrants.

I agree that this is a big ingredient in this problem pie concerning immigration.
edit on 12-4-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 09:07 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Not always. Walls can exist in order to protect against a problem, but the country can still be relatively welcoming.

It's a point worth noting--and I'm willing to bet that you're reading this from a place that is surrounded by walls at this very moment, but I doubt that they exist for isolationist purposes (my luck, you're inside the vault at Fort Knox right now).

Walls are historically built for protection, not isolationism. Doors and openings exist in walls for that reason--it's okay to want to funnel traffic through specific points in a wall and it not equate to isolationism, but it's also okay to close those openings when necessary to protect those within the walls.

It's not isolationism, it's proper protection when necessary.

But again, I think the border wall is a ridiculous solution, but I felt a need to note that walls are not "the very DEFINITION of isolationism." Hell, I can isolate myself from the world by getting dropped off in the middle of the Mojave Desert without a wall in sight. I can also be contained in guarded walls during a concert and be the least isolated person for many, many miles.

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 09:22 AM
a reply to: The angel of light

Well...considering this wall has been in progress for over a decade I'd say your prophecy is a bit late to the party.

Also, seeing as how you're uber Christian and all, where do you think you'd be today had the Vatican City wall not been built?

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: 11andrew34: the left's opposition to the wall is completely reactionary and highly irrational.

Dear 11andrew34,

Let me suggest that You need before to launch a furious attack to certain segments of the population that frankly disagree with your points of view to identify them at least correctly.

There are many people that are not Leftist at all, they are far to be even remotely sharing such principles and ideology and they radically have expressed their Rejection to such an upside down policy not just now but since the Presidential campaign.

Neither Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Jeb Bush , Sen. John McCain, Sen. John Cornyn nor Rep. Raul Labrador are liberals but they have openly criticized the wall project since the very beginning, from many angles:

the financial one,
the negative effect in the budget,
the ethical one
the international relations one,
the bad image for the country,

Please check:

Hill Republicans revolt over Trump plans to build a border wall

Please check:

Irene Bloemraad, professor of sociology | January 26, 2017
Regardless of whether you want fewer immigrants in the United States, more newcomers, or prefer immigrant numbers to remain the same, there is no good argument for a wall on the border with Mexico. It will be a gravy train for Trump’s construction cronies, but a huge expense for taxpayers. Worse, it addresses a supposed problem that doesn’t exist. And, if anything, over time it would increase the number of undocumented people living in the United States, not lower it. This waste of public money should concern conservatives as much as progressives.

Rep. Raul Labrador, a Republican from Idaho.3:19 PM ET, Tue February 14, 2017
"If all of a sudden we're not worried about pay-fors for our spending, then we have been hypocrites for six years. So we need to make sure that whether it's a fence, whether it's the military, whether its' any other issue that we're discussing here in Congress ... we need to have pay-fors for those things, and I'm not going to vote for anything that just increases spending without looking at a way to pay for that in the future."


Donna Wiesner Keene and Randie Rosen | Oct. 12, 2011, at 12:26 p.m
Today's proposed fence illustrates a lack of understanding of the logistics and costs, the historical motivations driving U.S. immigration, and ignores a profound systemic change that must be achieved in order to address illegal immigration problems in a sustainable and cost efficient manner.

Let's be honest, I am far to be leftist at all, I am who opened the thread and you can attack me saying that I am a idealist spiritualist or even a conservative Christian, or a fundamentalist Marian, but there is nothing leftist in my personal agenda, but I am against this wall due to moral considerations above anything else.

This is essentially an apartheid or Final solution offered and supported not by just good conservative people in general, but by racist ones that are absolutely moved by hatred against Latin culture, they don't want to face the fact that this continent entered in the context of Universal History through Spain, Christopher Columbus was who came here before any other European and he was financed by the Catholic Kings.

The wall is a solution offered by a builder to a problem that has nothing to do with moving millions in to the pockets of construction entrepreuners, is just a private business moved over racist rhetoric and that will be paid by all the Americans in times many more urgently needed things are calling for our attention:

Nasa is without budget,
Millions of Americans do not have access to higher education,
Millions are suffocated by their studies loans,
There is misery in many metropolitan areas,
with clear deficit of decent housing,
aside of deficit of jobs in those large cities, not in the Arizona dessert,
Moreover where people without future are being pushed in to the crime life every day,

That unattended crude social reality ,that can not be repaired with a useless costly wall in the middle of one of the most desolated desserts of earth, is what actually creates unemployment, insecurity, social distress and strengthens the underground economy.

Now, this shocks completely with the principles over which a nation of Freedom for immigrants was created by our founder fathers, it is contrary to the American spirit, it defines the death of the American dream.

We can't have the statue of Liberty in the same country that a wall to prevent people to even see this land from distance, the two things are incompatible at all.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 4/12/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 04:27 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm going to try this once, but if you keep up the arrogance and strawmans towards me then we are done. Not that I imagine you care about this nuance.

My position on the border is that our laws on the matter are fine as is. Net border crossing is decreasing and illegal entries from sources other than our Southern border are on the rise. Namely student visas that expire and people don't leave the country. The new offenders are Chinese and Indians.

However still talking about the Southern Border, we are poised to make our situation there a LOT worse. Mexico actually does a lot to shrink the number of border crossers since most of them are actually coming from further south than Mexico. This is because these people have to travel through Mexico to get to the US. With Trump's new antagonistic attitude towards Mexicans, it is only going to compel them to stop doing this and just let the people cross through the country unimpeded.

On top of all of this I really don't have a problem with immigrants. Illegal or legal. If they want to be in our country and contribute to our economy, I don't care. Diversity is awesome. But this doesn't mean that I don't agree with our current laws on border crossing. I just don't feel like anything more needs to be done.

So you say you don't have a problem with current immigration laws right?

So then do you have a problem with actually enforcing those laws?

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 09:03 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Total bull#. The Iron curtain kept their Soviet citizens from escaping the tyranny of communist rule. Trumps wall is keeping illegals out so they have to immigrate the legal way like everyone else in the history of this nation did.

A pure piece of Russian propaganda.

Walls don't work both ways?
Trumps wall could easily be used to prevent escape from the US.

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: prevenge


a physical wall like the one proposed to exist in the border plus the virtual one that is also projected to be created to censor and control the media probably could isolate the country in such a way that in a no so much far ahead future there is going to be only one way of thinking allowed to exist in this country.

I agree this seems to be a construction project coming from a mind that thinks very look like Vladimir Putin, somebody willing to implement his same masses surveillance methods here, controlling the entire life of a nation to promote cryonism, to put the country to work for private interests that use political power to profit.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 4/14/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 03:45 PM
a reply to: prevenge

Yes, you are quite right, walls don't work in the two ways, Not just in only one direction. There is probably larger transit of Americans in to Mexican territory than to the contrary on these days.

A lot of people in the southwest states, even beyond 50 miles to the north of the border cross frequently to by medicines and also to be treated medically or for dentistry in Mexico for a fraction that they would be forced to pay if they can not cross anymore to the south.

The saving that this represents for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year is determinant to balance their family expenses.

Now, I have been along weeks in this thread promoting the debate between truly knowledge that says clearly this wall is useless and discredit America in the world, but if the discussion at the level of ideals is not good enough to convince, today we have the Democratic congressmen decided to stop its construction or they are going to shut down the federal government completely by not approving the debt ceiling of the next year.

Here it is the news that is practically burying the project of the non yet built but already called wall of infamy.

Please check:

Thanks for your attention and for the great participation in the thread.

The Angel of Lightness

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in