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.

 

TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XV-

page: 103
150
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleFox

No prob.

At least when the wall is built and nothing changes you can say, "hey, I heard that that could have happened".




posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: PurpleFox

It is a bad return on investment. If spending 50% saves the same lives then that would be a better option.

Now lets take it a bit further. You have a wall. Who could climb over that wall with ease and maybe greater drive, some middle age mother who wants to be a "Maid in Manhattan" or a gang banger?

Here is a wall in action:


I will direct you to a FAIR study regarding the cost of illegal immigration for tax paying citizens here

I believe that's including the cost of overstayed visas and whatnot, but only something around 40-43% of illegal immigrants are by way of expired visas.

It's a drop in the bucket, and the wall will help. Immigration reform cannot work without strong border security and strong border security will not work without immigration reform.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
I will direct you to a FAIR study regarding the cost of illegal immigration for tax paying citizens here

Why? It has no bearing on what I am saying.


It's a drop in the bucket, and the wall will help. Immigration reform cannot work without strong border security and strong border security will not work without immigration reform.

Is strong border security a goalpost shift from "the wall"?

Immigration reform will not change drug and human trafficking.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NoPants

I guess you missed the post I was replying to. Context is a thing.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I don't think you even know what you're saying, just a jumbled word salad with every response....



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

We're talking about border security, which would include a barrier, that would help enforce illegal immigration. What do American Citizens committing crimes have to do with that?



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleFox
I don't think you even know what you're saying, just a jumbled word salad with every response....

Maybe you just have a hard time understanding?

Let me break it down for you. That post included a link about the cost of illegals in america. At no point did I say anything about that topic. In other words it has no bearing on what I am saying.

That post also used the term "strong border security" instead of "wall" which is why I asked if it was a goalpost shift.

I then reminded the poster that criminals don't follow the law so immigration reform isn't going to change illegal activity at the border. Similar to the pro-gun slogan of "when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns".



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleFox

The article posted said that the wall needed to be built to save children and I pointed out that it isn't going to save the ones who would still be exploited in their home countries or the ones exploited in the US by americans.

Is that really that difficult to grasp?



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: PurpleFox

The article posted said that the wall needed to be built to save children and I pointed out that it isn't going to save the ones who would still be exploited in their home countries or the ones exploited in the US by americans.

Is that really that difficult to grasp?


So because it wont save all children (who have nothing to do with our border anyways while they stay in their home country), it wont help any kids who are currently being exploited and harmed while being drug across the desert into America illegally? I know you dont really believe that, do you?

You would do very poorly in an actual debate.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NoPants

Well, we're kinda in a lull right now. No new Q posts to talk about. We've analyzed everything so far about as much as we possibly can. Until Q decides to post again, all we can do is try and tie current happenings in with the overall Q conspiracy. It all ties together if you believe what Q says.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This is an addition to our discussion about the Dem delegation and lobbyists visiting Puerto Rico earlier in the month, followed by a visit from the Clintons.

Both Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton tweeted about seeing the musical, Hamilton, while in Puerto Rico. That led to further discussions about comms.

Anyway, following the money trail, we see that after viewing the play, some of the Democrats attended a reception hosted by the cast of Hamilton and co-hosted by Latino Victory Fund.

Look at that Fund's donors: www.opensecrets.org...

I have long thought Dems are in G.S. pocket and his Open Society Foundation. They dance to his tune.


edit on 30-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PokeyJoe

It won't save any children. If people are dragging kids thousand of miles then what difference does a wall make? Why would they change their minds?



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thats the point. If they know they cant easily get across, they wont make the journey in the first place.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: PokeyJoe

DING DING DING!



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
Thats the point. If they know they cant easily get across, they wont make the journey in the first place.

A wall is easily crossed. That is the counterpoint. If the wall is the easy part of the journey, considering the possibility of being robbed, raped or murdered at any point before reaching the wall, they will still make the journey.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

~~sigh~~ If people know the trek is useless because there is a wall, physically and technologically equipped to stop illegal entry into our country, they will cease to continue the useless endeavor.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

No they won't.




posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoPants
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Welcome.

I think there is an effort today to distract from other real Q discussions by a particular poster. The hyper focus on the Wall is getting very noticeable, and regulars should have taken heed by now, imo.

There is still a lot of research and dot connecting going on, but I think someone is trying desperately to keep the focus elsewhere. Q hasn't posted in 17 days, so some fair weather people are losing enthusiasm.

As far as an aggregation of news, Q has always said that news will unlock the map. So, it is natural to observe the day to day events and see if and how they may fit into what we already know is happening.


edit on Wed Jan 30 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Don't do that. Everyone posting about border security is taking the thread there.







 
150
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join