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.

 

Pelosi Rejects Trump's DACA For Border Wall Funding Proposal

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
So Trump is the one to repeal DACA to start with.. and then his "deal" involves giving giving a tiny bit back, but it's only temporary, and that's a deal? LMAO.. what world you people living in. "So.. I stole your house.. but here is a couch back, if you give me 500 bucks.. but I am going to take it back later, just so you know.. we good?"


The way you talk, you make it sound like the people coming here illegally have a right to do that, they don't.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321

originally posted by: fleabit
So Trump is the one to repeal DACA to start with.. and then his "deal" involves giving giving a tiny bit back, but it's only temporary, and that's a deal? LMAO.. what world you people living in. "So.. I stole your house.. but here is a couch back, if you give me 500 bucks.. but I am going to take it back later, just so you know.. we good?"


The way you talk, you make it sound like the people coming here illegally have a right to do that, they don't.


Where do you get that? It's amazing how Trump supporters dredge up ridiculous theories based on comments that have nothing to do with what was said. "I think a wall is a bad idea, there are better ways to combat illegal immigration and the fight on drugs." Trump supporters: "So you are saying you are perfectly fine with murderers and rapists being in our country then!" Hmm.. no, it's not the same thing at all.

As far as the OP goes - Trump took something away, and his "deal" involved giving some of it back.. BUT.. only temporarily, he is going to take it away again.. and Republicans claim this is somehow a great deal, and it's the Dems fault for not accepting it. You know if the table was turned, you'd 100% call that the stupidest "deal" ever, and to go eff off until a real deal is presented.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

What's amazing is I keep hearing this:

"I think a wall is a bad idea, there are better ways to combat illegal immigration and the fight on drugs."

Walls have been used successfully to discourage entry for untold millennia. Forts have walls to prevent entry by an enemy. Prisons have walls to prevent prisoners from escaping. Some communities have walls to keep out the less desirables. Houses have walls to keep people from simply walking in. They work, and they have always worked to deter those who are not supposed to pass them.

I know of not one single sensor that can apprehend anyone. One could put trail cams every 4 foot apart along all 2000 miles, have drones every 100 feet apart hovering overhead with cameras, train ground-penetrating radar along every inch of soil, and aim radar units at every square inch of sky, and one would get... pictures. None of them would stop a single person from crossing if they wanted to cross. None of them would even slow someone down if they wanted to cross.

A wall will slow someone down, giving more time for CBP to arrive on the scene. Without a wall, there is really no need to even show up; by the time someone notices the alarm, sends out the call for someone to intercept, and they then drive up to 20 miles to get to that exact location, the intruders are already long gone. And even if the intruders are somehow caught, even if CBP patrols happen to be right there when the call comes in and catches them, all they have to do is say "asylum" and they get to fill out a piece of paper and go merrily on their way because they are now on US soil.

With a wall, they will likely not ever get to the US side, and if they do, CBP is likely going to be right there to stop them before they ever touch down on our side. Most will likely not even try it, since it will be so much easier and faster and safer to just go through a port of entry.

That's why saying you are against a wall is seen as being for criminals coming in unimpeded. That's how it will work in reality. We'll just have a picture of them this time. Might be nice to frame, I dunno... but it certainly isn't going to help catch anyone when they could be anywhere in the country.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fleabit

What's amazing is I keep hearing this:

"I think a wall is a bad idea, there are better ways to combat illegal immigration and the fight on drugs."

Walls have been used successfully to discourage entry for untold millennia. Forts have walls to prevent entry by an enemy. Prisons have walls to prevent prisoners from escaping. Some communities have walls to keep out the less desirables. Houses have walls to keep people from simply walking in. They work, and they have always worked to deter those who are not supposed to pass them.

I know of not one single sensor that can apprehend anyone. One could put trail cams every 4 foot apart along all 2000 miles, have drones every 100 feet apart hovering overhead with cameras, train ground-penetrating radar along every inch of soil, and aim radar units at every square inch of sky, and one would get... pictures. None of them would stop a single person from crossing if they wanted to cross. None of them would even slow someone down if they wanted to cross.

A wall will slow someone down, giving more time for CBP to arrive on the scene. Without a wall, there is really no need to even show up; by the time someone notices the alarm, sends out the call for someone to intercept, and they then drive up to 20 miles to get to that exact location, the intruders are already long gone. And even if the intruders are somehow caught, even if CBP patrols happen to be right there when the call comes in and catches them, all they have to do is say "asylum" and they get to fill out a piece of paper and go merrily on their way because they are now on US soil.

With a wall, they will likely not ever get to the US side, and if they do, CBP is likely going to be right there to stop them before they ever touch down on our side. Most will likely not even try it, since it will be so much easier and faster and safer to just go through a port of entry.

That's why saying you are against a wall is seen as being for criminals coming in unimpeded. That's how it will work in reality. We'll just have a picture of them this time. Might be nice to frame, I dunno... but it certainly isn't going to help catch anyone when they could be anywhere in the country.

TheRedneck


Isn't the thrust not that walls don't work, but rather that folks are being fed and driven by inaccurate fear-mongered information regarding where the main points of drug/crime entry are happening (which isn't at the border where the proposed wall is going up)?

The argument I've been trying to make is the wall isn't what we need because its not were the drugs are coming in.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Way too much common sense and rationality!


It is time you and I and others who are arguing for a Wall understand something.

This may be hard to swallow, but some people simply don't want the illicit American-killing drugs to slow down.

Some people don't want to prevent human trafficking.

Some people don't want sex-trafficking halted or slowed down.

Some people don't want the boundaries to exist period.

They can't just come out and say these things and expose their real agenda, so they use the stupid talking points that walls are immoral or walls don't work or walls are obsolete. People with a brain cell know they're full of it.

We're going to have to get louder and louder to get the Washington DC deaf Dems to understand. This is one of the main reasons Americans voted for DJT. The People spoke and we shouldn't allow some old corrupt politician in San Francisco and New York City to stop what The People demand.

edit on 22-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Yeah, you're right. I keep waiting on that day when they can just be honest and say they want open borders. Call me a dreamer.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
You have a child like naïveté when it comes to the efficacy of a wall.

I have had no disagreement with trumps immigration plan or it’s execution until this silly wall.

We as a society need to stop with this sanctuary city/state stupidity. Barriers have already been erected in the sensible places. The links below contain a lot of great information. And this is not some liberal, left wing, moonbat think tank. Far from it.

www.cato.org...

www.cato.org...

www.cato.org...



a reply to: TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Isn't the thrust not that walls don't work, but rather that folks are being fed and driven by inaccurate fear-mongered information regarding where the main points of drug/crime entry are happening (which isn't at the border where the proposed wall is going up)?

That seems to depend on who one is speaking to at what moment in time. We have quite a few difficulties with southern border crossings that are all applicable: drug importation, human trafficking, the overburdening of our social structure, crime, terrorism, etc., etc., etc. I do not focus specifically on any one when I advocate for a wall; I'm looking at the overall picture. Those who oppose the wall seem to try and focus on one aspect of border security at a time, for an obvious reason: the wall affects all of them at once, while other solutions only address individual aspects of the problem.


The argument I've been trying to make is the wall isn't what we need because its not were the drugs are coming in.

That is an argument based in ignorance. We don't know where all the drugs are coming in; we know where we have intercepted drugs coming in. The whole problem is based on the fact that we can't even track how many illegal border crossings happen, because we can't patrol the border as fast as illegal crossers can cross... there's nothing to slow them down so they can be apprehended.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


You have a child like naïveté when it comes to the efficacy of a wall.

Really? Then please, show me where non-physical means have ever been used to effect physical resistance. Ever. Just one example. I have now asked for this info three times in this one thread. Please, enlighten me.


I have had no disagreement with trumps immigration plan or it’s execution until this silly wall.

Part of the problem with Trump's initial plan was the interference of lower court Federal judges. Trump at one point ha things fairly well under control even without additional barriers, but then a Federal judge decided that illegal border crossings were somehow legal and could be conducted at will.


We as a society need to stop with this sanctuary city/state stupidity. Barriers have already been erected in the sensible places.

I agree completely; those who have passed policies that oppose Federal immigration procedures are literally criminals, as in, they are actively breaking the law. That needs to be addressed badly, and quickly. So does the problem with US businesses targeting illegal immigrants for employment. The wall is certainly not the end-all, be-all for border security.

The wall is a badly needed and critical component of border security. One might as well argue that a car does not need a motor. It is completely possible to replace a car motor with pedal power; the car would likely not move as fast as a man could walk, but it could move and would still have wheels and steering and all that. I doubt anyone would be excited about the quality of a pedal-powered car, however... it would need a motor to be efficient. Likewise, any border security that does not include physical barriers is a border security plan that simply is inadequate for the job.

I read one of your links... quit long, quite detailed, but based only on known data, ignoring data we cannot collect due to lack of border efficiency. We know illegal desert crossings occur; we have sporadic successes at catching crossers and we have evidence in the form of dead bodies recovered regularly from crossers who died of exposure. We simply cannot yet quantify the data because it is so incomplete.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
When President canceled her flight, he shouldn't have even told her. Now that would have been funny, or even hilarious!


To demonstrate how deranged Nancy Pelosi is, it was HER who disclosed the "secret" Afghanistan trip. President Trump sent her a letter to cancel the trip, and Nancy ran around like a wild animal showing it to everyone, in disbelief.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Why would they accept that piss poor excuse for a proposal, all the DACA cases are being held up until it gets added to the supreme court docket which is not on this session and quite possibly next either so they are all covered and the 3 year limit is a slap in the face. Also who is to say Trump would keep his word, Schumer was willing to give all the funding this time last year and Trump pulled his proposal wanting to add other amendments to the bill.....what an idiot he put us in this position its is SOLELY up to him to fix it PERIOD



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

That is an argument based in ignorance. We don't know where all the drugs are coming in; we know where we have intercepted drugs coming in. The whole problem is based on the fact that we can't even track how many illegal border crossings happen, because we can't patrol the border as fast as illegal crossers can cross... there's nothing to slow them down so they can be apprehended.

TheRedneck


But doesn't that work both ways? Saying because we don't know how many crossing happen or to what degree/amount of drugs are being carried over that we need to wall off the border to find out is just the flip side of the argument stemming from the same lack of information? Wouldn't it be prudent first to know that information conclusively rather than build the wall on the supposition that we think we know what we don't know for sure?

The other part of your argument I can't reconcile is if drugs are being carried across the border in fantastic numbers and with great ease, then why are the cartels building submarines, air dropping drugs from planes, or just shipping them in across ports in a clandestine fashion? Doesn't Occam imply they wouldn't bother with those more difficult/expensive methodologies if it was so easy/foolproof to carry drugs across the border itself?



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

That would just make too much sense the "Build the wallers" refuse to see the other more prudent ways to combat the import of illegal drugs into the US, wherein the real killer is the prescription drug epidemic which is originating within our own borders and it's now more likely to die from prescription drug than from car accidents.







 
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join