Do You Disagree With Mr. President ?

originally posted by: 1776IIIV

originally posted by: riiver

originally posted by: Xtrozero
We can't just round them up and drive them to the border saying better luck next time. They get picked up and they enter the system. It takes time to deport and in the mean time your tax dollars well over 100 billion per year (this is after deducting any taxes they create) pays for all this.

See, this is something I don't understand. WHY can't we just round them up and drive them to the border. --Yes, I know, that's not the way the law is set up...but why not? Why do we have all this rigmarole to go through? In a sane world, it should be as simple as that--get caught sneaking over the border, get tossed back over the border.

See, this is where law is enforced. That is why our forefathers of this country gave good pen to paper in the declaration of independence. A wall will be but a funneling of worthy immigrants and a barrier to those the usa does not need.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from? I'm not anti-wall. And I'm certainly not for open borders. I'm for legal immigration, but only if the would-be immigrants can show that they can support themselves and are willing to learn the language and actually assimilate. My own grandmother came here from central Europe before WWI--legally. Learned English, became a citizen, etc. My point was that the long, involved, expensive process of kicking out border-jumpers is ridiculous.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Toss them back over whichever border they crossed, regardless of nationality. If they crossed the US/Mexico border but they're Guatemalan, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the US/Mexico border. If they came over the US/Canadian border but they're Hungarian, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the border. Let em find their own way home. If they came through an air or sea port, then send em home, return postage required. It ought to be that simple. Why on earth isn't it? Scratching my head.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Every single leftist in the entire country knows 100% that both Hillary and Obama campaigned on combatting illegal immigration.

They’re disgusting people

Obama and Hillary campaigned on stopping illegal immigration just like Trump.

The difference is that Obama and Hillary didn't try, several times, to block legal immigration.

Actions speak louder...

Neither did President Trump

And if he did (he didn’t) how is blocking immigration from Sweden considered ‘racist’?

The RAISE Act reduces legal immigraton by 50%.

Trump has three times issued EO's attemptiong to prohibit issuing visas to citizens of seven largely-Muslim countries.

Trump tweeted on June 24 2018 that he wanted to remove the need for jurisprudence in regard to people who 'come in' to the US (no mention of legality or illegality, but lets assume he was only referring to illegals) and to deport them immediately. This represents a removal of due process rights and has big implications even for US citizens.

The southern border crossing has been completely closed temporarily, twice under Trump's jurisdiction. This negatively impacted US based businesses and citizens traveling out of the US.

Not to mention repeal of the Obama era EO that underwrote DACA - another avenue of legal entry into the US removed.

Trump suggests that potential immigrants should use legally sanctioned process to get in to the US and at the same time is shutting down those legal avenues - on several fronts.

As I said, actions speak louder than words.

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Xtrozero

Toss them back over whichever border they crossed, regardless of nationality. If they crossed the US/Mexico border but they're Guatemalan, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the US/Mexico border. If they came over the US/Canadian border but they're Hungarian, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the border. Let em find their own way home. If they came through an air or sea port, then send em home, return postage required. It ought to be that simple. Why on earth isn't it? Scratching my head.

Should the rest of the world do that to Americans, too?

You may not realize it but in Australia and New Zealand, we are fairly pissed off at some big US based multinationals (Apple & others) who are transacting business here and are paying almost no tax.

I mean, they come into our countries unrequested and leech on our economies, stealing jobs and money from legitimate hard working, tax paying citizens.

When Candidate Trump ran on the EXACT SAME platform of opposition to ILLEGAL immigration as Obama and Hillary did, leftists (who ALL supported Obama and Hillary’s anti-illegal immigration platform) suddenly decided it was somehow ‘racist’

They’re disgusting people

Placing a temporary ban on immigration from seven TERRORIST-FRIENDLY countries is in NO WAY ‘anti-immigration’

To say it is is just moronic. In fact, the list of those seven countries was drawn up by the Obama Administration , something that all leftists are fully aware of. But yet, “it’s President Trump’s fault”
As I said,
They’re disgusting people

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think it would be easier to get a ladder and scale a wall rather then kick a door in.

But I don't have to scale it. I could just fly over it. Or be invited in and over stay .
or take a boat around it.

you are missing the point. Why was Obama and Bill Clinton wrong for wanting more border security?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
A wall would entrap people in, thus causing far more suffering than what should be.

But, they could just use a ladder. Isn't that the argument for why a fortified border is a bad idea?

So why didn’t the republicans act then? I will type this slow with the hopes that you might be able to grasp this. We Democrat’s are FOR security. We are just intelligent enough to know that the wall is a retarded idea, that only serves up red meat to the most dim among us. a reply to: Blue_Jay33

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

At this point he will be lucky to get a shower curtain and a german shepard.

And its not the dems ... just so we are clear.... his own senate wont approve his budget.

I agree with most of what trump does. But overall the meaning of what he is doing is what I support 100%. Until I see otherwise

a reply to: network dude

If politicians would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they would not remain in office for more than one term.

We were told the cost of the wall about 25 billion, and when money is mentioned, often other items come up that show where also that money is needed.

So the initial cost of 25 billion is for the construction. But it does not contain the amount for the upkeep or the patrols that will be required.

Ever study any wars, battles, not the main but the initial parts of the battle? Usually one wide will send one or 2 groups, not to attack, but to probe and see where there are weaknesses. And make no mistake, the cartels, and others are watching the building of this wall, looking and noting, taking pictures and then seeing where the weaknesses are, along with where it can be either defeated or taken down, or bypassed. And ultimately that is what all is going on. And the President brings attention to it, and thus it is watched.

But beyond that, the other thing as I stated, is that a Wall is a double edge sword, yes, it may slow down the flow into the country, but will cause the death of people if they try to escape from the country. The Russians are moving into the central and Caribbean areas, with planes that may or may not have nuclear missiles. A wall is not going to stop a jet, and if war starts, people will need an escape route. China grows ever bolder in the pacific, flexing and saber rattling more and more. How long till one of them decides to strike?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

So, do we just make everything legal and put up zero barriers (physical or otherwise) to help limit detrimental behavior and actions?

Yes, there will always be ways to break the law and get away with it--the point isn't to stop it 100%, it's to mitigate the ease at which those laws are currently broken and have consequences that help deter future similar behavior.

Maybe we need to ask for funding for tar-and-feathering materials, too, since so many people are making silly comments about ladders. Plus, I'd like to see you climb down the other side...you going to pull that 30+-foot ladder up and use it on the American side to get down?

Yeah, sounds a lot easier--it's apparent that you've thought this through thoroughly

a reply to: riiver

Pressure and guidance from the UN has a lot to do with it, as do treaties and other similar things.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Should the rest of the world do that to Americans, too?

Yes, if they entered their country illegally or over-stayed their welcome.

You may not realize it but in Australia and New Zealand, we are fairly pissed off at some big US based multinationals (Apple & others) who are transacting business here and are paying almost no tax.

Blame your government for making sh**ty deals, then. It's not Apple's fault that they're so successful that governments want to kiss their ass to bring them in.

I mean, they come into our countries unrequested and leech on our economies, stealing jobs and money from legitimate hard working, tax paying citizens.

How does a large corporation bringing operations to your country 'steal jobs and money?'

Wait a tic...are you implying that tax dollars are the government's first, and that tax breaks provided by said government equate to theft? Do they only bring in American workers and their families, the members of which take jobs on the local economy? Is the work done at Apple and other American corporations illegitimate and the employees all lack good work ethics?

You're really going to need to expand on that pile of vomit, because it makes little-to-no sense.

Here's the problem, you're equating personally unwanted American business presence to illegal immigration laws--you're being a caricature of critical thinking.

originally posted by: riiver

Toss them back over whichever border they crossed, regardless of nationality. If they crossed the US/Mexico border but they're Guatemalan, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the US/Mexico border. If they came over the US/Canadian border but they're Hungarian, too bad. Not our problem. Back over the border. Let em find their own way home. If they came through an air or sea port, then send em home, return postage required. It ought to be that simple. Why on earth isn't it? Scratching my head.

I can agree with you. but unfortunately that is not how our system works. If it was me...

1. Build a big wall and use all the advance tech we have to support.
2. Actually apply heavy fines per illegal used by a company.
3. Send them straight back the way they came when caught coming over.
4. Establish a robust work visa program
5. Fix DOCA and allow a path for for citizenship for those that have been here a long time, as painful as it is I see no other way.
6. Revamp our legal immigration program.

EZ PZ

Not going to happen though...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut

Should the rest of the world do that to Americans, too?

Yes, if they entered their country illegally or over-stayed their welcome.

The US has done so and continues to do so.

You may not realize it but in Australia and New Zealand, we are fairly pissed off at some big US based multinationals (Apple & others) who are transacting business here and are paying almost no tax.

Blame your government for making sh**ty deals, then.

No, it is because the US companies are not abiding by the law or honoring the sovereignty of the other governments.

You can't excuse an opportunistic thief by saying that the locks weren't good enough or suggesting that the victims may somehow have been gullible. Theft is theft. Apple and other US companies know our rules and despite that, continue to act fraudulently.

It's not Apple's fault that they're so successful that governments want to kiss their ass to bring them in.

Apple did not invent the technology that they sell, their products are overpriced and there are competing products and companies. Our government didn't make any special deal with the company at all.

Apple merely discovered a loophole in taxation agreements between Australia and New Zealand.

They stole by means of tax avoidance.

I mean, they come into our countries unrequested and leech on our economies, stealing jobs and money from legitimate hard working, tax paying citizens.

How does a large corporation bringing operations to your country 'steal jobs and money?'

Ask yourself how do individuals bringing their 'operations' into your country 'steal jobs and money'? A large company is a corporatization of individual actions. As such, it does the same thing, but at scale. I'm sure you can see the rationale.

Wait a tic...are you implying that tax dollars are the government's first, and that tax breaks provided by said government equate to theft?

The tax dollars, within a country's economy, are the property of the government and people of that country. Apple is being operated outside of New Zealand. The profits that they made do not stay within New Zealand. Taxation is a normal cost of business.

Tax avoidance is as illegal in New Zealand as it is in the US.

Your excuse is vapid and doesn't stand up in the US or NZ.

Do they only bring in American workers and their families, the members of which take jobs on the local economy?

Yes.

They also employ local workers, who no doubt paid their personal income tax with no idea of the company's malfeasance.

Is the work done at Apple and other American corporations illegitimate and the employees all lack good work ethics?

You're really going to need to expand on that pile of vomit, because it makes little-to-no sense.

Here's the problem, you're equating personally unwanted American business presence to illegal immigration laws--you're being a caricature of critical thinking.

Nope, there are similarities.

Especially in that someone is trying to avoid taxation and other legally mandated charges, and, similarly, the employers in both cases are the ones who profit the most and bear the least penalty for the infraction.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He wanted to secure your borders against illegal immigrants , what's to disagree with ?

Cause they wanted to make him out as racist not as a logical approacher to real problems that need addressed. And why? Because they are racists and prevaricators.

a reply to: network dude

Why was Obama and Bill Clinton wrong for wanting more border security?

I never said they were wrong.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, do we just make everything legal and put up zero barriers (physical or otherwise) to help limit detrimental behavior and actions?

Most do not want this.
Why not just use 1.6 billion dollars on border security?

a reply to: chr0naut

If they come into your country illegally, then yes. Absolutely.