The wall

[gowlerk 2,274]

41 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Thus far I have yet to see a Democrat proposal that will address, what Obama's head of Homeland Security had characterized as, an emergency.

The situation on the border does seem to be getting out of hand. And would be hard for any administration to deal with. Trump will ride it and pump up the fear for all he can get out of it. I think we both agree the wall is not the answer. My thought is that the only practical and legal answer would be a large increase in the capacity of lawyers and judges to deal with it quicker. But that is not what will happen. I also largely agree with you that the worse the problem gets the more voters will turn to Trump.

[brenthutch 444]

Thank you for understanding, that was my point.  The terrible irony of succeeding by failing.

[BIGUN 1,483]

7 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

You voted for Trump.  Step up & take credit for it.

And, IMO if you really believed in voting 'against HRC', you could have simply not voted for President in 2016. 

C'mon, Jerry. You can't tell me that you never were so vehemently opposed to someone running for office that you voted for the opposition just to make sure they didn't get in office.  

[BIGUN 1,483]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please point me towards ANY  reliable source that indicates that a wall reaching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific would have any reasonable effect on illegal immigration.

Well if all the border barrier countries don't work for you; would Obama, Schumer & Clinton be considered reliable? Cause in 2006; they voted for the 700 mile "Secure Fence Act." And, it's not a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific. In fact, it's not even as long as what they voted for then. 

  

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Well if all the border barrier countries don't work for you; would Obama, Schumer & Clinton be considered reliable? Cause in 2006; they voted for the 700 mile "Secure Fence Act." And, it's not a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific. In fact, it's not even as long as what they voted for then. 

  

Right. That's what I was talking about when I said "San Diego".  Of course, Trump is claiming that "his" wall is being built, when it's really rebuilding sections of that border fence.

There are places where a physical border is appropriate. But not everywhere.

Please show me where Trump's "wall" proposal isn't sea to sea. Everything I can find shows it that way.

That's why the price tag is so ridiculous.

[BIGUN 1,483]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please show me where Trump's "wall" proposal isn't sea to sea.

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map/

[yoink 321]

4 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Jerry,

i don’t think that is fair. I was in California during the 2016 election and can confidently say that the guys in the office ‘were scared of, disliked, hated Hillary’ and they voted for Trump out of protest, not cause they liked him. Much like Brexit, they got a shock when Trump one, they were not exactly thrilled with the outcome

No doubt.

You’ve still got to own the consequences of your actions though...

Videos of people complaining that Brexit is ruining their business after they submitted it as  ‘a protest vote’ are a good example.

Whatever reason you had you, voted FOR this. The point Jerry is making is that even if a symbolic vote is your reason, the reality is that you have given that position a positive step to becoming actuality, not just the opposition a negative one.

The two aren’t the same. Behaviorally they’re close, but the consequences are very different and it’s dishonest to deny any culpability in the result ‘because you were only doing it for X, Y or Z reasons’.

 

It’s a serious problem with our two party system.

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

C'mon, Jerry. You can't tell me that you never were so vehemently opposed to someone running for office that you voted for the opposition just to make sure they didn't get in office.  

Lots of people do. Hell, I do.

It’s the ‘but I don’t subscribe to what this fuckwit is doing because I only voted for him as a protest’ get out of jail free clause I have an issue with.

If the guys I voted for simply to vote AGAINST their opponents end up ruining the world, that’s partly my fault. I have to acknowledge that. Just as you do with Trump.

Edited April 15, 2019 by yoink

[billvon 3,111]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I am just pointing out that the same dynamics of cultural and economic unease that lead to Trump's victory could repeat.

In that case - why not emulate what worked, rather than what failed?

[nigel99 616]

Yoink,

totally agree with you. If your protest vote comes home to roost, you’ve got to own the consequences.

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

In that case - why not emulate what worked, rather than what failed?

Can you clarify what exactly worked and what failed.

[BIGUN 1,483]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Can you clarify what exactly worked and what failed

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/the-historic-results-of-president-donald-j-trumps-first-two-years-in-office/

[BIGUN 1,483]

8 hours ago, yoink said:

It’s the ‘but I don’t subscribe to what this fuckwit is doing because I only voted for him as a protest’ get out of jail free clause I have an issue with.

If the guys I voted for simply to vote AGAINST their opponents end up ruining the world, that’s partly my fault. I have to acknowledge that. Just as you do with Trump

I get your point and I didn't clarify. As to the Issues he's addressing - I support.  Sometimes his methodology and presentation irritates me. 

[Coreece 190]

20 hours ago, jakee said:

22 hours ago, Coreece said:

Lol, so that's the solution?  "Oh, you or your family were victims of the 500-1000+ murders and 6000-1200+ sex crimes in Texas?  Meh, big deal - you're still more likely to be a victim of a U.S citizen, so stop being such a bleeding heart snowflake and just deal with it."

So what's your solution to American on American crime?

It wasn't my solution, but apparently better parenting, more cops and more abortions has cut the crime rate in half of the past 25 years or so.

 

20 hours ago, jakee said:

Are you ready to have a meaningful discourse on ripping up every part of the bill of rights that stops law enforcement from pre-emptively punishing potential American criminals

What does that have to do with border security?

 

20 hours ago, jakee said:

or are you going to dismiss all of those victims because you're too much of a snowflake to consider it? 

I'm going to dismiss it because that's not what I'm talking about. 

[Coreece 190]

20 hours ago, yoink said:

Jakee posted that the stance of being afraid of illegal immigrants to the point of needing to take action because of the 2 cited cases of re-offenders pales into insignificance

Tell that to the 200,000-450,000+ victims of criminal illegal aliens in Texas alone.

 

20 hours ago, yoink said:

So, as I pointed out, it's a crap retort simply in terms of having a discussion because it makes no sense.

It was a snide post in response to another snide post.  I just thought Jakee's reply was unwarranted.  It's not like Bigun came in here ragging on "foreigners from shithole mexican countries stinking the place up!"

[Coreece 190]

19 hours ago, billvon said:

22 hours ago, Coreece said:

No wonder there's no meaningful discourse on the subject and people get all pissed off and say "fuck it, just build the damn wall already,"  especially if that's the only thing they feel they have the control to do.

 

Careful there.  "Fuck it, just confiscate their guns already" is an even easier leap, given that no right winger is willing to engage in meaningful discourse on that.  (And the next time we have a democratic president, he/she can just 'declare a crime emergency' and do just that, with the precedents being set now.)

Interesting, because every time the subject comes up, you guys are always quick to assure everyone that "nobody wants to take your guns!" 

Besides, democrats don't have the balls to raid inner cities, nor start a war with the militia.

But I'm glad you brought it up.  Maybe you can apply your gun control strategy to border control as well:

"If a new treatment saved "only" 8% more pancreatic cancer patients - it would be seen as a pretty good thing.   Do that year after year, and pretty soon you have a dramatic reduction in deaths.  Even if they come 8% (or even 4%) at a time."   

 

12 hours ago, billvon said:

Funny. Under Obama the number of illegal immigrants hit historic lows. 

That was most likely due to the poor economy and the subsequent Home Depot parking lot hiring freeze. 

[Coreece 190]

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There are and have been places where walls are effective. Look at San Diego. 

But that's not what Trump's wall is. 
Please point me towards ANY  reliable source that indicates that a wall reaching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific would have any reasonable effect on illegal immigration. Or drug smuggling.

I'd agree that a full 1200 mile wall would be impractical and a bit of overkill.  I'm not even sure if the full 500 miles of additional barriers in "accessible" areas are really that necessary.  But if you think partial walls are effective, how can you honestly say that Trump's full wall wouldn't be at least as effective?

 

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Look at how much regular border crossings are used. Compare how many arrests are made at crossing points vs out 'in the wild'. 

So what are the numbers any way?

How many are arrested?

How many are arrested for trafficking/smuggling or some other illegal activity like that?

How many are arrested for trying to sneak through?

How many are simply surrendering to apply for asylum?

If the estimates of 20,000 women and children being trafficked every year across an unsecured border are considered unreliable, how are estimates of those that sneak through secured border crossings more reliable?

Also according to the IOM, "cases of sexual exploitation were more likely to travel through unofficial routes." Sexual exploitation accounts for 22% of nonofficial border crossings as apposed to 15% of official border crossings.  Many children unaccompanied by adults also tend to journey toward unsecured points of entry which leaves them more susceptible to those trying to exploit them.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 4/13/2019 at 10:03 AM, BIGUN said:

I feel the need to resurface this; in light of knowing that it will get trashed. A couple of years ago; a thirty-five year friend's wife was killed by an illegal alien. He was caught and sentenced to six years in jail (hit, kill & run). After six months; he was let out of prison (without the knowledge of my friend to get an injunction); returned to Honduras only to found and arrested again in California for robbery.  So, yes. The issue is kind of personal. 

Three years ago, Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who was released from jail despite a request from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn him over. A federal appeals court ruled last month that Steinle's parents cannot sue over San Francisco's "sanctuary" policy that allowed her killer to avoid deportation and walk free.  

The following is just in Texas ALONE:

Quite frankly, I just do not understand my liberal fellow skydivers on here. I simply don't get how you guys can be so heels dug in about letting illegal aliens in the country. I'm beginning to think that it may be a case of, "It hasn't hit close to home for you." It has for me and I just want you guys to know that I will continue to support Trump as long as he continues to either 1) build a way, 2) use the military, or 3) we can come up with some bipartisan way to secure our borders. I don't know if that means via manpower + drones + + +

A very regular US-based dropzone.com poster and fellow skydiver committed suicide and not a single dropzone.com Republican stood up for spending billions to provide proper healthcare to their fellow countrymen and women.

I feel for the suffering of your friend's family, however the heartstring post feels a bit hollow.

Crime by illegal immigrants is much less of a concern than crime by American Citizens. Under Obama illegal immigration was at an all-time low. Under Trump's policy that has turned into a clusterfuck.

[Coreece 190]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

A very regular US-based dropzone.com poster and fellow skydiver committed suicide and not a single dropzone.com Republican stood up for spending billions to provide proper healthcare to their fellow countrymen and women.

I feel for the suffering of your friend's family, however the heartstring post feels a bit hollow.

Crime by illegal immigrants is much less of a concern than crime by American Citizens. Under Obama illegal immigration was at an all-time low. Under Trump's policy that has turned into a clusterfuck.

dumbest fucking post you ever made.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

14 minutes ago, Coreece said:

dumbest fucking post you ever made.

And yet you weren't able to understand it.

[DJL 235]

On 4/14/2019 at 12:42 PM, BIGUN said:

Except maybe, Israel, India, China, Turkmenistan, Saudi, Spain, Uzbekistan, etc. etc. Lookup Border Barriers. And, of course; immigration had nothing to do with Brexit. 

You're citing examples of countries who use walls AND lethal force, and/or they're protecting against terrorism and/or warfare, and they're installed in places requiring a much shorter length.  In locations and in situations similar to the border with Mexico they also have the same shortcomings, namely that they don't actually prevent crossing unless there is also active surveillance and the ability to respond.

As for liberals digging in about allowing illegals in, that's not the case at all.  Liberals are trying to be realistic about border security in a dollars spent sense.  The fact is that a little more border wall won't affect anything and a 100% coast to coast wall IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN because of cost, land use, land ownership, and basic construction logistics to name a few things.  It is true that a well constructed entirely impermeable wall with active surveillance and the ability to respond would stymie illegal crossing and end the issue but that's simply not going to happen.

[jakee 1,594]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

It wasn't my solution, but apparently better parenting, more cops and more abortions has cut the crime rate in half of the past 25 years or so.

 

What does that have to do with border security?

 

I'm going to dismiss it because that's not what I'm talking about. 

And yet Texas has over 1100 murders a year. Is that your solution for those 1100 families, tell them their loved one is only half as dead? Doesn’t really work like that. 

 

Or or are you going to tell them sorry, I only care about crime that illegals commit, I have no interest in hard discussions about the majority of crime that happens in the country?

[jakee 1,594]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

It was a snide post in response to another snide post.  I just thought Jakee's reply was unwarranted.  

Yeah, but that’s because you couldn’t even be bothered to read what I actually said, you just made a snap judgement on what you thought I said.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

17 hours ago, BIGUN said:

 so vehemently opposed to someone running for office that you voted for the opposition

Hi Keith,

I had to take some time to remember how I have voted.  The underlined is who I voted for:

1964)  Johnson v Goldwater

1968)  Humphrey v Nixon

1972)  McGovern v Nixon

1976)  Carter v Ford

1980)  Carter v Reagan

1984)  Mondale v Reagan

1988)  Dukakis v Bush

1992)  Clinton v Bush

1996)  Clinton v Dole

2000)  Gore v Bush

2004)  Kerry v Bush

2008)  Obama v McCain

2012)  Obama v Romney

2016)  Clinton v Trump

The only one who comes even slightly close is my vote for LBJ; who I still despise.

Given that, I think I can honestly say, 'No.'  Is that a sufficient answer?

Jerry Baumchen

[yobnoc 142]

23 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I had to take some time to remember how I have voted.  The underlined is who I voted for:

1964)  Johnson v Goldwater

1968)  Humphrey v Nixon

1972)  McGovern v Nixon

1976)  Carter v Ford

1980)  Carter v Reagan

1984)  Mondale v Reagan

1988)  Dukakis v Bush

1992)  Clinton v Bush

1996)  Clinton v Dole

2000)  Gore v Bush

2004)  Kerry v Bush

2008)  Obama v McCain

2012)  Obama v Romney

2016)  Clinton v Trump

The only one who comes even slightly close is my vote for LBJ; who I still despise.

Given that, I think I can honestly say, 'No.'  Is that a sufficient answer?

Jerry Baumchen

Damn, you old :-P