The wall

[Coreece 190]

19 hours ago, billvon said:

I could also see how it would be very hard for you to understand that US citizens pose a bigger risk in terms of murdering you and your friends than illegal aliens do.

15 hours ago, jakee said:

Are you going to kick all the Americans out of Texas so they can't commit anymore crimes or do your bleeding heart snowflake ideas about freedom get in the way of that?

 

Aliens are humans (hehe), some humans are bad. If you can deal with the badness of humans who have the same colour passport as you, you can deal with the badness of those who don't.

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."

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.

 

[yoink 321]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Ummm. No. No I don't. And, where do you live again and how is this any of your business? See. I have the power to vote in THIS country. How about you just focus on your own country and it's issues. 

This is one of the more stupid replies there can possibly be. I’d expect it of rushmc but you’re better than this.

First, this is an international discussion forum in which you CHOOSE to post. Limiting discussions by region goes against the entire point of the internet.

 

Second, it’s a crap argument. I can completely defuse it by simply copy/pasting Jakees question. I DO live here, so now you’re in exactly the same situation but looking more foolish. Just because one person asks a question or voices a thought doesn’t mean others aren’t thinking the same thing.

 

And thirdly, the entire world is connected. What happens in the US has direct and indirect consequences across the world. You’re not just an isolated nation, even if you wish to be.

[Coreece 190]

37 minutes ago, yoink said:

Second, it’s a crap argument. I can completely defuse it by simply copy/pasting Jakees question. I DO live here

That's even worse.  If you want to call the victims and their family/friends a bunch of bleeding heart snowflakes that should just deal with it, that's fine.  Just don't be surprised when they deal with it by building a fucking wall.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Ummm. No. No I don't. And, where do you live again and how is this any of your business? See. I have the power to vote in THIS country. How about you just focus on your own country and it's issues. 

So you let your fear and hatred cloud your judgement to the point that you voted for a 'carnival barker' and wannabe demagogue who does nothing but stir up fear and hatred.

And to demonstrate the 'wannabe demagogue' part, Trump has signed an executive order regarding the Keystone pipeline. Agree or disagree with the pipeline, the idea that Trump has said it's not subject to judicial review. 
That what he says goes. And nobody can stop him.

Can you imagine the reaction if Obama had done something like that?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-wields-presidential-power-on-pipeline-energy-projects

[BIGUN 1,440]

54 minutes 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.

We have a winner. 

[BIGUN 1,440]

2 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So you let your fear and hatred cloud your judgement to the point that you voted for a 'carnival barker' and wannabe demagogue who does nothing but stir up fear and hatred.

Nope. I voted against HRC. He can only stir up fear and hatred in those who wish to feel that way. If you read my post - I'm interested in bipartisan solutions - not being called snowflake or being told that I hate "Little brown people." Yet, I'm accused of ridiculous comebacks. 

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Yet you said you support Trump building a wall.

You do realize that that 'wall' is nothing but a distraction, right? NOBODY who has any understanding of immigration and illegal crossings thinks it will have much of an effect.

Edit to add:

I had to go back and look to see where you expressed 'interest' in a bipartisan solution.

You said you supported Trump and his efforts to build a wall, or use the military, or some sort of bipartisan solution.
Sounds nice, but Trump's ideas are so repugnant that none of the Ds will support them. And any idea that doesn't include Trump's wall will be rejected by him. He's already shut down the government over it. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by wolfriverjoe

[jakee 1,571]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Ummm. No. No I don't. And, where do you live again and how is this any of your business? See. I have the power to vote in THIS country. How about you just focus on your own country and it's issues. 

So you do want to kick all the Americans out of Texas because of how many crimes they commit?

 

Bold stance.

[jakee 1,571]

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

[jakee 1,571]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

That's even worse.  If you want to call the victims and their family/friends a bunch of bleeding heart snowflakes that should just deal with it, that's fine.  Just don't be surprised when they deal with it by building a fucking wall.

You do realise that's just about the exact opposite of what I said, right?

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

That's even worse.  If you want to call the victims and their family/friends a bunch of bleeding heart snowflakes that should just deal with it, that's fine.  Just don't be surprised when they deal with it by building a fucking wall.

I'm not sure if you didn't read Jakee's post, don't understand the point of mine, or are just looking for a fight.

Let's try this again: 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 when compared to the liklihood of being the victim of a citizen repeat offender. 

He then got told to mind his own business.

You should try reading my post again - it contained NOTHING about the substance of jakee's post and was everything to do with the type of reply BIGUN posted. For what it's worth I disagree with the name calling by everyone. I think it's pathetic.

 

So, as I pointed out, it's a crap retort simply in terms of having a discussion because it makes no sense. The question is still exactly the same now that I, an American citizen, asks it. I don't need to be the person to actually type it out for it to be a perfectly valid question. The weird bit is that your reply about building a wall has nothing to do with either my post OR the original question about the citizen vs immigrant re-offenders. You've just picked a post to reply to in order to shove something about a wall in there, it seems.

[yoink 321]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

You do realise that's just about the exact opposite of what I said, right?

BUILD A FUCKING WALL THOUGH BECAUSE CLINTON! 

 

I'm not convinced a lot of posts in here actually get. you know, 'read'.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by yoink

[BIGUN 1,440]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

NOBODY who has any understanding of immigration and illegal crossings thinks it will have much of an effect.

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

[yoink 321]

4 minutes ago, 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. 

Hang on, 

 

are you talking about immigration, illegal immigration, or the perception of immigration? Because they're all very different things.

[billvon 3,090]

3 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.)

[billvon 3,090]

20 hours ago, BIGUN said:

https://cis.org/Report/Examination-US-Immigration-Policy-and-Serious-Crime Written in 2001

The criminal does not view human relations through the same prism that non-criminals do. The gangster who runs credit-card and cigarette tax scams, the mob enforcer, the wife beater who invokes "tradition" and uses his spouse's immigrant status to keep her in line for them, crime is a vehicle to exalt an inflated sense of infallibility. They are predators, and most people instinctively avoid challenging them because they do not want to be prey.

 

Good quote.  So why not go after gangsters, enforcers and wife beaters?

Throughout history there has been a desire to go after "them" - blacks, Irish, Muslims, immigrants - because "they" are different than "us."  That way we need not lift a finger to change our behavior, or the behavior of anyone we know.  It all happens to someone else, and someone else bears all the effects of the crackdowns. 

All such efforts have failed, because the problem isn't a "them."  The problem is criminals.

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I voted against HRC. 

Hi Keith,

I do not know how the ballots looked in your state.  However, I have never seen an option to 'vote against' someone.

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. 

Jerry  Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, 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. 

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.

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

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I do not know how the ballots looked in your state.  However, I have never seen an option to 'vote against' someone.

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. 

Jerry  Baumchen

Hi Jerry,

I will disagree somewhat with you there.

 

In both 2000 and 2004, I felt that GWB was a poor candidate. My votes 'for' him were far more votes 'against' Gore & Kerry than actually wanting him in the WH. 

 

In 2012 & 2016, I disliked both candidates enough that I voted 3rd party. I understood that it was a 'protest' vote, and that the candidate had virtually zero chance of winning (I voted for Dole in 96 and McCain in 08, knowing the same thing). 

 

While I disagree with Bigun's choice, I understand it. However, I see him supporting and agreeing with Trump on enough issues that I see him as more of a "Trump supporter".

[brenthutch 444]

I'm beginning to think that Trump's biggest campaign promise failure may lead to his reelection.  A continued increase in the rate of illegal crossings combined with the reflexive opposition to any border security measures by the Dems may flip public opinion.  When crossings were around 50k per month, it was no big deal.  Now that is 100k a month, it has been widely acknowledged that we have a problem.  If the trend continues, which it may well now that Trump has cut aid to the Northern Triangle, we could have 200k+.  That could be a game changer.

[Stumpy 284]

47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

reflexive opposition to any border security measures by the Dems 

Except that's not true is it. Be honest now.

[brenthutch 444]

I have not heard of a Democrat policy that tightens control of the border.  They all are based around expediting the asylum process, and having a more permissive approach. If we get to the point where hundreds of thousands of Central Americans are pouring in every month, overwhelming our ability to accommodate them, we may witness a dramatic shift in public opinion.  With the current crop of Democrat candidates pandering to the most left wing of their constituency, it is not hard to imagine a backlash.

[Stumpy 284]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I have not heard of a Democrat policy that tightens control of the border.  They all are based around expediting the asylum process, and having a more permissive approach. If we get to the point where hundreds of thousands of Central Americans are pouring in every month, overwhelming our ability to accommodate them, we may witness a dramatic shift in public opinion.  With the current crop of Democrat candidates pandering to the most left wing of their constituency, it is not hard to imagine a backlash.

OK - it's not hard to look this up but as an example the budget proposed in January had:

• about $22 billion in total funding for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• $675 million for scanners at points of entry
• $502 million for "humanitarian concerns at the border" such as food and medical care
• $400 million in border security technology, 1,000 new customs agents
• $156.7 million for new boats, planes and sensors.

USA Today

What it did not have, was 23BN (or even 5BN) for a wall that would be an utter waste of money. So pretty much every single thing you have built into this strawman is false, but keep going, it's entertaining watching your flights of fancy.

[billvon 3,090]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I have not heard of a Democrat policy that tightens control of the border.  They all are based around expediting the asylum process, and having a more permissive approach. If we get to the point where hundreds of thousands of Central Americans are pouring in every month, overwhelming our ability to accommodate them, we may witness a dramatic shift in public opinion.  With the current crop of Democrat candidates pandering to the most left wing of their constituency, it is not hard to imagine a backlash.

Funny. Under Obama the number of illegal immigrants hit historic lows.  Under Trump illegal immigration is up.  Yet apparently Democrats are "more permissive" and are risking a "backlash."

It's almost as if there's no connection between your statements and reality.

[nigel99 586]

4 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I do not know how the ballots looked in your state.  However, I have never seen an option to 'vote against' someone.

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. 

Jerry  Baumchen

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

[brenthutch 444]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

Funny. Under Obama the number of illegal immigrants hit historic lows.  Under Trump illegal immigration is up.  Yet apparently Democrats are "more permissive" and are risking a "backlash.".

Did you not read my OP?  I said Trump has FAILED at securing our border.  I also said that the reduction/elimination of aid to the Northern Triangle countries would make the problem WORSE.  

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

To Stumpy's point, the position of Democrat presidential candidates will carry much more weight in 2020 than a failed budget proposal.  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.

Edited April 15, 2019 by brenthutch