PDA

View Full Version : Texan landowners don't want their land stolen for Trump's wall




Pages : [1] 2

Snowball
01-10-2019, 11:32 AM
As Trump visits border, Texas landowners prepare wall fight

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-visits-border-texas-landowners-prepare-wall-fight-n957191

Texas Landowners Prepare Wall Fight

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-01-09/texas-landowners-dig-in-to-fight-trumps-border-wall

CaptUSA
01-10-2019, 11:41 AM
Move along. Nothing to see here.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 11:48 AM
Move along. Nothing to see here.


Private property rights are a small price to pay for something so critically important as this immigration "crisis." Can't make an omelette...

PAF
01-10-2019, 12:00 PM
Undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for most government programs, so the Fed wants control so that bankrupted businesses and those it used to employ can pick up the slack and rely on government assist.

Makes sense.

Wait until the UN/IUO USMCA goes into affect to really see prices skyrocket in this country, and others.

dannno
01-10-2019, 12:01 PM
"You could give me a trillion dollars and I wouldn't take it," said Cavazos, whose land sits along the Rio Grande, the river separating the U.S. and Mexico in Texas. "It's not about money."

It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally collaborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built.. and when it is, they get a big cash payment and better protection of their private property. For free.. really doesn't sound so horrible.

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the cartels and smugglers.. which may be the case here. Could also be that he is a Democrat and this is an ideological thing as well, since apparently money is not the primary driver.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..

angelatc
01-10-2019, 12:05 PM
It's Constitutional.

PAF
01-10-2019, 12:05 PM
It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally corroborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built..

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the smugglers.. which is probably the case here.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..



That’s why Private Property is so essential to Liberty... it’s none of your business what he/she/somebody else does.

Once Private Property is forfeited to the Fed, you are no longer a 60% slave, but a 100% owned one.

CaptUSA
01-10-2019, 12:06 PM
It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally corroborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built..

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the smugglers.. which is probably the case here.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..



Really, dannno? You impugn the integrity of a landowner?? Can't a guy just say, "It's my property - that's why!"? I'm seriously starting to question you Trump guys...

Since when does it matter the reason why you want liberty?? You guys seem to think you only get liberty if it's for a reason you approve of.

Slave Mentality
01-10-2019, 12:07 PM
The Greater Good hath infected the RPFs.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 12:07 PM
It's Constitutional.


So was chattel slavery.

CaptUSA
01-10-2019, 12:08 PM
It's Constitutional.

Oh. Well. As long it's "legal".

brushfire
01-10-2019, 12:09 PM
Remove the incentive and we dont need a wall, much less the need to exercise eminent domain. Taking away incentives also addresses other issues, beyond illegal immigration.

Slave Mentality
01-10-2019, 12:10 PM
It's Constitutional.


So was chattel slavery.


And keeping women and coloreds from voting, wars all over the world, indefinite detention, enhanced interrogation. I could go on for hours.

oyarde
01-10-2019, 12:10 PM
Personally I see only two major reasons to oppose added security . One is any loss of private property and the other being afraid you cannot go over to the other side if you want . As far as I know mexico is not refusing the dollars you want to spend in Mexico . So really we are down to one . Build it on the Mexican side . The problems arise from there so .......

nikcers
01-10-2019, 12:12 PM
Well I am not a land owner so why should it bother me if the government can take away other peoples land?

spudea
01-10-2019, 12:13 PM
What would happen in a libertarian utopia? Are these land owners willing to repel invaders themselves with physical barriers and patrols? Highly unlikely, they pass along that burden to the government, thus the government takes action.

angelatc
01-10-2019, 12:13 PM
Oh. Well. As long it's "legal".

I'm not a fan, but I'm not about to yammer about "stealing land" when I openly identify as a constitutional conservative. The government is allowed to take land for public use as long as they compensate the land owners.

If you don't like it, change the constitution.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Immigration restrictionism is based on the premise that, not just along the border, but all land within the jurisdiction of the federal government, belongs to the federal government, and anybody who is nominally the private owner of any parcel of it is just a tenant on that government land.

It's logically impossible to believe in such a thing as private land ownership while also supporting immigration restriction.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 12:16 PM
Really, dannno? You impugn the integrity of a landowner?? Can't a guy just say, "It's my property - that's why!"? I'm seriously starting to question you Trump guys...

Since when does it matter the reason why you want liberty?? You guys seem to think you only get liberty if it's for a reason you approve of.


Three cheers for "compromise!"

oyarde
01-10-2019, 12:17 PM
Well I am not a land owner so why should it bother me if the government can take away other peoples land?

Yep , I am a land owner and would fight to keep mine That said it is tiring to think people want to pretend congress will eliminate the incentives . So I really have no side to take . If I owned a ranch there I may not want it on my property depending on the location , the guy who owns the ranch north of me would probably be happy if it did exist . What they would both agree on is congress will not take freebies away .

dannno
01-10-2019, 12:18 PM
Really, dannno? You impugn the integrity of a landowner?? Can't a guy just say, "It's my property - that's why!"? I'm seriously starting to question you Trump guys...

Since when does it matter the reason why you want liberty?? You guys seem to think you only get liberty if it's for a reason you approve of.

I said I don't like eminent domain.. but, like angela said, this is also constitutional.. it's probably one of the more legitimate forms of eminent domain, maybe the only one really.. we are trying to prevent an invasion of our country. Sorry if I don't want to live in an even more socialist country than I already do..

oyarde
01-10-2019, 12:19 PM
What would happen in a libertarian utopia? Are these land owners willing to repel invaders themselves with physical barriers and patrols? Highly unlikely, they pass along that burden to the government, thus the government takes action.

I see no reason they should not be allowed to if they so wish , but you are right , the majority would defer .

oyarde
01-10-2019, 12:20 PM
Immigration restrictionism is based on the premise that, not just along the border, but all land within the jurisdiction of the federal government, belongs to the federal government, and anybody who is nominally the private owner of any parcel of it is just a tenant on that government land.

It's logically impossible to believe in such a thing as private land ownership while also supporting immigration restriction.

The Fed govt should not own all the land they do most certainly but I doubt they are going to change that .

dannno
01-10-2019, 12:20 PM
That’s why Private Property is so essential to Liberty... it’s none of your business what he/she/somebody else does.

Once Private Property is forfeited to the Fed, you are no longer a 60% slave, but a 100% owned one.

If you don't want a wall or a fence on the edge of your property, I recommend not buying property RIGHT ON the border of the country you live in. Any other time I will defend the landowner to the end, but this is kind of silly. They are getting a big payout, they are getting better protection of their property, and they live on the border where they should sort of expect to have a barrier..

PAF
01-10-2019, 12:21 PM
What would happen in a libertarian utopia? Are these land owners willing to repel invaders themselves with physical barriers and patrols? Highly unlikely, they pass along that burden to the government, thus the government takes action.

On your Private Property put your own fence up on your own dime. What I do/don’t do with my own property is my own business. I don’t rely on socialism/welfare, certainly not the FedGov.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 12:23 PM
they live on the border where they should sort of expect to have a barrier.

Before 9/11 a statement like this would have sounded ludicrous.

timosman
01-10-2019, 12:23 PM
Remove the incentive and we dont need a wall, much less the need to exercise eminent domain. Taking away incentives also addresses other issues, beyond illegal immigration.

Yeah. Make everybody poor. :cool:

timosman
01-10-2019, 12:25 PM
Before 9/11 a statement like this would have sounded ludicrous.

What a difference 18 years of being fucked with can make. :cool:

PAF
01-10-2019, 12:25 PM
If you don't want a wall or a fence on the edge of your property, I recommend not buying property RIGHT ON the border of the country you live in. Any other time I will defend the landowner to the end, but this is kind of silly. They are getting a big payout, they are getting better protection of their property, and they live on the border where they should sort of expect to have a barrier..

That homesteading land was there long before the government thefted it away. Your analogy is not to live anywhere govt. decides to draw a line on a map or piece of paper.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 12:26 PM
Before 9/11 a statement like this would have sounded ludicrous.


Three years ago, on this very forum, such a statement would have been roundly condemned by almost everyone, and the person who uttered it would have been excoriated. Times have changed, for the worse.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 12:27 PM
That homesteading land was there long before the government thefted it away. Your analogy is not to live anywhere govt. decides to draw a line on a map or piece of paper.

Great way to put it.

CaptUSA
01-10-2019, 12:28 PM
I said I don't like eminent domain.. but, like angela said, this is also constitutional.. it's probably one of the more legitimate forms of eminent domain, maybe the only one really.. we are trying to prevent an invasion of our country. Sorry if I don't want to live in an even more socialist country than I already do..

Ok, never mind your government-induced fears... You can make that case. But to go after this guy saying he must be profiting from trafficking illegals??! That was low. What do you know about him? Maybe he just thinks he owns his land.

timosman
01-10-2019, 12:28 PM
Times have changed, for the worse.

Thanks for finally noticing. :D

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 12:29 PM
Ok, never mind your government-induced fears... You can make that case. But to go after this guy saying he must be profiting from trafficking illegals??! That was low. What do you know about him? Maybe he just thinks he owns his land.

Even if he is trafficking "illegals" (kind of a silly label, honestly), so what? It's his land. If he's not helping kidnappers or something, more power to him. The government has no business interfering. And the very fact that there is demand for such an enterprise only attests to the way the government has corrupted the market by trying to keep immigration suppressed below a level the market demands. If they would just let as many people as want to come in through legal ports of entry and stay here and work as long as they want legally, then there wouldn't exist a need for anyone to traffic "illegals" except in cases where they were actually doing something that warranted violent action to stop them.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 12:32 PM
It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally corroborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built.. and when it is, they get a big cash payment and better protection of their private property. For free.. really doesn't sound so horrible.

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the cartels and smugglers.. which may be the case here. Could also be that he is a Democrat and this is an ideological thing as well, since apparently money is not the primary driver.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..



You actually enlarged the text on that statist spin, holy hell.

PursuePeace
01-10-2019, 12:38 PM
It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally corroborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built.. and when it is, they get a big cash payment and better protection of their private property. For free.. really doesn't sound so horrible.

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the cartels and smugglers.. which may be the case here. Could also be that he is a Democrat and this is an ideological thing as well, since apparently money is not the primary driver.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..



Exactly.

I'm against eminent domain, but you can't expect to have land on the border of your country and never have an eminent domain issue. That's just ridiculous.

And as far as removing incentives, of course! We need BOTH.
Just removing incentives is NOT going to stop the human traffickers, gangs, and others pouring into the country. The incentives make it more attractive to a lot of these people, but without them they would STILL be coming here. Without a doubt.

This isn't some sort of free, beautiful, loving, wonderful, civilized world where all libertarian ideals are met.
Not happening. This is reality and you have to do the best with what you have.
Yes, we absolutely need a wall. AND we need to cut off all incentives. Both.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 12:39 PM
You actually enlarged the text on that statist spin, holy hell.


Welcome to the New and Improved "Liberty Movement" (TM). Now with 70% more authoritarian bullshit.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 12:43 PM
Exactly.

I'm against eminent domain, but you can't expect to have land on the border of your country and never have an eminent domain issue. That's just ridiculous. snip



Why is that? How many years, decades, centuries has that property been there without this issue coming up?

dannno
01-10-2019, 12:48 PM
You actually enlarged the text on that statist spin, holy hell.

If there was a "normalize" text I would use that, but it came out something like this originally.

shakey1
01-10-2019, 12:48 PM
I wonder what the goobermint would see as 'just compensation'?

A 50' high wall in your back yard... it would obscure the view.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/backpackersverse/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/31043844/Rio-Grande-River-Big-Bend-National-Park-tx.jpg

PursuePeace
01-10-2019, 12:50 PM
Why is that? How many years, decades, centuries has that property been there without this issue coming up?

Because no-one else has addressed and tried to fix the problems.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 12:50 PM
I remember, not all that long ago, when the overwhelming majority of people here were arguing vehemently AGAINST eminent domain seizures to build the NAFTA Superhighway, which I hasten to add were every bit as CONstitutional as those for Trump's big beautiful wall. I guess things are different when some people like the reason for which government seizes other people's property.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 12:53 PM
Because no-one else has addressed and tried to fix the problems.

The (generally hyped up, and not so bad in reality) "problems" you refer to are the result of government action, generally government actions that have come about fairly recently in history. They didn't exist or need to be addressed until the government created them. The solution is to undo those actions, not to create more big-government bandaids to supposedly fix them only to create more government-created problems that will become your excuse for another big-government solution the year after that, and so on in an endless cycle.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 12:53 PM
Because no-one else has addressed and tried to fix the problems.

I'm thinking you may be severely disappointed my friend, and that statement is not accurate.

spudea
01-10-2019, 01:01 PM
I remember, not all that long ago, when the overwhelming majority of people here were arguing vehemently AGAINST eminent domain seizures to build the NAFTA Superhighway, which I hasten to add were every bit as CONstitutional as those for Trump's big beautiful wall. I guess things are different when some people like the reason for which government seizes other people's property.

Completely different issues present different responses. Wow thanks Mr. Confucius.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 01:04 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 01:07 PM
Completely different issues present different responses. Wow thanks Mr. Confucius.

Did you notice that whizzing sound just over your head?

Schifference
01-10-2019, 01:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu5AxyJlCAc

nikcers
01-10-2019, 01:15 PM
Who cares if they take away other peoples guns, I don't have any.

Ender
01-10-2019, 01:15 PM
The "problems" you refer to are the result of government action, generally government actions that have come about fairly recently in history. They didn't exist or need to be addressed until the government created them. The solution is to undo those actions, not to create more big-government bandaids to supposedly fix them only to create more government-created problems that will become your excuse for another big-government solution the year after that, and so on in an endless cycle.

EXACTLY.

Heaven forbid we should have free trade, no entitlements & local charity instead of federal.

Plus the WoD is the reason for cartels etc. It is a big money maker for the alphabets- not to mention .gov actions of coups in C & S America & military bases all over.

This immigrant "problem" is a distraction- illegals have not increased- it's only to have people run around screaming "Muh culture!" while other real insidious freedom losses are taking place

dannno
01-10-2019, 01:15 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?

Nope, the government is already making very fair offers to the landowners and the guy in the article said he wouldn't take a trillion dollars if it were offered to him...

I was pondering why the guy in the article wouldn't take a trillion dollars. He said it isn't about money.. so what is it is about? Is he a cartel member? Operating with the cartel? Or maybe he is pro-invasion? Democrat SJW?

Or maybe Mr. Cavazos just wants to keep his nice view of the rio grande..

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 01:16 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?

Very good idea.

Give the immigration restrictionists a chance to put their money where their mouth is.

That may be the only way to get them to do the cost-benefit analysis that would show them how stupid of a waste of money it is.

nikcers
01-10-2019, 01:16 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?
How do you buy something that is not for sale?

nobody's_hero
01-10-2019, 01:18 PM
I'd give folks a choice. If they don't want the wall then they must take personal responsibility for enforcing the border along their property. That or, give out MapQuest directions to the homes of every libertarian here who makes the claim that they have the right to invite whoever they want onto their property.

We'll see which option is more practical.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 01:18 PM
How do you buy something that is not for sale?

In this case, you buy the land that is for sale, or would be for sale at a high enough price, surrounding the property of the stick in the mud, and just build the wall on the north side of his land, rather than the south.

dannno
01-10-2019, 01:19 PM
In this case, you buy the land that is for sale, or would be for sale at a high enough price, surrounding the property of the stick in the mud, and just build the wall on the north side of his land, rather than the south.

Hah, that would be funny.. he wouldn't be able to get into the US tho..

Ender
01-10-2019, 01:19 PM
Nope, the government is already making very fair offers to the landowners and the guy in the article said he wouldn't take a trillion dollars if it were offered to him...

I was pondering why the guy in the article wouldn't take a trillion dollars. He said it isn't about money.. so what is it is about? Is he a cartel member? Operating with the cartel? Or maybe he is pro-invasion? Democrat SJW?

Or maybe he just wants to keep his nice view of the rio grande..

Or maybe he's like the Bundys & considers this is "home" & wants to keep his own property?

LOL- property rights are the basis of freedom- unless it's something that affects someone else over something we want to scream about- amirite?

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 01:20 PM
Hah, that would be funny.. he wouldn't be able to get into the US tho..

And really, why should he think he has any right to do that anyway?

Schifference
01-10-2019, 01:22 PM
I just figured it out. Treat the border wall like a sidewalk. The property owner has to pay to put in a sidewalk and has to keep it clean and unobstructed. If the property owner fails to shovel snow off of said sidewalk the property owner gets fined. Very simple solution. Legislate that all property on southern border must have approved fencing. Property owners must put in the fence or have lien for cost of fence put on the property. Put all illegal immigration entry issues on the property owner. If someone crosses into USA on your property, property owner gets fined. Government could offer a one time deal to have fence erected with tax subsidy. If Property owner refuses, slap them with fines, penalties, and build the fence anyway for them and charge them for it.
As the creative juices of legislation flow from my brain to my keyboard it even gets simpler. It is even easier than that for the federal government. Legislate that states are required to make sure that the border has fencing and is maintained. Fine the states if they don't maintain the fencing. Have the states deal with the property owners. Don't worry about the wall. Monitor and document illegal crossings via satellite or drones. Fine the state for every illegal they allow to cross said line in the sand. States can then legislate that individual property owners need to do....... and fine individual property owners. Levy fines and take over properties when tax liens are not paid.
Could legislate a new alphabet organization. The BMA. Border Management Authority.

The key to border security is more legislation! Taxes! Fines! Even Imprisonment!

Why should someone in Kansas have to pay for a wall or fence in Texas or California. Those people own their property! Have them care for it and secure it!

dannno
01-10-2019, 01:22 PM
Or maybe he's like the Bundys & considers this is "home" & wants to keep his own property?

LOL- property rights are the basis of freedom- unless it's something that affects someone else over something we want to scream about- amirite?

This isn't at all like the Bundy's.. they were trying to take ALL his grazing land. In this case they are just putting a fence up along the edge of your property, and paying you for it.. giving you more security over your property.

brushfire
01-10-2019, 01:22 PM
Yeah. Make everybody poor. :cool:

No, Tim - strip government of its ability to dish out welfare, and reduce its operating costs, and thus the tax burden. Anyone wonder why aren't these illegals migrating to Canada? Canada is doing quite well. Why didnt illegal immigration increase during the 2008/2009 crisis? Because it was a colder couple of years? Chicago has lots of illegals, and it gets cold around here, every year. Is Canada not an exceptional country in the eyes of God?

What makes this such a difficult issue for some? Is it that this is a racially charged issue? Perhaps it is the perceived threat to our sovereignty (some would easily argue that it is a legitimate threat to our sovereignty)? But this isn't by accident, and those concerns will not go away with a wall. As I've said many times before, these people overcome much bigger obstacles than walls, and it doesnt stop them today.

Not to change the topic, but another charged issue was the gay marriage thing... So many people where tied up in why a man could not be married to another man, or why such a thing would be permitted... The question people should have been asking is WTF does the government have to do with marriage? Why is it necessary to apply for a license, and why is common-law marriage even possible? Why does the government get to decide who gets what slice of the pie when someone divorces? What does tax burden have to do with marital status? - yup, boat missed entirely on that one. Gays marry, and government is still involved - win win, right?

...and so, as I see it, the boat is being missed on the illegal alien issue too. Sorry to make people endure my babbling on the topic... Best of luck with your wall, and catching that political pendulum. Always know that if Trump cant get it done, its those evil democrats that got in his way.

Superfluous Man
01-10-2019, 01:28 PM
Anyone wonder why aren't these illegals migrating to Canada?

Very good question. Canada has fairly strict and effective immigration restrictions. They manage to keep illegal immigration pretty low without a border wall. How do they do it? With more serious controls over what goes on inside the border, such as making it more difficult for employers to hire undocumented immigrants there than it is in the US. Immigration restrictionists in Canada must laugh at the fetish their American counterparts have for something as ineffective as a border wall, while they neglect to do what is known to be the things that more effectively curtail illegal immigration.

nikcers
01-10-2019, 01:30 PM
I just figured it out. Treat the border wall like a sidewalk. The property owner has to pay -
Could legislate a new alphabet organization. The BMA. Border Management Authority.

The key to border security is more legislation! Taxes! Fines! Even Imprisonment!

Why should someone in Kansas have to pay for a wall or fence in Texas or California. Those people own their property! Have them care for it and secure it!
Forced HOA for everyone who refused to sell their land to the government where they have to pay fees that would make them want to sell the land and a much lower cost than they would normally because they can't afford the fees this is brilliant.

dude58677
01-10-2019, 01:35 PM
That’s why Private Property is so essential to Liberty... it’s none of your business what he/she/somebody else does.

Once Private Property is forfeited to the Fed, you are no longer a 60% slave, but a 100% owned one.

I don’t support the wall only the debate over the wall as long as it keeps the shutdown going.

juleswin
01-10-2019, 01:37 PM
So there is a real invasion underway with real armies not illegal immigrants trying to invade the country. Now, can a landowner use private ownership rational to deny the military access to their land in order to defend the country? My guess is the answer would a no. So in a country where taxes are collected without your approval, and other govt decrees are made and executed, is it really that unreasonable to ask that a landowner at the border give up a piece of their land for the "good" of the country.

Sadly, this is what eminent domain is meant for and this is exactly how it is supposed to be used. Not making way for some private onwer to build a parking lot. They would lose some of their land, they will get compensated and everything would be OK. Among the many things I hate about govt, this particular one is near the bottom of the list. The people spoke through the election of DJT that they wanted a border wall. I don't care for it but this is clearly what they asked for.

Democracy(repuplican form), sometimes you like it and other times it drives you nuts.

juleswin
01-10-2019, 01:54 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?

That time has passed. For one, there is no way you can convince everyone to sell plus there is nothing stopping other private citizens from buying up the land and refusing to sell. Heck, I could pay 10x the money and buy em now only to try and sell it for 100x the price when you and your private group tries to buy it from me. What I am trying to say is that the owner are going to bid up the price so much that it would make it very hard for you to get all the pieces you need without making al those owners zillionaires.

The only feasable way to get your hand on those lands needed is to use the forceful power of govt. It sucks but this is the name of the game.

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 02:08 PM
Clearly, the problem is having the border follow a river.

We can eliminate the need for domestic eminent domain, and also lower the cost of the wall by making it straighter with one easy step. Somewhat like Trump’s campaign slogan of making Mexico pay for it, we can just move the border to the other side of the Rio Grande. Annex the land necessary to make it a straight line, avoiding natural obstacles. The owners of the land on the Mexican side remain the owners, and make ‘em ‘Mericans too! It’s win/win.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:10 PM
No, Tim - strip government of its ability to dish out welfare, and reduce its operating costs, and thus the tax burden. Anyone wonder why aren't these illegals migrating to Canada? Canada is doing quite well. Why didnt illegal immigration increase during the 2008/2009 crisis? Because it was a colder couple of years? Chicago has lots of illegals, and it gets cold around here, every year. Is Canada not an exceptional country in the eyes of God?

What makes this such a difficult issue for some? Is it that this is a racially charged issue? Perhaps it is the perceived threat to our sovereignty (some would easily argue that it is a legitimate threat to our sovereignty)? But this isn't by accident, and those concerns will not go away with a wall. As I've said many times before, these people overcome much bigger obstacles than walls, and it doesnt stop them today.

Not to change the topic, but another charged issue was the gay marriage thing... So many people where tied up in why a man could not be married to another man, or why such a thing would be permitted... The question people should have been asking is WTF does the government have to do with marriage? Why is it necessary to apply for a license, and why is common-law marriage even possible? Why does the government get to decide who gets what slice of the pie when someone divorces? What does tax burden have to do with marital status? - yup, boat missed entirely on that one. Gays marry, and government is still involved - win win, right?

...and so, as I see it, the boat is being missed on the illegal alien issue too. Sorry to make people endure my babbling on the topic... Best of luck with your wall, and catching that political pendulum. Always know that if Trump cant get it done, its those evil democrats that got in his way.


Very good question. Canada has fairly strict and effective immigration restrictions. They manage to keep illegal immigration pretty low without a border wall. How do they do it? With more serious controls over what goes on inside the border, such as making it more difficult for employers to hire undocumented immigrants there than it is in the US. Immigration restrictionists in Canada must laugh at the fetish their American counterparts have for something as ineffective as a border wall, while they neglect to do what is known to be the things that more effectively curtail illegal immigration.

Canada has a border with Mexico?

Why should they keep on going north to Canada when they can stop in the US take all of our jobs and vote us into communism?

When they have turned the US into Venezuela they will move on to Canada.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:14 PM
Clearly, the problem is having the border follow a river.

We can eliminate the need for domestic eminent domain, and also lower the cost of the wall by making it straighter with one easy step. Somewhat like Trump’s campaign slogan of making Mexico pay for it, we can just move the border to the other side of the Rio Grande. Annex the land necessary to make it a straight line, avoiding natural obstacles. The owners of the land on the Mexican side remain the owners, and make ‘em ‘Mericans too! It’s win/win.
Or we could just multiply the patrols many times over and set up many observation posts.

Champ
01-10-2019, 02:15 PM
Immigration: the topic that split the libertarian movement in half.

nikcers
01-10-2019, 02:17 PM
Who cares if the democrats only want to raise taxes on the top percentage of wages, I am not in the top percentage of wages.

Champ
01-10-2019, 02:21 PM
Any non pro-wall/anti-wall measured responses on this issue out there?

Would love to see some non-patronizing non-snarky comments coming from either side to start making some sense of this debate. But perhaps we have already reached the point of no return and snark and straw mans have already become the dominant form of polemics here.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:22 PM
Immigration: the topic that split the libertarian movement in half.
Immigration: The topic where half of the libertarian movement took the side of the globalists and communists and said that liberty meant allowing them to impose tyranny.

PAF
01-10-2019, 02:22 PM
Immigration: the topic that split the libertarian movement in half.

It’s more like the ‘12 campaign, where we vetted those who were actually us from those in the other camp claiming to be. History does have a way of repeating... but it helps to know who the true ones are.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:23 PM
Any non pro-wall/anti-wall measured responses on this issue out there?

Would love to see some non-patronizing non-snarky comments coming from either side to start making some sense of this debate. But perhaps we have already reached the point of no return and snark and straw mans have already become the dominant form of polemics here.
I have always said that I didn't support the wall and wanted a massive increase in patrols instead but the open borders crowd just calls me a NAZI anyway.

nikcers
01-10-2019, 02:24 PM
Any non pro-wall/anti-wall measured responses on this issue out there?

Would love to see some non-patronizing non-snarky comments coming from either side to start making some sense of this debate. But perhaps we have already reached the point of no return and snark and straw mans have already become the dominant form of polemics here.
this guy does pretty good break downs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM0yxOdA9Zk

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:24 PM
It’s more like the ‘12 campaign, where we vetted those who were actually us from those in the other camp claiming to be. History does have a way of repeating... but it helps to know who the true ones are.
It's too bad that Ron invited those of us who actually believe in border security into his movement.

He could have gotten half the vote he got and been twice as pure.:rolleyes:

PAF
01-10-2019, 02:26 PM
Immigration: The topic where half of the libertarian movement took the side of the globalists and communists and said that liberty meant allowing them to impose tyranny.

Giving Fed control, by force if necessary, of Private and Public Land is indeed a Globalist Agenda.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:31 PM
Giving Fed control, by force if necessary, of Private and Public Land is indeed a Globalist Agenda.
LOL

The globalists want wide open borders so they can flood us with communists and repeal the Constitution, if the globalists wanted a wall we would have gotten one with the PATRIOT act, every globalists in the world is pushing for a borderless world with a communist world government and you are on their side.

Would you support increased patrols and limited immigration?

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 02:32 PM
Any non pro-wall/anti-wall measured responses on this issue out there?

Would love to see some non-patronizing non-snarky comments coming from either side to start making some sense of this debate. But perhaps we have already reached the point of no return and snark and straw mans have already become the dominant form of polemics here.

Probably because the issue has been beaten to death over and over for ten years on this forum.

Schifference
01-10-2019, 02:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idJPmAKcDQw

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 02:38 PM
Immigration: the topic that split the libertarian movement in half.

It’s all about agendas and priorities. And most people just inherit and preach the current dogma of their group. Democrats have done a 180 on the issue in recent decades, so you know there is no principle involved there. It actually contradicts and makes worse many of their other issues, like wages, jobs, housing and carbon footprint (climate change).


Not only that, there is always an agenda, often hidden. Everyone has a vested interest in their position. They believe it will benefit them in some way. Even those who want a moratorium on immigration want that because they believe it is in their best interest, although they tend to be the most open and honest about their agenda.

Businesses (and GOP) want cheap and pliable labor. Democrats want voters and new people who will depend upon them and government for support. Many people want to bring over more of their family or what they think of as “their people”. Others with vested interests consider themselves global in nature. Religious and political groups are the biggest in that category. Religions don’t want borders that will hinder the expansion of their religion. They believe that new immigrants are ripe for conversion, especially if they are aided in their immigration. Political ideologies, like religious ones, also want to convert, and being global in nature, they often want to convert foreign lands to their ideology, often by force.

Look to the hidden agenda...

PAF
01-10-2019, 02:41 PM
LOL

The globalists want wide open borders so they can flood us with communists and repeal the Constitution, if the globalists wanted a wall we would have gotten one with the PATRIOT act, every globalists in the world is pushing for a borderless world with a communist world government and you are on their side.

Would you support increased patrols and limited immigration?

Undocumented immigrants do not legislate law, they aren’t even eligible for most govt. programs. The criminal lobbyists who sign UN agreements at the WH pass laws which violate all people’s rights.


https://youtu.be/-fIBpTp5UKE

axiomata
01-10-2019, 02:46 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?

An acceptable use of private funds and property.

Schifference
01-10-2019, 02:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ckjELRL6Y

PAF
01-10-2019, 02:49 PM
An acceptable use of private funds and property.

Gang mentality, gofundme to take what does not belong to you. Perhaps me and a few of my friends should gofundme and kick you out your property - with a signed piece of paper, of course.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 02:53 PM
Undocumented immigrants do not legislate law, they aren’t even eligible for most govt. programs. The criminal lobbyists who sign UN agreements at the WH pass laws which violate all people’s rights.
They vote for the people who want to take away all of my rights and turn the US into a communist country.
They also get welfare through fruad.



https://youtu.be/-fIBpTp5UKE
I'm not going to waste my time.
Control of the border and immigration is a government issue that affects every citizen and it can't be left to individual land owners to decide that they want to let in an unlimited number of communists to empower those who would completely destroy my liberty.

Rights are a group issue because they depend on the rest of the people around you respecting them, in order to protect my rights I have a right to say who gets to join my group based on whether allowing them to join will cost me my rights.

PAF
01-10-2019, 03:12 PM
They vote for the people who want to take away all of my rights and turn the US into a communist country.
They also get welfare through fruad.


I'm not going to waste my time.

Rights are a group issue because they depend on the rest of the people

Me neither. You support democracy, not individual liberty. I still feel I may have met you before when I busted you for attempting to sabotage the delegates, or perhaps it’s just a coincidence based upon your ridiculous rhetoric on this forum.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:15 PM
It isn't?

Really ?

What is it about? Is this guy illegally collaborating with the invaders?

I don't like eminent domain, but I can't imagine buying land on the border and thinking that there would never be a fence or a wall built.. and when it is, they get a big cash payment and better protection of their private property. For free.. really doesn't sound so horrible.

I also would be willing to bet the vast majority of landowners would prefer a wall or fence be built, unless they are getting payoffs from the cartels and smugglers.. which may be the case here. Could also be that he is a Democrat and this is an ideological thing as well, since apparently money is not the primary driver.

Wouldn't surprise me if the media is reaching out to the tiny minority of landowners who have deals setup with the cartels..



He's looking for a trillion, 200 billion , and $1000 to cover the cost of replanting his pot plants.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 03:16 PM
Me neither. You support democracy, not individual liberty. I still feel I may have met you before when I busted you for attempting to sabotage the delegates, or perhaps it’s just a coincidence based upon your ridiculous rhetoric on this forum.
When you are losing the argument you resort to insults and partial quotes.

You leftists are all the same.

I support the preservation of liberty, you support the invaders who want to take away my liberty.

PAF
01-10-2019, 03:19 PM
When you are losing the argument you resort to insults and partial quotes.

You leftists are all the same.

I support the preservation of liberty, you support the invaders who want to take away my liberty.

I support my own liberty, which also preserves other individuals liberty. This you do not get, nor ever will.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 03:22 PM
I support my own liberty, which also preserves other individuals liberty. This you do not get, nor ever will.
No, you support the invaders and their intent to interfere with my liberty, I support my own liberty and the liberty of my fellow Americans, I also support not interfering in the liberty of others.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:24 PM
Remove the incentive and we dont need a wall, much less the need to exercise eminent domain. Taking away incentives also addresses other issues, beyond illegal immigration.
I've been saying that for years, however its flawed I realize this year;
Gang bangers like ms13 thrive off of criminal enterprise, you can't remove that incentive,
felons coming here to avoid Mexican Jails, can't remove that incentive, terrorists wanting
to infiltrate , disease ridden that already have a connection here, you just can't keep these
and many other undesirables and plain dangerous people out, we do need to kill All Incentives
for sure, the wall is not enough but it is definitely part of a comprehensive pkg , INV.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:30 PM
As Trump visits border, Texas landowners prepare wall fight

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-visits-border-texas-landowners-prepare-wall-fight-n957191

Texas Landowners Prepare Wall Fight Texan landowners don't want their land stolen for Trump's wall

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-01-09/texas-landowners-dig-in-to-fight-trumps-border-wall

''well now Andy'' wus' you this vocal about Obama's land Grabs, millions of acres ?

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:37 PM
I just figured it out. Treat the border wall like a sidewalk. The property owner has to pay to put in a sidewalk and has to keep it clean and unobstructed. If the property owner fails to shovel snow off of said sidewalk the property owner gets fined. Very simple solution. Legislate that all property on southern border must have approved fencing. Property owners must put in the fence or have lien for cost of fence put on the property. Put all illegal immigration entry issues on the property owner. If someone crosses into USA on your property, property owner gets fined. Government could offer a one time deal to have fence erected with tax subsidy. If Property owner refuses, slap them with fines, penalties, and build the fence anyway for them and charge them for it.
As the creative juices of legislation flow from my brain to my keyboard it even gets simpler. It is even easier than that for the federal government. Legislate that states are required to make sure that the border has fencing and is maintained. Fine the states if they don't maintain the fencing. Have the states deal with the property owners. Don't worry about the wall. Monitor and document illegal crossings via satellite or drones. Fine the state for every illegal they allow to cross said line in the sand. States can then legislate that individual property owners need to do....... and fine individual property owners. Levy fines and take over properties when tax liens are not paid.
Could legislate a new alphabet organization. The BMA. Border Management Authority.

The key to border security is more legislation! Taxes! Fines! Even Imprisonment!

Why should someone in Kansas have to pay for a wall or fence in Texas or California. Those people own their property! Have them care for it and secure it!
To the best of my recollection Border issues are one of few areas where the Fed actually has responsibility
accordin' to our Constitution. I think states also have the right, but the Fed is responsible.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 03:42 PM
I've been saying that for years, however its flawed I realize this year;
Gang bangers like ms13 thrive off of criminal enterprise, you can't remove that incentive,
felons coming here to avoid Mexican Jails, can't remove that incentive, terrorists wanting
to infiltrate , disease ridden that already have a connection here, you just can't keep these
and many other undesirables and plain dangerous people out, we do need to kill All Incentives
for sure, the wall is not enough but it is definitely part of a comprehensive pkg , INV.

End the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:46 PM
I don't think anyone here is wildly ecstatic about eminent domain , however as I've seen mentioned
here recently, how would we ever be able to build transportation infrastructure, a seawall, certainly
protecting our border must weigh in there somewhere, Obama stole land from the people
for ridiculous reasons, millions of acres, in fact he used eminent domain for border fencing and security,
you don't hear about that on CNN et al. But now the GINORMOUS WHINE , thems' poor beat down
border families has' to sell off some acreage to the fed , I'll bet some of the, beaten , murdered, and
raped, border residents would have been ok with the implementation of eminent domain for a wall.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 03:48 PM
I don't think anyone here is wildly ecstatic about eminent domain , however as I've seen mentioned
here recently, how would we ever be able to build transportation infrastructure, a seawall, certainly
protecting our border must weigh in there somewhere, Obama stole land from the people
for ridiculous reasons, millions of acres, in fact he used eminent domain for border fencing and security,
you don't hear about that on CNN et al. But now the GINORMOUS WHINE , thems' poor beat down
border families has' to sell off some acreage to the fed , I'll bet some of the, beaten , murdered, and
raped, border residents would have been ok with the implementation of eminent domain for a wall.

End the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 03:52 PM
End the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

We would be much richer and they would still come and they would still vote communist.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 03:56 PM
End the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

It ain't da' drugs that troubles me, but yea, I've written this at least a thousand times
on the interweb;
Become self sufficient in all sectors from agriculture to energy , let the middle east piss on each other
till they turn blue. We are not constitutionally authorized to take on the roll as world police.
We facilitated the deaths of a million Iraqi citizens, people are gonna hate us for that sort
of thing, we need to oust the war hawks.
Drug laws are unconstitutional and not needed, they need to be repealed, but that is not
the only criminal enterprise incentive that can never be solved by removing 'incentives' .

We do need to kill all sanctuary cities, all freebies, but that alone is not enough to keep
out Ebola, tuberculosis, hepatitis, murderers , rapists, terrorists.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 04:06 PM
We would be much richer and they would still come and they would still vote communist.

:rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 04:09 PM
:rolleyes:

We wouldn't be much richer if we didn't waste money on the WoD and the other wars?

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 04:15 PM
It ain't da' drugs that troubles me, but yea, I've written this at least a thousand times
on the interweb;
Become self sufficient in all sectors from agriculture to energy , let the middle east piss on each other
till they turn blue. We are not constitutionally authorized to take on the roll as world police.
We facilitated the deaths of a million Iraqi citizens, people are gonna hate us for that sort
of thing, we need to oust the war hawks.
Drug laws are unconstitutional and not needed, they need to be repealed, but that is not
the only criminal enterprise incentive that can never be solved by removing 'incentives' .

We do need to kill all sanctuary cities, all freebies, but that alone is not enough to keep
out Ebola, tuberculosis, hepatitis, murderers , rapists, terrorists.

I have no problem with screening for diseases, or coordinating with Mexico to keep out "murderers , rapists, terrorists"

What I am saying is, again, end the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

We do NOT need the middle easts oil, and they would sell it to us quite freely regardless. I don't think we have to drop bombs there to purchase oil. Take away the drugs and you take most of the power away from the gangs you're worried about. Everybody knows this whether they will admit it or not. You don't see gang wars over alcohol anymore for that simple reason.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 04:16 PM
End the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

The prison reform bill that Trump signed and supported goes a long way toward doing that.

The Syrian pullout goes a long way toward doing that.

Pointing that out to people and supporting these actions does not make one a "Trump Humper".

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 04:18 PM
We wouldn't be much richer if we didn't waste money on the WoD and the other wars?

I don't know that we would be that much richer, somewhat, yes. Social services take up a huge amount of money, that and the huge bloated bureaucracies.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 04:20 PM
It’s all about agendas and priorities. And most people just inherit and preach the current dogma of their group. Democrats have done a 180 on the issue in recent decades, so you know there is no principle involved there. It actually contradicts and makes worse many of their other issues, like wages, jobs, housing and carbon footprint (climate change).

Their primary issue is the gaining of power.

From that standpoint, migrant invasion makes perfect sense.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 04:20 PM
I don't know that we would be that much richer, somewhat, yes. Social services take up a huge amount of money, that and the huge bloated bureaucracies.
:rolleyes:

We would be much richer, the DoD budget and the WoD budget are HUGE.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 04:21 PM
I have no problem with screening for diseases, or coordinating with Mexico to keep out "murderers , rapists, terrorists"

What I am saying is, again, end the war on drugs and quit bombing other countries that aren't attacking us, that would solve much of your worries.

We do NOT need the middle easts oil, and they would sell it to us quite freely regardless. I don't think we have to drop bombs there to purchase oil. Take away the drugs and you take most of the power away from the gangs you're worried about. Everybody knows this whether they will admit it or not. You don't see gang wars over alcohol anymore for that simple reason.
I agree with all you said there , but we still need something magical to happen at the border, status quo will
never work there, and look to the mob to understand how criminal enterprise expands into other
markets as one dries, up; extortion, murder, numbers (well they may not be that smart) , but they are not
going to suddenly go away because pot is legal, plus we know very well that we are talking about
a pipe dream when we talk about repealing drug laws , that's not going to happen within the next
five or ten years , we know that, so we need to deal with what we have on the table.
I would say that with Trump, especially with the latest Syria announcement we may have solved,
one piece of the puzzle, well it's a start.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 04:22 PM
The prison reform bill that Trump signed and supported goes a long way toward doing that.

The Syrian pullout goes a long way toward doing that.

Pointing that out to people and supporting these actions does not make one a "Trump Humper".

No, I'm on board with both. I may be more impatient than I should be with all the cross talk and confusion surrounding the Syria issue but I'm on record here saying I'll support him in 2020 if he pulls us out of there and Afghanistan. That's way beyond what my expectations were.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 04:23 PM
We would be much richer, the DoD budget and the WoD budget are HUGE.
And don't forget , we can lose 1.2 trillion under the carpets of the Pentagon, with barely a raised brow, there is money available to be sure, it may not ease inflation lol, but its there.

Origanalist
01-10-2019, 04:25 PM
I agree with all you said there , but we still need something magical to happen at the border, status quo will
never work there, and look to the mob to understand how criminal enterprise expands into other
markets as one dries, up; extortion, murder, numbers (well they may not be that smart) , but they are not
going to suddenly go away because pot is legal, plus we know very well that we are talking about
a pipe dream when we talk about repealing drug laws , that's not going to happen within the next
five or ten years , we know that, so we need to deal with what we have on the table.
I would say that with Trump, especially with the latest Syria announcement we may have solved,
one piece of the puzzle, well it's a start.

Well, thinking the gangs will go away or even greatly diminish because of a wall is also a pipe dream. The only thing that's effective is to take away their income.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 04:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ckjELRL6Y

"Clear a path you mother fucker, I'm going home!!!"

D-Fense has become my spirit guide.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 04:27 PM
No, I'm on board with both. I may be more impatient than I should be with all the cross talk and confusion surrounding the Syria issue but I'm on record here saying I'll support him in 2020 if he pulls us out of there and Afghanistan. That's way beyond what my expectations were.

I know you are, I'm just using the chance to point it out.

I will as well.

Stratovarious
01-10-2019, 04:28 PM
Well, thinking the gangs will go away or even greatly diminish because of a wall is also a pipe dream. The only thing that's effective is to take away their income.
Of course, there is no argument there, we are looking at a border that is pretty wide open,
leaving it that way is not going to work out well for us.
-
I yield my remaining minutes back to Origanalist.

Slave Mentality
01-10-2019, 04:48 PM
The (generally hyped up, and not so bad in reality) "problems" you refer to are the result of government action, generally government actions that have come about fairly recently in history. They didn't exist or need to be addressed until the government created them. The solution is to undo those actions, not to create more big-government bandaids to supposedly fix them only to create more government-created problems that will become your excuse for another big-government solution the year after that, and so on in an endless cycle.

You would think folks around here could spot it easily - PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION. I can guarantee that any “solution” involving more of Uncle is not going to end up a win for liberty.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 04:51 PM
You would think folks around here could spot it easily - PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION. I can guarantee that any “solution” involving more of Uncle is not going to end up a win for liberty.
I guarantee that the problem if left unchecked will be much worse, I have a different solution that I prefer but I'm not going to try and preserve the problem until it kills me.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 05:15 PM
Exactly.

I'm against eminent domain gun control laws, but you can't expect to have land a gun on the border of your country in a highly populated area and never have an eminent domain gun control issue. That's just ridiculous.


Hmmph. Look at that, would ya... Isn't that something?

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 05:17 PM
Hmmph. Look at that, would ya... Isn't that something?
Apples to billiard balls.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 05:29 PM
Apples to billiard balls.

Says you.

Anti Globalist
01-10-2019, 05:30 PM
OK, so let's use private funds (I think that "Build The Wall go fund me is up to 30 or 40 million so far) to buy the deeded rights of way along which to build said wall.

Problem solved, right?
This.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 05:39 PM
I guarantee that the problem if left unchecked will be much worse, I have a different solution that I prefer but I'm not going to try and preserve the problem until it kills me.

Well there ya have it, folks. Issue resolved - Swordsmyth GUARANTEES that his position is the right one.

Silly folks, thinking that the state is a bigger problem...

Wrap it up, last one out turn off the lights.

DamianTV
01-10-2019, 05:39 PM
Semi-related:

Ron Paul: 'We Don't Need A Border Wall If Trump Removes Incentives For Illegal Immigrants'
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-08/ron-paul-we-dont-need-border-wall-if-trump-removes-incentives-illegal-immigrants


Former Congressman and libertarian icon Ron Paul has some advice for President Trump.

Instead of building a wall along the southern border to keep out illegal immigrants, maybe he should instead try removing the incentives that attract them to the US in the first place - incentives like a relatively easy path to citizenship and easy access to welfare benefits.

After Paul said the shutdown "isn't significant in the scheme of things," Paul's interviewer, Squawk Box's Andrew Ross Sorkin, asked if he supported Trump's border wall, Paul responded that he "doesn't like walls" (though he didn't say outright that he opposes Trump's plans).


"I don't like walls. I'm a libertarian I don't want to wall people in and wall people out."

"I don’t want free, open borders either," he continued.

"I think you have to remove the incentives for people to come. They come because there's a welfare system here, there's easy access to citizenship its politicized one group wants them here because they think they can get the votes."

Paul said he understands this dynamic thanks to his experience working as a doctor near the border.


"I'm an OBGYN doctor close to the border. People would pop in they'd have a baby then the next day they'd be at the courthouse signing up for welfare benefits."

When asked whether he and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, had discussed this difference in opinion, Paul said that though they talk often, his son doesn't feel like he needs to run all of his political positions by him first.

Watch a clip from the interview below:

(video at link)

Welfare Warfare Paradigm.

Illegals are brought in to replace the current voters because of the perceived tendency to vote for bigger government. That same side of government wants Wars because Wars are PROFITABLE to Central Banks, and those who own stock in the manufacture of the Weapons of War. Then you end up with a population willing to commit atrocities unto other people because they believe in the absurdities of Communism / Socialism / Fascism and see the benefits of Endless Wars, yet, morally, feel no responsibility to harming others. I'll take your welfare, and / or I will join their army and bomb the shit out of your free country because fuck you thats why. That is NOT the attitude any person that loves Freedom should ever think. And sadly, I think that is what is being lost due to Uncontrolled Immigration. When they come, they displace our ideals and values. They come and crush Liberty because they have no respect for others, or a desire to be free themselves. The only thing it appears that they want is to take what you got, so they dream up a reason to make those that love Liberty and Freedom the Enemy.

Welfare IS Theft.

Welfare steals from those that work and are forced to pay into the system, which removes all incentive to choose to work and pay into the system. Everyone wants to live at the expense of everyone else. That is the GREAT LIE of Socialism in its various forms.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 05:45 PM
Well there ya have it, folks. Issue resolved - Swordsmyth GUARANTEES that his position is the right one.

Silly folks, thinking that the state is a bigger problem...

Wrap it up, last one out turn off the lights.
The state is the biggest problem...............the communist state that the invaders will impose.

Problem-reaction-solution works because the problem IS ALWAYS worse than the solution.
We must offer a different solution or seek to undo the damage of the solution.

And the "solution" that the creators of the problem want is amnesty and open borders NOT a wall or any other method of increasing border security.
If the manipulators wanted a wall we would have gotten one as part of the PATRIOT act.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 05:48 PM
So a little bit of state now, and you promise no more state in the future?

https://media.giphy.com/media/EouEzI5bBR8uk/giphy.gif

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 05:50 PM
So a little bit of state now, and you promise no more state in the future?

https://media.giphy.com/media/EouEzI5bBR8uk/giphy.gif
So if we just let in millions of communists they will be so grateful that they won't impose communism on us?

https://media.giphy.com/media/EouEzI5bBR8uk/giphy.gif

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 05:58 PM
So if we just let in millions of communists they will be so grateful that they won't impose communism on us?*citation needed*

Snowball
01-10-2019, 06:08 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/technology/trump-border-wall-lidar.html

theres one description of how new technology would have been enough. real-time tracking and location deployment.
of course, you all know RP is against the wall and has not shied away from his opinion.

Trump will pay the price after he declares National Emergency, you will see all sorts of machinations against him
and the 1976 act provides Congressional interference, plus impeachment is automatic.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 06:12 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/technology/trump-border-wall-lidar.html

theres one description of how new technology would have been enough. real-time tracking and location deployment.
of course, you all know RP is against the wall and has not shied away from his opinion.

Trump will pay the price after he declares National Emergency, you will see all sorts of machinations against him
and the 1976 act provides Congressional interference, plus impeachment is automatic.
LOL

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 06:13 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/technology/trump-border-wall-lidar.html

theres one description of how new technology would have been enough. real-time tracking and location deployment.
of course, you all know RP is against the wall and has not shied away from his opinion.

Trump will pay the price after he declares National Emergency, you will see all sorts of machinations against him
and the 1976 act provides Congressional interference, plus impeachment is automatic.

If President Donald Trump uses the U.S. military to build the border wall along the United States’ international with Mexico by declaring a national emergency, won’t liberals simply run to a Federal judge whom they believe to be left-wing within the Ninth Circuit and block Trump? Can Congress vote to overturn Trump’s declaration of an emergency?
No. If the federal courts actually follow the law, President Trump cannot be prevented from “reprogramming” funds appropriated for the U.S. Department of Defense and actually using the military (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to build the border wall.


As noted in the first installment on this topic, Congress has given a president the power to declare a national emergency by 50 U.S.C. 1621 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1621) and 50 U.S.C. 1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622). A declaration of an emergency allows the President to reprogram funds in the military budget. See 33 U.S. Code § 2293 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293) “Reprogramming during national emergencies.”
Trump could reprogram funds from other parts of the Department of Defense budget — including from other DoD construction projects such as on bases, military housing, etc. — and engage in construction in areas of need for the national defense. The statute says that explicitly (although statutes are never easy reading).
But Democrats are threatening and commentators are warning that such an action would be challenged in court and in Congress immediately. Can such a plan be blocked?
First, 50 U.S.C. §1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622) allows the Congress to over-turn a president’s declaration of an emergency. If both the Senate and the House each pass s resolution terminating the President’s declaration of an emergency, than the emergency status terminates under 50 U.S.C. §1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622). But clearly the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would not join the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. Unless a significant number of Republican Senators vote against a border wall built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or contractors with military funds, Congress could not block Trump’s efforts.
(Note, although I argue in the next section that this power has been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, if a court disagrees on that, a legislative veto power should block a lawsuit. Where Congress has provided a specific method for challenging a declaration of an emergency, the federal courts would normally hold that that method becomes the exclusive remedy. A lawsuit would be blocked by the fact that Congress provided a non-litigation remedy.)


Second, however, the Congressional veto process described above has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, in INS v. Chadha (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/919), 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/919), finding a legislative veto of Executive Branch action unconstitutional. Congress passed many laws which specifically enabled Congress to veto regulations or actions under that law. The U.S. Supreme Court found a legislative veto violates the structure or architecture of the Constitutional system.
Laws go to the President for signature or veto. Congress cannot reach over and pull a law back. Congress must pass a new law and present it to the President for signature if dissatisfied with how the law is working out. The U.S. Supreme Court had no hesitation finding that the Congress had over-reached, based only on the implied architecture of the Constitution.
In Chadha, 50 U.S.C. 1622 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622) was one of the laws explicitly discussed. The dissenting opinion specifically warned that the Chadha decision invalidated Congress’s ability to overturn a presidential declaration of a national emergency.
Therefore, Congress cannot overturn a declaration by President Trump that the open border is a national emergency. Even if the U.S. Senate were to side with the Democrats, Chadha explicitly ruled the Congressional veto (termination) of a presidential declaration to be an unconstitutional distortion of the familiar “Schoolhouse Rock” means by which laws are passed and signed by presidents. Once a law is signed, there is no “claw back” right by Congress.
Third, of course, critics are discussing whether Trump’s actions would be constitutional. Here, however, Congress passed a specific statute, in fact a series of statutes. So there is no question about the President’s power to do what the Congressional statute has explicitly empowered him to do.


Some even point to a rather famous Constitutional landmark case — Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/)) — in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have the power to temporarily nationalize the U.S. steel industry to avert a strike for national defense. However, Youngstown was not that simple. Youngstown analyzed the inherent powers of Commander in Chief as modified by Congressional agreement by statute.
The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly analyzed that the President’s powers are at their greatest (zenith) when he acts not only by his inherent powers as President but also by the agreement of a statute passed by Congress. In Youngstown, Eisenhower did not have any statute supporting his action and the Court reasoned that he was actually acting in conflict with relevant statutes.
Here, the Congress has already enacted and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061026-1.html). It is already the law of the land that a border wall shall be built along the United States’ Southern border. Neither Congress nor any private plaintiff can challenge the official determination that a border wall or barrier shall built. That is the law. That is the official determination of both the U.S. Congress and the Commander in Chief.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was never implemented (other than a few miles) because Congress did not appropriate the funds to pay for it. There are two steps: Authorization and Appropriation of funds. The decision to build a border wall is final. The only question is applying funds to make it happen.
Building of a border wall under the 2006 Act was also not completed because the Swamp and Deep State sabotaged it. Using classic bureaucratic games (https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Yes-Prime-Minister-Set/Nigel-Hawthorne/K794051176929?id=7438280481990), the bureaucracy and open borders legislators followed “designed to fail” steps that ground the construction to a halt.
Note that in spite of the word “fence” in the title, the law does not actually mandate a “fence” in particular. The wording of the Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ367/pdf/PLAW-109publ367.pdf) is not about a “fence” but about any kind of barrier customized to the particular terrain in each location to the extent necessary to “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.” That is “all.” As in “all.”
So the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires building “whatever it takes” — not a “fence” per se. The Act does require specific enhanced barriers and lights, cameras, and sensors, in some named locations.
Fourth, could liberals run to the courts to block Trump from using the military to build a border wall? No. Only those with “standing” can bring a lawsuit. How is anyone harmed?
The federal courts have been waging Jihad against citizens bringing lawsuits for decades. The federal courts have been raising the bar higher and higher to make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge the actions of government agencies or public officials. Specifically a complaint that is shared generally by much of the population cannot establish standing.
Contrary to strongly-held popular belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending, revenue, or action merely because they are taxpayers. See, Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589, 547 U.S. 332 (2006). So the Left cannot block Trump’s plans by suing as taxpayers. (The only exceptions involve use of funds to establish a religion or local government taxpayers.)
Similarly, Members of Congress do not have standing either (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42454.pdf). Certainly individual Members of Congress do not. See Raines v. Byrd (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1671.ZO.html), 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1671.ZO.html).
To bring a lawsuit, one must show that they are tangibly harmed, personally, not just in disagreement with a policy. If Trump uses some of the $700 billion in the omnibus bill to build a border wall, everyone will be more safe. How is anyone harmed?
Fifth, can private landowners, some of whom will be liberals, go to court and stop the use of private land as an easement taken by eminent domain? No.
There is absolutely no defense available to taking land by eminent domain. How much compensation is owed for taking an easement as a strip of land could take years to fight out in court. But the actual right to use the land cannot be contested. The government can take an easement immediately and then fight later over how much money should be paid to the landowner. Remember that this was the legal holding of the over-the-top, controversial U.S. Supreme Court precedent Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/), 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005). (Kelo ruled that it is not even necessary to show a “public purpose” for eminent domain, which goes too far.)
Legal challenges will not stop construction, even it takes years to reach agreement on the compensation payable to landowners. To finance payment of compensation, Trump should consider offering a land swap of federally-owned tracts of land or selling such public lands.
Sixth, opponents of Trump’s agenda will try to find individual landowners along the border, who might be liberal, to object in general to the reprogramming of military funds to build the border wall. But those landowners should not be considered to have standing, for several reasons:
(A) It would be speculation as to whether the government will take any action at their particular section of the border. How would a landowner know that his or her part of the border is a stretch where the planners believe an actual wall is truly needed, as opposed to other natural or physical barriers? It would be — under standard doctrines of standing — insufficient to speculate that that particular landowner’s land is going to be affected at all.
(B) There is a concept called “exhaustion of administrative remedies.” If an individual landowner doesn’t want a border fence along their particular stretch of the border, they would first have to tell the government that they object. The courts would traditionally wait until the government can try to find agreement with the landowner before allowing a lawsuit. A lawsuit would be invalid as not yet being “ripe.” Traditionally the courts would require a plaintiff to actually talk to the government agency first to see if their stretch of land is actually going to be affected or not, whether a compromise can be worked out, etc. Those are the currently-existing standard rules that always govern. (In fact, on policy, one could argue if a landowner doesn’t want a wall along their property, fine. Let all the trespassers funnel through that person’s land, trampling the ground, leaving trash everywhere, and frightening their family in their home at all hours. If they don’t want a border wall on their property, fine. Check back with us later and tell us how that worked out for you.)
Seventh, open border advocates of course will also find some would-be gate-crashers from another country to say that they want to break the law and cross the border in the unmanned frontier and the border wall will stop them from breaking the law. That should be laughed out of court, because one does not have a “right” to break the law. Similarly, they will try to find immigrants in the U.S. who want to bring family members into the U.S.A. But they have legal avenues for doing that, by sponsoring their family members to come in legally. Those ideas may impress an individual federal trial judge for a short time, but it should not survive on appeal.
(Note: Trump does need to get changes in the law through Congress or perhaps just issue clarifying regulations from DHS that a foreigner can apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate without entering the United States.)
As an attorney in Virginia for 21 years, who has worked for both Judicial Watch and more recently Freedom Watch created by Larry Klayman, I often have to explain the concept of “standing” to clients who want to bring “good government” lawsuits or hold the government accountable to its rules.
When Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued to challenge Barack Obama’s amnesty by executive order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Arpaio did not have standing, even though illegal immigration cost him actual money in (then) running the jails of Maricopa County. I worked on that legal case, from helping write the original complaint (with an eye toward establishing standing from word one) to legal memoranda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed by Larry Klayman, to the appeal by Larry Klayman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Arpaio’s legal pleadings established standing as strong as one could imagine, an iron lock on showing standing.
Didn’t matter. The courts completely contradicted other precedents, as powerfully demonstrated by the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American appeals judge with more intellect and intellectual integrity in her little finger than the U.S. Congress combined.
In deadly seriousness and a straight face, I honestly have to explain the law of standing in federal courts as follows: If you want to encourage the expansion of government and government intervention in the economy or society or prevent the streamlining of government, you have standing. If you want to hold government accountable to staying within its rules or you want to block left-wing policies, you don’t have standing. it’s pretty much that simple. Are you a liberal? You have standing. Are you a conservative? You don’t have standing. Having studied hundreds of precedents on standing, I must say that with absolutely no humor, exaggeration or hyperbole. I could not truthfully say anything different.
However, the federal courts have established some very strong precedents ruling that almost no one has standing to challenge anything that the government wants to do — unless the government action directly harms the plaintiff personally and individually.
Therefore, it will be extremely awkward for the federal courts to ignore and contradict their past precedents and claim that anyone has standing to object to the building of a border wall by the U.S military.
Finally, President Trump’s Administration under incoming Attorney General William Barr has got to stop this foolishness with lawsuits brought before a cherry-picked judge in the Ninth Circuit whom the plaintiffs believe will be unusually sympathetic to them and hostile to Trump’s policies.
The Department of Justice under Bill Barr must always file a motion for a change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Readers will be familiar with changes of venue requests in famous criminal cases. But this is different. This is not about whether a criminal defendant can get a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity.
A change of venue in a civil dispute is based upon other considerations: Where are all the witnesses? Where are the records and evidence kept? Where was the decision made? Where are the decision-makers to be affected by the lawsuit located? Those venue rules strongly if not conclusively favor moving any such lawsuit to the District of Columbia, where the decisions were made, where the officials and witnesses reside, and where all the evidence is located.
Again, those are the standard, currently-existing, non-controversial rules. None of these lawsuits should be tolerated out in the Ninth Circuit on the Left Coast. There is no valid reason to have such lawsuits spread around the country instead of being held in Washington, D.C., where the action is — and where the action took place.


More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-...-still-active/ (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/)

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 06:16 PM
29,530/33 = ~ 895

895/30 = ~ 30

30/24 = ~ 1.25

PAF
01-10-2019, 06:32 PM
Swordsmyth

Riddle me this:

Trump bans bump stocks. He publicly announced raising age to 21 to buy a gun. He signs USMCA which has United Nations/ILO Sustainable Development written all over it. You actually believe he is America First?

How about reading that USMCA thread that you created. Read all of it, and then put 2 and 2 together to see why he wants 2,000 miles of Texan land affecting over 3 Million residents and businesses. Keep in mind that his predecessor took the largest land grab of all presidents in history and handed control over to the Fed.

Put this puzzle together and share your findings here, if you are up to that challenge.

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 06:37 PM
Their primary issue is the gaining of power.

From that standpoint, migrant invasion makes perfect sense.

That is certainly the highest priority for establishment Democrat leadship, to be achieved by importing more Democrats.

Every Democrat is an individual, and most of them are pretty confused anyway. Priorities will vary. You would probably find that virtue signaling is important to all of them. Opposing anything that Trump wants to do is probably another universal priority. Both would contribute to the immigration at any cost position.

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 06:38 PM
Well there ya have it, folks. Issue resolved - Swordsmyth GUARANTEES that his position is the right one.

Silly folks, thinking that the state is a bigger problem...

Wrap it up, last one out turn off the lights.


Well, if the great omniscient Swordsmyth says so that's good enough for me.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 06:43 PM
Trump bans bump stocks.
Wrong but trivial, bumpstocks are a useless gimmick.



He publicly announced raising age to 21 to buy a gun.
Wrong but meaningless, the law doesn't change because he says something.



He signs USMCA which has United Nations/ILO Sustainable Development written all over it. You actually believe he is America First?
There are many bad things about the USMCA but there are also good things about it like the sunset provision, Trump is a mixed bag but he is far more America 1st than any president we have had in a very long time.


How about reading that USMCA thread that you created. Read all of it, and then put 2 and 2 together to see why he wants 2,000 miles of Texan land affecting over 3 Million residents and businesses. Keep in mind that his predecessor took the largest land grab of all presidents in history and handed control over to the Fed.

Put this puzzle together and share your findings here, if you are up to that challenge.
Building a wall may not be the best solution but it is contrary to the goal of creating the NAU, "No borders, No wall, No USA at all" is the NAU position.
Trump has done many anti-globalist things that you are ignoring.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 06:45 PM
Well, if the great omniscient Swordsmyth says so that's good enough for me.
Just like it's good enough for me that you anarchists promise that importing millions of communists won't turn us into a single party communist dictatorship like California.

PAF
01-10-2019, 06:45 PM
Wrong but trivial, bumpstocks are a useless gimmick.



Wrong but meaningless, the law doesn't change because he says something.



There are many bad things about the USMCA but there are also good things about it like the sunset provision, Trump is a mixed bag but he is far more America 1st than any president we have had in a very long time.


Building a wall may not be the best solution but it is contrary to the goal of creating the NAU, "No borders, No wall, No USA at all" is the NAU position.
Trump has done many anti-globalist things that you are ignoring.

I didn’t think you could do it. Thanks for playing.

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 06:54 PM
The state is the biggest problem...............the communist state that the invaders will impose.

Damn immigrants, always wanting to increase the power of the state to solve some problem that often doesn't even need solving because it's not really even the problem

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 06:56 PM
Damn immigrants, always wanting to increase the power of the state to solve some problem that often doesn't even need solving because it's not really even the problem
True whether you are joking or not.

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:05 PM
True whether you are joking or not.

I'm glad at least we can both agree that illegal immigration is the #1 threat to this country's future.

Every year, 100,000 people illegally enter this country, and 100,000 people illegally leave this country.

Do you know how much damage that does to our border? We have to re-paint it like 10 times a year.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:06 PM
I'm glad at least we can both agree that illegal immigration is the #1 threat to this country's future.

Every year, 100,000 people illegally enter this country, and 100,000 people illegally leave this country.

Do you know how much damage that does to our border? We have to re-paint it like 10 times a year.
:rolleyes:

That must be how we ended up with 20M+ illegals here.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 07:10 PM
:rolleyes:

That must be how we ended up with 20M+ illegals here.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/


More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.

Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.

More at link.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:14 PM
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/



More at link.
That must be how we got up to 20M+:

Yale study finds illegal migrant numbers twice the accepted norm of 11 million (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526703-Yale-study-finds-illegal-migrant-numbers-twice-the-accepted-norm-of-11-million)The used to tell us we had about 10M back then.


If we keep losing them at this rate we will have 100M in no time flat.:rolleyes:

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:16 PM
:rolleyes:

That must be how we ended up with 20M+ illegals here.

This country was headed in just such a great direction before illegal immigration was a thing. (sigh)

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:19 PM
This country was headed in just such a great direction before illegal immigration was a thing. (sigh)
It wasn't heading where it is headed now and it wasn't heading where it was heading nearly as fast.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 07:20 PM
This country was headed in just such a great direction before illegal immigration was a thing. (sigh)

They were going back to Mexico before Trump saved us from the recession.

So, actually, the illegal immigration problem is Trump's fault...

https://media.tenor.com/images/7dd3c2b1763ceac9535aa49b58e9055f/tenor.gif

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:21 PM
They were going back to Mexico before Trump saved us from the recession.

So, actually, the illegal immigration problem is Trump's fault...

https://media.tenor.com/images/7dd3c2b1763ceac9535aa49b58e9055f/tenor.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT0xeJpnrWC4XWblEk/giphy.gif

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:23 PM
It wasn't heading where it is headed now and it wasn't heading where it was heading nearly as fast.

Back in the late 19th century, before "illegal immigration" even existed? Agreed.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 07:25 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/xT0xeJpnrWC4XWblEk/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JJyDYEX1tXFmCd2/giphy.gif

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:28 PM
Back in the late 19th century, before "illegal immigration" even existed? Agreed.
No, back then we almost turned into a marxist dictatorship under Lincoln due to excessive legal immigration.

The political dangers of unchecked immigration are why laws were made to limit it and they helped until certain groups decided to encourage illegal immigration to get around them.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:30 PM
They were going back to Mexico before Trump saved us from the recession.

So, actually, the illegal immigration problem is Trump's fault...

https://media.tenor.com/images/7dd3c2b1763ceac9535aa49b58e9055f/tenor.gif
That is a lie but even if it was true that would just prove that the only way we can have open borders and not have an invasion problem is if we lose our wealth and standard of living.

Thanks for making my case for me.

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:31 PM
No, back then we almost turned into a marxist dictatorship under Lincoln due to excessive legal immigration

Yes, of all the things that Lincoln is known for, it's his excessive legal immigration. That's really what screwed this country up !

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:39 PM
Yes, of all the things that Lincoln is known for, it's his excessive legal immigration. That's really what screwed this country up !
Without the hordes of marxist immigrants that came in the decades prior the Republican party would likely have never been formed and would certainly never have won, without them and those that came during the war who were drafted or volunteered the Union army would have lost.

Excessive immigration created the American empire, destroyed the old Republic and nearly turned us into a marxist dictatorship in the 1800's.

PursuePeace
01-10-2019, 07:41 PM
Hmmph. Look at that, would ya... Isn't that something?

You're comparing gun control to securing a country's borders?
Can you explain?

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:48 PM
Without the hordes of marxist immigrants that came in the decades prior the Republican party would likely have never been formed and would certainly never have won, without them and those that came during the war who were drafted or volunteered the Union army would have lost.

Excessive immigration created the American empire, destroyed the old Republic and nearly turned us into a marxist dictatorship in the 1800's.

Wow, so immigrants really are to blame for everything?

I suppose oyarde would agree.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 07:50 PM
Wow, so immigrants really are to blame for everything?
Excessive immigration has made everything worse throughout the history of our nation, the only exceptions were the periods when immigration was tightly controlled.


I suppose @oyarde (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=27246) would agree.
Yes and he would be right.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 07:50 PM
Trump visited McAllen Texas- a prosperous border town with a very low crime rate to try to emphasize the crime that immigrants are bringing to the US. (US/ Mexico border towns tend to have very low crime rates). He warned about massive amounts of drugs coming into the country and being seized by border patrol agents- at existing legal border crossings- not smuggled across unfenced mountains and barren deserts. A wall will stop neither. Trump said smuggling would end immediately.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/23/border-communities-have-lower-crime-rates/


Border Communities Have Lower Crime Rates


Crime has dropped, and the Texas side of the border apparently is now safer than the state's larger cities. But a political tug-of-war about the security needs of the region remains full of fiery rhetoric and competing views about how safe border communities really are.

"It’s much safer than say San Antonio, Houston or Dallas,” said Democratic state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who represents a McAllen-based district. “It’s certainly much safer than Washington D.C. or Chicago.”

State and federal crime data backs those claims: Violent crime rates have remained the same or dropped in many border cities in the last five years for which data is available.

In 2014, Houston's violent crime rate — counting murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — stood at 991 crimes for every 100,000 residents, according to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report. The violent crime rate in Dallas was 665 crimes for every 100,000 residents.

Border communities like Laredo, El Paso, Edinburg and Brownsville all saw fewer than 400 crimes for every 100,000 residents.

Brownsville is one of the few cities where crime rates, though relatively low, have increased recently, rising from 253 crimes for every 100,000 residents in 2009 to 304 in 2014.

Meanwhile, the violent crime in El Paso, the most populous border town, has dropped from 457 crimes for every 100,000 residents in 2009 to 393 in 2014. For years, the West Texas city has been declared the safest of its size, according to Congressional Quarterly.

oyarde
01-10-2019, 07:51 PM
Wow, so immigrants really are to blame for everything?

I suppose oyarde would agree.

Yes , I have lobbied against dirty immigrants for decades , who needs 'em ? Not me

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:51 PM
Are immigrants the reason that Honey Boo Boo was taken off the air???!?!!!

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 07:53 PM
Excessive immigration has made everything worse throughout the history of our nation, the only exceptions were the periods when immigration was tightly controlled.

It was really only since the 1920's that immigration has been controlled at all. And I agree, the country has gotten sooooo much better since then.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:00 PM
That is a lie but...

Thanks for making my case for me.

:tears:

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:00 PM
It was really only since the 1920's that immigration has been controlled at all. And I agree, the country has gotten sooooo much better since then.
The excessive immigration up to that point almost gave us another communist dictatorship under FDR, the damage slowed after FDR but the poison was already deep in the national culture.

The 1968 immigration act threw the doors wide open again and then the illegal alien flood was encouraged and the descent into hell went into high gear.

The immigration controls of the 1920's were too little and more importantly too late.

That is why we need an immigration freeze of at least 10 years if we are ever going to turn the ship around.

We will also probably end up having another civil war in which we will have to kill or expel the ideological (and in many cases literal) descendants of the excessive immigrants.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:01 PM
You're comparing gun control to securing a country's borders?
Can you explain?

I'm comparing property to property, so...

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:01 PM
:tears:
It's true, the lie you posted presented a best case scenario and even in that case our choice is to embrace extreme poverty or control our borders.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:02 PM
Excessive immigration has made everything worse throughout the history of our nation, the only exceptions were the periods when immigration was tightly controlled.


Yes and he would be right.

Yeah this is right in line with Ron/the liberty movement.

This checks out.

lolwut

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:02 PM
I'm comparing property to property, so...
Just like apples and billiard balls are both objects.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:04 PM
Yeah this is right in line with Ron/the liberty movement.

This checks out.

lolwut
Is this a cult?
Because I don't remember being told that we all had to agree 100% about EVERY issue.
Your cult called, they said that even they didn't want you back.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:05 PM
So, to summarize, we need a 10 year freeze on immigration, even though immigrants always make things worse, even though everyone in this country is an immigrant or a descendant of one, and if we had no immigrants, regular Americans would vote pro-Trump er um I mean pro-least evil er um I mean most good or something like that right down the line, and then in 10 years we can unfreeze immigration. Also, immigrants are marxists.

mindfck'd

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:06 PM
Is this a cult?
Because I don't remember being told that we all had to agree 100% about EVERY issue.
Your cult called, they said that even they didn't want you back.

It's not just a cult, it's a job... amirite? Swordsmyth? Because it's your job to post here. See what I did there?

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:06 PM
Just like apples and billiard balls are both objects.

'kay.

Paid operative. Your arguments are invalid.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 08:09 PM
It's true, the lie you posted presented a best case scenario and even in that case our choice is to embrace extreme poverty or control our borders.

Ron Paul disagrees.

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:10 PM
Ron Paul disagrees.

But DJT does, so...

CCTelander
01-10-2019, 08:12 PM
Yeah this is right in line with Ron/the liberty movement.

This checks out.

lolwut


I'm feeling REALLY FRICKIN' CYNICAL tonight, so I think I'll just bite my tongue.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:14 PM
So, to summarize, we need a 10 year freeze on immigration, even though immigrants always make things worse, even though everyone in this country is an immigrant or a descendant of one, and if we had no immigrants, regular Americans would vote pro-Trump er um I mean pro-least evil er um I mean most good or something like that right down the line, and then in 10 years we can unfreeze immigration. Also, immigrants are marxists.

mindfck'd
We need a 10 year freeze at a minimum and possibly a separation or civil war, then we need immigration limited at levels that don't tilt the balance of politics against liberty.

The fact that everyone's ancestors migrated at some point in history (even Oyarde's) is irrelevant, allowing our society to be overrun by foreigners who are hostile to liberty and even to our existence is not a viable policy, the past is the past and we own this country now and must not allow it to be taken away from us like those who came before.

Liberty must have a territory where it reigns or it doesn't exist and in order to keep it reigning immigration must be limited so that hordes of statists don't seize control of the territory and extinguish it.

If you want people outside the territory to have liberty then you must go to them and convince them to believe in it, then we can consider allowing more of them to come here.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:15 PM
Ron Paul disagrees.
And he is wrong.

You have no place citing Ron anyway, you are his number one enemy on this forum.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:16 PM
It's not just a cult, it's a job... amirite? Swordsmyth? Because it's your job to post here. See what I did there?


'kay.

Paid operative. Your arguments are invalid.


But DJT does, so...

:sleeping:

A Son of Liberty
01-10-2019, 08:16 PM
I'm feeling REALLY FRICKIN' CYNICAL tonight, so I think I'll just bite my tongue.

I hear ya bud.

I'm heading to bed. Because I sleep. And I have a job to go to tomorrow, and other things I'll be doing in my life. Sure would be nice to get paid to post here though, wouldn't it? I mean, my post count would be way up from the measly 4K in 9 years that it's currently at. What is that, a decent afternoon for SwordShill, amirite?! ;)

Peace, Chris. Still sending up the best for you and yours...

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 08:19 PM
We need a 10 year freeze at a minimum and possibly a separation or civil war, then we need immigration limited at levels that don't tilt the balance of politics against liberty.

The fact that everyone's ancestors migrated at some point in history (even Oyarde's) is irrelevant, allowing our society to be overrun by foreigners who are hostile to liberty and even to our existence is not a viable policy, the past is the past and we own this country now and must not allow it to be taken away from us like those who came before.

Liberty must have a territory where it reigns or it doesn't exist and in order to keep it reigning immigration must be limited so that hordes of statists don't seize control of the territory and extinguish it.

If you want people outside the territory to have liberty then you must go to them and convince them to believe in it, then we can consider allowing more of them to come here.

#MAGA

#NotJoking

+rep

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 08:19 PM
As I've said before, I could easily argue immigration from both sides- it's not a cut and dry issue, gang.

Let's do a thought experiment of sorts... beware- I'm on my phone and have the flu.

Open Borders or "Closed"-

Pros:

Open allows people to move freely across public land (or private with the landowner's permission), from one nation to the next.


No Boarder Patrol goons hassling you to sniff test your socks for drugs or your arsehole for guns, simply because you wanna pop to the otherside for some lunch and a blowie.

If I ran into a nice Mexicana lass that I'd like to have stay with me in Me Ol Casa, I can simply invite her, then I kick her rear out when I'm ready; free to do so in my own home, by God.

Prices at Texas' infamous Sombreros, Sombreros, Sombreros! have never been lower, and Juan Sanchez wants to pop over and grab himself a new lid during his lunch break- and the owner wants to sell him one, damn it.

This is Freedom to associate and or make commerce with whomever I please- and I like it!

Cons:

Violent criminals do tend to dislike capture and confinement, so fleeing the country to bunk with your sister will certainly sound appealing (until he sees your sister).

Cultural "mixing pots" sound hip, but anyone that's ever tried a Sonic's Jalepeno Chocolate Milkshake can tell you that sometimes... shite don't mix well. There is a vast difference in flavor profiles and instead of something that tastes sweet with a little bite at the end... you get a mouthful of frozen turd. No bueno. And if you believe middle American values align with that of Juarez, I have land in the Rio Grande to sell ya. Most of that country is Chicago, only dressed in unreasonably snug Wranglers and shiny buttoned shirts, and you can bet your sweet ass- they're going Blue, baby!

Want to live in a nice quiet town with fair weather and nice houses? So does Juan and his 40 children! Enjoy the checkout lane at the local Walmart while they thumb through a month's worth of foodstamps. Oh, BTW, that town's not so nice anymore; your wife was raped by a couple of 120 lb really misunderstood hombres, just looking for a better life.

I.... yeah, man. I know those are extreme and I'm being a little goofy... but really-

Best case scenario: they overwhelmingly vote Blue, run up inflation and taxes, crowd your supermarket, and occasionally make a nice friend to you or the family. Pablo is a cool guy sometimes.

There's no way we're going to overturn the welfare state, End the Fed, and abolish the IRS before the immigration issue is settled. Not happening, folks.

Do you think it is more likely with their cultural influence? Really?

So.... yeah. I like no boarders. I like them after the nanny state is dead and gone.

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 08:24 PM
Without the hordes of marxist immigrants that came in the decades prior the Republican party would likely have never been formed and would certainly never have won, without them and those that came during the war who were drafted or volunteered the Union army would have lost.

Excessive immigration created the American empire, destroyed the old Republic and nearly turned us into a marxist dictatorship in the 1800's.

Federal Dictatorship.. Marx wasn't even well known yet.

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 08:27 PM
Is this a cult?


Trump devotes seem to be..

and I am free to point out the flaws in your religion.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:29 PM
Federal Dictatorship.. Marx wasn't even well known yet.
Marxist:
Was Lincoln a Marxist? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397386-Was-Lincoln-a-Marxist)Marx had just led revolutions in the 1840's:

"The year 1848 is turning out well", wrote Engels. "By this glorious revolution the French proletariat has again placed itself at the head of the European movement. All honour to the workers of Paris!" That revolution spread across the whole of Europe, marking an important development in the class struggle. "A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism", wrote Marx and Engels in the opening passage of the Communist Manifesto. "All powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies." Prophetically, on the day of the Manifesto's publication in London, Europe was ablaze with revolution.
King Louis-Phillipe of France abdicated immediately. Guizot the French Prime Minister was dismissed and Prince Metternich of Austria fell within a few weeks. Marx and Engels hoped that the revolution would only serve as "the immediate prelude to the proletarian revolution." They immediately hailed the revolution which first broke out in France on 24th February 1848.

"The year 1848 is turning out well", wrote Engels. "By this glorious revolution the French proletariat has again placed itself at the head of the European movement. All honour to the workers of Paris!
"Our age, the age of democracy, is breaking. The flames of the Tuileries and the Palais Royal are the dawn of the proletariat. Everywhere the rule of the bourgeoisie will now come crashing down, or be dashed to pieces." (Marx Engels Collected Works, vol.6, p.558)
After a prolonged period of reaction with the defeat of the 1830 revolutions, the revolutionary masses of Paris, guns and red flags in hand, took to the streets, built barricades, drove out the monarchy and forced the Provisional government to declare a Republic. The worker Guibert burst into the Chamber brandishing a pistol, bringing the debate to an abrupt end with the words, "No more deputies, we are the masters."
It was the workers and the lower middle class that propelled the revolution forward. The bourgeoisie, who would eventually gain from the revolution, had not expected or wanted such an outcome. "We wanted to climb from step to step", said one, "but we were forced to leap over a whole flight of stairs."
Above all, the bourgeoisie feared the working class, who pushed forward their own independent class demands: the right to work, a minimum wage, shorter hours, pensions for the disabled, the creation of workshops, compulsory universal education, universal suffrage, progressive taxation, and other working-class demands. In turn, the working class did not trust the bourgeoisie deputies, who wanted an accommodation with the monarchy. As a result, on the walls of Paris revolutionary posters urged the masses: "Let us keep our arms!"
The new bourgeois republican administration was forced to bring in two socialists into the government, one of whom was Louis Blanc, a popular workers' leader. His role, however, became that of class conciliator, struggling to keep the revolutionary movement within acceptable legal limits. Under the pressure from the radical masses, some reforms were introduced, including the establishment of national workshops, in effect, poor law relief for the unemployed.
The elections to the Constituent Assembly were held in late April and recorded big gains for the bourgeois parties, largely due to the support of the conservative peasantry which made up 84% of the new electorate. The new government failed to address the plight of the workers and attempted to undermine the revolution by attacking the workers' leaders, particularly Blanqui and Cabet, as "communists". Trust in the bourgeois government melted away. It was becoming obvious that growing frustration was preparing a new showdown. The government's announced closure of the national workshops in Paris was the last straw. "The February revolution raised the problem of property and labour", stated the revolutionary Paul-Louis Deflotte. "This problem must be solved."
However, the government was making its own plans to teach the workers a lesson by sending them to the school of General Cavaignac who was brought back from butchering the peoples of Algiers, a faithful servant of the counter-revolution.
On 21st June a decree was promoted, abolishing the national workshops. That day the workers of Paris arose again and threw up barricades throughout the capital. Flags were raised with the inscriptions: "Bread or Death!" and "Work or Death!" It was a purely workers' uprising, devoid of the carnival atmosphere of the February revolution. "The insurrection growing into the [I]greatest revolution that has ever taken place", wrote Marx, "into a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie." (MECW, vol.7, p.128, emphasis in original.)
The fighting was ferocious. The bourgeois counter-revolution gave no quarter. The workers were shot down like wild beasts. "The bourgeoisie, fully conscious of what it is doing, conducts a war of extermination against them", wrote Marx. He went on to quote a captain of the republican guard, describing events on 23rd and 24th June. "The cannon replied and until 9 o'clock windows and bricks were shattered by the thunder of artillery. The firing was terrible. Blood flowed in streams while at the same time a tremendous thunderstorm was raging. The cobblestones were red with blood as far as one could see... The number of dead is immense and the number of injured much greater still." (ibid, p.138)
The workers, on the other hand, fought for four solid days with unequalled bravery. "The courage with which the workers have fought is truly marvelous", wrote Marx. For three full days, 30,000 to 40,000 workers were able to hold their own against more than 80,000 soldiers and 100,000 men of the national guard, against grape-shot, shells, incendiary rockets and the glorious war experiences of generals who did not shrink from using these methods employed in Algeria! They have been crushed and in large part massacred. Their dead will not be accorded the honour that was bestowed upon the dead of July and February. History, however, will assign an entirely different place to them, the martyrs of the first decisive battle of the proletariat." (ibid, p.143)
After almost a week of battles and street-fighting, the full might of the state was used to crush the movement in blood. A frenzy of shootings and torture were on the order of the day. Some 15,000 were killed and wounded during and after the uprising. The ruling class exacted its revenge for the independent movement of the French workers. The workers' demand "contained a threat to the existing order of society; the workers who put it forward were still armed; therefore, the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state." (Engels)
The revolutions of 1848 were essentially bourgeois-democratic in the tasks they attempted to solve. Their fundamental aspect was the destruction of the old feudal structures and the creation of the independent nation state. While Marx and Engels hoped that this bourgeois revolution would be the immediate prelude to the proletarian revolution, given the weakness of the Communist League, they had no alternative but to form in Germany the extreme proletarian wing of the democratic movement. Its aim was to destroy absolutism and to unity the backward states into one democratic republic. This could only be brought about by revolutionary means. The daily paper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, edited by Marx, was the organ of democratic revolution, but, as Engels wrote, of "a democracy which everywhere emphasized in every point the specific proletarian character." The paper, which had widespread support, became the true headquarters of the militant proletariat, the leading centre of the Communist League.
Not only did Marx and Engels fight for national independence for the oppressed nationalities, but put forward a genuinely internationalist approach. There were other nations oppressed by reactionary German states, such as the Poles in Prussia, the Italians, Czechs and others in Austria, as well as Russian Tsarism. At this time Tsarism was the most counter-revolutionary force in Europe in the same way that American imperialism is on a world stage today.
Marx and Engels sharply criticized the cowardly bourgeois leaders for failing to support the struggles of oppressed nations such as the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and Italians against Prussian and Austrian despotism. The leadership of the revolution will fall to the working class. "... not the cowardly German burghers but the German workers; they will rise up, put an end to the whole filthy, muddled official German rule and with a radical revolution restore the honour of Germany", explained Engels. "Germany will liberate herself to the extent to which she sets free neighbouring nations."
Revolution broke out in Germany on 18th March with fighting in nearly every town and barricades erected in Berlin and Vienna. The people won a series of democratic rights but control passed into the hands of the big bourgeoisie, which quickly betrayed the struggle.
It was out of these experiences that Marx and Engels were to raise the idea of permanent revolution. The bourgeoisie were more afraid of the working class than the forces of feudal despotism. They were to play an increasingly counter-revolutionary role. They were incapable of bringing about genuine national unification, as history proved. Marx and Engels put their confidence in the working class. They believed that a successful bourgeois-democratic revolution, under the leadership of the workers, would become the prologue of the proletarian revolution and the transformation of Europe. "Before reaction can be destroyed in Italy and Germany, it must be routed in France", explained Engels. "A democratic social republic must first be proclaimed in France and the French proletariat must first subjugate its bourgeoisie before a lasting victory of democracy is conceivable in Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary and other countries." (ibid, p.403) Marx agreed: "The Hungarian shall not be free, nor the Poles, nor the Italians, as long as the work remains a slave."
The defeat of the 1848 revolutions removed any threat of proletarian revolution. The forces of capitalism were still maturing. It took a further 23 years before the glorious Paris Commune (the first workers' state in history) would place proletarian revolution once again on the agenda of the European continent.

https://www.marxist.com/1848-revolutions.htm

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:31 PM
Trump devotes seem to be..
Sure...........


and I am free to point out the flaws in your religion.
Feel free, maybe you can engage in a debate of the facts and logic without resorting to insults and baseless accusations.

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 08:34 PM
You fuckers trampled overtop my brilliant and reasonable post to pull each other's hair and fight more.

Like casting tits before a Spacey, I swear to God.

Dead to me.

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 08:35 PM
Marxist:


"The year 1848 is turning out well", wrote Engels.

Friedrich Engels..

He put the writings of a Madman into practice.

Lincoln Killed the Republic..and created a Federalist State. He killed the Union and created a union.

TheTexan
01-10-2019, 08:36 PM
Like casting tits before a Spacey, I swear to God.

https://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/43b29399f848b593e63956db185cc4a71.jpg?w=620&h=440&crop=1

Anti Federalist
01-10-2019, 08:38 PM
*citation needed*

California 2019

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:38 PM
You $#@!ers trampled overtop my brilliant and reasonable post to pull each other's hair and fight more.

Like casting tits before a Spacey, I swear to God.

Dead to me.
I wanted to rep your post but I have to spread more around first.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:40 PM
Friedrich Engels..

He put the writings of a Madman into practice.

Lincoln Killed the Republic..and created a Federalist State. He killed the Union and created a union.
Lincoln was a marxist and the Republicans were a marxist party as the thread I linked to shows.

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 08:42 PM
I wanted to rep your post but I have to spread more around first.

Dead to me.
Dead. To. Me.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:44 PM
Dead to me.
Dead. To. Me.
I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm under attack here today and I feel the need to defend myself.
I don't feel that way about you.
I like your posts.

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 08:52 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm under attack here today and I feel the need to defend myself.
I don't feel that way about you.
I like your posts.

LOL

You're fine. I'm just funnin'.
BTW, best defense is a good offense, ya know? I'd recommend finding the thing pcosmar loves most in this world...
















then IMMEDIATELY report that illegal male prostitute to an ICE officer!

j/k pco. I'm a little giddy and jabberwocky with fever. Ignore me.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:54 PM
LOL

You're fine. I'm just funnin'.
BTW, best defense is a good offense, ya know? I'd recommend finding the thing pcosmar loves most in this world...
















then IMMEDIATELY report that illegal male prostitute to an ICE officer!

j/k pco. I'm a little giddy and jabberwocky with fever. Ignore me.
:D

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 08:54 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm under attack here today and I feel the need to defend myself.
I don't feel that way about you.
I like your posts.

Actually,, the Clown prince Trump is under attack..
You are attempting to defend Trump and think you are defending yourself.

and that sort of mental confusion is why people think you are a Cultist.

PAF
01-10-2019, 08:58 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm under attack here today and I feel the need to defend myself.


Now put yourself in the shoes of 3 Million residents and business owners along that 2,000 mile stretch.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 08:59 PM
Actually,, the Clown prince Trump is under attack..
You are attempting to defend Trump and think you are defending yourself.

and that sort of mental confusion is why people think you are a Cultist.
No, if you read the posts directed at ME today you would see that I am the one who is being attacked personally.
But you didn't bother to look at what I was talking about before posting.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:01 PM
Now put yourself in the shoes of 3 Million residents and business owners along that 2,000 mile stretch.
:sleeping:

1 I don't support the wall
2 Put yourself into the shoes of the Hundreds of millions of Americans whose rights are under attack by the invaders and the collaborators

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 09:01 PM
j/k pco. I'm a little giddy and jabberwocky with fever. Ignore me.

Hope you feel better.
still looking for a battle of wit, but finding only light fencing.

nikcers
01-10-2019, 09:01 PM
LOL

You're fine. I'm just funnin'.
BTW, best defense is a good offense, ya know? I'd recommend finding the thing pcosmar loves most in this world...
















then IMMEDIATELY report that illegal male prostitute to an ICE officer!

j/k pco. I'm a little giddy and jabberwocky with fever. Ignore me.

What if America is what he loves most in the world?

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:02 PM
Now put yourself in the shoes of 3 Million residents and business owners along that 2,000 mile stretch.

https://www.henrycuellar.com/news-clips/statistics-show-cities-along-border-have-lower-crime-rate-national-average


STATISTICS SHOW CITIES ALONG BORDER HAVE LOWER CRIME RATE THAN NATIONAL AVERAGE


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Rep. Henry Cuellar released Wednesday the latest statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that show lower violent crime rates in cities along the Texas-Mexico border than in other major metropolitan areas across Texas and the U.S.

The data released by the FBI shows information gathered for 2015.

"The border is often painted in an unfair light," Cuellar said. "The people who characterize the border as a violent and crime-ridden place often have never visited, or lived here. The FBI's official crime statistics for yet another year demonstrate that the border is home to some of the safest cities in the United States. Violent crimes like murder and aggravated assault are much higher even in our nation’s capital than on the Texas border. These unfounded stereotypes about the border have the potential to hurt business, and we need to stop this misinformation about the border."

The latest FBI crime statistics (2015) show:

The murder rates in Detroit and Washington, D.C., were more than twice the murder rates in Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville and El Paso combined.

The aggravated assault rate was lower in border cities compared to other Texas and U.S. cities. The statistics show Detroit's aggravated assault rate was almost 19 times the rate in McAllen, Texas. Washington, D.C., was more than 10 times the rate of McAllen.

The murder rates in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio were more than twice the murder rate of Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville and El Paso, respectively.

The robbery rates in border cities were less than half of the rates in Detroit and Washington, D.C., and significantly lower than Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio.

The rape rate was significantly lower, often by half or more, in Brownsville and McAllen than in most major cities in Texas, and in major cities like Chicago, Washington and Detroit.

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 09:03 PM
What if America is what he loves most in the world?

America is a Male Prostitute?

Woah !

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 09:05 PM
What if America is what he loves most in the world?

That would explain why America's been walking funny.

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 09:10 PM
No, if you read the posts directed at ME today you would see that I am the one who is being attacked personally.
But you didn't bother to look at what I was talking about before posting.

No,, I responded to the Lincoln as Marxist comment..

and it is ridiculous,, Though Socialism in many forms was infecting the world at the time...
Lincoln took the Federalist Arguments position. and turned this into the Federalist states of America.. No longer a Union of Free States but a Centralized Federal Government dictating to the states.. It prepared the way for the Socialist Coup of 1913.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:11 PM
https://www.henrycuellar.com/news-clips/statistics-show-cities-along-border-have-lower-crime-rate-national-average
The invaders don't stay in the border towns and there are other groups with higher crime rates that are concentrated in other areas.

Also an awful lot of crime goes unreported in the illegal community.

PAF
01-10-2019, 09:13 PM
:sleeping:

1 I don't support the wall
2 Put yourself into the shoes of the Hundreds of millions of Americans whose rights are under attack by the invaders and the collaborators

1. ??? I don’t think you know the answer to that.
2. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most government programs. I feel no different than I did last year, I am still supporting Section 8 recipients, most of which in my daily encounters are multi-generational Americans. In two states, since I live near the border.
3. I will not compound problems by adding to government induced problems by supporting non-liberty initiatives. Certainly not giving what does not belong to me to the Fed.
4. Private Property Rights is the essence of Liberty. Which this forum should be advocating - how we can regain that back, not move away from it.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:13 PM
No,, I responded to the Lincoln as Marxist comment..
That has nothing to do with the fact that I have been under personal attack today and you claimed that only Trump was being attacked.


and it is ridiculous,, Though Socialism in many forms was infecting the world at the time...
Lincoln took the Federalist Arguments position. and turned this into the Federalist states of America.. No longer a Union of Free States but a Centralized Federal Government dictating to the states.. It prepared the way for the Socialist Coup of 1913.
Go to the thread and read, I'm not going to re post its contents here.

AuH20
01-10-2019, 09:15 PM
Now the marxists believe in private property?

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:15 PM
1. ??? I don’t think you know the answer to that.
2. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most government programs. I feel no different than I did last year, I am still supporting Section 8 recipients, most of which in my daily encounters are multi-generational Americans. In two states, since I live near the border.
3. I will not compound problems by adding to government induced problems by supporting non-liberty initiatives. Certainly not giving what does not belong to me to the Fed.
4. Private Property Rights is the essence of Liberty. Which this forum should be advocating - how we can regain that back, not move away from it.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government programs. Legal immigrants must be in the country at least five years before they are eligible for any. "If we just ended benefits they would stop coming! They are only here for the free stuff!" If they are lazy and want free stuff, it is easier to stay where they were.

AuH20
01-10-2019, 09:17 PM
As soon as the IRS is abolished, i'll agree that we dont need a barrier. But right now i pay into this clusterfuck, so technically i am a common owner.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:17 PM
1. ??? I don’t think you know the answer to that.
2. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most government programs. I feel no different than I did last year, I am still supporting Section 8 recipients, most of which in my daily encounters are multi-generational Americans. In two states, since I live near the border.
3. I will not compound problems by adding to government induced problems by supporting non-liberty initiatives. Certainly not giving what does not belong to me to the Fed.
4. Private Property Rights is the essence of Liberty. Which this forum should be advocating - how we can regain that back, not move away from it.
1. They get welfare and they vote for it at higher rates than the natives, that has been proven and I have shown you the proof before.
2. I don't support the wall
3. property rights will be lost entirely if something isn't done and while I prefer increased patrols the wall will help to stop that and it is Constitutional and legal

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 09:19 PM
.... still looking for a battle of wit, but finding only light fencing.

Nice... that was boarder'line o-fence'ive and packed a real wall'op.


....eh... I'll see myself out.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:20 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government programs. Legal immigrants must be in the country at least five years before they are eligible for any. "If we just ended benefits they would stop coming! They are only here for the free stuff!" If they are lazy and want free stuff, it is easier to stay where they were.
They cheat and liberal government workers help them cheat.
Even if the cheats aren't counted 2/3rds of foreign born households are recipients of welfare while only 1/3rd of native households are.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:21 PM
"If we just ended benefits they would stop coming! They are only here for the free stuff!" If they are lazy and want free stuff, it is easier to stay where they were.
We have a lot more stuff for them to demand.

PursuePeace
01-10-2019, 09:23 PM
I'm comparing property to property, so...

Ok, I get that they're both property. But I just don't see guns and property that exists on the border of a country to be two things that can be compared equally. Maybe you can, but right now, I'm just not seeing it that way.

What is your solution?

pcosmar
01-10-2019, 09:25 PM
That has nothing to do with the fact that I have been under personal attack today and you claimed that only Trump was being attacked.



Perhaps people are getting tired of your Continuous Trump Humping.

I know I was tired of him last year.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:26 PM
Perhaps people are getting tired of your Continuous Trump Humping.

I know I was tired of him last year.
:sleeping:

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:27 PM
Ok, I get that they're both property. But I just don't see guns and property that exists on the border of a country to be two things that can be compared equally. Maybe you can, but right now, I'm just not seeing it that way.

What is your solution?
He doesn't have one.

The anarchy fairy will protect us.

PAF
01-10-2019, 09:31 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government programs. Legal immigrants must be in the country at least five years before they are eligible for any. "If we just ended benefits they would stop coming! They are only here for the free stuff!" If they are lazy and want free stuff, it is easier to stay where they were.

+1

The “crisis” Trump should have talked about on national TV was how the 2nd was under attack, private property should be protected, how much of a drain on society multi-generational Welfare is, and most important, the detriments of Common Core and the need to end it.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:33 PM
+1

The “crisis” Trump should have talked about on national TV was how the 2nd was under attack, private property should be protected, how much of a drain on society multi-generational Welfare is, and most important, the detriments of Common Core and the need to end it.

He wants something biggly he can put his name on. It will be the mostest beautiful thing anybody has ever seen. Support it and you will never see another crime committed in the US. Ever. If you aren't with us, you are for the terrorists/ criminals. (that last line got us into Afghanistan and Iraq).

https://www.newromantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/border-wall-contractors.jpg

brushfire
01-10-2019, 09:35 PM
Canada has a border with Mexico?

Why should they keep on going north to Canada when they can stop in the US take all of our jobs and vote us into communism?

When they have turned the US into Venezuela they will move on to Canada.

In 2008-2009 there was a mass exodus of illegal immigrants leaving the US. The economic crisis had not hit Canada as hard as it did the US. Mexico was still an economic sh!thole, and Canada did not pick up any of the illegals leaving the US.

Sorry I was not clearer on that point... Not that it probably matters, we're just not going to agree on this issue.

specsaregood
01-10-2019, 09:36 PM
He wants something biggly he can put his name on. It will be the mostest beautiful thing anybody has ever seen. Support it and you will never see another crime committed in the US. Ever. If you aren't with us, you are for the terrorists/ criminals. (that last line got us into Afghanistan and Iraq).


Wow right onto the new talking point. the old zippy wouldn't have posted this weak shit.

PAF
01-10-2019, 09:37 PM
Federalize that land and the right to carry goes out the window. When one Right goes down the crapper, in this case Property Rights, the rest follow. This is what you don’t understand.

And yes, you are in fact, a trump humper.

Edited, this was to SwordSmyth.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:40 PM
In 2008-2009 there was a mass exodus of illegal immigrants leaving the US. The economic crisis had not hit Canada as hard as it did the US. Mexico was still an economic sh!thole, and Canada did not pick up any of the illegals leaving the US.

Sorry I was not clearer on that point... Not that it probably matters, we're just not going to agree on this issue.
If there was a mass exodus how come we have 20M+ now instead of the 10M+ they told us we had back then?
Yale study finds illegal migrant numbers twice the accepted norm of 11 million (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526703-Yale-study-finds-illegal-migrant-numbers-twice-the-accepted-norm-of-11-million)
Why would we want to rely on becoming poor to get rid of them anyway?

Slave Mentality
01-10-2019, 09:44 PM
He wants something biggly he can put his name on. It will be the mostest beautiful thing anybody has ever seen. Support it and you will never see another crime committed in the US. Ever. If you aren't with us, you are for the terrorists/ criminals. (that last line got us into Afghanistan and Iraq).

https://www.newromantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/border-wall-contractors.jpg

“That I'm proud to be an American,
Where at least I know I'm free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
Who gave that right to me”

Lee Greenwood approves!

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:44 PM
Federalize that land and the right to carry goes out the window. When one Right goes down the crapper, in this case Property Rights, the rest follow. This is what you don’t understand.
LOL
You may not like it and I may think that there are better ways to deal with it but eminent domain IS Constitutional.

Besides that you are jumping the shark, the government has taken much more land with much less justification before and somehow I still have my guns.

If you allow the invasion to continue all of our rights will be destroyed completely.



And yes, you are in fact, a trump humper.

:sleeping:

Wooden Indian
01-10-2019, 09:45 PM
All this Trump-hump talk.... and not one pic....
Fixed your thread, ya jackwagons!




http://www.mycelebrity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Ivanka-Trump-Hot-18.jpg

PAF
01-10-2019, 09:48 PM
LOL
You may not like it and I may think that there are better ways to deal with it but eminent domain IS Constitutional.

Besides that you are jumping the shark, the government has taken much more land with much less justification before and somehow I still have my guns.

If you allow the invasion to continue all of our rights will be destroyed completely.




https://youtu.be/ehxRaPS7kuY

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:49 PM
LOL
You may not like it and I may think that there are better ways to deal with it but eminent domain IS Constitutional.

Besides that you are jumping the shark, the government has taken much more land with much less justification before and somehow I still have my guns.

If you allow the invasion to continue all of our rights will be destroyed completely.



:sleeping:

If you allow the government to seize property from its citizens without just cause our rights will be destroyed. Are you willing to offer up your own property to the government?

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:50 PM
https://youtu.be/ehxRaPS7kuY
It doesn't matter how bad you think it is.
IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
And it has been used many times before with much less justification and yet I still have my guns.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:53 PM
If you allow the government to seize property from its citizens without just cause our rights will be destroyed. Are you willing to offer up your own property to the government?

...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6733340#post6733340)

LOL
You may not like it and I may think that there are better ways to deal with it but eminent domain IS Constitutional.

Besides that you are jumping the shark, the government has taken much more land with much less justification before and somehow I still have my guns.

If you allow the invasion to continue all of our rights will be destroyed completely.

Defending against an INVASION is the best possible justification for eminent domain.

I prefer a different solution but you are really reaching here.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:54 PM
...

Defending against an INVASION is the best possible justification for eminent domain.

I prefer a different solution but you are really reaching here.

Yes, you want a bigger police state and more ID checks. And continue to exaggerate the "invasion" to help get it. In Germany they had to protect people from the Jews. Here we need protection from the Mexicans.

brushfire
01-10-2019, 09:55 PM
I've been saying that for years, however its flawed I realize this year;
Gang bangers like ms13 thrive off of criminal enterprise, you can't remove that incentive,
felons coming here to avoid Mexican Jails, can't remove that incentive, terrorists wanting
to infiltrate , disease ridden that already have a connection here, you just can't keep these
and many other undesirables and plain dangerous people out, we do need to kill All Incentives
for sure, the wall is not enough but it is definitely part of a comprehensive pkg , INV.

You're making a good point here, but its a different issue.
Chicago is packed with not only illegals, but domestics who are enjoying the illicit drug revenue. These gangs are willing to do whatever it takes to keep that money flowing, and that includes a whole lot of violence. Unfortunately though, as you point out, the incentives will remain after the wall is built, and so will the gangs. The good news here is that legalization is gaining steam, and there's not a fking thing the federal government can do about it - not at this point. Pieces of sh!t who made it their life's mission to prop up this prohibition are now lining up to profit from legalization.

The terrorist fear is yet another topic, and that involves foreign policy. The wall is not going to save us here either, unfortunately. Killing women and children, propping up dictators, overthrowing elected governments, and selectively supporting revolutionaries (sometimes switching sides 2 or 3 times) to destabilize entire regions is going to create a lot of incentive for terrorism. You kill my children, or even my neighbor's children, and I'm coming after your a$$ - I'd expect the same from anyone else. With all the "foreigners" coming here legally, and on H1B's, there will be no need to scale a wall. Our own government is packed with these immigrants who do contract work - government loves contractors and service providers and almost all of them are foreign. (to disclaim - everyone I've worked with has been awesome - I dont fear them in the least, but I see how easy it is for hostiles to make their way over here, legally)

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 09:56 PM
Yes, you want a bigger police state and more ID checks. And continue to exaggerate the "invasion" to help get it.
That is simply a lie.

AdamL
01-10-2019, 09:57 PM
If you allow the government to seize property from its citizens without just cause our rights will be destroyed. Are you willing to offer up your own property to the government?

Ok, let's just build the wall on the Mexican side of the border then. Eminent domain issue solved. Next question?

PAF
01-10-2019, 09:58 PM
It doesn't matter how bad you think it is.
IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
And it has been used many times before with much less justification and yet I still have my guns.

I’ve got mine too. But it isn’t immigrants who are threatening to take them. You Fed that land and all bets are off. For 2,000 miles.

I’m going nighty night.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 09:58 PM
You're making a good point here, but its a different issue.
Chicago is packed with not only illegals, but domestics who are enjoying the illicit drug revenue. These gangs are willing to do whatever it takes to keep that money flowing, and that includes a whole lot of violence. Unfortunately though, as you point out, the incentives will remain after the wall is built, and so will the gangs. The good news here is that legalization is gaining steam, and there's not a fking thing the federal government can do about it - not at this point. Pieces of sh!t who made it their life's mission to prop up this prohibition are now lining up to profit from legalization.

The terrorist fear is yet another topic, and that involves foreign policy. The wall is not going to save us here either, unfortunately. Killing women and children, propping up dictators, overthrowing elected governments, and selectively supporting revolutionaries (sometimes switching sides 2 or 3 times) to destabilize entire regions is going to create a lot of incentive for terrorism. You kill my children, or even my neighbor's children, and I'm coming after your a$$ - I'd expect the same from anyone else. With all the "foreigners" coming here legally, and on H1B's, there will be no need to scale a wall. Our own government is packed with these immigrants who do contract work - government loves contractors and service providers and almost all of them are foreign. (to disclaim - everyone I've worked with has been awesome - I dont fear them in the least, but I see how easy it is for hostiles to make their way over here, legally)

Most terrorists enter the US legally through Canada. Should we build a wall there too? But when was the last terrorist attack in the US? You are more likely to die simply walking down the street than from a terrorist attack.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 10:03 PM
Ok, let's just build the wall on the Mexican side of the border then. Eminent domain issue solved. Next question?

We have some 650 miles of border wall already built along the 2,000 mile southern border (though you would not know it by listening to Trump who makes it sound like there is none and nobody watching the borders at all). Why not more? Most is inaccessible. Across rivers- over mountains, in the middle of deserts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Du3MEoOWsAElWkW.jpg

https://66.media.tumblr.com/4b5cae8409d65c2b6b638b1be99352bb/tumblr_p4v5z7jutB1we4t2no1_640.png

AdamL
01-10-2019, 10:04 PM
Most terrorists enter the US legally through Canada. Should we build a wall there too? But when was the last terrorist attack in the US? You are more likely to die simply walking down the street than from a terrorist attack.

This has nothing to do with terrorism or crime. Americans have the right to our homeland, and we don't have to justify that to anyone.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 10:06 PM
I’ve got mine too. But it isn’t immigrants who are threatening to take them. You Fed that land and all bets are off. For 2,000 miles.


LOL

The immigrants are the biggest threat to my guns, just ask California and nothing will happen if the feds build the wall other than the wall being built.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 10:08 PM
Most terrorists enter the US legally through Canada. Should we build a wall there too? But when was the last terrorist attack in the US? You are more likely to die simply walking down the street than from a terrorist attack.
Communism is the biggest problem, but being a Commiefornia liberal you want to do to us what your invader buddies have already done to Commiefornia.

brushfire
01-10-2019, 10:10 PM
Why would we want to rely on becoming poor to get rid of them anyway?

Is that what you got from my argument? Really? I suspect that you are being intellectually dishonest with me - perhaps even with yourself.

Ok, so I'll play along... That's exactly what you're doing with your wall. Have you been paying attention to the deficit? To our national debt? How about the fed balance sheet? Inflation?

If we dont take away the incentives that our government is handing out to these illegals, our reckless spending will. Better warm up to the idea of being poor. Your boy trump, and his wall, will only accelerate this fact. No tariff is going to save you either. Personal welfare, illegal immigrant welfare, corporate welfare, foreign welfare, nation building - its going to make a you a poor motherfker - trust me. Then, where will your trump be - fking asia baby... He and all his rich friends will be up and out of this b!tch.

This wall is a waste of time, and a typical political distraction. Dont be manipulated - you have a lot of useful energy, dont waste it on this.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 10:10 PM
People falling through the cracks in the wall? Falling out of the bottom of the country? We must do something! Americans going missing!

1083554782923632640

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 10:10 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government programs. Legal immigrants must be in the country at least five years before they are eligible for any. "If we just ended benefits they would stop coming! They are only here for the free stuff!" If they are lazy and want free stuff, it is easier to stay where they were.

That is quite analogous to saying that marijuana is illegal at the Federal level, therefore no one smokes marijuana.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 10:15 PM
That is quite analogous to saying that marijuana is illegal at the Federal level, therefore no one smokes marijuana.
Zippy believes in Gun Free Zones.

brushfire
01-10-2019, 10:17 PM
Most terrorists enter the US legally through Canada. Should we build a wall there too? But when was the last terrorist attack in the US? You are more likely to die simply walking down the street than from a terrorist attack.

On visa's - it doesnt even matter if they come here through Canada. They can land at Dulles... Take a direct flight to Ohare, and rent a car - see the country before destroying it.

You're right about the risk - statistically, one is more likely to killed by the police while walking down the street, than by a terrorist.

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 10:17 PM
Is that what you got from my argument? Really? I suspect that you are being intellectually dishonest with me - perhaps even with yourself.

Ok, so I'll play along... That's exactly what you're doing with your wall. Have you been paying attention to the deficit? To our national debt? How about the fed balance sheet? Inflation?

If we dont take away the incentives that our government is handing out to these illegals, our reckless spending will. Better warm up to the idea of being poor. Your boy trump, and his wall, will only accelerate this fact. No tariff is going to save you either. Personal welfare, illegal immigrant welfare, corporate welfare, foreign welfare, nation building - its going to make a you a poor motherfker - trust me. Then, where will your trump be - fking asia baby... He and all his rich friends will be up and out of this b!tch.

This wall is a waste of time, and a typical political distraction. Dont be manipulated - you have a lot of useful energy, dont waste it on this.
I don't support the wall, I want to end the incentives and increase patrols but the wall is nothing compared to our debt or the budget:

After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.
Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are being particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)
Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (some data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste (https://www.cagw.org/reporting/2018-prime-cuts)):



“Rural Utility Service.” This program costs taxpayers $8.2 billion/year and has no actual purpose after its original intent — bringing electricity to rural communities — was long ago achieved. It’s now being used to bring broadband access to small communities (usually with populations of less than 20,000). However there’s no indication the “beneficiaries” of this expensive government agency actually appreciate the program and the majority of its projects are not completed on time or within budget.
Sugar Subsidies. America, as Democrats frequently intone, faces a health crisis. What they don’t tell us is that it’s largely of their own making, as Congress subsidizes the production of unhealthy foods like sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Eliminating sugar subsidies alone would save $6 billion, enough to fund the border wall; it would also have the added benefit of helping curb the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Community Development Grants. These grants were created in the 70s to revitalize failing American cities. The program has almost always been plagued with dysfunction, with grants going to wealthy communities and other recipients failing to produce accountability or results. Citizens Against Government Waste reports that even President Obama called for reining in the program. It’s elimination would save $15 billion over 5 years.
The United Nations. As the United Nation’s largest contributor, the U.S. in 2016 donated $10 billion to the U.N. As CAGW notes, reducing these contributions just 25 percent would create a savings of $12.5 billion over 10 years. Of the money Congress appropriates for the United Nations, 5 million taxpayer dollars are itemized for abortions in foreign countries.
Amtrak. Congress could sell Amtrak to the private sector where it would almost certainly be operated more efficiently, but instead it’s showered in billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. Over the next five years, these subsidies will cost $9.7 billion.
Unused Real Estate. Congress appropriates money to maintain federal real estate that’s not actually being used. Per CAGW, an October 31, 2017, CRS report found that, “In FY2016, federal agencies owned 3,120 buildings that were vacant (unutilized), and another 7,859 that were partially empty (underutilized).” Current laws require the government to undergo a series of steps before considering a sale of these buildings. Were selling this unused property prioritized, the 5-year savings are estimated at $15 billion. Simply maintaining the unused buildings annually costs $1.7 billion.
Foreign Aid. American taxpayers currently spend more than (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid) $50 billion a year helping develop foreign countries. Many of the recipients are not known for being America’s closest allies — such as Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda, South Africa, Russia, the Congo, Sudan, and Zambia — which raises the question of what Americans are receiving in exchange for all of this aid. Cutting these donations back just 10 percent would be enough to fund the wall.
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers are spending more than $137 billion (https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/public-sector/fraud-waste-and-abuse-in-entitlement-programs-benefits-fraud.html) annually on “payment errors,” which covers all manner of waste, fraud, and abuse within Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The feds could implement the same kind of fraud protections credit card companies used to ensure against abuse, but don’t. In fact, Congress has gone in the opposite direction, winding down the program intended to police fraud within Medicare, the so-called Recovery Audit Contractor. In other words, Congress is knowingly funding tens of billions of dollars of fraud annually.


Despite many of of the above projects having arguably negative value, Congress continues to fund them. Eliminating any one of the above would create more than enough savings to fund the White House’s border wall appropriation request.


More at: https://news.grabien.com/story-thing...re-border-wall (https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall)

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 10:18 PM
People falling through the cracks in the wall? Falling out of the bottom of the country? We must do something! Americans going missing!

1083554782923632640

He left out the heroin part. It should read “We lose 300 Americans a week to heroin”.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 10:20 PM
Maybe we don't need the wall after all. Trump says so. No crisis at the border- everything is under control.

1075732375169060869

Swordsmyth
01-10-2019, 10:20 PM
On visa's - it doesnt even matter if they come here through Canada. They can land at Dulles... Take a direct flight to Ohare, and rent a car - see the country before destroying it.

You're right about the risk - statistically, one is more likely to killed by the police while walking down the street, than by a terrorist.
But Communism is the greatest threat:

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. 829bqnWsEr0SlEqWqRhLMgHaHa%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

Brian4Liberty
01-10-2019, 10:21 PM
Zippy believes in Gun Free Zones.

By definition, there are no guns in “gun free zones”. And it’s illegal. There is a government chart somewhere that illustrates this fact.

Zippyjuan
01-10-2019, 10:22 PM
He left out the heroin part. It should read “We lose 300 Americans a week to heroin”.

Drugs are mostly smuggled hidden in vehicles going through legal border crossings. Wall does nothing about that.