Trump Changing His Position on Immigration

[Anti Federalist]

I don't believe they care either way where people actually live. But they do use it as a politicized tool, which enrages voters on both sides to literally beg for government "solutions", and drains tax-payers on both sides of their money.

So if the globalists didn't care, then wouldn't they fall out roughly 50/50 pro and con?

C'mon, you can say it...it's OK.

Globalists are universally in favor of, promote vigorously, support financially (where do you think all those NGOs are getting their funding from outside the US?), and use as a tool to collapse nations, the unhindered and unimpeded invasion of foreigners into a targeted nation.

There is no question about this, they brag about it in speeches and books and opinion pages all around the world.

You can call me whatever you like, but you can not accurately call me a supporter of the globalist agenda for opposing the invasion.

Not and be honest about it anyway.

[PAF]

So if the globalists didn't care, then wouldn't they fall out roughly 50/50 pro and con?

C'mon, you can say it...it's OK.

Globalists are universally in favor of, promote vigorously, support financially (where do you think all those NGOs are getting their funding from outside the US?), and use as a tool to collapse nations, the unhindered and unimpeded invasion of foreigners into a targeted nation.

There is no question about this, they brag about it in speeches and books and opinion pages all around the world.

You can call me whatever you like, but you can not accurately call me a supporter of the globalist agenda for opposing the invasion.

Not and be honest about it anyway.

I don't put blame on Globalists or Crony-corporatists. I put blame square on the people who contribute and allow it to happen. Who am I to argue whether people want a Constitution-Free Zone lined with military, nationwide Stop and Frisk, free government issued cards and places to stay, whether in a luxurious hotel or a MIC for profit Holding Cell.

The only way this nation will collapse is to drain us completely broke, while stripping ourselves of the Bill of Rights, the very thing the border is supposed to signify. And that is what the Globalists want - for us to do it to ourselves.

[Anti Globalist]

How about changing his position on Operation Warp Speed and the covid vaccines?

[Swordsmyth]

Trump Campaign Backtracks on Trump Promise of More College Migrants


https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/06/21/trump-campaign-backtracks-on-trump-promise-of-more-

[Swordsmyth]

This is ridiculous fake news and you should delete your post. Trump has always been for merit based immigration, he's talking about students that come to our country legally on student visas to go to school here. Of course Congress would have input and there would be degree restrictions, the fact that the interview didn't expand on that and for massie to assume Trump wants 2yr poli sci majors getting green cards is totally imaginary BS.

Some idiot like Ramaswampy fed him this idea and he tried out how it sounded.
It's not going to happen.

[Swordsmyth]

Then why do globalists, universally, support migrant invasion of the West?

For the same reason PAF supports it.

[acptulsa]

For the same reason PAF supports it.

He's not the one supporting a guy who signed off on budgets which paid NGOs to import them. You are.

And no, budgets aren't immune to being vetoed. Nothing that comes out of Congress is immune to being vetoed but meaningless "resolutions".

[Swordsmyth]

He's not the one supporting a guy who signed off on budgets which paid NGOs to import them. You are.

And no, budgets aren't immune to being vetoed. Nothing that comes out of Congress is immune to being vetoed but meaningless "resolutions".

Yes, uniparty priorities that pass with supermajorities are veto proof and a waste of political capitol to virtue signal about.

[jmdrake]

This is how Massie gets on peoples $#@! list and never accomplishes anything. He could have said 'I agree with Trump. But I would advocate for degree restrictions, WE don't want 2yr political science majors that don't help our country automatically getting green cards". Instead, he immediately drama farms on X and lies and makes $#@! up that Trump didn't say.

Is Trump your god? Serious question. Why are you judging Massie on how much he goes out of his way to kiss Trump's arse?

As far as 2 year degrees verses something else, most people who get 2 year degrees are nurses or plumbers or accountants. I guess it's possible to get a 2 year degree in political science but I've never heard of someone actually doing that. There is a nursing shortage in this country. A 2 year nursing degree is more helpful to the country than a political science PhD.

The other issue is that I know for a fact that some here, including @Brian4Liberty, have been against expanding H1B visas. Those go to people with masters degrees in engineering and computer science. Back in the 1990s when I was in the comp sci graduate program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the overwhelming majority of the students in the department were foreign born, mostly India and China. Whether you think H1B visas are good or bad, Trump had been publicly saying he was against expanding them. But this is a stealth expansion. It's a flip flop.

[jmdrake]

@PAF

Minefields.

They are cheaper than soldiers, won't hesitate to act, are on guard 24/7 and do a hell of a job deterring invaders.

So then when America gets so fvcked that maybe some of us want to leave we've got a minefield to deal with? Sounds like the Berlin wall. No thanks.

Edit: And guess where I got this idea from?





Sorry but @PAF is more right than wrong on this one.

[acptulsa]

Yes, uniparty priorities that pass with supermajorities are veto proof and a waste of political capitol to virtue signal about.

And where's the supermajority demanding imported Hindu college graduates that Trump is useless to resist?

[jmdrake]

For the same reason PAF supports it.

[Swordsmyth]

So then when America gets so fvcked that maybe some of us want to leave we've got a minefield to deal with? Sounds like the Berlin wall. No thanks.

Edit: And guess where I got this idea from?





Sorry but @PAF is more right than wrong on this one.

Nope.
Ron was right when he voted for the fence and to put the military on the border.
Ron softened his position under the influence of leftarians and globalibertarians like McAdams.
Ron is wrong now.

Being able to leave is the last thing we have to worry about, if America falls there won't be any place left to run to, and even if there is you will have to go by plane or boat because Canada and Mexico are WAY ahead of us on the path to communism.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is being used to destroy us in an act of war, and we have no choice but to respond to that with border security in addition to the other measures required.

[Swordsmyth]

And where's the supermajority demanding imported Hindu college graduates that Trump is useless to resist?

It's not there, and it's not going to happen.
That idea has thankfully been walked back after he listened to some idiot like Ramaswampy and floated it.
And while Trump did float the idea of offering greencards, he said nothing about how many foreign students to let in in the first place, we could let in almost none and only for degrees we might actually be short of, then the idea would have almost no effect on immigration, the job market, and demographics.

[jmdrake]

Nope.
Ron was right when he voted for the fence and to put the military on the border.
Ron softened his position under the influence of leftarians and globalibertarians like McAdams.
Ron is wrong now.

Being able to leave is the last thing we have to worry about, if America falls there won't be any place left to run to, and even if there is you will have to go by plane or boat because Canada and Mexico are WAY ahead of us on the path to communism.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is being used to destroy us in an act of war, and we have no choice but to respond to that with border security in addition to the other measures required.

You know that first video was from freaking 2011 right? But I remember him saying this back in 2008. Tom Tancredo was the border hawk in the 2008 race. Is he who you supported back then? Just curious. And you actually support a fvcking minefield on the southern border? Just curious. Because it's a bat shyt crazy idea. I respect @Anti Federalist as a person, but that's insane for the very reasons that it sounds like a good idea. A mine field doesn't know friend from foe. It can't even ask the question "What kind of American are you?" (Civil War clip).

Edit: And Ron Paul voted FOR the war in Afghanistan before he later realized that was a mistake. But I now see why you sided with Nazi Dan Bongino over Daniel McAdams.

[Swordsmyth]

You know that first video was from freaking 2011 right? But I remember him saying this back in 2008. Tom Tancredo was the border hawk in the 2008 race. Is he who you supported back then? Just curious. And you actually support a fvcking minefield on the southern border? Just curious. Because it's a bat shyt crazy idea. I respect @Anti Federalist as a person, but that's insane for the very reasons that it sounds like a good idea. A mine field doesn't know friend from foe. It can't even ask the question "What kind of American are you?" (Civil War clip).

Edit: And Ron Paul voted FOR the war in Afghanistan before he later realized that was a mistake. But I now see why you sided with Nazi Dan Bongino over Daniel McAdams.

This is the Ron I supported since before he ran in 2008:

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

[jmdrake]

This is the Ron I supported since before he ran in 2008:

Here's Ron Paul in 2008.

Ron Paul on Immigration
By John Stossel
I'd heard that that presidential candidate Ron Paul was "hard line" on immigration and "to the right" of the Republican field. But that's not exactly what he revealed during my interview with him. Here's Part 4 of my edited interview.

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.


Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

Next week: Ron Paul on sex, drugs and civil liberties.

So his vote for the border wall was not an endorsement of it. And the words "border wall" aren't in your quote. Certainly a minefield isn't list.

[acptulsa]

Nope.
Ron was right when he voted for the fence and to put the military on the border.
Ron softened his position under the influence of leftarians and globalibertarians like McAdams.
Ron is wrong now.

Are you talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006? The one which more importantly included plans for better border surveillance? The one sponsored by this guy?

King is a fool and a hypocrite.

You have an amazing inability to tell no votes for ineffective boondoggles. You constantly redefine those as a position for ir against what the bill title says it will (but teally might not) achieve. It's like you value posturing over making a real difference.

Being able to leave is the last thing we have to worry about, if America falls there won't be any place left to run to, and even if there is you will have to go by plane or boat because Canada and Mexico are WAY ahead of us on the path to communism.

What if there are places to go, but nobody wants you there so nobody is telling you about them? Are you really so tyrannical that you'd keep us from going out of spite?

It's not there, and it's not going to happen.
That idea has thankfully been walked back after he listened to some idiot like Ramaswampy and floated it.
And while Trump did float the idea of offering greencards, he said nothing about how many foreign students to let in in the first place, we could let in almost none and only for degrees we might actually be short of, then the idea would have almost no effect on immigration, the job market, and demographics.

So you want to deprive U.S. colleges of foreign revenue and deprive the world of American enlightenment just because your idol stuck his hoof in his mouth, even though he already Did the Romney and flip flopped. Perfect.

[Swordsmyth]

Here's Ron Paul in 2008.

Ron Paul on Immigration
By John Stossel
I'd heard that that presidential candidate Ron Paul was "hard line" on immigration and "to the right" of the Republican field. But that's not exactly what he revealed during my interview with him. Here's Part 4 of my edited interview.

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.


Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

Next week: Ron Paul on sex, drugs and civil liberties.

So his vote for the border wall was not an endorsement of it. And the words "border wall" aren't in your quote. Certainly a minefield isn't list.

So, it seems he was wrong about the fence, but it wasn't a deal breaker for him.
And that doesn't change that he wanted the military on the border to guard it. (the problem there is that a Biden type administration can withdraw the military or tell them to wave people through or even help them cross like has been done to the Border Patrol)

[jmdrake]

Being able to leave is the last thing we have to worry about, if America falls there won't be any place left to run to, and even if there is you will have to go by plane or boat because Canada and Mexico are WAY ahead of us on the path to communism.

I missed responding to this part of your lunacy. (Thanks @acptulsa for pointing this out). Come May 15, 2025 you won't be able to get on a freaking plane because of the REPUBLICAN sponsored RealID Act! You'll have to smuggle yourself out. And land mines will be a problem. I suspect @Anti Federalist would rather just stand and fight to the bitter end but some of us have kids/grandkids to think about.

[jmdrake]

So, it seems he was wrong about the fence, but it wasn't a deal breaker for him.
And that doesn't change that he wanted the military on the border to guard it. (the problem there is that a Biden type administration can withdraw the military or tell them to wave people through or even help them cross like has been done to the Border Patrol)

Stick with the topic. I'm talking about fvcking mine fields! If a soldier has a conscience he won't shoot a child. A mine field doesn't have a conscience.

[acptulsa]

Nope.
Ron was right when he voted for the fence and to put the military on the border.
Ron softened his position under the influence of leftarians and globalibertarians like McAdams.
Ron is wrong now.

Being able to leave is the last thing we have to worry about, if America falls there won't be any place left to run to, and even if there is you will have to go by plane or boat because Canada and Mexico are WAY ahead of us on the path to communism.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is being used to destroy us in an act of war, and we have no choice but to respond to that with border security in addition to the other measures required.

So, it seems he was wrong about the fence, but it wasn't a deal breaker for him.
And that doesn't change that he wanted the military on the border to guard it. (the problem there is that a Biden type administration can withdraw the military or tell them to wave people through or even help them cross like has been done to the Border Patrol)

You acting like any barrier, much less a mere double fence, could stop people even if it was left unguarded is as silly as people arguing that the Constitution should be declared useless because it didn't defend itself from all these usurpations.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006? The one which more importantly included plans for better border surveillance? The one sponsored by this guy?

Being a fool and a hypocrite about supporting the IRA has nothing to do with the fence/wall.
And I'm talking about the bill Ron voted for even though it seems he did not agree with the fence because the fence was not a deal breaker for him.

You have an amazing inability to tell no votes for ineffective boondoggles. You constantly redefine those as a position for ir against what the bill title says it will (but teally might not) achieve. It's like you value posturing over making a real difference.

Talk to Ron, he voted for it and didn't find the fence to be enough of a problem not to.
Ron wants the border secured, he wanted to put the military on the border.

What if there are places to go, but nobody wants you there so nobody is telling you about them? Are you really so tyrannical that you'd keep us from going out of spite?

What it it rains lemonade? what if pigs fly?
I'm not going to stop anyone from leaving, but if it gets to the point you need to leave you won't be able to do so through Mexico or Canada anyway.
And if the government gets that bad it will just use the military to control the border or build the fence anyway.
We need the fence and/or the military on the border for not imaginary existential defense now.
This "what if it's used to keep us in?" nonsense is like a leftist wife objecting to keeping a gun in the house during a rash of home invasion burglary murders because "what if the husband goes nuts and shoots me or the kids?".

So you want to deprive U.S. colleges of foreign revenue and deprive the world of American enlightenment just because your idol stuck his hoof in his mouth, even though he already Did the Romney and flip flopped. Perfect.

I want to not deprive citizens of education in favor of foreigners who come here and poison our culture rather than be enlightened by it.
I want to end all foreign exchange student visas, and put an end to their subversive activities and visa overstay illegal residence.
And American colleges are overfunded hives of communist subversion, they could do with a loss of revenue and the cutting of foreign influence.

We need a freeze to all immigration for decades, and when we do open back up it needs to be limited to very low absolute numbers to prevent balkanization.

[Swordsmyth]

I missed responding to this part of your lunacy. (Thanks @acptulsa for pointing this out). Come May 15, 2025 you won't be able to get on a freaking plane because of the REPUBLICAN sponsored RealID Act! You'll have to smuggle yourself out. And land mines will be a problem. I suspect @Anti Federalist would rather just stand and fight to the bitter end but some of us have kids/grandkids to think about.

If you are the kind to run you had better do so now.
Because if the border is not secured to stop the foreign invasion going on right now it will be secured to lock you in with the army of animals they are importing.
Flee now or get ready to fight and start supporting closing the border by any means necessary.

[Swordsmyth]

You acting like any barrier, much less a mere double fence, could stop people even if it was left unguarded is as silly as people arguing that the Constitution should be declared useless because it didn't defend itself from all these usurpations.

Trump's incomplete wall has made it much harder for them to come, that's why Biden has had to go to such lengths to help them across.
A complete wall would do an even better job.

Of course you want to keep a Biden out and keep the border patrolled, but a wall makes patrols much more effective, and even in their absence it helps.

[Swordsmyth]

Stick with the topic. I'm talking about fvcking mine fields! If a soldier has a conscience he won't shoot a child. A mine field doesn't have a conscience.

And that's why you put things like minefields between barriers that keep random little kids from wandering into them.
You also put up nice warning signs and make a big deal of advertising your new border defenses so people don't even try.

And the vast majority of the border is not border towns with little kids walking around and wandering across the line, it's inhospitable wilderness.

[acptulsa]

Being a fool and a hypocrite about supporting the IRA has nothing to do with the fence/wall.

A broken clock does tend to be right a couple of times a day. But being a fool and a hypocrite is a full time job.

And I'm talking about the bill Ron voted for even though it seems he did not agree with the fence because the fence was not a deal breaker for him.

Why can't you name the bill? Because you haven't looked into it or what Ron Paul said about it, you just heard about it on Breitbart or in some treehouse?

What it it rains lemonade? what if pigs fly?
I'm not going to stop anyone from leaving...

Answer Mr. Drake's question. Land mines: Yea or nay? Because you're saying you won't stop anyone from leaving. Are you for randomly killing some of those who try?

...but if it gets to the point you need to leave you won't be able to do so through Mexico or Canada anyway.

Not only did no one ever cross the border against the government's will, but no one ever crossed it without government help. Got it.

And if the government gets that bad it will just use the military to control the border or build the fence anyway.
We need the fence and/or the military on the border for not imaginary existential defense now.
This "what if it's used to keep us in?" nonsense is like a leftist wife objecting to keeping a gun in the house during a rash of home invasion burglary murders because "what if the husband goes nuts and shoots me or the kids?"

Progs say, "Oh, if you give gays an inch and don't keep them out of the classroom they won't take a mile and groom your children." And Republicans say, " Oh, if you give the very government that created the problem an inch to fix it they won't take a mile and use that to lock your ass down."

You're the poster child for Hegel.

I want to not deprive citizens of education in favor of foreigners who come here and poison our culture rather than be enlightened by it.
I want to end all foreign exchange student visas, and put an end to their subversive activities and visa overstay illegal residence.
And American colleges are overfunded hives of communist subversion, they could do with a loss of revenue and the cutting of foreign influence.

Damn. Dude. So you're saying that it's valuable and too scarce to share, and it's worthless and needs a good pruning back. Got it.

Trump's incomplete wall has made it much harder for them to come, that's why Biden has had to go to such lengths to help them across.
A complete wall would do an even better job.

Of course you want to keep a Biden out and keep the border patrolled, but a wall makes patrols much more effective, and even in their absence it helps.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that it will make it impossible for them to enter even if it was left unguarded. Hell, you think it's worth trillions even if Biden opens all the gates. Or are you going to deny you said this?

And that doesn't change that he wanted the military on the border to guard it. (the problem there is that a Biden type administration can withdraw the military or tell them to wave people through or even help them cross like has been done to the Border Patrol)

[Swordsmyth]

Why can't you name the bill? Because you haven't looked into it or what Ron Paul said about it, you just heard about it on Breitbart or in some treehouse?

LOL
Desperate?
I already posted things about the exact bill and you already named it, I just provided the relevant context about it in my response to your attempt to distract by attacking the sponsor about irrelevant issues.

Answer Mr. Drake's question. Land mines: Yea or nay? Because you're saying you won't stop anyone from leaving. Are you for randomly killing some of those who try?

I already answered that from multiple angles.

Not only did no one ever cross the border against the government's will, but no one ever crossed it without government help. Got it.

LOL
Not even close to what I said.

Progs say, "Oh, if you give gays an inch and don't keep them out of the classroom they won't take a mile and groom your children." And Republicans say, " Oh, if you give the very government that created the problem an inch to fix it they won't take a mile and use that to lock your ass down."

You're the poster child for Hegel.

Absolute nonsense, border control and defense against invasion are legitimate, fundamental, and mandatory functions of government that are abuse by refusing to do them.
You are a poster child for false analogies.
You are exposing your anarchist (or stealth globaleftist) position of wanting a wide open undefended border again.

Damn. Dude. So you're saying that it's valuable and too scarce to share, and it's worthless and needs a good pruning back. Got it.

What hasn'r been totally corrupted yet, or what can be rebuilt is valuable.
And it is cancerous and needs pruning back and the carcinogens removed.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that it will make it impossible for them to enter even if it was left unguarded. Hell, you think it's worth trillions even if Biden opens all the gates. Or are you going to deny you said this?

I most certain didn't use such absolutes.
You are just making up nonsense.
It is worth the cost, but nobody said it would function 100% all by itself.

[Anti Federalist]

Stick with the topic. I'm talking about fvcking mine fields! If a soldier has a conscience he won't shoot a child. A mine field doesn't have a conscience.

Zoinks, that caused a fuss.
@jmdrake, the mine field comment was pure, bitter sarcasm, that I was directing at @PAF just to get a rise out of him.

I do not support creating a Dead Man's Zone of mines and booby traps at the border.

That said, I am in favor of positioning troops along the border, to seal it effectively.

We are being invaded, and the duty of the fedgov, under the constitution, is to protect the states from invasion.

What you wrote explains why this invasion is so effective, no soldier with a conscience would shoot a child.

Or rather, no soldier with Western values.

Because the people we are being invaded and replaced by, by and large do not hold those same values. From the 8 year old suicide bomber, to the 9 year cobalt digger in Africa to the sex and snuff trade of minor children to the harems of young boys kept by Afghan homosexuals, it becomes clear that most of the world doe not give a $#@! about children.

But we still do, and our enemies know that and that is why they invade us with bodies and not bullets.

They use our innate good will and nature against us to destroy us.

I'm not sure where Ron is on this issue, in 2007, when I dove in feet first to campaign for him, he ran ads saying "bring the troops home and use them to defend our borders, not some foreign power's".

He's recently said that the real insurrection was not Jan 6 but is at the border, or words to that effect.

Regardless, he doesn't agree with border wall and troops to defend it, I think that much is clear.

Fine, that's his view, but he's wrong. Just yanking subsidies and handouts away is not going to stop this invasion.

[acptulsa]

LOLI already answered that from multiple angles.

And your answer is, if Mr. Drake or I ignore your advice and attempt to flee your favorite flavor of tyranny over the southern border, we deserve to be blown up by a land mine.

LOL Desperate much?

LOL
Not even close to what I said.

Of course. Just because it's the severely flawed logic underlying your stated opinion doesn't mean you'd ever say it out loud. Quite the opposite.

Absolute nonsense, border control and defense against invasion are legitimate, fundamental, and mandatory functions of government that are abuse by refusing to do them.
You are a poster child for false analogies.
You are exposing your anarchist (or stealth globaleftist) position of wanting a wide open undefended border again.

But I didn't advocate for open borders. I said that first Trump, then Biden paid NGOs to import people illegally, creating this problem. And they're about to use it to lock us in and implement stop and frisk tyranny. And both Trump and you are so busy promoting land mines and papers please checkpoints that neither of you even has a moment to stop and admit that the U.S. government needs to stop paying NGOs to import people illegally.

That's what makes you the poster child for Hegel. You and Trump are like the person who pours sugar all over the floor because they like dancing La Cuckaracha.

I most certain didn't use such absolutes.
You are just making up nonsense.
It is worth the cost, but nobody said it would function 100% all by itself.

You used this as justification for building it:

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
And that doesn't change that he wanted the military on the border to guard it. (the problem there is that a Biden type administration can withdraw the military or tell them to wave people through or even help them cross like has been done to the Border Patrol)

What's the difference? "It is worth the cost" because Biden can withdraw the troops quickly and easily but can't so easily tear it down, "but nobody said it would function 100% all by itself." So, yeah, no, it, like, not worth the $#@!ing cost--at least, not for the reason you said it was.