Crooked GOP Senators Laughed Uncontrollably at the Thought of a Border Wall

[BUTSRSLY]

A) THIS POLL IS REPRESENTATIVE - Data aligns with other polls. This is not an anomaly. Look at prevalent government types in Central America and Mexico. What do you find there? Thriving libertarian republics?
WHITES UNIQUELY CREATE GOOD GOVERNMENT? (TRICK QUESTION, GOVERNMENTS DON'T WORK)

B) A WALL WOULD STOP THESE BIG GOVERNMENT HISPANICS - See the broad definition of birthright citizenship per the U.S. court system.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. UNLESS YOU ARE ARGUING THAT LEGISLATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WALLS.

C) HISPANICS WHO WOULD BE STOPPED BY A WALL BUT ARE NOT STOPPED NOW HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT - Per the generous interpretation of the 14th amendment for anchor babies and/or if residency parameters are eventually met for the individual crossing. Citizenship is instantly bestowed to the offspring of the trespasser.

UNRELATED TO WALLS

D) BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT STOP BIG GOVERNMENT LOVING PEOPLE ARE GOOD - Overall dollar cost in the medical, school and municipal service spheres exceeds any proposed border security expenditures. Per FAIR, illegal immigration collectively costs the U.S. 113 billion annually. A lion's share of these costs are absorbed by the local and state governments to the tune of 84 billion annually. Deduct 21.6 billion (cost of wall) from 113 billion and the delta is roughly 91 billion for one calendar year (not total savings obviously).

THIS ARGUMENT MAY BE EFFECTIVE TOWARD FISCALLY COMPETENT SUPREMACISTS, WHICH IS THE ONLY GROUP YOU DON'T NEED TO PROPAGANDIZE

[AuH20]

A) THIS POLL IS REPRESENTATIVE - Data aligns with other polls. This is not an anomaly. Look at prevalent government types in Central America and Mexico. What do you find there? Thriving libertarian republics?
WHITES UNIQUELY CREATE GOOD GOVERNMENT? (TRICK QUESTION, GOVERNMENTS DON'T WORK)

B) A WALL WOULD STOP THESE BIG GOVERNMENT HISPANICS - See the broad definition of birthright citizenship per the U.S. court system.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. UNLESS YOU ARE ARGUING THAT LEGISLATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WALLS.

C) HISPANICS WHO WOULD BE STOPPED BY A WALL BUT ARE NOT STOPPED NOW HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT - Per the generous interpretation of the 14th amendment for anchor babies and/or if residency parameters are eventually met for the individual crossing. Citizenship is instantly bestowed to the offspring of the trespasser.

UNRELATED TO WALLS

D) BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT STOP BIG GOVERNMENT LOVING PEOPLE ARE GOOD - Overall dollar cost in the medical, school and municipal service spheres exceeds any proposed border security expenditures. Per FAIR, illegal immigration collectively costs the U.S. 113 billion annually. A lion's share of these costs are absorbed by the local and state governments to the tune of 84 billion annually. Deduct 21.6 billion (cost of wall) from 113 billion and the delta is roughly 91 billion for one calendar year (not total savings obviously).

THIS ARGUMENT MAY BE EFFECTIVE TOWARD FISCALLY COMPETENT SUPREMACISTS, WHICH IS THE ONLY GROUP YOU DON'T NEED TO PROPAGANDIZE

If we could reverse the following 3 USC rulings and 1 legislative act, we wouldn't need a wall. But until Ron Paul and other emotionally vulnerable libertarians can provide a miraculous legal roadmap to do so, the only logical course of action is to build a physical barrier to prevent entry. The Hoppean strategy of physical access denial is the last civil answer that has not been fully usurped by the U.S. court system.

14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship Clause that originally only applied to recently freed slaves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthr..._United_States

Plyler v. Doe which guarantees publicly financed education to non- citizens:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

Graham v. Richardson which prohibits states from denying benefits to noncitizens:
http://immigrationtounitedstates.org...ichardson.html

The Reagan Era legislation which guarantees so-called 'emergency' medical treatment to anyone no matter their citizenship status or ability to pay:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerge...tive_Labor_Act

As we can see above, 'Ending the welfare state for illegals' is a hollow, disingenuous argument not grounded in reality.

[r3volution 3.0]

Maybe they are laughing because they are all RINOs and knew all along that Trump was a plant, a newly-minted RINO, a puppet with the hand of the deep state up his ass like every other president in the last half-century+?

That would be my guess.

They're laughing at the rubes who actually thought Trump was going to build a wall and thereby re-greatify 'Merica.

Unless the detractors don't possess doors inside the entrance jambs of their residences, they shouldn't scoff at the idea of a wall.

Unless one thinks all land in the US ought to be owned communistically by the voters, one shouldn't make this analogy.

This is a piece of 'family-centric' data that I would like to separate both myself and my wallet from.

Another chart for your contemplation

[surf]

the worst aspect of this has to do with this being a "campaign promise," as if that carries more weight. just like there were a lot of people dumb enough to believe that the last idiot would close Guantanamo and be transparent, or the idiot prior to that who promised a "humble" foreign policy. it would have been refreshing to see those more liberty-based promises kept. the current dumbass-in-chief seemed to imply that, other than "bombing the $#@!" out of isis, he would support certain less hawkish aspects relative to intervention. I have no idea how many bought this.

but a border wall is just a stupid $#@!ing idea. i'd prefer to think that those that voted for this dip$#@! did so because he wasn't Hillary rather than some incomprehensible belief that a wall made any sense.

[Ender]

the worst aspect of this has to do with this being a "campaign promise," as if that carries more weight. just like there were a lot of people dumb enough to believe that the last idiot would close Guantanamo and be transparent, or the idiot prior to that who promised a "humble" foreign policy. it would have been refreshing to see those more liberty-based promises kept. the current dumbass-in-chief seemed to imply that, other than "bombing the $#@!" out of isis, he would support certain less hawkish aspects relative to intervention. I have no idea how many bought this.

but a border wall is just a stupid $#@!ing idea. i'd prefer to think that those that voted for this dip$#@! did so because he wasn't Hillary rather than some incomprehensible belief that a wall made any sense.

Don't hold your breathe.

[AuH20]

Encouraging. Build the wall and make Nancy Pelosi sob uncontrollably.

[Superfluous Man]

That would be my guess.

They're laughing at the rubes who actually thought Trump was going to build a wall and thereby re-greatify 'Merica.



Unless one thinks all land in the US ought to be owned communistically by the voters, one shouldn't make this analogy.



Another chart for your contemplation

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again."

[CPUd]

[Ender]

Sorta like this?

[r3volution 3.0]

Per FAIR, illegal immigration collectively costs the U.S. 113 billion annually.

Subtract the part of those costs which is for enforcement of immigration laws ($8 billion just federal) and you get $105 billion.

Divide that by $15 billion (about the amount of tax they pay) and you get 7; so they get 7x more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Whereas, the bottom 10% of income earners in the US in general receive about 10x in benefits what they pay in taxes.

In other words, the issue isn't that they're foreign, it's that they're poor, and there's a big welfare state.

You might as well just start deporting random poor people, regardless of country of origin.

...or you could focus on cutting welfare (the actual problem).

[AuH20]

Subtract the part of those costs which is for enforcement of immigration laws ($8 billion just federal) and you get $105 billion.

Divide that by $15 billion (about the amount of tax they pay) and you get 7; so they get 7x more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Whereas, the bottom 10% of income earners in the US in general receive about 10x in benefits what they pay in taxes.

In other words, the issue isn't that they're foreign, it's that they're poor, and there's a big welfare state.

You might as well just start deporting random poor people, regardless of country of origin.

...or you could focus on cutting welfare (the actual problem).

Please elaborate how we cut access to welfare? I'm all ears. See my post #32 above for the entrenched legal obstacles.

[r3volution 3.0]

Please elaborate how we cut access to welfare? I'm all ears. See my post #32 above for the entrenched legal obstacles.

Please elaborate on how we deport illegal immigrants, given the entrenched legal/political obstacles.

We have a President who ran on the platform; tell me by what date you expect it to be accomplished.

I'm all ears.

[PierzStyx]

21.6 billion for a wall is deemed fiscally irresponsible, but 2+ trillion for a full scale invasion of Syria is more than reasonable. God forbid we spend any stolen loot to prevent the country from plunging into the ethnic and socialist abyss that currently defines California. i

One bit of idiocy -war spending in Syria- doesn't justify another bit of idiocy - spending billions on a border wall. When you add to the fact that it simply wouldn't work (if El Chapo can dig a tunnel under a prison and break out the cartels can certainly do it to a wall too big to man) the whole idea is ludicrous.

Curious how you're all for using violence to forcibly redistribute wealth from those being taxes to build your wall and yet have the gall to condemn anyone else for Socialism.