quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

quote:

I think we've had enough experience with US Presidents not telling the whole truth, haven't we?

quote:

While the bill (after reading related articles) does seem to put those already here illegally at the back of the naturalization line, as you (and the President) claimed. But, what if naturalization isn't even a goal for those coming here illegally? What if the only reason they are here is to make money to send back to their home countries?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver

The only way times will change in Washington is if a nuke goes off there and we start all over. Face it people, both parties are failures, both are bought and paid for, enjoy your plutocracy.

Ditto. QFT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

What kind of "clue" is that? There was only one "leftist regime" which had a wall, and even then, they became wise and flexible to realize that it wasn't needed anymore, so they allowed its destruction. Capitalist countries don't seem to have the same level of flexibility, since many still believe that we're fighting the Cold War even 25 years after it ended.

As for this capitalist country, we don't have a real wall, because we never really wanted to keep people out. When NAFTA was passed, the wall (or fence or barrier or whatever it is) should have come down, since the intention was to allow more access across the border for reasons of trade and commerce - supported by the very same aforementioned capitalists. The capitalists were the ones who pushed for free trade, and they're the ones hiring and benefiting from the exploited labor of undocumented immigrants.

They can't have it both ways, and they're really the last people who should be calling for securing the border, since they're the ones who caused this problem in the first place. They're also the same ones benefiting from the illegal drug trade, even though the principles of capitalism dictate that drugs never should have been made illegal in the first place. Capitalist regimes never could get their stories straight.

Another thing to mention is that, at least leftist regimes know how to secure their borders, whereas capitalist regimes operate like a bunch of Keystone Kops when it comes to border security and immigration enforcement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

Two questions. How is capitalist synonymous with rightist? And also, name one country that lacks any form of socialism if you please and can actually work without it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

What kind of "clue" is that? There was only one "leftist regime" which had a wall, and even then, they became wise and flexible to realize that it wasn't needed anymore, so they allowed its destruction. Capitalist countries don't seem to have the same level of flexibility, since many still believe that we're fighting the Cold War even 25 years after it ended.

As for this capitalist country, we don't have a real wall, because we never really wanted to keep people out. When NAFTA was passed, the wall (or fence or barrier or whatever it is) should have come down, since the intention was to allow more access across the border for reasons of trade and commerce - supported by the very same aforementioned capitalists. The capitalists were the ones who pushed for free trade, and they're the ones hiring and benefiting from the exploited labor of undocumented immigrants.

They can't have it both ways, and they're really the last people who should be calling for securing the border, since they're the ones who caused this problem in the first place. They're also the same ones benefiting from the illegal drug trade, even though the principles of capitalism dictate that drugs never should have been made illegal in the first place. Capitalist regimes never could get their stories straight.

Another thing to mention is that, at least leftist regimes know how to secure their borders, whereas capitalist regimes operate like a bunch of Keystone Kops when it comes to border security and immigration enforcement.

That's rich...if we had border security like that, you'd probably be one of the loudest complainers. Much like those on the left when those who want to make the borders more secure try to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
No, not really. My only real complaint about the border is that how we're doing things seems incongruous and incoherent considering that Mexico is technically an ally and close trading partner of the United States, and both governments ostensibly want commerce and free transit across the border. Capitalists want that, too, don't they? So, what gives? We don't have a huge wall or security force at the Canadian border, largely because Canada has been a friend and trading partner. But then, so is Mexico. At least that's what our government says. It's also what the capitalists say.
But if they really did believe that Mexico was some sort of enemy nation and that the border should be secured at all costs, then isn't that what they should be doing? And if they're not an enemy nation, why are we acting like they are?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
No, not really. My only real complaint about the border is that how we're doing things seems incongruous and incoherent considering that Mexico is technically an ally and close trading partner of the United States, and both governments ostensibly want commerce and free transit across the border. Capitalists want that, too, don't they? So, what gives? We don't have a huge wall or security force at the Canadian border, largely because Canada has been a friend and trading partner. But then, so is Mexico. At least that's what our government says. It's also what the capitalists say.
But if they really did believe that Mexico was some sort of enemy nation and that the border should be secured at all costs, then isn't that what they should be doing? And if they're not an enemy nation, why are we acting like they are?

We don't need a Northern border wall. Canadians don't want to come down here. Their beer is better.

quote:


Trade, commerce, etc. don't pay much mind to border walls. The walls will have openings for the roads the trucks use (which are the same roads they are using now). We have a right to know who is coming into our country. The only ways for that to happen is if everyone coming in does so in a legal manner, or we control our borders so legal means are the only ways. Since it's obvious all people won't be coming into our country legally, we need to control our borders.

quote:


I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we need to reform our immigration and naturalization process to make it faster, easier, and accept a greater number of immigrants. But, it still needs to be controlled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The nutsuckers on the right have no actual desire to make the borders secure. The cheaper they can pimp labor the more they are loved by their corporate masters.


Draconian fines, lengthy incarceration, hell, even government siezure of the corporation for every CEO or owner down to the lowest manager for employing illegal aliens.

Pass that, fund the enforcement, over before the ink is dry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We don't need a Northern border wall. Canadians don't want to come down here. Their beer is better.

Well, some might say that Mexican beer is also better than ours, but that may be another topic.

quote:

quote:

Trade, commerce, etc. don't pay much mind to border walls. The walls will have openings for the roads the trucks use (which are the same roads they are using now). We have a right to know who is coming into our country. The only ways for that to happen is if everyone coming in does so in a legal manner, or we control our borders so legal means are the only ways. Since it's obvious all people won't be coming into our country legally, we need to control our borders.

If it was easy to get across legally, then there wouldn't be very many people crossing illegally. What strikes me is that, at least around here, it's not simply a matter of climbing a fence or getting around (or under) some sort of barrier. It also involves trekking through miles and miles of desert, rocky terrain, over mountains. They risk heat exhaustion, dying of thirst, rattlesnakes and other hazards. It's not exactly a walk in the park out there. The logistics of actually securing the border can be difficult as well, mainly due to the terrain, along with the distances and wide area involved. Not to mention all the tunnels that they find. We're talking 2000 miles (3218.69 km) of border through mostly inhospitable terrain. The Border Patrol has to cover quite a range of territory, not just at the border but quite a significant area inside the border as well - some of which is also private property, which can be an irritant for the some of the ranchers. I've talked to some who say that the illegal border crossers will just pass through and be on their way; they cause very few problems compared to the Border Patrol who come in like gangbusters, knocking down fences, scaring cattle, etc.

quote:

I agree that we have a right to know who is coming into our country, but does anyone really stop to consider what a monumental undertaking it would be to build a Berlin Wall along the border? A lot of conservatives talk it up about how incompetent and wasteful government can be (a point which I actually agree with), and yet, they want to add a task like this for the government to do? It doesn't seem practical or cost-efficient.

quote:

quote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we need to reform our immigration and naturalization process to make it faster, easier, and accept a greater number of immigrants. But, it still needs to be controlled.

I would also point out that many of those here illegally didn't necessarily enter the country by sneaking over the border. They could have entered legally and overstayed their visa, or they could have entered through a legitimate port of entry using false ID or posing as someone else. They've caught people who work at the Motor Vehicle Department and other government agencies involved in producing fraudulent IDs but are in the computer system and would show up as legitimate in any checks they would make. It goes beyond someone making false IDs in their garage. Criminal and terrorist organizations have the finance and means to be able to do these things, and these are the people we're ostensibly trying to secure the border from.
So, all in all, the idea of establishing a maximum security barrier along the border won't really work, and it won't make us any safer than we were before.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)