Your opinions on the U.S. border wall

[Salvador]

I don't think you know what data are.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. ...

 

[Salvador]

Sorry, but an op-ed article just does not cut it and what you don't seem to grasp, is that I am not disagreeing with the "statistics", I am asking to see the source because I don't trust the interpretation. Furthermore you completely ignored my other questions.

WHY do you seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations?

P.S. I don't give a goat's rump what other people think of me, I am too old to care anymore.

I don't seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations. I've answered that question. Now your turn please....Would you be strictly opposed to an effective border security barrier? If so, then why?

 

[Salvador]

Some might consider that coercion. If you really think we can just start chipping people and not raise human right concerns then I must ask: Do you actually live in America?

I live near Chicago in Illinois... I'm in favor of giving non-violent criminals the option between imprisonment or being able to be tracked in society. Giving people more choices, means giving people more freedom. This is what America should be all about. Right?

 

[Shad]

Articulate that argument.

Currently Trump is using DHS power to rule illegals and refugees claimants are flight risk thus a risk to national security at a policy level. This enable detention and deportation of any and all based on an assumption of an act thus risk to the state. This is a violation of due process as the state is not establishing due cause for denial of entry and/or using the most restrictive of a choice of options.

The privacy issue is the 4A due to not establishing reasonable cause.

How so?

Sponsorship is a legal option in which the sponsor is taking upon themselves party of the duties of the state and applicant. This expands this chip for release contract to a 3rd party which more likely than not has the rights of a citizen or permanent resident the DHS has no grounds to infringe upon. The harm clause would kicked in due to recent precedent set during Trump's term. In Aug/Sept of 2017 SCOTUS made a ruling on what become the final "Travel Ban" EO. SCOTUS ruled that EO was not applicable to family of legal residents sponsorship and visa. It was not applicable to any refugee nor asylum claimant . Immigrants with no family sponsorship could be denied based on. So the state couldn't deny entry itself let alone a negotiated entry outside existing immigration and refugee systems.

They would be chipped and deported.

This could be consider branding.

And I am sure we can find a place to chip that it is impractical to remove.

Pelvis would be my choice. However it would require surgery thus a higher cost. For argument sake.

But is that really an argument?

Consider what I have posted above as objects to grant the state such power. There is the general concern of how much power one is willing to grant the government for the sake of security. Add to this how far can the state expand the power to tag people once you give an inch.

A lot of our border and immigration policies set precedent granting the state a lot of power. What is different here?

Consider the answers posted above.

 

[youknowme]

I don't seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations. I've answered that question. Now your turn please....Would you be strictly opposed to an effective border security barrier? If so, then why?

I am not, but Trump's stupid wall is not that.

 

[youknowme]

The idea of building a wall across the entire border is the dumbest thing ever, instead just put them up where they are actually needed.

 

[Cooky]

The idea of building a wall across the entire border is the dumbest thing ever, instead just put them up where they are actually needed.

That's the plan. He's not putting them in the mountains.

 

[Cooky]

I don't give a goat's rump what other people think of me, I am too old to care anymore.

Yeah, me too!

 

[youknowme]

Absolutely and many Christians will especially be concerned due to theories about "the mark of the beast."

The problem is that to logically oppose such a notion, one must assert principles that they are already trying to deny. One cannot in one breath deny rights of illegal immigrants and in the next assert those same rights because "chipping scary." In fairness, I suppose one can hold put on a couple rights such as the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but I think that in comparison it is a stretch to say chipping would be cruel and unusual compared to what people currently advocate.

In my view the real solution is to fix the problem at the source. We should be asking ourselves: Why are these people coming here in the first place? And what can we do to help them were they live? So that they don't need to come here. The fact is what they are running from is much worst then what they face at the border, and mothers and fathers with children to protect are highly motivated people who will endure all types of hardships just for the greater odds for their children. However, that would actually require America to stop building walls and start building allies, something this administration seems to be horrible at.

 

[youknowme]

That's the plan. He's not putting them in the mountains.

No, Trump wanted a wall across the entire border, he was very clear about that, something he is never going to get and what is happening is that over time his resolve is weakening. Trump has no choice but to compromise and he is starting to realize that.

 

[youknowme]

What will likely happen is that the Republicans will continue to push border security, but they'll have to compromise, we'll get some barriers in select locations but Trump's vision will never be realized. Which is good for us, because his vision was stupid.

 

[Salvador]

I am not, but Trump's stupid wall is not that.

You've failed to demonstrate how Trump's proposed border security barrier might not effectively reduce trespassing across the border from Mexico into the United States by migrants who are unauthorized to enter into the United States.

 

[Salvador]

No, Trump wanted a wall across the entire border, he was very clear about that, something he is never going to get and what is happening is that over time his resolve is weakening. Trump has no choice but to compromise and he is starting to realize that.

What particular sections of the border are you against having a border security barrier? If there are any open sections of the border, you think should remain open, what makes you think these sections won't be exploited by trespassers?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Yes, of course I do.

Clooney, a globalist actor like many of them, is all for open borders. But after pushing for them in Europe, he found open borders extremely unsafe, and moved back to the US.

BREAKING: George Clooney Makes SHOCK Move, Proves Trump Was Right - Tea Party News

That is, a wall being built helps not only conservatives, but liberals. It lowers their taxes as immigrants account for a large portion of welfare expenses (more for them, less for you with the same taxes). It also lowers the risk of overpopulation and lowers destruction to the environment from visitors hiding in our forests and such (something many conservatives think are nonsense priorities, but liberals see as super-crucial).

So the better question is, why are you against it?

 

[youknowme]

What particular sections of the border are you against having a border security barrier? If there are any open sections of the border, you think should remain open, what makes you think these sections won't be exploited by trespassers?

I don't need to worry about that, as unless they can get the full cost of the entire wall they will be forced to make the most effective decisions due to budget restraints. That's the beauty of the Republicans having to compromise, which they will because the Dems now control the House.

 

[youknowme]

You've failed to demonstrate how Trump's proposed border security barrier might not effectively reduce trespassing across the border from Mexico into the United States by migrants who are unauthorized to enter into the United States.

I also failed to show that the Moon is not made of cheese.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also failed to show that the Moon is not made of cheese.

 

[Curious George]

Currently Trump is using DHS power to rule illegals and refugees claimants are flight risk thus a risk to national security at a policy level. This enable detention and deportation of any and all based on an assumption of an act thus risk to the state. This is a violation of due process as the state is not establishing due cause for denial of entry and/or using the most restrictive of a choice of options.

The privacy issue is the 4A due to not establishing reasonable cause.

It pleases me to see that you acknowledge the current violation of rights occurring.

Sponsorship is a legal option in which the sponsor is taking upon themselves party of the duties of the state and applicant. This expands this chip for release contract to a 3rd party which more likely than not has the rights of a citizen or permanent resident the DHS has no grounds to infringe upon. The harm clause would kicked in due to recent precedent set during Trump's term. In Aug/Sept of 2017 SCOTUS made a ruling on what become the final "Travel Ban" EO. SCOTUS ruled that EO was not applicable to family of legal residents sponsorship and visa. It was not applicable to any refugee nor asylum claimant . Immigrants with no family sponsorship could be denied based on. So the state couldn't deny entry itself let alone a negotiated entry outside existing immigration and refugee systems.

I don'tsee the relevance to chipping.

This could be consider branding.

It could. There is actual a substantial history of branding in the U.S. that said, chipping distinguishes itself from branding based on both utility and barbarity.

Pelvis would be my choice. However it would require surgery thus a higher cost. For argument sake.

Seems like a potentially good place.

Consider what I have posted above as objects to grant the state such power. There is the general concern of how much power one is willing to grant the government for the sake of security. Add to this how far can the state expand the power to tag people once you give an inch.



Consider the answers posted above.

Considered. But not applicable.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Theories don't explain facts they become or incorporate them.

What?

Example: An old man lay dead in his apartment. (Fact)
Chief: So, what's your theory?
Detective: Given the fact that he has a knife sticking out his back on the left side, I'd say he was stabbed in the back by a left handed person. Probably never even saw it coming, since there are no signs of a struggle. (Hypothesis)
Chief: Okay, so let's send the evidence to forensics. (Testing/Experimentation)
Results come back the next day. Fingerprints on the knife match the man's nephew, a left handed guy. (Proof)
Chief: Great work, detective. Your theory explains all the facts. (Unless of course, new evidence pops up later)

Theories do explain facts. That's why they are called theories.

 

[Curious George]

In my view the real solution is to fix the problem at the source. We should be asking ourselves: Why are these people coming here in the first place? And what can we do to help them were they live? So that they don't need to come here. The fact is what they are running from is much worst then what they face at the border, and mothers and fathers with children to protect are highly motivated people who will endure all types of hardships just for the greater odds for their children. However, that would actually require America to stop building walls and start building allies, something this administration seems to be horrible at.

Those are good points. Requiring employers to validate employees and holding them liable for purposeful, knowing, reckless violations would go a long way im reducing incentives to enter the U.S. illegally.

While I agree that more shpuld be done to ameliorate living and qorking conditions in foreign countries, (especially our neighboring countries), the current move toward isolationism amd nationalism is preventing progress. In the meantime we can focus on domestic policy that works toward the root of the problem. Thus we shpuld be more preoccupied with addressing the businesses and employers that hire illegal immigrants.