ADVERTISEMENT

What are the chances...

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
8,223
12,652
113
...that the new Congress will pass money for the border wall? Or do something about health insurance prices? Zero, right?

The Republicans have had almost two years to address these issues. And what do we have to show for it? Zero, right?

I wonder if the loss of the House will have any impact on my life. Bet it doesn’t. Bunch of do nothing losers. I hate them.
 
...that the new Congress will pass money for the border wall? Or do something about health insurance prices? Zero, right?

The Republicans have had almost two years to address these issues. And what do we have to show for it? Zero, right?

I wonder if the loss of the House will have any impact on my life. Bet it doesn’t. Bunch of do nothing losers. I hate them.

Do you think funding a border wall is practical? Seriously?
 
Why not?

When I encounter a wall in everyday life, I’m forced to use a door. When the door is locked, I can’t go in. I needed something from the hardware store on Sunday. The store was closed. My plan to enter and buy a chain was foiled.

Sooooo...did you think the Berlin Wall should’ve stayed up?
 
Sooooo...did you think the Berlin Wall should’ve stayed up?

I think its a fool's errand to meddle and interfere in the operations of other legitimate governments. If you were a supporter of Russia's political system (communism at the time) you better have supported the wall staying up. The tearing down the wall accelerated the exposure to the inequalities between otherwise equal people simply due to the disparages of capitalism vs. socialism. Its not surprising that the entirety of Russia collapsed not long after its wall did.
 
Do you think, in a hypothetical, if a national vote determined wall funding, that it would pass?
I don’t know.

But your Berlin Wall analogy has value in our discussion. I read that over 3 million people left East Germany prior to the construction of the wall. That number dwindled to a mere few thousand after the wall was erected over the next 20 years or so. So, while the Berlin Wall didn’t have a 100% success rate, I’d still call it effective.
 
There is no reason to have one illegal immigrant in this country. Whatever it takes to stop them coming from any country on earth, do it.

To fill our economic needs, we pick guest workers off of a menu. Just the ones that make sense. You are good, you stay, if you are bad you go home. We take dna and fingerprints from all trusted guest workers.

As far as citizenship, you can apply wait your turn, take the test and then you are American.

It boggles my mind half this country doesn’t want to keep the law breakers out and constantly refers to trump as anti immigrant instead of anti illegal immigrant.
 
tenor.gif
 
I don’t know.

But your Berlin Wall analogy has value in our discussion. I read that over 3 million people left East Germany prior to the construction of the wall. That number dwindled to a mere few thousand after the wall was erected over the next 20 years or so. So, while the Berlin Wall didn’t have a 100% success rate, I’d still call it effective.

Is building walls American to you? Is that what you believe America stands for?
 
I’m all for protecting borders reasonably. But I’m not going to buy into the BS narrative that people get here just to mooch and not work.

That’s just a dumbass card to play, and it gets played A LOT on here
 
Clinton why do rich communities have gates and security systems??

We are the best country in earth. Why would we want to be flooded by people whose country and culture can’t stop corruption and crime? Wouldn’t it make more sense to evaluate who is coming in and make sure they represent what America stands for? What’s wrong with knowing?
 
I’m all for protecting borders reasonably. But I’m not going to buy into the BS narrative that people get here just to mooch and not work.

That’s just a dumbass card to play, and it gets played A LOT on here

Will you admit that it’s a mixed bag of great people and terrible people and all in between that sneak into this country?
 
Will you admit that it’s a mixed bag of great people and terrible people and all in between that sneak into this country?

Sure, but the fact is it’s an overblown narrative...

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/do-mexican-immigrants-cause-crime

“If we could transform the United States into a research laboratory, what we would like to be able to do is assign each US city a different number of migrants in each year and then observe what happens to that city's crime rate in the following years. The idea is motivated by the concept of the randomized controlled trial in medicine - the idea that we can draw inferences about the efficacy of a treatment or a drug by randomly assigning patients to either take the drug or take a placebo pill.

Over the past decade researchers have identified several natural experiments, which can be used to understand the effect of increases in Mexican immigration on crime. By leveraging unanticipated weather shocks in Mexico which wreak havoc on local agriculture and thus spur migration to the United States and taking advantage of the considerable regional variation in Mexico's demographic transition decades ago, scholars have identified conditions under which the receipt of Mexican immigrants in US cities appears to be arbitrary - that is, not a function of local economic or crime conditions.

The results of this research offer little evidence that Mexican immigration increases crime in the United States. If anything, there is some evidence that crime declines after immigrants arrive. These findings are supported by research from the Public Policy Institute of California on the composition of inmates in California prisons, which reveals that Mexican immigrants are dramatically underrepresented in the state prison system.”
 
Sure, but the fact is it’s an overblown narrative...

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/do-mexican-immigrants-cause-crime

“If we could transform the United States into a research laboratory, what we would like to be able to do is assign each US city a different number of migrants in each year and then observe what happens to that city's crime rate in the following years. The idea is motivated by the concept of the randomized controlled trial in medicine - the idea that we can draw inferences about the efficacy of a treatment or a drug by randomly assigning patients to either take the drug or take a placebo pill.

Over the past decade researchers have identified several natural experiments, which can be used to understand the effect of increases in Mexican immigration on crime. By leveraging unanticipated weather shocks in Mexico which wreak havoc on local agriculture and thus spur migration to the United States and taking advantage of the considerable regional variation in Mexico's demographic transition decades ago, scholars have identified conditions under which the receipt of Mexican immigrants in US cities appears to be arbitrary - that is, not a function of local economic or crime conditions.

The results of this research offer little evidence that Mexican immigration increases crime in the United States. If anything, there is some evidence that crime declines after immigrants arrive. These findings are supported by research from the Public Policy Institute of California on the composition of inmates in California prisons, which reveals that Mexican immigrants are dramatically underrepresented in the state prison system.”

That’s good to know, but it is my opinion if we closed the border airtight today, we would have x number of bad people already living in this country. However, If we keep the borders the way they are now it will be y number of people that will keep getting in past our border patrol. If 20% of those people (.2y) are bad we then have x+.2y = more people to murder/rape me.

That’s great we have allowed in .8y (80% good illegal immigrants) and I’m sure they will be productive, but the risk reward isn’t worth it to me to have the whole mixed bag come in undocumented.

There should be zero tolerance for illegal immigrants and a huge push for legal ones to come share the land of milk and honey.

Why can’t we compromise and make this happen?
 
That’s good to know, but it is my opinion if we closed the border airtight today, we would have x number of bad people already living in this country. However, If we keep the borders the way they are now it will be y number of people that will keep getting in past our border patrol. If 20% of those people (.2y) are bad we then have x+.2y = more people to murder/rape me.

That’s great we have allowed in .8y (80% good illegal immigrants) and I’m sure they will be productive, but the risk reward isn’t worth it to me to have the whole mixed bag come in undocumented.

There should be zero tolerance for illegal immigrants and a huge push for legal ones to come share the land of milk and honey.

Your plan doesn’t fill a record number of unfilled jobs. Where we gonna go get em from? They’re not here.

Maybe we can put the caravan to work instead of shooting them. Weird concept I know, but I’m sure they’re all terrorists.


Faux outrage over immigration hurts our economy. Period.
 
Personally, I would be OK with a wall in certain areas, the idea being that it funnels attempted illegal crossings into areas that are being patrolled regularly.

I was recently watching a documentary called Game of Thrones, in which, a wall did a good job of keeping scary creatures, and poor people on one side, thus protecting the good people on the other side.

I'm opposed to an uninterrupted wall across the entire southern border, as I do not think it is financially/geographically realistic and it will negatively affect wildlife migration.
 
Your plan doesn’t fill a record number of unfilled jobs. Where we gonna go get em from? They’re not here.

Maybe we can put the caravan to work instead of shooting them. Weird concept I know, but I’m sure they’re all terrorists.


Faux outrage over immigration hurts our economy. Period.

My plan does fill those jobs. Guest workers who get fingerprinted and check in with officials. We fill the needs we have. The better you are the longer you stay. All legal, all documented, remittences sent back home, taxes paid here it would be beautiful. And from all over the world not just Central America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
It boggles my mind half this country doesn’t want to keep the law breakers out and constantly refers to trump as anti immigrant instead of anti illegal immigrant.

I am all for keeping law breakers out, however, anti-immigrant is a reasonable description given his efforts and pronouncements to change and restrict the qualifications for legal immigration....including (but not limited to) banning all immigrants from eight nations, reduction of refugee admissions to its lowest point since 1980, and pronouncements that he was going to get rid of the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (so-called green card lottery) for one more restrictive.

I’m not interested in arguing the merits of each of those acts. I’m merely pointing that people that consider him anti-immigrant have a reasonable basis for reaching that conclusion whether or not you disagree with it.
 
I wish people would just obey the law. But since millions and millions of people have shown they have zero regard for our laws, then yes. It’s what we have to do.

What makes more sense, fiscally and environmentally...a wall or more fencing and a road for rapid response patrol like the Russia-Norway border?
 
There should be zero tolerance for illegal immigrants and a huge push for legal ones to come share the land of milk and honey.

Why can’t we compromise and make this happen?

I’m all for this, but I don’t see a push for legal ones by Trump or MAGA proponents. What I see is proposals and talk about making it harder to and restricting the ways for legal ones to enter the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
I’m all for this, but I don’t see a push for legal ones by Trump or MAGA proponents. What I see is proposals and talk about making it harder to and restricting the ways for legal ones to enter the country.

If this forces congress to fix our laws could it be seen as an out of the box plan that got something that has been basically impossible for decades to do? I honestly think, maybe I’m a trumptard, that president trump wants common sense legislation on this and his posturing is all about the deal.
 
What are the numbers? Have we allowed in less legal immigrants since Trump became president?
 
I’m all for this, but I don’t see a push for legal ones by Trump or MAGA proponents. What I see is proposals and talk about making it harder to and restricting the ways for legal ones to enter the country.

Do you see a push for properly vetting the newcomers by the Trump/MAGA detractors?

The conservatives that I know want good people to be able to come here, work, contribute and thrive. What they don't want is for the border to be an arbitrary line that has no real meaning and simply trust that there won't be any bad folks come across.
 
If this forces congress to fix our laws could it be seen as an out of the box plan that got something that has been basically impossible for decades to do? I honestly think, maybe I’m a trumptard, that president trump wants common sense legislation on this and his posturing is all about the deal.

I think you are becoming a trumptard.

At the very least you consistently give him the absolute most benefit of the doubt remotely possible.

And no, I don’t think it’s an out of the box plan to hugely push for legal immigration immigration.....even given his “Diet Coke brain” as you say. He didn’t seem to want to fix refugee vetting....he just banned any refugees from eight nations. He didn’t want to fix the lottery system....he wants to replace it with something more restrictive. He doesn’t want to fix DACA....he’s taking it to the Supreme Court so he can disband it.

Nothing I see would remotely believe he is a huge push for legal immigration in anti-immigration clothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
Do you see a push for properly vetting the newcomers by the Trump/MAGA detractors?

The conservatives that I know want good people to be able to come here, work, contribute and thrive. What they don't want is for the border to be an arbitrary line that has no real meaning and simply trust that there won't be any bad folks come across.

What I see is an abandonment of the vetting process for refugee claims and the banning of any immigration from eight different nations.

What is see are attempts to make the refugee status process as onerous as possible.

What I see are attempts to make the process for naturalization or immigration more restrictive beyond the ability to “work, contribute and thrive”.

And you established a false dichotomy between not agreeing with Trump and being someone that wants the border to be an arbitrary line where we just trust that there won’t be any bad folks come across. There are a whole host of positions between those two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
What are the numbers? Have we allowed in less legal immigrants since Trump became president?

So whether or not we allowed less is a relevant starting place for whether Trump is making a huge push for legal immigration?

No...it’s not.
 
What makes more sense, fiscally and environmentally...a wall or more fencing and a road for rapid response patrol like the Russia-Norway border?
Fiscal sensibility: Having a wall would pay for itself pretty quickly when compared to what we spend on free stuff for illegal immigrants. Maybe you weren’t a part of that discussion, but we’ve had it here before.

Environmental responsibility: I’ve read where there are some endangered lizards and frogs that could be impacted, but I think it’s a minimal impact. Looks to me like most animal kingdom traffic is of the avian variety, so a wall seems of little consequence. If I’m wrong about that, I would be willing to entertain periodic openings in the wall to accommodate migration corridors. But honestly, I don’t see that the coyote population is going to be crushed by this concept.
 
What I see is an abandonment of the vetting process for refugee claims and the banning of any immigration from eight different nations.

What is see are attempts to make the refugee status process as onerous as possible.

What I see are attempts to make the process for naturalization or immigration more restrictive beyond the ability to “work, contribute and thrive”.

And you established a false dichotomy between not agreeing with Trump and being someone that wants the border to be an arbitrary line where we just trust that there won’t be any bad folks come across. There are a whole host of positions between those two.

Trump saying that he wants to build a wall (it is debatable if he really wants to) and him working to further restrict travel from certain areas does not mean that he doesn’t want immigrants to come here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
I am all for keeping law breakers out, however, anti-immigrant is a reasonable description given his efforts and pronouncements to change and restrict the qualifications for legal immigration....including (but not limited to) banning all immigrants from eight nations, reduction of refugee admissions to its lowest point since 1980, and pronouncements that he was going to get rid of the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (so-called green card lottery) for one more restrictive.

I’m not interested in arguing the merits of each of those acts. I’m merely pointing that people that consider him anti-immigrant have a reasonable basis for reaching that conclusion whether or not you disagree with it.

JD, i like you, but you give examples of why the president is anti-immigrant and then state, I don't want to argue those examples.

1) 8 Nations - all of which are classified as terrorist enablers by our prior presidential regime. Why the hell we still fighting in the middle east if we are just going to invite our enemies in.

2) Refugees aren't immigrants, or at least not by definition. But somehow we don't ever repatriate those who need to be refuges, nor does anyone want to actually do anything to solve the issues causing refugees in the first place.

3) This wasn't a reduction of immigrants. Its simply changing the selection criteria to ensure individuals that provide a higher value to the US rather than some random lottery draw which doesn't recognize the difference between a college grad from Brazil and a rice farmer from Malaysia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
JD, i like you, but you give examples of why the president is anti-immigrant and then state, I don't want to argue those examples.

1) 8 Nations - all of which are classified as terrorist enablers by our prior presidential regime. Why the hell we still fighting in the middle east if we are just going to invite our enemies in.

2) Refugees aren't immigrants, or at least not by definition. But somehow we don't ever repatriate those who need to be refuges, nor does anyone want to actually do anything to solve the issues causing refugees in the first place.

3) This wasn't a reduction of immigrants. Its simply changing the selection criteria to ensure individuals that provide a higher value to the US rather than some random lottery draw which doesn't recognize the difference between a college grad from Brazil and a rice farmer from Malaysia.

So much bullshit to unpack
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT