Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have all of the answers here, but I really don't think shooting women and children sneaking across is the way to go either. That is a bit cold and callous to be honest. A big start would be to cut out amnesty, and all of the freebies that make it enticing for them to come here in the first place. Not to mention the possibility of heavily fining businesses who illegally hire them. At any rate, my opinion still stands that Mexico's president should shut his pie hole, instead of criticizing how we protect our border and focus on bringing his country in the 1st world instead of continuing to operate it as a cesspool!
Hey there, I can appreciate your post, you feel the same way I do, but do not think that shooting women and children, truly is the way to go. That is cold and yes it is callous. But there are parts of me that do understand each point of views, at least I try. But that would not be an option for me, little kids they do not know what is going on, come on now 3 and 4 and 5 years olds. Parents and adults and teens are guilty as sin.
Cutting out amnesty all together, would be a first step, stop all the freebies and inviting Tom Dick and Harry, that entice these people to come here. Yes yes yes, heavy fines for those businesses who are known to hire illegal employees. There are many of them, and more then we know.
Mexico's President needs to shut the hell up, instead of constantly criticizing how we protect and safeguards our borders, and put focus on his Country.
I am wise enough to know, that left undone, this will be the demise of this once great Country.
Mexican president condemns Texas' decision to deploy National Guard along border
1. screw him, it's not his country being invaded
2. if he doesn't like it, then he needs to do something substantial on his side to stem the tide of illegals
So, a 3rd world President is going to tell us how to defend our borders when they have so much corruption on their own border.
Here's a link to WOLAs site with some 'man on the ground' reports on Mexico's Souther Border. It shows how messed up Mexico is when compared to the US.
Hey there, I can appreciate your post, you feel the same way I do, but do not think that shooting women and children, truly is the way to go. That is cold and yes it is callous. But there are parts of me that do understand each point of views, at least I try. But that would not be an option for me, little kids they do not know what is going on, come on now 3 and 4 and 5 years olds. Parents and adults and teens are guilty as sin.
Cutting out amnesty all together, would be a first step, stop all the freebies and inviting Tom Dick and Harry, that entice these people to come here. Yes yes yes, heavy fines for those businesses who are known to hire illegal employees. There are many of them, and more then we know.
Mexico's President needs to shut the hell up, instead of constantly criticizing how we protect and safeguards our borders, and put focus on his Country.
I am wise enough to know, that left undone, this will be the demise of this once great Country.
Ahh another poster with ideas instead of threats and one lines, good to see some are looking at the issue with an open mind.
Your boys admitted they do consider it an option, at least they had the backbone to do so, you on the other hand, failed to answer the question, your only goal is personal attacks hence the lack of on topic discussion here by you. So, is it an option for you also, me thinks it is but you lack what it takes to admit it publically.
Thanks for adding yourself to the discussion.
Highlighting visible hypocrisy and a double standard is not a "personal attack."
Your implying that I'm a "con" who advocates "shooting women and children" (all untrue as I never said any such thing) was nothing more than a way to divert from getting caught in your own hypocrisy, and closer to a "personal attack" than anything I said.
Highlighting visible hypocrisy and a double standard is not a "personal attack."
Your implying that I'm a "con" who advocates "shooting women and children" (all untrue as I never said any such thing) was nothing more than a way to divert from getting caught in your own hypocrisy, and closer to a "personal attack" than anything I said.
What hypocrisy and double standard? You make open statements yet fail to explain what it is you believe qualify as either on my part? Is there a reason you are posting to me other than to attack the fact that I had several people state they would do something dishonorable in the name of border security? Was the use of "Cons" I corrected that to say "Some Cons" that should have been all you needed, obviously your are still not satisfied, sorry, not a thing I can do about that.
I gave you the chance to clear it up and even asked you the question directly, you only came back with more of your "outrage" and declined to answer. When one is asked a direct question and they reply but decline to answer the question or even address it in any way one can only assume the person does not want to incriminate them self, otherwise why not simply say that "no you would not do that" and leave it at that. So go ahead and cry about "personal attacks" all you wish you were given the change to answer the question and you declined.
BTW, do you actually think that only women and children are crossing the border illegally, or is that another liberal distortion and lie to cover your own fecklessness?
Oh they love bringing up women and children when the fact it is that it is mostly males crossing our border illegally. Funny, isn't it how they left the latter out of their horror equasion.
The point is that the pro-illegals always try to change the subject. If we object to illegal immigration they turn the subject to well what about.....you name it. I'm not saying that companies don't hire illegal aliens but they are less likely to be big corporations that do it. I don't see the hypocricy in high officials looking away. The hypocricy would be complaining about illegal aliens and yet hiring them. The hypocricy that I pointed out is that bleeding heart liberals and ethnocentrics harp about businesses hiring illegal aliens and profiting off of them but yet they don't want these illegals to be removed but allowed to stay instead and continue to increase the profits of those who hire them. Now that's hypocricy!
You are contradicting yourself Oldglory. But you seem clever enough to find the holes in your own explanations. I am not a complainer about illegal border crossers--never have and never will, because I see the value they bring in the jobs they do in the US---laborious work that very few born & bred Americans wouldn't cross the street for. And, I don't complain about companies who hire them. My corporate gripe has to do with Wall Street gangsters and banksters. Moreover, I don't see chronically unemployed Joe Schmoe down the street banging on the door for a job at the local slaughterhouse or asking to pick tomatoes for 10 hours a day, or working on a hot roof in 95 degree heat and humidity all summer long. Do you? Nor do I see those citizens who've been on welfare for generations doing those jobs, either (heck, they don't even work). But those jobs need doing, dont' they? The next time you're sitting relaxing in a home likely built by these skilled workers---or sink your teeth into a juicy hamburger with tomatoes and lettuce on it, you can thank Jose, Lupe, Jorge, Pedro, etc. But instead, I hear people thanking God. That's hypocrisy! Between 2000 and 2007, their labor accounted for more than one-sixth of our civilian labor force. Are you saying that labor didn't benefit anyone but them? They pay taxes and contribute to social security that directly benefits anyone getting government assistance or SS benefits. So all the retired folks on SS or SSD can thank the border crossers that they still have a benefit checking coming in today.
C'mon! Wake up and look at the bigger picture, Oldglory!
What hypocrisy and double standard? You make open statements yet fail to explain what it is you believe qualify as either on my part? Is there a reason you are posting to me other than to attack the fact that I had several people state they would do something dishonorable in the name of border security? Was the use of "Cons" I corrected that to say "Some Cons" that should have been all you needed, obviously your are still not satisfied, sorry, not a thing I can do about that.
I gave you the chance to clear it up and even asked you the question directly, you only came back with more of your "outrage" and declined to answer. When one is asked a direct question and they reply but decline to answer the question or even address it in any way one can only assume the person does not want to incriminate them self, otherwise why not simply say that "no you would not do that" and leave it at that. So go ahead and cry about "personal attacks" all you wish you were given the change to answer the question and you declined.
Now back to the topic of the thread.
Here.
But forget it. Obviously a waste of my time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
