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.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by case44
Sure. Here's an idea: Have all the illegal aliens stay at Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's houses. I'm sure they'd be glad to take them in. Better yet, they should stay at Darth Barry's place. He's got a nice wall around his.
You know what, that's not a bad idea. It's well known that their families often pool their resources, (wages earned) to supply the roof over their heads, food on their table and clothes on their backs.
Could be most useful, in allowing them to move in ...
Researchers found that immigrants who are only eligible for legal status, but not citizenship, would contribute about $832 billion to the economy in a ten year period, add 121,000 more jobs per year, and pay $109 billion in taxes over a ten-year period. Compare that to a scenario where undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship at the same time, the U.S. GDP would grow by $1.4 trillion over a ten year period, immigrants would help to create an additional 203,0000 jobs per year, and add $184 billion in tax revenue. In another scenario where undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship after five years, the GDP would grow by $1.1 trillion, there would be an additional 159,000 jobs per year, and add $144 billion in tax revenue.
Part of the reason we can't have a rational discussion around immigration is because of whacked-out statement like this. If the right begins the conversation by making the assumption the left wants "open borders," nothing will ever get done. You're against the tax plan: "you're a communist!" You're against child separation: "you want open borders!" Moreover, it's like the people equating Trump to Hitler on the left.
This sword cuts both ways. It's pretty hard to have a conversation when the right are constantly called Nazis and bigots, racists, and so on.
I'm on the right but try to look at things with an open mind. I can't help but see that the left really do seem to want open borders. What other reason would there be to demand people be released into the country without actually knowing who they are, what skills they have, etc.? Congress members and citizens want to allow anyone who crosses the border to claim asylum. There are attorneys who spend countless hours defending illegal aliens, attempting to get them entry into the US. Open Borders Project, or whatver it's called.
You can't tell me that it is unreasonable for someone to believe the left appears to want open borders.
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we stop allowing people in wholesale and put the needs of out citizens before those of illegal aliens?
Part of the reason we can't have a rational discussion around immigration is because of whacked-out statement like this. If the right begins the conversation by making the assumption the left wants "open borders," nothing will ever get done. You're against the tax plan: "you're a communist!" You're against child separation: "you want open borders!" Moreover, it's like the people equating Trump to Hitler on the left.
What would be your conclusion, when the left is calling for the disbandment of ICE, constantly speaking out against border security and not putting forth any solutions to control illegal immigration? If it quacks...
I can see the border from my front yard...its very porous. There are many places you can walk across. Border patrol tries to stop them but can't stop everyone.
As to who wants open borders...just look at what happened to Kristin neilsen recently in the restaurant...they were chanting " no borders. No walls, sanctuary for all". So that's one recently well publicized example. But lots of dems are promoting it now.
As you know very well, the Senate has a filibuster requirement of 60 votes and the Republicans have only 51. As you also know very well, the Democrats have been obstructing any progress on this issue, and continue doing that to this very day.
Don't you dare lie and pretend like you don't know all of this, when you very certainly do.
You are incorrect. They have a rule that says they need 60 votes. And anytime they want too they can change that rule. And the Democrats learned this obstruction from watching the Republicans do it. For almost a decade. But make no mistake the Republicans are choosing this.
Wrong. As Henry Cuellar said, the wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. If you were serious about securing the border, you would want that money put toward electronic border surveillance instead:
I’ve walked back and forth the border on the Rio Grand many times during low water at the back of family property. I can say for sure that families for generations do the same and don’t want that to change ... but you are correct, it has changed and Farms in this area ( Big Bend) miss the symbiotic relationships with families that have worked for them for Generations.
The Drug Wars in Mexico have changed many things, but so has the dysfunctional US Congress and the rhetoric of Amnesty instead of the Guest Workers who lived in Mexico, worked in the USA and usually stayed only a few days for a job or were even Day Workers.
Lives totally changed by Political Posturing & have left us with a mess and no chance of a solution.
2 Parties caused this and neither of them can move forward. They are literally paralyzed by Media and their own fears. When you boil it down, only the Lawyers gain anything...... MONEY!!!
Wrong. As Henry Cuellar said, the wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. If you were serious about securing the border, you would want that money put toward electronic border surveillance instead:
I dont care HOW they secure the border, just freaking get it secure... but the liberals stop anything to secure it.... liberals defunded the fence of 05/06
Wrong. As Henry Cuellar said, the wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. If you were serious about securing the border, you would want that money put toward electronic border surveillance instead:
That was tried and failed. A good physical barrier has already proven to be a very effective deterrant (links provided numerous times). If walls are so archaic then why do homes and business have them around them?
Part of the reason we can't have a rational discussion around immigration is because of whacked-out statement like this. If the right begins the conversation by making the assumption the left wants "open borders," nothing will ever get done. You're against the tax plan: "you're a communist!" You're against child separation: "you want open borders!" Moreover, it's like the people equating Trump to Hitler on the left.
No.
It's just about business.
There's only so much of other people's money that you can spend.
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.
