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.
Yes, because God knows, making the penalty for employers for hiring these workers truly harsh and punitive so they will no longer come is a "romantic" solution.
They will come anyway.
Quote:
Shooting down unarmed people is "rational."
It is when they are choosing to traverse into a militarized zone.
There are all sorts of places in this nation that you can try to walk into right this very moment and get shot for your trouble. I don' hear you complaining about those, nor are people attempting it.
So, you see, my suggestion observably works. It's absolutely rational. The only irrationality is attempting to circumvent your (and the Left's) true motivation to have a continuous stream of illegals here by appealing to the supposed "irrationality" of doing what provably works.
Quote:
I don't recognize the country you want America to become, where we mow down people attempting to get to jobs so they can feed their families, while we shield the employers who continue to make that employment readily and continuously available.
I'm all for not shielding employers.
Again with the romanticism. Appeal to it all you wish, but I'm deaf to it. Though, as a counter-argument: few people "recognized the country you want America to become" before illegal mass immigration started.
Not going where you aren't illegally allowed to go is a part of being an adult, as is accepting those restrictions for others. They and you can deal with it. The illegals who come here are not starving in Mexico. There is no food shortage there.
Why not begin with the cause then instead of moving right into deadly force? Let's see some really harsh consequences for employers who hire illegals before we start shooting unarmed civilians.
We give lip service to punishing the cause, but that's all it is--empty words. E-verify has been on the books for years but it is never enforced. Hence the problem. If they would simply enforce the law, there would be no need for the wall or your killing zone.
But they won't because that would be bad for business, and their big donors wouldn't like that.
So we'll just shoot the people coming for the jobs they offer instead, while maintaining a law on the books that is only there for show so employers can continue to take advantage of their cheap labor.
The government has ignored E-verify for years. Why should we believe they will suddenly start enforcing it now?
Start there and prove you mean it before moving onto to other more extreme and deadly remedies.
It is when they are choosing to traverse into a militarized zone.
There are all sorts of places in this nation that you can try to walk into right this very moment and get shot for your trouble. I don' hear you complaining about those, nor are people attempting it.
So, you see, my suggestion observably works. It's absolutely rational. The only irrationality is attempting to circumvent your (and the Left's) true motivation to have a continuous stream of illegals here by appealing to the supposed "irrationality" of doing what provably works.
I'm all for not shielding employers.
Again with the romanticism. Appeal to it all you wish, but I'm deaf to it. Though, as a counter-argument: few people "recognized the country you want America to become" before illegal mass immigration started.
Not going where you aren't illegally allowed to go is a part of being an adult, as is accepting those restrictions for others. They and you can deal with it. The illegals who come here are not starving in Mexico. There is no food shortage there.
We're going to punish both.
Exactly! I don't know of anyone who is anti-illegal immigration that doesn't want the greedy employers punished but then again the illegals are just as guilty of breaking the law so they should be deported as our laws state.
Just because you have a family to feed doesn't give you the right to break laws and take from others what doesn't belong to you. How about you don't have families if you can't feed them without doing that? Americans have families to feed also but how are they supposed to do that when millions of cheap illegals flooded our border taking their jobs and costing them $100 billion a year in taxes? What makes the illegal's family more important than American families? This is their country not the illegal's country.
So you are advocating shooting people attempting to cross the border? Is this really the country you want America to become?
What you're describing is a wet dream for a subset of Trump voters. Walking a wall with a uniform and a rifle, without facing the perils of armed service - that is to say, the risk of return fire? They'll come running to sign up.
Insert joke about "another hick on the wall", I am too dispirited to make it.
US Commandos Unable To Scale Border Wall Prototypes In Tests
....
Military special forces and U.S. Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to scale the eight prototypes of President Trump’s proposed border wall, but found the barriers extremely difficult to overcome, according to an Associated Press report.
Kind of tells you what you need to know and the intelligence of the intended reader the Daily Caller has in mind. If you actually read the AP article, it says they found difficulty climbing the wall without assistance. Eg, a 30 foot wall is difficult to free climb without using something like a ladder, rope with a hook on the end of it, or something to just destroy the wall to go through it. Well, yes. I'd probably take a tall ladder and a rope when attempting to get over a 30 foot wall myself. Lean the ladder against the wall, climb over it, afix the rope to the wall (if possible, if not you'll need to secure the ladder on the other side and afix the rope to the ladder), drop the rope, use the rope to get down. Not difficult. Free climbing a 30 foot wall is much harder to do.
Kind of tells you what you need to know and the intelligence of the intended reader the Daily Caller has in mind. If you actually read the AP article, it says they found difficulty climbing the wall without assistance. Eg, a 30 foot wall is difficult to free climb without using something like a ladder, rope with a hook on the end of it, or something to just destroy the wall to go through it. Well, yes. I'd probably take a tall ladder and a rope when attempting to get over a 30 foot wall myself. Lean the ladder against the wall, climb over it, afix the rope to the wall (if possible, if not you'll need to secure the ladder on the other side and afix the rope to the ladder), drop the rope, use the rope to get down. Not difficult. Free climbing a 30 foot wall is much harder to do.
Yet where the good double walls have already been erected no one has attempted to do that and they have been very effective in deterring illegal immigration. I have posted links proving it.
A good wall is not the problem. Funding that wall is. The GOP Congress will never place a large 15-18 billion down payment on a wall that may not get funding in subsequent Congresses.
No one session of Congress can fully fund such a large project. There has to be a national commitment that has to expand more than one congress and more than one administration. Like the Moon mission.
Only because some in the GOP opposes everything that Trumps wants to get done. It is mostly the Democrats that oppose the wall though surely you know this. If the wall has to be funded in incriments then so be it just as long as we get started on it. It does not have to expand beyond this administration either. If we can fund over $100 billion a year for illegal aliens surely we can fund the wall.
Only because some in the GOP opposes everything that Trumps wants to get done. It is mostly the Democrats that oppose the wall though surely you know this. If the wall has to be funded in incriments then so be it just as long as we get started on it. It does not have to expand beyond this administration either. If we can fund over $100 billion a year for illegal aliens surely we can fund the wall.
lol Bush's wall still isn't finished and it's not Democrats who stopped it, it's property owners:
Only because some in the GOP opposes everything that Trumps wants to get done. It is mostly the Democrats that oppose the wall though surely you know this. If the wall has to be funded in incriments then so be it just as long as we get started on it. It does not have to expand beyond this administration either. If we can fund over $100 billion a year for illegal aliens surely we can fund the wall.
This post is of course an outright lie. But OG likes to do that.
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.
