National Emergency

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Why can't we secure the border to ensure no more illegal crossings.
...
Click to expand...

For about the same reasons we can't secure our cities, towns and villages to ensure no more illegal killings, or illegal anything.
 
1. Most illegal immigrants don't "cross the border." They come legally into the country on temporary work or travel Visas or similar arraignments and then just don't leave.

2. Point 1 is such common knowledge that has been pointed out so many times it you don't get it its because you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's fine. It would seem you don't wish to have a conversation on other methods that could be used to prevent illegal border crossings other than a wall. I will take that as a silent confirmation that building a border wall is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

What a truly moronic thing to write. It isn't even a semi-respectable gotcha, it's just plain infantile.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I've read this thread and suggest you do so as well. This thread is mainly a lot of bellyaching about Trump's wall with no discussion of another method to keep illegals from crossing our border. (I do remember seeing one post suggesting a fence patrolled by tigers, but that must have been a joke.)

Instead of complaining about the National Emergency, why not use some of that vast gray matter to come up with an alternative that would prevent illegals from crossing our borders.

If building a wall won't work, what will?
I want the immigration crisis solved. Do you?
I want secure borders that prevent illegal crossings. Do you?
I want a path to citizenship for current illegals. Do you?

I realize these opinions from a Trump supporter may seem uncomfortable for you but there's really no need to be insulting. I'm all for discussion of the problems as I'd like to see them solved.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY want the crisis solved?
Because it is dead easy to do. And it doesn't require a wall.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I don't think we're going to see anything to help illegal immigrants in this Country until the border is secure.

This problem has been ignored by all parties. It's time something is done and if that means declaring a National Emergency I'm all for it. And once the border has been secured I expect to see some Immigration reform.

Political parties aside I'm sick of hearing promises to deal with immigration by all sides yet nothing gets done. It's a disgrace.

Chris B.
Click to expand...


So you're not concerned that Congress has already denied the funds for this (vanity) project? Screw 'em. Trump can just take charge and declare an emergency.

And, were a Democratic president to declare an emergency in similar conditions, you'd not complain about executive overreach. You might dislike the outcome, but you know, it's the prerogative of the President.

Is that your position?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
What do you suggest? Mine fields?

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Increasing the number of agents at the border, the technology used and increasing the number of judges who can hear asylum cases so that they can be processed in a timely manner and people can move through the system legally without waiting for years at the border?

And, dare I say it, some additional fencing at areas which are carefully selected based on research and experience, rather than a fanciful wall that is built without the benefit of careful thought.
 
phiwum said:
Increasing the number of agents at the border, the technology used and increasing the number of judges who can hear asylum cases so that they can be processed in a timely manner and people can move through the system legally without waiting for years at the border?

And, dare I say it, some additional fencing at areas which are carefully selected based on research and experience, rather than a fanciful wall that is built without the benefit of careful thought.
Click to expand...

Clearly you want open borders!!
 
Belz... said:
I might actually get an answer from #2 here.



Why would you not want to stop illegal immigration at all?
Click to expand...
For the same reasons I don't want anyone to actually propose to get rid of murder, rape or jay-walking: it's an unobtainable goal, and at some point, the increases in the state's grip on power and money no longer justify the decrease in crime.

I personally find the rates of murder, theft and jaywalking in my corner of the world quite acceptle. "Less" of course would always be "better", all else being equal, but all else is not equal if you spend additional money on intrusive measures. There is no murder crisis here.

Now, I do not really have an opinion on whether illegal immigration across the souther border of the USA constitutes a "crisis" (I don't live there, and am not American), but sense that many Americans don't think so. And anyway, it will never be "solved" to everybody's satisfaction.

This is genuinly a matter of political opinion and political majorities. The problem to be solved is not "illegal immigration", but what levels with which hooks and loops and quirks ends up being low enough to be accepted by enough of the voting population. A presidential decleration of "emergency" is exactly the wrong way to approach this. It' s a totally arbitrary decision, and the stated "problem" cannot possibly be solved that way.
 
Oystein said:
For the same reasons I don't want anyone to actually propose to get rid of murder, rape or jay-walking: it's an unobtainable goal, and at some point, the increases in the state's grip on power and money no longer justify the decrease in crime.
Click to expand...

Come on, Oystein. Do you really think that's a reasonable answer? We still want to eliminate murder, even though we know we'll never attain the goal. It gives us an incentive to fight back against it and limit it as much as reasonably possible. Same for all other undesirable things, including illegal immigration. That's what we're talking about, and it's insulting that you're trying to pretend otherwise.

Bob said that he doesn't want to prevent illegal crossings. At all. You said you agreed. If that's not what you meant, you might want to be more careful what you agree to.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Belz... said:
Why can't we do it with anything other than a dumb wall?
Click to expand...

What do you suggest? Mine fields?

Chris B.
Click to expand...


There isn't anything you can imagine aside from dumb walls and minefields which might address the problem? Even after all the discussion in this and other threads?

I suggest that you aren't trying very hard. Or looking very hard, either.
 
Oystein said:
For the same reasons I don't want anyone to actually propose to get rid of murder, rape or jay-walking: it's an unobtainable goal, and at some point, the increases in the state's grip on power and money no longer justify the decrease in crime.

I personally find the rates of murder, theft and jaywalking in my corner of the world quite acceptle. "Less" of course would always be "better", all else being equal, but all else is not equal if you spend additional money on intrusive measures. There is no murder crisis here.

Now, I do not really have an opinion on whether illegal immigration across the souther border of the USA constitutes a "crisis" (I don't live there, and am not American), but sense that many Americans don't think so. And anyway, it will never be "solved" to everybody's satisfaction.

This is genuinly a matter of political opinion and political majorities. The problem to be solved is not "illegal immigration", but what levels with which hooks and loops and quirks ends up being low enough to be accepted by enough of the voting population. A presidential decleration of "emergency" is exactly the wrong way to approach this. It' s a totally arbitrary decision, and the stated "problem" cannot possibly be solved that way.
Click to expand...

I don't think this twisted nuance is going to go over well in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Come on, Oystein. Do you really think that's a reasonable answer? We still want to eliminate murder, even though we know we'll never attain the goal. It gives us an incentive to fight back against it and limit it as much as reasonably possible. Same for all other undesirable things, including illegal immigration. That's what we're talking about, and it's insulting that you're trying to pretend otherwise.



Bob said that he doesn't want to prevent illegal crossings. At all. You said you agreed. If that's not what you meant, you might want to be more careful what you agree to.
Click to expand...
That's not what Bob and I disagreed with. We disagreed with this: "I want secure borders that prevent illegal crossings. Do you?"
I took this to mean "all" illegal crossings, for the borders, as they are already prevent "some" illegal crossings, and you surely did not mean to express that you are fine with the status quo.

Illegal border crossings are vastly more tolerable than murder or rape, and I think there is no border crisis that justifies the drastic and expensive measures proposed, especially seeing their limited effectiveness.
 
Oystein said:
That's not what Bob and I disagreed with. We disagreed with this: "I want secure borders that prevent illegal crossings. Do you?"
I took this to mean "all" illegal crossings, for the borders, as they are already prevent "some" illegal crossings, and you surely did not mean to express that you are fine with the status quo.

Illegal border crossings are vastly more tolerable than murder or rape, and I think there is no border crisis that justifies the drastic and expensive measures proposed, especially seeing their limited effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Well because like Bob, for some reason you saw the need to answer a simple question with a broad to the point of being meaningless philosophical truism.
 
Oystein said:
That's not what Bob and I disagreed with. We disagreed with this: "I want secure borders that prevent illegal crossings. Do you?"
I took this to mean "all" illegal crossings, for the borders, as they are already prevent "some" illegal crossings, and you surely did not mean to express that you are fine with the status quo.

Illegal border crossings are vastly more tolerable than murder or rape, and I think there is no border crisis that justifies the drastic and expensive measures proposed, especially seeing their limited effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, none of that makes any sense. Why did you take such an unreasonable interpretation of that sentence as a starting point? ChrisBFRPKY asked the question you quoted above. Obviously he's not asking whether we should make it our ultimate and all-encompassing goal to stop every single instance of illegal immigration, bringing the problem to exactly zero before we move on to any other problem. None of that bears any ressemblance to his question.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sorry, none of that makes any sense. Why did you take such an unreasonable interpretation of that sentence as a starting point? ChrisBFRPKY asked the question you quoted above. Obviously he's not asking whether we should make it our ultimate and all-encompassing goal to stop every single instance of illegal immigration, bringing the problem to exactly zero before we move on to any other problem. None of that bears any ressemblance to his question.
Click to expand...
His question was loaded, and we seem to disagree on what it was loaded with.

Can you make explicit what loading you assume on the question?
 
Belz... said:
I say bacon. You?







Sure. He said he wanted secure borders that prevent illegal crossings. I think that's pretty clear, no ulterior motive required.
Click to expand...

This assumes that borders currently are not secure, assumes borders can be made secure (absolutely, or to undefined, arbitrary degree), assumes that borders currently do not prevent illegal crossings (absolutely, or to some unspecified and arbitrary standard), and assumes that borders can be made to prevent illegal crossings (again either absolutely all of them, or enough according to an unspecified and arbitrary standard.

This question was so loaded, so vague, such terrible ******** that any intelligent person HAS to disagree.
 
Oystein said:
This assumes that borders currently are not secure, assumes borders can be made secure (absolutely, or to undefined, arbitrary degree), assumes that borders currently do not prevent illegal crossings (absolutely, or to some unspecified and arbitrary standard), and assumes that borders can be made to prevent illegal crossings (again either absolutely all of them, or enough according to an unspecified and arbitrary standard.

This question was so loaded, so vague, such terrible ******** that any intelligent person HAS to disagree.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you often define people who disagree with you as idiots?

The problem is that you are misrepresenting the question, and over-analysing the problem. Deliberately, I might add, since you've already been told this more than once. Your continued confusion can't be given the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

Yes, there is an actual problem with illegal immigration, and yes, the situation can be improved. No, a wall is not the best solution, and no, you can't solve it entirely. Does this create problems for your brain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom