GG Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 We've been down this road before and it is ironic that we've circled around to the same spot again. We need to secure the borders and stop the influx of illegals. When that happens, I'm willing to talk about the illegals that are already here. Anyone not believing in securing the borders first is just blowing smoke. And you would be failing the basic laws of supply & demand. Border security and immigration reform have to go hand in hand. This would be a non-issue now if the GOP wasn't ridiculous in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 And you would be failing the basic laws of supply & demand. Border security and immigration reform have to go hand in hand. This would be a non-issue now if the GOP wasn't ridiculous in 2007. Nope. I'm unwilling to do anything for the lawbreakers who are already here based on another promise of securing the border. Fool me once................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 That's because you're a reasonable human being. Yeah..I wish he would just stop being like, rational and stuff. No place for that in America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Nope. I'm unwilling to do anything for the lawbreakers who are already here based on another promise of securing the border. Fool me once................................ The old ostrich solution. Has certainly worked wonders so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The old ostrich solution. Has certainly worked wonders so far. Weren't we supposed to have the border secured years ago? Why hasn't it been secured? We could very easily have a comprehensive bill now if the provisions did not commence until the border was demonstratively secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Weren't we supposed to have the border secured years ago? Why hasn't it been secured? We could very easily have a comprehensive bill now if the provisions did not commence until the border was demonstratively secure. You're asking why a 2,000 mile stretch of mountains, rivers & desert isn't secured? Next you'll be asking why "just say no" hasn't stopped the inflow of drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 You're asking why a 2,000 mile stretch of mountains, rivers & desert isn't secured? Next you'll be asking why "just say no" hasn't stopped the inflow of drugs. forget a wall, how about a 2000 mile long stretch of row-houses- solve boarder security and homelessness in one fell swoop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 You're asking why a 2,000 mile stretch of mountains, rivers & desert isn't secured? Next you'll be asking why "just say no" hasn't stopped the inflow of drugs. You know that a combination of fence, towers, aerial surveillance and natural obstacles such as mountains were all part of the program. So, I guess you are intimating that it can't be done first because it can't be done at all, but it is ok to promise to do it later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You know that a combination of fence, towers, aerial surveillance and natural obstacles such as mountains were all part of the program. So, I guess you are intimating that it can't be done first because it can't be done at all, but it is ok to promise to do it later? I'm intimating that it would be a monumental waste of dollars and resources which will accomplish nothing. Even if you expended billions of dollars and thousands of agents on the fence, the smugglers would simply move to the Gulf or Pacific Coast. What will you do then, quadruple the Coast Guard? Amazing how tone deaf some fiscal conservatives get on their pet projects. How's this for an idea, update the immigration laws to account for the need for the workers, introduce a guest worker program, provide a path to legalization for the people here (because you sure the hell aren't deporting 11 million people). Make things legal and easier for migrants, get them on the books, have them pay into the system. You do that, you eliminate 95% of the need for the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Since we're going to legalize them anyway.... How about if we make border fence building a requirement for citizen? If you do the math, each of the 20+ million illegal aliens only have to build 6 inches each of the 2000 mile long wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm intimating that it would be a monumental waste of dollars and resources which will accomplish nothing. Even if you expended billions of dollars and thousands of agents on the fence, the smugglers would simply move to the Gulf or Pacific Coast. What will you do then, quadruple the Coast Guard? Amazing how tone deaf some fiscal conservatives get on their pet projects. How's this for an idea, update the immigration laws to account for the need for the workers, introduce a guest worker program, provide a path to legalization for the people here (because you sure the hell aren't deporting 11 million people). Make things legal and easier for migrants, get them on the books, have them pay into the system. You do that, you eliminate 95% of the need for the fence. OK, so it's apparent you now feel that we don't need to secure the border and that lip service regarding a secure border isn't even necessary anymore. What has changed since you stated this in post #141 of this thread? "And you would be failing the basic laws of supply & demand. Border security and immigration reform have to go hand in hand. This would be a non-issue now if the GOP wasn't ridiculous in 2007." It would appear that at least in this instance you've done a bang up job of channeling your inner Obama. Did you forget that 24 hours ago you at least admitted that a secure border went "hand in hand" with the latest amnesty legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 OK, so it's apparent you now feel that we don't need to secure the border and that lip service regarding a secure border isn't even necessary anymore. What has changed since you stated this in post #141 of this thread? "And you would be failing the basic laws of supply & demand. Border security and immigration reform have to go hand in hand. This would be a non-issue now if the GOP wasn't ridiculous in 2007." It would appear that at least in this instance you've done a bang up job of channeling your inner Obama. Did you forget that 24 hours ago you at least admitted that a secure border went "hand in hand" with the latest amnesty legislation? Considering that he Feds have thrown a lot of resources and agents to the border in the last decade with little to show for it, should be a sign to people who care about numbers and economics. But keep chasing your fairy tale of a secure border despite the practical limitations to make it happen. Also utterly predictable that you throw out the Obama card, when I was referring to immigration proposals in the Bush administration. And the last President to try to seriously tackle immigration? Reagan. Who do you think he was referring to in the Shiny City on the Hill speech? But yeah, keep sticking your head in the sand regarding immigration and lose 20% of the electorate for the next 100 years, just like the GOP forefathers did with irish & Italians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm intimating that it would be a monumental waste of dollars and resources which will accomplish nothing. Even if you expended billions of dollars and thousands of agents on the fence, the smugglers would simply move to the Gulf or Pacific Coast. What will you do then, quadruple the Coast Guard? Amazing how tone deaf some fiscal conservatives get on their pet projects. How's this for an idea, update the immigration laws to account for the need for the workers, introduce a guest worker program, provide a path to legalization for the people here (because you sure the hell aren't deporting 11 million people). Make things legal and easier for migrants, get them on the books, have them pay into the system. You do that, you eliminate 95% of the need for the fence. Correct. You do all of those things and people will stop coming over. I take you live in the northeast and have no clue what's going on here in the southwest. Oh that's right you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Critics not impressed................ 'White People': TV Review MTV attempts to stoke the cultural conversation with a superficial doc about race in America. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/white-people-tv-review-808893#comments MTV's White People, reviewed: Jose Antonio Vargas doc isn ...www.slate.com/. Granted, I didn't watch........................like most of America I went with SHARKNADO 3..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Considering that he Feds have thrown a lot of resources and agents to the border in the last decade with little to show for it, should be a sign to people who care about numbers and economics. But keep chasing your fairy tale of a secure border despite the practical limitations to make it happen. Also utterly predictable that you throw out the Obama card, when I was referring to immigration proposals in the Bush administration. And the last President to try to seriously tackle immigration? Reagan. Who do you think he was referring to in the Shiny City on the Hill speech? But yeah, keep sticking your head in the sand regarding immigration and lose 20% of the electorate for the next 100 years, just like the GOP forefathers did with irish & Italians. No, I was referring to your propensity for being disingenuous like Obama. 24 hours ago you said that legislation and a secure border went hand in hand. Now you say that a secure border isn't feasible. You have either reversed your position or lied. This is why some of us are adamant about securing the border first. We don't trust those that say give me what I want and we'll secure the border later. I guess that if my head was in the sand I wouldn't be able to see your subterfuge, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Correct. You do all of those things and people will stop coming over. I take you live in the northeast and have no clue what's going on here in the southwest. Oh that's right you do. Where did I intimate that the people would stop coming over? That's the point, you can't make them stop coming over, but you can control that process a hell of a lot better, make it safer and actually not throw money down a rat hole. No, I was referring to your propensity for being disingenuous like Obama. 24 hours ago you said that legislation and a secure border went hand in hand. Now you say that a secure border isn't feasible. You have either reversed your position or lied. This is why some of us are adamant about securing the border first. We don't trust those that say give me what I want and we'll secure the border later. I guess that if my head was in the sand I wouldn't be able to see your subterfuge, eh? Should I type slower and in bigger font for you to understand? They go hand in hand because with immigration reform you will significantly reduce the smuggled traffic of migrant workers, which will free the limited resources on the border to try to protect against something more sinister. If you take it one step further and deal with the drug laws, you will also eliminate drug trafficking. Then the border will be more secure because you won't be wasting dollars and resources trying to keep out housemaids and dishwashers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I agree with you GG in large part. I think Trump is agrandizing himself with his play on this hot button issue. It's much like the issue of the uninsured wrt healthcare. The GOP has to get their crap together and put forth solid proposals that will actually fix some of the serious problems affecting the nation and do it in such a manner that all sides come away with feeling that something positive has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You know who else was all about white privilege and being a sexist? Seinfeld. You progrs are completely off the rails these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You know who else was all about white privilege and being a sexist? Seinfeld. You progrs are completely off the rails these days. A nice reminder of when Dan Quayle got into a fight with Murphy Brown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 MTV doubling down on their bullshite. This is beyond lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts