It's insanity the Dems don't want to negotiate a deal to fix this problem, and yes it's one of the worst problems our country faces on so many levels.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

"The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump's border wall."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

---

^^^ Post your own opinions more often instead of others!

Posting crap like above is like idol worship, which it is

---

Man, you really are resistant to evidence.

---

Since you provide none, quash, that is a strange claim for you to make here.

---

None. Huh. You have a weird definition of "none" or "evidence" given that you jumped into a sub-thread that began with my offering the evidence contained in the Cato article.

---

You linked to an opinion piece.

Wow.

So much work, so compelling.

Make an effort next time, please.

---

Wrong, that sucker is full of data.

I was able to teach third graders the difference between fact and opinion. You still don't get it.

There is certainly an opinion being supported, by about thirty data points just in the first third of the article.

Why don't you make an effort and read it, and then tell me what facts are wrong. That's a sentence I have typed in response to your substance-less posts before; you never change.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

"The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump's border wall."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

---

^^^ Post your own opinions more often instead of others!

Posting crap like above is like idol worship, which it is

---

Man, you really are resistant to evidence.

---

Since you provide none, quash, that is a strange claim for you to make here.

---

None. Huh. You have a weird definition of "none" or "evidence" given that you jumped into a sub-thread that began with my offering the evidence contained in the Cato article.

---

You linked to an opinion piece.

Wow.

So much work, so compelling.

Make an effort next time, please.

---

Wrong, that sucker is full of data.

I was able to teach third graders the difference between fact and opinion. You still don't get it.

There is certainly an opinion being supported, by about thirty data points just in the first third of the article.

Why don't you make an effort and read it, and then tell me what facts are wrong. That's a sentence I have typed in response to your substance-less posts before; you never change.

---

Wrong, when you just post a link with nothing at all in comment or explanation, you are being lazy and making no effective argument whatsoever.

riflebear said:

---

---

^^^ P0S human there!

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

"The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump's border wall."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

---

^^^ Post your own opinions more often instead of others!

Posting crap like above is like idol worship, which it is

---

Man, you really are resistant to evidence.

---

Since you provide none, quash, that is a strange claim for you to make here.

---

None. Huh. You have a weird definition of "none" or "evidence" given that you jumped into a sub-thread that began with my offering the evidence contained in the Cato article.

---

You linked to an opinion piece.

Wow.

So much work, so compelling.

Make an effort next time, please.

---

Wrong, that sucker is full of data.

I was able to teach third graders the difference between fact and opinion. You still don't get it.

There is certainly an opinion being supported, by about thirty data points just in the first third of the article.

Why don't you make an effort and read it, and then tell me what facts are wrong. That's a sentence I have typed in response to your substance-less posts before; you never change.

---

Wrong, when you just post a link with nothing at all in comment or explanation, you are being lazy and making no effective argument whatsoever.

---

If you are too lazy to click a link I can't help you.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

"The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump's border wall."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

---

^^^ Post your own opinions more often instead of others!

Posting crap like above is like idol worship, which it is

---

Man, you really are resistant to evidence.

---

Since you provide none, quash, that is a strange claim for you to make here.

---

None. Huh. You have a weird definition of "none" or "evidence" given that you jumped into a sub-thread that began with my offering the evidence contained in the Cato article.

---

You linked to an opinion piece.

Wow.

So much work, so compelling.

Make an effort next time, please.

---

Wrong, that sucker is full of data.

I was able to teach third graders the difference between fact and opinion. You still don't get it.

There is certainly an opinion being supported, by about thirty data points just in the first third of the article.

Why don't you make an effort and read it, and then tell me what facts are wrong. That's a sentence I have typed in response to your substance-less posts before; you never change.

---

Wrong, when you just post a link with nothing at all in comment or explanation, you are being lazy and making no effective argument whatsoever.

---

If you are too lazy to click a link I can't help you.

---

The laziness is posting a link and nothing more.

If you can't defend your own position with any effort to even expound your points, you have abandoned the discussion ab initio.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

"The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump's border wall."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

---

^^^ Post your own opinions more often instead of others!

Posting crap like above is like idol worship, which it is

---

Man, you really are resistant to evidence.

---

Since you provide none, quash, that is a strange claim for you to make here.

---

None. Huh. You have a weird definition of "none" or "evidence" given that you jumped into a sub-thread that began with my offering the evidence contained in the Cato article.

---

You linked to an opinion piece.

Wow.

So much work, so compelling.

Make an effort next time, please.

---

Wrong, that sucker is full of data.

I was able to teach third graders the difference between fact and opinion. You still don't get it.

There is certainly an opinion being supported, by about thirty data points just in the first third of the article.

Why don't you make an effort and read it, and then tell me what facts are wrong. That's a sentence I have typed in response to your substance-less posts before; you never change.

---

Wrong, when you just post a link with nothing at all in comment or explanation, you are being lazy and making no effective argument whatsoever.

---

If you are too lazy to click a link I can't help you.

---

The laziness is posting a link and nothing more.

If you can't defend your own position with any effort to even expound your points, you have abandoned the discussion ab initio.

---

Read the link. It is fact filled
Here are a few problems cited by by the article
"The Legal Obstacles
Trump has been adamant that his wall will be built "ahead of schedule." For that to happen, he'll need to avoid the various legal issues that plagued earlier efforts. Entities other than the federal government-states, Indian tribes, private individuals-control over two-thirds of borderland property. Private parties own the vast majority of the border in Texas, and for this reason, roughly 70 percent of the existing border fence is located in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Almost all of it is on federally controlled land.

The Bush administration bullied property owners, threatening to sue them if they did not "voluntarily" hand over the rights to their land. It offered no compensation for doing so. Thinking that they had no recourse, some people signed off, but others refused. The government then attempted to use eminent domain, a procedure Trump has long defended, to seize their property, but the lawsuits imposed serious delays-seven years in one case.

In 2009, the Homeland Security inspector general concluded that the Border Patrol had "achieved [its] progress primarily in areas where environmental and real estate issues did not cause significant delay." One intransigent resident had owned his property since before the "Roosevelt easement," which gives the federal government a 60-foot right of way along the border. He fought the administration, so the fence had until recently a 1.2-mile gap on his land. Border residents fought more than a third of all land transfers, in fact. Because the Constitution promises just compensation for takings, Trump can do little to speed this process." Cato Inst

So your argument has nothing to do with the need for border security or the effectiveness of a wall, you just want to say it can't be done.

Weak argument, but OK.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So your argument has nothing to do with the need for border security or the effectiveness of a wall, you just want to say it can't be done.

Weak argument, but OK.

---

Yes the Cato article wants border security. It's wasteful use of security funds. No it's not a weak argument. Rivers, rain, and wind just mix with fences.
Read some more
"Wasteful security has always been the compromise that non-nationalists give to nationalists to obtain a better immigration system, one that treats people humanely and allows more of them to enter and live here legally. The most optimistic case is that the president builds some kind of barrier and takes credit for the drop in illegal immigration that began a decade ago. Seizing victory, he allows some form of immigration reform palatable to moderate Republicans to pass.

But agreeing to the symbol could be seen as conceding the principle behind it. If Trump understands the costs and the limited benefits of the wall, his true purpose may be to force his opponents to give in to the nationalist viewpoint and spend the ensuing decades building and maintaining its outward sign. Many Republicans, including the president, have adopted a "border security first" philosophy that requires certain metrics to be met before other humane reforms take effect, so the wall could simply be an attempt to move the goalposts for security so far that they can never be reached (especially if Mexico's reimbursement is a criterion).

Another possibility is that the wall serves as a grand red herring, forcing Trump's opponents to focus on the symbol while he enforces his true vision in other areas. The president's executive order mandating the construction of a wall also requires a crackdown on asylum seekers coming to the border from Central America. His order on interior enforcement renders nearly all unauthorized immigrants priorities for removal. He has still further orders planned to undermine the legal immigration system for foreign workers. And of course, he has tried to ban all people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering at all. As his opponents focus on the wall, the Trump administration targets immigrants from every direction.


Congressional Research Service In a sense, the wall merely represents the Trump administration's worst instincts and desires. It is harmful, wasteful, and offensive, but an ineffective wall is nonetheless better than the surge of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to round up and deport people that the president also wants. No wall has ever arrested, robbed, battered, or murdered nonviolent people, as immigration enforcement has. A wall will not create an interest group to lobby for itself, endorse nationalist presidential candidates, and demand more power and funding, as the Border Patrol union does.
The wall is more than a symbol. It will harm the lives of thousands of border residents and immigrants while wasting billions of tax dollars. But in a world run by nationalists, the one small source of comfort for non-nationalists over the next four years may be the knowledge that it could be worse."

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work....that's the real issue of course . Cause Dems want the votes of illegals .

Dems wants those millions of extra votes...so they can 'develop' the rest of the country into the exact same mess California has become .

---

Walls work for what?

And illegals don't vote. I know that's the newest alt-right fabrication you are spreading, but you saying it and the truth aren't connected.

---

Have described the success of the El Paso 64 mile wall several times . Doubt you have missed them. So your question is merely silly .

In Cal illegals ...by the thousands ....vote.

---

Link to illegals voting?

---

Google it yourself Uber driver .

Start with C A L I F O R N I A

---

So you can't prove it?

Edit: "thousands of illegals voting in california" turned up registrations, not votes.

What do you have?

---

So all these illegal aliens are registering to vote for no reason?

riflebear said:

---

---

That's different because it's him. He has the right to security. You and I don't (just ask him).

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So your argument has nothing to do with the need for border security or the effectiveness of a wall, you just want to say it can't be done.

Weak argument, but OK.

---

Yes the Cato article wants border security. It's wasteful use of security funds. No it's not a weak argument. Rivers, rain, and wind just mix with fences.
Read some more
"Wasteful security has always been the compromise that non-nationalists give to nationalists to obtain a better immigration system, one that treats people humanely and allows more of them to enter and live here legally. The most optimistic case is that the president builds some kind of barrier and takes credit for the drop in illegal immigration that began a decade ago. Seizing victory, he allows some form of immigration reform palatable to moderate Republicans to pass.

But agreeing to the symbol could be seen as conceding the principle behind it. If Trump understands the costs and the limited benefits of the wall, his true purpose may be to force his opponents to give in to the nationalist viewpoint and spend the ensuing decades building and maintaining its outward sign. Many Republicans, including the president, have adopted a "border security first" philosophy that requires certain metrics to be met before other humane reforms take effect, so the wall could simply be an attempt to move the goalposts for security so far that they can never be reached (especially if Mexico's reimbursement is a criterion).

Another possibility is that the wall serves as a grand red herring, forcing Trump's opponents to focus on the symbol while he enforces his true vision in other areas. The president's executive order mandating the construction of a wall also requires a crackdown on asylum seekers coming to the border from Central America. His order on interior enforcement renders nearly all unauthorized immigrants priorities for removal. He has still further orders planned to undermine the legal immigration system for foreign workers. And of course, he has tried to ban all people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering at all. As his opponents focus on the wall, the Trump administration targets immigrants from every direction.


Congressional Research Service In a sense, the wall merely represents the Trump administration's worst instincts and desires. It is harmful, wasteful, and offensive, but an ineffective wall is nonetheless better than the surge of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to round up and deport people that the president also wants. No wall has ever arrested, robbed, battered, or murdered nonviolent people, as immigration enforcement has. A wall will not create an interest group to lobby for itself, endorse nationalist presidential candidates, and demand more power and funding, as the Border Patrol union does.
The wall is more than a symbol. It will harm the lives of thousands of border residents and immigrants while wasting billions of tax dollars. But in a world run by nationalists, the one small source of comfort for non-nationalists over the next four years may be the knowledge that it could be worse."

---

Heh.

You know how to cut n paste.

Marginally better than just a bald link, but far from a compelling argument.

We spend more on illegals now than the wall would cost.

The wall works.

There is no good reason to not want a wall. You want things in addition, we can talk.

But we need a wall for the same reason everyone locks their door to their house.

The whiny article you linked to does nothing to dispute that at all.

quash said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

What is your beef with private property ownership, comrade?

---

He was clearly making fun of globalists like you who despise sovereignty, borders, protection of citizens from external threats and theft of domestic resources by foreign invaders who come for the freebies....comrade. Workers of the world unite, amarite!?!?

---

Yesterday, 6:49 a.m., this thread: " I acknowledged the sovereign right to protect citizens but also the human right to hire and work and travel."
Nah, you are not right.

---

a properly built and maintained border wall with entry portals effect this how?

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work....that's the real issue of course . Cause Dems want the votes of illegals .

Dems wants those millions of extra votes...so they can 'develop' the rest of the country into the exact same mess California has become .

---

Walls work for what?

And illegals don't vote. I know that's the newest alt-right fabrication you are spreading, but you saying it and the truth aren't connected.

---

Have described the success of the El Paso 64 mile wall several times . Doubt you have missed them. So your question is merely silly .

In Cal illegals ...by the thousands ....vote.

---

Link to illegals voting?

---

Google it yourself Uber driver .

Start with C A L I F O R N I A

---

So you can't prove it?

Edit: "thousands of illegals voting in california" turned up registrations, not votes.

What do you have?

---

So all these illegal aliens are registering to vote for no reason?

---

I don't know what their reasoning is. I just know registration is not voting.

Gruvin said:

---

quash said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

What is your beef with private property ownership, comrade?

---

He was clearly making fun of globalists like you who despise sovereignty, borders, protection of citizens from external threats and theft of domestic resources by foreign invaders who come for the freebies....comrade. Workers of the world unite, amarite!?!?

---

Yesterday, 6:49 a.m., this thread: " I acknowledged the sovereign right to protect citizens but also the human right to hire and work and travel."
Nah, you are not right.

---

a properly built and maintained border wall with entry portals effect this how?

---

It's not the facilities, it's the policies.

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work....that's the real issue of course . Cause Dems want the votes of illegals .

Dems wants those millions of extra votes...so they can 'develop' the rest of the country into the exact same mess California has become .

---

Walls work for what?

And illegals don't vote. I know that's the newest alt-right fabrication you are spreading, but you saying it and the truth aren't connected.

---

Have described the success of the El Paso 64 mile wall several times . Doubt you have missed them. So your question is merely silly .

In Cal illegals ...by the thousands ....vote.

---

Link to illegals voting?

---

Google it yourself Uber driver .

Start with C A L I F O R N I A

---

So you can't prove it?

Edit: "thousands of illegals voting in california" turned up registrations, not votes.

What do you have?

---

So all these illegal aliens are registering to vote for no reason?

---

I don't know what their reasoning is. I just know registration is not voting.

---

And having brush in hand isn't combing hair

Having pen in hand isn't writing

Blah blah blah

Just two short years ago, these obstructionist Democrat losers voted for $25B for border security.

Now they have gone full on stupid, simply because, well, "Trump".

No worries. Mexico will pay for it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

No worries. Mexico will pay for it.

---

They pretty much have with the new trade agreement.

Nothing to see here...

Imagine how the media would react if an American child was kidnapped and used to get something, there would be Amber alerts, 24/7 news coverage, social media campaigns. Unfortunately the liberals could care less about these immigrant kids because it doesn't fit their narrative and it would show Trump/GOP was right as usual.

These liberal California politicians are one of the biggest dangers to our country. Don't even acknowledge their own CA resident legal immigrant cop who was murdered by an illegal. Pathetic.

I've yet to see a Democrat/liberal on here explain or justify Americans dying in this debate? Anyone want to defend these illegals killing Americans? How many will it take for you to call out your own or will you avoid this too and call everyone racist?

riflebear said:

---

Nothing to see here...

Imagine how the media would react if an American child was kidnapped and used to get something, there would be Amber alerts, 24/7 news coverage, social media campaigns. Unfortunately the liberals could care less about these immigrant kids because it doesn't fit their narrative and it would show Trump/GOP was right as usual.

---

That' not 538 kidnappings.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Nothing to see here...

Imagine how the media would react if an American child was kidnapped and used to get something, there would be Amber alerts, 24/7 news coverage, social media campaigns. Unfortunately the liberals could care less about these immigrant kids because it doesn't fit their narrative and it would show Trump/GOP was right as usual.

---

That' not 538 kidnappings.

---

That's cartels.

riflebear said:

---

These liberal California politicians are one of the biggest dangers to our country. Don't even acknowledge their own CA resident legal immigrant cop who was murdered by an illegal. Pathetic.

---

Democrats are complicit to crimes constantly

Here, there and wherever they breath is poisoned by their presence

They are a cancer on our country and must be stopped before they eliminate all of us

Florda_mike said:

---

riflebear said:

---

These liberal California politicians are one of the biggest dangers to our country. Don't even acknowledge their own CA resident legal immigrant cop who was murdered by an illegal. Pathetic.

---

Democrats are complicit to crimes constantly

Here, there and wherever they breath is poisoned by their presence

They are a cancer on our country and must be stopped before they eliminate all of us

---

What is your preference today, death or exile?

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

riflebear said:

---

These liberal California politicians are one of the biggest dangers to our country. Don't even acknowledge their own CA resident legal immigrant cop who was murdered by an illegal. Pathetic.

---

Democrats are complicit to crimes constantly

Here, there and wherever they breath is poisoned by their presence

They are a cancer on our country and must be stopped before they eliminate all of us

---

What is your preference today, death or exile?

---

YOU GUYS are the ones that would be fine with killing those that disagree with you!

You just are so dam dishonest that you'd never say such

You guys are the Nazis going around deflecting by calling us Nazis

^^^ Truth!

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

riflebear said:

---

These liberal California politicians are one of the biggest dangers to our country. Don't even acknowledge their own CA resident legal immigrant cop who was murdered by an illegal. Pathetic.

---

Democrats are complicit to crimes constantly

Here, there and wherever they breath is poisoned by their presence

They are a cancer on our country and must be stopped before they eliminate all of us

---

What is your preference today, death or exile?

---

YOU GUYS are the ones that would be fine with killing those that disagree with you!

You just are so dam dishonest that you'd never say such

You guys are the Nazis going around deflecting by calling us Nazis

^^^ Truth!

---

So exile it is.

Just checking in this New Year to see if we ever got that $5B check from Mexico?

The fact that we have to negotiate defending our border or not is psychotic. This is the most absurd stance the left has ever taken.

Remember this NYTimes article... Keep ignoring facts Liberals...

Mr. Hunter calls the current fence a "shining example of what a border wall could do."

"I told Trump that if you want to look at a model, it's done, it's in San Diego where you have almost no illegal immigration," Mr. Hunter said. "Call it a fence, call it a wall. It's completely changed the area and made the border safe to live."

These racist Mexican Americans who work on the border have no clue what they are talking about, right Nancy & Chuck?

J.R. said:

---

Just checking in this New Year to see if we ever got that $5B check from Mexico?

---

As if you want a wall!

Hence, another deflection from peanut gallery JR