No 9/11, no building the Freedom Towers. Osama Bin Laden indirectly created thousands of American jobs.
True, but that a sick point in view of 3,000 American deaths.
Have you told the bureau of prisons that walls don’t work? All those walls and concertina wire topped fences, and still there are breakouts! You know what would work? Sequestering criminals in a lavishly appointed residential complex in an upscale neighborhood where the attendants (not guards, mind!) gently remind the tenants (not criminals! cant use ugly words like that) that its against the rules for them to leave until “their problems have been solved at the source”. I cant imagine why such a brilliant plan hasn’t already been carried into effect!
Snark aside, to address your drivel somewhat substantively:
Uh, yeah. It’s being treated as a purely political problem, not an operational problem with political significance. That’s the problem right there.
I don’t recall denying any established facts, you’ll have to point that out to me. I’ve called out plenty of unsubstantiated guess work, statistics with unknown methodologies that don’t reflect reality, suppositions, and so forth, but what ‘fact’ is it that I am “denying”?
You’re an expert on my desires, now, Slim?
Since I have no idea what the evidence shows (or what it is you’re citing as evidence), I cannot have an opinion on that. I do believe that, contrary to your repeated assertions, walls are more effective than nothing. Locks don’t stop determined criminals, either, but for some reason, people keep insisting that their doors have them! Everyone must be insane, right? Except for you, of course, living in your house with no walls behind doors with no locks…
I’m not asking it to. Even a small reduction will have far reaching social and economic benefits.
Again, I’m not asking for perfection. I’ll happily accept an incremental improvement, paid off in “lives not lost” that will never show up on a balance sheet because they won’t become data points in a statistical analysis.
I seem to recall you objecting to a border fence (wall, whatever) because it would disrupt the lives of families straddling the border, preventing the members free association with one another. So on the one hand, you claim we cant have it because it works… and on the other you claim we cant have it because it doesn’t work…? Funny how it either works to much or too little depending on which argument you’re using at the moment.
Yeah, the walls of a house don’t stop people admitted by the resident via the front door, but they are guests at the residents pleasure, and if they shit on the carpet the resident has every right to chuck them right back out again, not a responsibility to knock down all the walls to be fair to everybody else who wants to cop a squat.
I’ll bet we identify totally different problems and sources.
Until humanity ends, treating symptoms is all we got.
We can’t keep drugs out of our prisons, not even our max security ones. So how do you propose keeping drugs out of the country?
Drugs are smuggled into those places the same way people are across the border. Through the entry points.
The fact of the matter is qix, you’re not going to win me over giving me an argument I know you know is faulty.
The wall fails because of social circumstances surrounding it, and because there is a market engaged to overcome it, stemming from a surplus of demand the legal system isn’t answering.
If you don’t want the market coalescing labor and capital to defeat the wall, you need to offer a legal alternative for people to use. Something the Coyotes can’t compete with.
Otherwise, putting more resources on the border just spurs on black market innovation, and we default to where we are. The cost Coyotes charge for crossing the border marginally rises, and nothing else changes.
We’ve been seeing this for 50 years; human nature nor market dynamics are going to change anytime soon.
There’s no technology that doesn’t have a cheap, asymmetrical countermeasure. If the Taliban can work around drone strikes, Coyotes can use apps to work around detection nets.
Efficacy. People don’t follow laws that go against the grain of implicit lived reality.
This is why prohibition failed. This is why gun control laws fail. This is why food truck bans fail.
The law does nothing to subtract the demand, and the demand coalesces labor and capital that overcome the defenses.
What’s more, we aren’t talking about a vice, or something people could questionably get along without. We’re talking about people, many of whom are desperate, just trying to make a living.
Something that is inherently sympathetic, and which people in this country willfully help them to do, regardless of what the law is.
The wall does nothing to change the lack of efficacy in a poorly written immigration law, made by Democrats to appease the Unions.
You don’t answer for this. I’ve never once seen you try.
Just like you’ve tried twice to appoint yourself mine?
I’ll stop doing you if you stop doing me.
Gun laws disrupt the lives of legal gun owners. Not the ones who don’t give a ****. It’s the same thing Qix.
This is not even close to the reality most people are in;
People are willfully brought here on the wrong Visa, and then businesses fight in court to keep them here.
Because we don’t have enough of the right visas for people to use.
On their own, renewing visas is a laborious process, where the government is constantly dragging its feet. People can & do become illegal, while having done nothing wrong to renew themselves.
Don’t want people breaking the system? Then make it function. You’d get less violators if you don’t make the system itself an obstacle for reasons that only make sense to the bureaucrats running it.
If people en mass are to play the game, that game has to be perceived to be at least somewhat fair, not a runaround.
It’s too much government in immigration, not enough answer to demand.
That’s the cause. The answer is to deregulate, and to raise legal immigration. Create the alternative Coyotes can’t compete with.
I’m kind of partial to the snark myself!
No kidding. I’m not even trying to.
I trued for a week to get him to concede that we should not allow criminals and terrorists into the country. He won’t concede that point in plain English. He only said that he had covered it in previous posts. You are supposed to wade through tens of thousands of his words to find out that he supports safeguarding the safety of American citizens. Sheeze! Why bother? An honest person should have no problem agreeing with that point. .
Which I already did. I quote myself because i’m tired of the runaround.
At this point I can only conclude that you’re faking send. I already said this, and you’re still feigning outrage.
Way to prove that you’re not being honest with me.
If you were being honest, you would have dropped this, and told me why you believe a guest worker program wouldn’t work. Instead you play games.
Again,. the bigger joke is we don’t keep drugs out of prisons.
How do you propose this wall keep drugs out of the country?
Only a fool or a zealot puts intentions before the factual result.
Either show me evidence this works, or you’re just talk.
There is no runaround. I give you direct questions, you won’t answer them. You are totally slippery and dishonest. You burned your bridges with me months ago when I offered you some direct questions, like should we deny access to criminals and terrorists? Your evasion spoke volumes.
As for your guest worker program, sure I’d support it, but what concerns me is that it will be like visas. The workers will overstay them and disappear.
I am not against immigration, but it needs to be orderly, not just for anyone who comes across the border illegally. I would also make process cheaper for those who seek it honestly.
I would like to find compromises, but until recently, your position has been open borders.
Yes You did. Quoting myself saying terrorists and criminals deserve vetting is an answer.
It’s not as if I went back and edited those.
I’m tired of answering these non-questions I’ve answered over a dozen times before, I want a policy discussion, not truisms, and certainly not feigns of manufactured outrage.
It was never open borders. It was always about a guest worker program.
In can quote myself saying this in 2014.
You’re a little late to come in 5 years later to say my position is something else.
More double talk. You can’t answer a straight question.
After a while one has a to conclude that you agree with AOC, Omar and Nancy Pelosi. “MS-13 members are all God’s children” … until they rob you, kill you and stamp on your face.
Nope, Criminals and terrorists should be vetted. I’ve said this to you, directly, three times now.
You can’t claim otherwise and be honest.
You’re playing games Send. I don’t appreciate it.
Thank you! You finally gave a direct and reasonable answer to the my question.
It may not stop it, but it sure as taxes slows it down. When you force the bad guys to jump through more hoops to do their trade, their trade declines, all else being equal.
Yeah, now get some kind of answer as to how that vetting is supposed to occur with no control over our border. You notice that what he is really opposed to is any kind of enforcement mechanism, or the use of any existing departments or bureaus to actually do any enforcing? It isn’t so much existing immigration law he is opposed to, but the enforcement of it,
Maybe we should apply the same “logic” to our legal points of entry and our airports.
Why bother with passports, visas, baggage inspection, weapons search etc. The BGs can just walk them over the border.
Prohibition did not fail and gun control laws have essentially disarmed the majority of law abiding citizens; which is exactly what they were designed to do.
This would be one of those incomparable comparisons that you love to make when you are defending the indefensible.
We have a disarmed continent of vulnerable sheep in Europe due to gun control laws … knives too … free speech going fast.
Only a fool applies a standard of 100 percent success 100 percent of the time to mean good policy and anything less equals a failed policy.
And a dishonest fool knowingly applies this ridiculous standard on one side of the argument; when the lack success condemns their own view it is inconsequential.
Some drugs still get into prisons so walls are a failure?
Illegals only murder, rape, steal, distribute guns and drugs and destroy property while not paying taxes sometimes but not enough to justify enforcement of our immigration laws or building any infrastructure to help control the problem.
You defend your completely indefensible position by stating a lack of 100 percent success in the proposed solution.
Walls work a hell of a lot better than no walls, you lock your door every time you leave your home or car for that very reason; in spite of knowing that sometimes locked houses get robbed and locked cars get stolen.
You have no argument that your own actions do not nullify even if nobody ever bothered to point out the absurdity.