Should the US have a Secure Border?

[evensaul]

It's a simple question, and I'm seeking a debate about the larger picture, not every little detail of policies and enforcement measures. Should the United States have a secure border that prevents illegal immigration? Or should we have an open border that allows any who want to cross it come into our country?

I believe we should have a secure border, with controlled and legal immigration, and those attempting illegal entry should be turned back.

Is there someone who disagrees and wants to debate the issue?

[CowboyX]

How secure? A wall can also keep you in just ask the East Germans.

[Ibelsd]

How secure? A wall can also keep you in just ask the East Germans.

I'd love to have a serious conversation about this with someone who is a liberal or is on the liberal side of the spectrum. This, though, isn't a serious response. First, you answer a question with a question. Second, you use an historically illiterate analogy. Seriously, to what extent would you support securing the Southern border? If not a wall, then what? I should note, though, if you are going to argue that a wall would be ineffective, then your analogy makes even less sense. I look forward to your response.

[CowboyX]

Seriously, to what extent would you support securing the Southern border?

You just answered a question with a question...lol...and with the SAME question no less. EPIC FAIL

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Second, you use an historically illiterate analogy.

How so?

[evensaul]

Cowboy, you've developed a habit of jumping into my new threads with flippant and unproductive posts that serve only to pollute. Please either seriously participate or refrain from posting.

[Sigfried]

I'm for some medium ground on the question.

I'm against making the border some kind of walled fortress that becomes an impermeable barrier to man and beast. I'm also agaisnst entirely open borders with no restrictions in immigration what so ever.

If I had to pick, I'd go with the no restrictions, but its a bit like picking if I want to burn to death or be buried alive, neither really appeals as a great situation. No borders is only better because I'd like to see a world where borders are not needed because anywhere you live, you get reasonable protections of your basic liberties and can make a reasonable living for yourself. But that isn't quite our world just yet.

I look at borders two ways: Pragmatism and Ethics

Ethics: I have competing concerns. On one hand, I like emigration and mixing. I think its great for people to be able to live in a culture that suits them and to be able to join into a community that matches their personal values. I also think that it's great to offer a home to people drivien away from theirs by natural disaster or human folly. On the other hand, I think people in a community have a poltical interest in some cultural and legal continuity that they have built over generations and which can be undermined and destroyed by too much imigration of people who are set agaisnt those values and interests.

Pragmatism: Immigration policy should seek to balance the ethical concerns and interests. Allowing for a level of immigration that makes the world a hospitable place where people have meaningful choices about where they live, yet allows for cultural continuity and which keeps disruption down to a dull roar at most.

There is also a cost/benefit consideration. Immigration has both in terms of costs and benefits of the immigrants themselves and the costs and benefits of enforcing immigration rules. Your boarder security should be done on getting the most bang for your buck as it were. Often the most absolutely effective measures have a low rate of return.

So I'm not sure you can really have a rousing difference with me except to get into the weeds and specifics and what boarder measures are cost effective and which are not. If a policy costs $100K just to stop a mexican from coming to the US to pick crops, that's just a dumb use of tax money. On the other hand if we allow anyone to show up and they are all just unemployed vagrants, that's not wise either. Generally the smart pollicies are on middle grounds and creating insentives that encourage the kind of behavior you want to see.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

Cowboy, you've developed a habit of jumping into my new threads with flippant and unproductive posts that serve only to pollute. Please either seriously participate or refrain from posting.

Word to the wise, if you just don't respond, that minimizes the impact, by replying and starting a debate over his debating you just increase the pollution.

[Ibelsd]

I'm for some medium ground on the question.

I'm against making the border some kind of walled fortress that becomes an impermeable barrier to man and beast. I'm also agaisnst entirely open borders with no restrictions in immigration what so ever.

If I had to pick, I'd go with the no restrictions, but its a bit like picking if I want to burn to death or be buried alive, neither really appeals as a great situation. No borders is only better because I'd like to see a world where borders are not needed because anywhere you live, you get reasonable protections of your basic liberties and can make a reasonable living for yourself. But that isn't quite our world just yet.

I look at borders two ways: Pragmatism and Ethics

Ethics: I have competing concerns. On one hand, I like emigration and mixing. I think its great for people to be able to live in a culture that suits them and to be able to join into a community that matches their personal values. I also think that it's great to offer a home to people drivien away from theirs by natural disaster or human folly. On the other hand, I think people in a community have a poltical interest in some cultural and legal continuity that they have built over generations and which can be undermined and destroyed by too much imigration of people who are set agaisnt those values and interests.

Pragmatism: Immigration policy should seek to balance the ethical concerns and interests. Allowing for a level of immigration that makes the world a hospitable place where people have meaningful choices about where they live, yet allows for cultural continuity and which keeps disruption down to a dull roar at most.

There is also a cost/benefit consideration. Immigration has both in terms of costs and benefits of the immigrants themselves and the costs and benefits of enforcing immigration rules. Your boarder security should be done on getting the most bang for your buck as it were. Often the most absolutely effective measures have a low rate of return.

So I'm not sure you can really have a rousing difference with me except to get into the weeds and specifics and what boarder measures are cost effective and which are not. If a policy costs $100K just to stop a mexican from coming to the US to pick crops, that's just a dumb use of tax money. On the other hand if we allow anyone to show up and they are all just unemployed vagrants, that's not wise either. Generally the smart pollicies are on middle grounds and creating insentives that encourage the kind of behavior you want to see.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------



Word to the wise, if you just don't respond, that minimizes the impact, by replying and starting a debate over his debating you just increase the pollution.

To your point, I don't necessarily believe we "need" a wall. There are lots of other ways to limit illegal immigration. However, in this political climate, the wall may be the only thing approaching a solution which has a chance of getting done. For instance, mandating the use of e-verify would probably be a game changer. If people here illegally couldn't get work, fewer would come. There would still exist an underground economy, but it would not support the 10-12 million who are here. We could tax remittances or regulate them so those here illegally couldn't access them. I know there are downsides to this as well, but it is another constraint that could make it harder for those here illegally. Additionally, one of the issues is that the justice system is completely overwhelmed. Consider that 80% of immigrants who claim asylum are granted an additional hearing and only 20% of those actually are granted asylum. We could relieve a good deal of pressure on the justice system by making the initial review much tighter so that those granted a secondary review are greatly reduced. No one who crosses illegally should be allowed into the interior of the country where they almost never show up for their immigration hearings. This is just common sense (or should be anyhow). So, the wall would have a positive impact in terms of relieving some of this pressure by reducing the flow of illegal immigration. No one of note is against immigration in general. Most people simply believe we have a right, as citizens of this country, in choosing the people who get to join our community.

[evensaul]

I'm against making the border some kind of walled fortress that becomes an impermeable barrier to man and beast.

Why shouldn't our border be impassable to people trying to enter our country illegally? Isn't the door on your house closed and locked, especially when you're away?

I have competing concerns. On one hand, I like emigration and mixing. I think its great for people to be able to live in a culture that suits them and to be able to join into a community that matches their personal values. I also think that it's great to offer a home to people drivien away from theirs by natural disaster or human folly.

A secure border doesn't prevent legal and controlled immigration.

Immigration policy should seek to balance the ethical concerns and interests. Allowing for a level of immigration that makes the world a hospitable place where people have meaningful choices about where they live, yet allows for cultural continuity and which keeps disruption down to a dull roar at most.

We could still have a level of legal immigration while putting an end to illegal entry.

There is also a cost/benefit consideration. Immigration has both in terms of costs and benefits of the immigrants themselves and the costs and benefits of enforcing immigration rules. Your boarder security should be done on getting the most bang for your buck as it were. Often the most absolutely effective measures have a low rate of return.

If you're going to do that calculation, you'll need to factor in possible savings on the cost of ICE operations across the interior of the country, the cost of court hearings for illegal aliens apprehended within our borders, the cost of deportation, the cost of caring for all the children, the cost of welfare programs for poor illegal aliens, and the cost to citizens who are displaced from construction, restaurant, cleaning and other jobs by illegal aliens, and the cost to citizens who are victims of criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. Let me know where you stand after that assessment.

So I'm not sure you can really have a rousing difference with me...

On the contrary, I think you're absolutely dead wrong.

[Sigfried]

Why shouldn't our border be impassable to people trying to enter our country illegally? Isn't the door on your house closed and locked, especially when you're away?

It is cheap and easy to lock my house. Though if a criminal wants to get inside, it's still really pretty easy to do. To truly secure it, I'd have to build it underground with no windows and bank vault doors. I'm not going to do that. Instead I have easy to break windows and locks that a I could break in about 20 seconds if I had a mind to. I like windows more than I like being truly secure.

A secure border doesn't prevent legal and controlled immigration.

If you decide to make it all legal then you don't need a border at all. Both this argument and yours are equally unimportant.

We could still have a level of legal immigration while putting an end to illegal entry.

I could cut off my dick and eat a salad! Again, you utterly miss the point here.

If you're going to do that calculation, you'll need to factor in possible savings on the cost of ICE operations across the interior of the country, the cost of court hearings for illegal aliens apprehended within our borders, the cost of deportation, the cost of caring for all the children, the cost of welfare programs for poor illegal aliens, and the cost to citizens who are displaced from construction, restaurant, cleaning and other jobs by illegal aliens, and the cost to citizens who are victims of criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. Let me know where you stand after that assessment.

I stand exactly where I stood before, you need to balance costs and benefits and make a good decision that is based on thoughtful consideration.

On the contrary, I think you're absolutely dead wrong.

Let me know when you are ready to make an argument as to why.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

To your point, I don't necessarily believe we "need" a wall. There are lots of other ways to limit illegal immigration. However, in this political climate, the wall may be the only thing approaching a solution which has a chance of getting done.

if castrating your kids was the only way to ensure they don't get herpes, would that be a good argument for doing it? We have a booming economy (for now), a declining crime rate (mostly), and life is basically pretty decent. Why do I need to build a giant wall on our southern border like some kind of midevil fortress.

For instance, mandating the use of E-verify would probably be a game changer. If people here illegally couldn't get work, fewer would come. There would still exist an underground economy, but it would not support the 10-12 million who are here.

I'm all for it, it is actually a pretty good tool for this purpose. I think it is part of a good immigration policy.

We could tax remittances or regulate them so those here illegally couldn't access them.

Taxing them is tricky because businesses remit all the time and you couldn't really identify what reason they were doing it for. But you could limit access to them and that could be a cheap and effective measure.

Additionally, one of the issues is that the justice system is completely overwhelmed. Consider that 80% of immigrants who claim asylum are granted an additional hearing and only 20% of those actually are granted asylum. We could relieve a good deal of pressure on the justice system by making the initial review much tighter so that those granted a secondary review are greatly reduced.

You could also releave it by making the process simpler and less stringent. Like with drug laws, I feel a lot of the waste is because we have the wrong baseline assumptions. Instead of ever more stringent drug laws, just stop deciding you hate drug use. Manage it rather than try to prohibit it. Funnel immigrants into legal channels that make sese, nto simply fighting to keep as many out as possible.

No one who crosses illegally should be allowed into the interior of the country where they almost never show up for their immigration hearings. This is just common sense (or should be anyhow). So, the wall would have a positive impact in terms of relieving some of this pressure by reducing the flow of illegal immigration. No one of note is against immigration in general. Most people simply believe we have a right, as citizens of this country, in choosing the people who get to join our community.

Walls are just a dumb way to do it. Expensive and with a low effectiveness, and hard to modify when you change your mind about the policy. They are a super dumb idea. Of course we have the right to put up a wall and put kids into holding fascilities while we prosecute their parents for seeking a better life. But should we? I don't think so. I think it is stupid and there are much better ways to handle immigration pressures. They start by askigng yourself, what can we do to take advantage of the fact people want to come here and earn a living.

[evensaul]

It is cheap and easy to lock my house. Though if a criminal wants to get inside, it's still really pretty easy to do. To truly secure it, I'd have to build it underground with no windows and bank vault doors. I'm not going to do that. Instead I have easy to break windows and locks that a I could break in about 20 seconds if I had a mind to. I like windows more than I like being truly secure.

My simple point is that you do keep it locked in a way that a mom with kid coming to your door can't just walk right in. Our country's border should have at least the same.

If you decide to make it all legal then you don't need a border at all. Both this argument and yours are equally unimportant.

You'd have to explain more about why my argument is unimportant, if you want me to understand. I do believe we should have immigration. New blood is good for our country. Immigrants generally work very hard, and most come here with only the best intentions. At the same time, immigration should be controlled at acceptable levels, with immigrants who have been screened for diseases, criminal records, etc.

I could cut off my dick and eat a salad! Again, you utterly miss the point here.

Then please make your point a little clearer, as I will try to do here.

I don't see why it is our country's obligation to "make the world a hospitable place" or to provide people from other countries a choice in where to live. Immigration policy can and probably should include some humanitarian inputs, but that shouldn't be the major goal. The main goal of US immigration policy should be to bring in people we need such as skilled workers for jobs in critical areas that cannot otherwise be filled, to add vitality to small business efforts, and add younger workers to the job rolls. Adding millions of unskilled workers to the welfare and Democrat voter rolls shouldn't be the focus, which is the way I perceive the growing open borders movement.

... you need to balance costs and benefits and make a good decision that is based on thoughtful consideration.

Right. That's what this thread is supposed to be about. So what do you think the "good decision" should be?

[CowboyX]

Cowboy, you've developed a habit of jumping into my new threads with flippant and unproductive posts that serve only to pollute. Please either seriously participate or refrain from posting.

My post served to flush out an otherwise ill thought out OP that was nothing but a straw man argument. The rest of the posts prove that. You're welcome.

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Adding millions of unskilled workers to the welfare and Democrat voter rolls shouldn't be the focus, which is the way I perceive the growing open borders movement.

I'll cite this statement as my example. Please explain this "movement".

[evensaul]

Regardless of what label is used, Democrats clearly do not favor a secure border, and that is becoming more evident as the years pass. They appear to want immigration into the US to be automatic upon request or at the taking, legal or not, because so far as I can tell, Democrats never talk about a need to make the border secure, and they oppose virtually all efforts to control immigration. That is an observation I am making, not an argument for a secure border. And I haven't suggested that you or Democrats generally are arguing openly for lax border control, though I'm hoping you'll come out in favor of it if that is what you truly believe. In summary, stating a perceived motive (increasing welfare and Dem voter rolls) for a behavior (not supporting a secure border) isn't a straw man argument.

Would you like to share your position and join the debate?

[Ibelsd]

if castrating your kids was the only way to ensure they don't get herpes, would that be a good argument for doing it? We have a booming economy (for now), a declining crime rate (mostly), and life is basically pretty decent. Why do I need to build a giant wall on our southern border like some kind of midevil fortress.

Your analogy is absurd. If the choice was to have no front door or an overpriced cast-iron front door, I suspect most people would prefer the latter.

In terms of stemming the flow of illegal immigration, some of us feel it is important. So, I'll take whatever positive steps are available. We have entire communities here made up of illegal immigrants. They get counted in the census and inflate the power of liberals/Democrats. This means they have a fairly large political impact. There is social cost in the forms taxes, social services, and even transportation. A declining crime root sounds good in the main, but it does not matter for individuals impacted by crime. And when we consider the gun legislation liberals desire, why don't they have the same reaction whenever an illegal immigrant commits a murder? At least, in the case of illegal immigration, those crimes could truly be prevented.

In terms of the wall, I am not claiming it is some sort of panacea or even the best solution. I am suggesting it may be the only solution that is politically viable. I mean if the Republicans and Democrats actually wanted to solve the problem, they could do it without a new wall. However, a wall is just the sort of half-measure which could get done. So, I am willing to take what I can get and hope for more later.

I'm all for it, it is actually a pretty good tool for this purpose. I think it is part of a good immigration policy.

Too bad most politicians (in either party) really want to solve the problem.

Taxing them is tricky because businesses remit all the time and you couldn't really identify what reason they were doing it for. But you could limit access to them and that could be a cheap and effective measure.

I noted that there were problems. Again, there is no serious effort made to control illegal immigration, so this ain't happening either.

You could also releave it by making the process simpler and less stringent. Like with drug laws, I feel a lot of the waste is because we have the wrong baseline assumptions. Instead of ever more stringent drug laws, just stop deciding you hate drug use. Manage it rather than try to prohibit it. Funnel immigrants into legal channels that make sese, nto simply fighting to keep as many out as possible

.

Sure. However, like all the other suggestions, it ain't happening.

Walls are just a dumb way to do it. Expensive and with a low effectiveness, and hard to modify when you change your mind about the policy. They are a super dumb idea. Of course we have the right to put up a wall and put kids into holding fascilities while we prosecute their parents for seeking a better life. But should we? I don't think so. I think it is stupid and there are much better ways to handle immigration pressures. They start by askigng yourself, what can we do to take advantage of the fact people want to come here and earn a living.

I think we should. Because as noted above, it is the only half-serious improvement to the issue which has a shot of happening. You realize when Americans go to jail, they are separated from their children, right? I really don't see how treating people crossing the border illegally are any different? Of course a wall would severely reduce the number of adults who would bring children and, in particular, reduce the number of children who could viably cross the border unaccompanied by an adult. It is not a panacea, but it does offer an improvement.

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

Regardless of what label is used, Democrats clearly do not favor a secure border, and that is becoming more evident as the years pass. They appear to want immigration into the US to be automatic upon request or at the taking, legal or not, because so far as I can tell, Democrats never talk about a need to make the border secure, and they oppose virtually all efforts to control immigration. That is an observation I am making, not an argument for a secure border. And I haven't suggested that you or Democrats generally are arguing openly for lax border control, though I'm hoping you'll come out in favor of it if that is what you truly believe. In summary, stating a perceived motive (increasing welfare and Dem voter rolls) for a behavior (not supporting a secure border) isn't a straw man argument.

Would you like to share your position and join the debate?

Let's be clear Even, Republicans aren't serious about securing the border either. Republican congress can't even agree on a bill to push forward. They are feckless in this regard. On balance, probably slightly better than Democrats, but not by much.

[evensaul]

Let's be clear Even, Republicans aren't serious about securing the border either. Republican congress can't even agree on a bill to push forward. They are feckless in this regard. On balance, probably slightly better than Democrats, but not by much.

Agreed. But do liberals even give lip service to the concept of border security? Nope. Not on the Hill, and not even in this thread.

[Sigfried]

My simple point is that you do keep it locked in a way that a mom with kid coming to your door can't just walk right in. Our country's border should have at least the same.

It's too simple. We already have locks on the door, they keep out most people who aren't determined. But when someone is very determined a lock is not much of an abstacle. Same as the border. So we have locks already, we installed some deadbolts, and we have an alarm company working for us. The border wall is like putting up barbed wire around your house, digging a moat and installing deadly dobermans. I'm not intersted in any of that.

You'd have to explain more about why my argument is unimportant, if you want me to understand. I do believe we should have immigration. New blood is good for our country. Immigrants generally work very hard, and most come here with only the best intentions. At the same time, immigration should be controlled at acceptable levels, with immigrants who have been screened for diseases, criminal records, etc.

We don't disagree about that, except that "acceptable levels" is probably much higher for me than for you. My point is that there are limits to how far you go to enforce certain laws. And at some point the cure becomes worse than the disease. We don't need 100% border security. We don't need to be a fortress America surrounded by land mines and walls and machine gun implacements or what have you. The benefit of keeping out very determined immigrants is not worth the expense, hassle, or expansion of government.

I say the same to people on the left about welfare. Some ammount of it is very helpful, but you can't save people from poverty who are bound and determined to sabotage their lives at every step, it just isn't woth the effort.

I don't see why it is our country's obligation to "make the world a hospitable place" or to provide people from other countries a choice in where to live.

It's not an obligation, its a choice. No one needs to be a decent person, but the world sure is a better place when people are decent. You don't have to be polite, but life is nicer when people are polite.

Immigration policy can and probably should include some humanitarian inputs, but that shouldn't be the major goal. The main goal of US immigration policy should be to bring in people we need such as skilled workers for jobs in critical areas that cannot otherwise be filled, to add vitality to small business efforts, and add younger workers to the job rolls. Adding millions of unskilled workers to the welfare and Democrat voter rolls shouldn't be the focus, which is the way I perceive the growing open borders movement.

I disagree to some extent but not entirely. The problem is that the political right thinks the only effective way to accomplish this is with walls and jails and if it isn't working, more walls and jails. And to justify it, they talk up how dirty and scarey all those imigrants are which feeds into racism and bigotry. It's the same kind of attitude that gave us the drug war.

Right. That's what this thread is supposed to be about. So what do you think the "good decision" should be?

At the risk of being over argumentative... the thread is about SHOULD we have a secure border, not HOW should we secure our border. Which is why I said we don't have that much difference. I think we should have a secure border, but for me, that doesn't mean 100% secure. It just means we should take reasonable measures. And by reasonable, I mean cost effective.

But you asked so I'll answer...
Stuff we already have....
Checkpoints at roadways that cross the border.
Immigration stations at all ports of call, airports and the like where international passangers can arrive in the us
Some internal checkpoints on major roadways leading out of likely border crossing areas
A national database of eligible foreign workers

Stuff we don't have.. (I think)
Make use of the national database required with singifican fines for failing to use it to verify non-us citizens for employment eligibility
A national citizinship ID card that serves as proof of US citizenship
Nearly unlimited work visa programs
A special tax on foreign workers proportional to their pay above and beyond normal payroll taxes (the rate of the tax is correlated to the US unemployment rate, the higher unemployment, the higher the tax)
Amnesty from immigration violation is available if an appropriate fine can be paid
Birthright citizenship is only available if one or more parents is a citizen

I need to do more research to offer suggestions
Refugee and asylum seekers

[CowboyX]

Regardless of what label is used, Democrats clearly do not favor a secure border, and that is becoming more evident as the years pass. They appear to want immigration into the US to be automatic upon request or at the taking, legal or not, because so far as I can tell, Democrats never talk about a need to make the border secure, and they oppose virtually all efforts to control immigration. That is an observation I am making, not an argument for a secure border. And I haven't suggested that you or Democrats generally are arguing openly for lax border control, though I'm hoping you'll come out in favor of it if that is what you truly believe. In summary, stating a perceived motive (increasing welfare and Dem voter rolls) for a behavior (not supporting a secure border) isn't a straw man argument.

Would you like to share your position and join the debate?

Convince me of the problem and that it needs to be handled at the border.

[Sigfried]

Your analogy is absurd. If the choice was to have no front door or an overpriced cast-iron front door, I suspect most people would prefer the latter.

Hardly. We already have a front door, we've had one since the late 19th century. I've been to the border, I've gone from Canada and Mexico to the US and vise versa. I assure you we have a door. It is not an iron fortress door, but it is a door. It doesn't stop everybody but it does stop a lot of people.

In terms of stemming the flow of illegal immigration, some of us feel it is important. So, I'll take whatever positive steps are available. We have entire communities here made up of illegal immigrants. They get counted in the census and inflate the power of liberals/Democrats. This means they have a fairly large political impact. There is social cost in the forms taxes, social services, and even transportation. A declining crime root sounds good in the main, but it does not matter for individuals impacted by crime. And when we consider the gun legislation liberals desire, why don't they have the same reaction whenever an illegal immigrant commits a murder? At least, in the case of illegal immigration, those crimes could truly be prevented.

Oh god, if I have to listen to one more "what about the liberals!" I'm going to throttle someone. I DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS WHAT THE LIBERALS OR CONSERVITIVES THINK. I want to talk about whar you think and what I think.The hypocrits can go **** themselves.

Either you think that general statistics matter or you think that individual anecdotes matter. Go ahead and choose but don't just jump into the hypocrite bandwaggon on using whihever suits your argument at the moment. When we want to talk about public policy, I think general trends matter much more than individual expereince. When we talk about individual choices, then individual circumstances matter a lot more.

Every citizen of the US also has costs and benefits. They all get social services and transportation etc... For me, I don't weigh the value of a person by the fact they were born in the US or not. For me, what really makes a difference is if they are trying to be a good member of the community or not. I have more love for a hard working immigrant than a lazy American.

In terms of the wall, I am not claiming it is some sort of panacea or even the best solution. I am suggesting it may be the only solution that is politically viable. I mean if the Republicans and Democrats actually wanted to solve the problem, they could do it without a new wall. However, a wall is just the sort of half-measure which could get done. So, I am willing to take what I can get and hope for more later.

Well the wall is just ****ing stupid so I don't want it. I'd much rather have too many illegal immigrants that a big ****ing wall around my country. So no one building a wall is ever going to get my vote. I'm fine with what we have by compariosn. Border checks, road checks, and I'm fine with beefing up the national registry, with deporting people that get caught illegally in the country, and with penalizing people that hire illegals more significantly. My main thrust would be to greatly expand legal immigration on work visas and tax those jobs.

I noted that there were problems. Again, there is no serious effort made to control illegal immigration, so this ain't happening either.

You are getting taken for a ride Ibelsd. In 1990 we spent $263 million on boarder patroll alone, and by 2016 it has increased to more than $3.8 billion. We spend more than $18 billion on ICE and Customs today. Do we have dramaticallly lower illegal imigration as a result of all that spending? You tell me.

Sure. However, like all the other suggestions, it ain't happening.

I'd support those efforts, but I'm not supporing stupid walls.

I think we should. Because as noted above, it is the only half-serious improvement to the issue which has a shot of happening. You realize when Americans go to jail, they are separated from their children, right? I really don't see how treating people crossing the border illegally are any different?

Throwing people in jail who are only accused of a crime is something we do in proportionality to the seriousness of the crime and the danger the person poses to the public. Trying to flee your **** hole country and get to the US where you can find work is neither some great danger to the public nore a great crime in my view. So they should not generally be held in jail awaiting trial unless they are also dangerous in some other respect. But the zero tolerance policy throws em all in jail and keeps them there until they can get trial. That's bursting the seems of our jail capacity and causing families to spend a long period apart from their kids.

[evensaul]

Convince me of the problem and that it needs to be handled at the border.

I keep hoping that some day you’ll once again participate in a thread with a thoughtful and meaningful post. I guess this won’t be the thread.

[Ibelsd]

Hardly. We already have a front door, we've had one since the late 19th century. I've been to the border, I've gone from Canada and Mexico to the US and vise versa. I assure you we have a door. It is not an iron fortress door, but it is a door. It doesn't stop everybody but it does stop a lot of people.



Oh god, if I have to listen to one more "what about the liberals!" I'm going to throttle someone. I DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS WHAT THE LIBERALS OR CONSERVITIVES THINK. I want to talk about whar you think and what I think.The hypocrits can go **** themselves.

Either you think that general statistics matter or you think that individual anecdotes matter. Go ahead and choose but don't just jump into the hypocrite bandwaggon on using whihever suits your argument at the moment. When we want to talk about public policy, I think general trends matter much more than individual expereince. When we talk about individual choices, then individual circumstances matter a lot more.

Every citizen of the US also has costs and benefits. They all get social services and transportation etc... For me, I don't weigh the value of a person by the fact they were born in the US or not. For me, what really makes a difference is if they are trying to be a good member of the community or not. I have more love for a hard working immigrant than a lazy American.



Well the wall is just ****ing stupid so I don't want it. I'd much rather have too many illegal immigrants that a big ****ing wall around my country. So no one building a wall is ever going to get my vote. I'm fine with what we have by compariosn. Border checks, road checks, and I'm fine with beefing up the national registry, with deporting people that get caught illegally in the country, and with penalizing people that hire illegals more significantly. My main thrust would be to greatly expand legal immigration on work visas and tax those jobs.



You are getting taken for a ride Ibelsd. In 1990 we spent $263 million on boarder patroll alone, and by 2016 it has increased to more than $3.8 billion. We spend more than $18 billion on ICE and Customs today. Do we have dramaticallly lower illegal imigration as a result of all that spending? You tell me.


I'd support those efforts, but I'm not supporing stupid walls.



Throwing people in jail who are only accused of a crime is something we do in proportionality to the seriousness of the crime and the danger the person poses to the public. Trying to flee your **** hole country and get to the US where you can find work is neither some great danger to the public nore a great crime in my view. So they should not generally be held in jail awaiting trial unless they are also dangerous in some other respect. But the zero tolerance policy throws em all in jail and keeps them there until they can get trial. That's bursting the seems of our jail capacity and causing families to spend a long period apart from their kids.

Either crossing the border illegally is a crime or it isn't. If you don't want it to be crime, write your Congressman and support open borders. It isn't like those crossing illegally carry id cards which say things like "hard working", "gang member", "looking for free health care", etc. They cross the border and when caught, under catch and release, they almost never showed up to their immigration hearings and then 10 years later, people are crying that we can't deport them now because they have been here so long. It is just a completely corrupt system. I suppose my analogy would be better if I said would you rather your house have overpriced iron walls or no walls. You're right, the front door is absolutely wonderful. Alarm. Peephole. And for those who choose to ring the bell and come through the front door, all is well. However, anyone with half a bit of sense just avoids the door and walks through the empty space where we should have walls.

Again, and you simply refuse to acknowledge this point, all the other means of controlling immigration we agree upon aren't happening. So... we either get a wall or more of the same. And living in CA, watching tax money wasted on poverty and crime, and drugs, much of it (not all of it), a result of our illegal immigration problem and watching the quality of life decrease for middle class people who get the brunt of the policy stick, I'd like this issue dealt with in any way possible. I am simply being pragmatic. If our corrupt, whoring politicians stepped up and chose to fix the problem, it could probably be done without a wall.

[CowboyX]

I keep hoping that some day you’ll once again participate in a thread with a thoughtful and meaningful post. I guess this won’t be the thread.

Ok, we'll try it a different way:

Support or it will be considered retracted that we have an illegal immigration problem and that that problem is happening at the border with Mexico. {challenge thingy}