A Border Security and Humanitarian Crisis

Except, of course, that most drugs aren't coming in through random wanderers in the desert, but rather through the legal points of entry along the border. So, exactly what would the wall do to stop them from continuing to do what they're already doing?

 

you have documentation of all the illegal drugs entering the country? quick, hand them over to the dea, they are in desperate need of that info

 

Illegals, engaged in illegal activities, with illegally obtained firearms...
http://www.wbrc.com/2019/01/08/arrested-allegedly-deer-poaching-hoover/

 

I hate to say it, but your INTENTIONAL attempt to MISLEAD is rather SAD.

First you claim: "The 2018 Numbers"

Then you add: "3,755 terrorists prevented from entering".

That is MISLEADING AND FALSE (as it pertains to 2018.)

(Per your OP "source", a piece of Partisan Drivel titled "A Border Security and Humanitarian Crisis" (which, by the way, puts the Misleading Title of your OP in violation of Rule 11)--per your OP "source", the 3,755 is a Fiscal Year 2017 number. (Which means it has nothing to do with 2018, since Fiscal Year 2017 runs from Oct. 1, 2016 to Sept. 30, 2017)).

Thus, the Title of your OP is not only in violation of Rule 11, but is is Completely MISLEADING.

"3,755 terrorsts" is NOT a "2018 number".

If you expect to be taken seriously here at PF, I would suggest that you do a Better job of keeping your facts straight, especially when posting misleading claims in rule-violating altered thread titles (to push your blatantly pro-Trump marching orders).

Once again, the "3,755 terrorists" number is from FY17 (10/1/16 to 9/30/17) it has NOTHING to do with 2018.

Trying to pass off FY17 numbers as "2018"?

Hopefully you can cease and desist from these utterly ludicrous (and blatantly misleading claims).

Carry on.

 

You responded to that question by referencing your neighbor's swimming pool. Attractive Nuisance is the reason that a swimming pool gets a wall. It is not applicable to the southern wall because your friend's swimming pool is a really ****ing **** analogy.

If you want to come up with another answer for how a wall would reduce the number of unaccompanied minors, you should feel free.

As I tried to make you aware, attractive nuisance is not applicable to the southern border. I only made that reference because that I was trying to point out one of the many reasons why your analogy was a **** response to my question.

 

"A problem with illegal entry" does not equate to, nor does it require, a wall. And it certainly does not arise to the level of National Emergency permitting a massive expansion of executive authority.

 

Im offering the latest stats (January 2019 directly from the white house.

This is not a news article. Its a primary source.

 

And open himself up to a whole host of legal challenges.

But if you want to endorse such a massive expansion of executive authority in order to address such a minor issue, I would love to see how you react to a Democratic President declaring that access to healthcare is a national emergency warranting that Medicare be expanded to allow everyone to use.

 

Nice try on the complete strawman argument you just threw out there. Try reading through what I said again. I said MOST drugs come in through ports of entry. This is not only backed up by facts and several DEA reports, but also logic. It's a cost/benefit scenario, the most profitable and safest way to get drugs across the border would be through large shipments that go undetected at the ports.

 

So you admit that you created a current events thread in violation of the rules.

And the "White House" is not a primary source.

 

...

 

No admission implied or conceded.

 

I've noticed for the past few years the left likes to play around with the phrase "non violent crimes" a lot.

In California under Proposition 57 rape is no longer a violent crime and neither is assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

Liberals are saying that if you're an illegal alien driving under the influence (DUI) is no longer a big deal and should be treated as a minor infraction.

The facts are avoiding a legal port of entry and entering the country illegally is a serious crime.

 

Setting aside the fact that California law is not determinate for what is classified as a violent crime under federal law, I do not believe you are accurate on this front. None of my research supports your examples.

 

The REASON for the swimming pool wall, legal or otherwise, was/is not at issue, its ability to KEEP US OUT and effectiveness in that function was... in direct, clear response to your question in the thread. Jeezus.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

Speaking of firearms, how will you react to a Democratic President declaring a National Emergency in order to restrict the purchase of certain types of firearms because there was nearly one mass shooting every day last year?

You do support such an expansion of executive authority, right?

 

A swimming pool is a poor analogy to the US border. The legal justification for that fencing is a poor analogy to the legal justification for the wall. And 100 feet of fencing is a poor analogy to the 2000 miles of border wall.

An unaccompanied minor walking up to a wall is still an unaccompanied minor. So again, I will ask you my original question to which you chose to answer with your **** analogy, why does a wall reduce the number of unaccompanied minors?

 

Federal immigration uses state laws to determine a legal immigrant or an illegal alien criminal history.

There are no federal laws against rape, killing a local or state cop or robbing a convenience store with a gun.

I remember when assassinating the President of the United States wasn't a federal crime but a state crime. (JFK)

 

Sorry to but in, but that is a great example of why we should never allow government abuse of power, even if we agree with what they are doing. It will always backfire. Here in California, it is already happening with nothing more that the stroke of a pen.

My life was threatened by gang members from south of the border and I support the wall and border security.

 

The OP is trying to pass off a Ludicrous BS Claim that the 3,755 Terrorists (a Fiscal Year 17 number) pertains to 2018.

Not only is the Title of the OP blatantly MISLEADING, but it is the Poster Child for why the linked sources of threads in Current Events are required to be copypasted verbatim.

Apparently, some members (at PF) just don't care about following forum rules, posting blatantly misleading thread titles or being taken seriously.

Still, imagine someone trying to pass off FY17 numbers as "2018"?

As to the rest of the "source" of the OP?

Pure partisan BS, unworthy of serious comment.

This thread belongs in PO&B (or even Comedy).

 

in order to make that claim, one would have to know about ALL of the illegal drugs entering, to not know of all the drugs & entry points, the best one could surmise is 'some' drugs cross at established entry points.

 

Translation:

We should build two walls.

Yeah DUI's never hurt anybody.

It's just 6k gang members. Meh.

Drugs are entering through armed checkpoints on purpose.

Nothing to see here.

 

They're not interested in Mexican welfare.

 

MS-13 are people too bro, it's immoral to wall them out.

 

And gives no amnesty, and no DACA.

Dems get nothing.