Border wall

No, I din't say it would solve half the problem. I said it doesn't even ADDRESS half the problem, since about half came legally and the wall thing doesn't even attempt to address more than one of our borders. I didn't suggest it would be successful. Remember people crossed the Berlin wall. No wall is perfect and we're certainly not even close to proposing something that serious. And, pressure on that one border only enccourages using other borders.

This is ALL about immigration policy. It's immigration - legal or not. The reason people come here is to work, as study after study shows. What we do about jobs here is also immigration policy, as it addresses the reason people even try. Immigration policy covers border interdiction, visas, jobs, needed labor, asylum application, etc. - it's all part of immigration, with the various parts affecting each other.

Think about it. The best border control would be having people not seeing a benefit getting here without documentation - NOT some perfect wall.

That's why the bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate was comprehensive. By addressing a full range of the parts it did far more than just provide money for border enhancement.

 

Again, the drug thing iis a stupid excuse for blowing money on a wall.

Again, that's not how drugs are coming here. If we want to do something about drug running, we would spend our money in a VERY DIFFERENT way.

 

it's almost like you're immune to English.

The border wall addresses people who wood cross the border illegally. It can't do anything about people who come here legally.

So saying it doesn't address the problem of people coming here legally is one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

and addressing some of the problem even if it's not all of it is better than addressing and none of it which is what you proposed to do.

another profoundly stupid argument. nobody said the world was perfect there is no solution to any problem ever on the face of this Earth that would be perfect.

another very dumb argument. People aren't going to sail up to Canada across the northern border it's just stupid.

I know this has nothing to do with immigration this is about illegal aliens.

immigration is a legal process you can't do it illegally. If you come here illegally you're just an invader not an immigrant. How dare you disrespect the people who have worked so hard to come here legally by comparing them with people who just hop over the border.

if you come here legally great.

I'm not xenophobic I don't care if people immigrate here I think it's great. This is about Invaders an alien's people who don't immigrate.

And I don't know why you people just focus on one form of commerce. play it's only employers that need to be saddled with the job that the government should be doing. Why not criminalize Banks who give them loans are landlords who rent them homes or shop owners who sell them cigarettes

why with you people everything else government responsibilities but not this with their charge to do in the Constitution?

boarder security is the first step

so you think the best solution is to criminalize employers who provide jobs for not doing the government's job?

That is the dumbest proposal I have ever heard.

Now employers are saddled with the duty of not just being employers but also be government fraud investigators. you know what's going to happen when you pass this law don't you? People are just not going to hire anyone of Hispanic descent because the probability of them being illegal is higher. An employer needs to focus on what job they're doing not what the government should be doing. Just like the landlord needs to focus on his resident's.

we pay billions and billions of dollars every year for the government to do what the government is supposed to do if now we have to become the policebecause they are that we should all get a 5% reduction in the taxes we pay. I would go as far as to say the government should actually pay us to do one of their constitutional duties.

Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it's good or right. Just because people agree on it does it mean it's enforceable. And if you did in force this retarded policy it's going to hurt legal citizens that are of Hispanic descent more than anyone else. and I think I did a good job of explaining that but I'll do it again.

The reality is that the most likely person to be an illegal alien would be a Hispanic person. And an employer it's not a fraud investigator so they're just not going to waste time interviewing people who are Hispanic. That's why we pay exorbitant amounts for government.

Imagine that, a bunch of people who live off of our money say "f*** you, handle your own damn problems but make sure you're not late on your tax payment or we'll send people to your house."

Bipartisan among the two mafias always works out just fantastic for the people.

 

False.

Immigration is the act of coming to llive here permenantly.

The word says nothing at all about process, legality, method of transport, etc.

 

I see you didn't address the issues I pointed out that are going to be caused by your beloved bipartisan jackassery.

You just want to argue that a word means what it doesn't mean. Am I to take this you have conceded the arguments about so-called comprehensive immigration policy?

 

Do you ha

Requirements for becoming a Finnish citizen.
https://traveltips.usatoday.com/requirements-immigration-finland-63386.html

 

So....you too have requirements. What if I want to come there and just be a free spirit?....or an illegal alien?

 

No, you made ridiculous assumptions tied directly to the very definition of the word.

You want to see the various aspects as independent. But, they are not.

 

Well make an argument for that.

Show me how I'm wrong if you can if you even know. I don't think you even thought about this that's why you abandoned the argument to wax idiotic about semantics.

That's why you don't directly address the points I made. Because their good points and you can't because you know it's true.

That was fun

 

I'm a proponent of the bipartisan immigration reform bill the passed the senate and would have passed the house had Boehner not blocked it.

That bill addressed the reasons people want to come (jobs) and methods they use for coming (both legal and illegal).

The various pieces of that bill work together to form a solution that will be far more successful than any partial measure.

That bill has features I'm not excited about (like a lot of border money), but that's the nature of compromise.

 

That doesn't argue against anything I said about it.

Please address my arguments.

 

Is that post supposed to bring shame? Well.....it doesn't!

 

I submit the opinion that it is lost amidst the madness of hateTrump.

 

I submit its lost in the madness created by Trump's actions and words. Or have you not turned on a television lately?