Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Sarnoff's not been elected to public office to represent me, so if you insist on trying to frame this in politics, you're going to have to explain why he'd "represent me". My own words represent me here. If it's too much for you to remember who's position is what, then ask them. No need to be mentally lazy and lump everyone into an "against me" bucket.

 

[timschochet]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here. Also detail how our infrastructure will be able to handle this huge influx of immigration.

I can, and maybe later I will. But I'm curious: you claim to have complete disdain for all of my opinions. You criticize other people for discussing issues with me. You treat me with derision and claim that I get in the way of rational discussions. Why then, do you demand that I explain myself in detail?

 

[Sarnoff]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Those of you who are for increased immigration (and that appears to be no logical thinking person here, but whatever), do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

 

[timschochet]

Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist

See, I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. How could I be, when my own family came here from another country not so long ago? I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Earlier in this thread you wrote, as part of a description of Huntington Park (a city in Los Angeles county which is largely Hispanic), "You can drive for miles and not see a single sign in English."

First off that's a lie. Second, it has nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigrants. Third, when you write comments like that, it suggests hostility and racism, at least IMO. I don't find anything racist about what you just wrote above.

What I was getting at when I spoke of not seeing a sign in English in a city like Huntington Park- it was not racist at all, but instead a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

Fine. I will take your word for it and in that case I apologize for my implication.

 

[timschochet]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So you still would have border patrol and a fence up to stop these people from getting in or just throw up a sign that says please wait here(felon,terrorist,health threat)and we will be right with you?

I am in favor of the border patrol, and reasonable fences on our borders, right now.

"Reasonable fences" means based on cost. I don't think it's necessary to spend billions on building a fence. If it can be done cheaply, and does not interdict trade, I'm good with it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here. Also detail how our infrastructure will be able to handle this huge influx of immigration.

I can, and maybe later I will. But I'm curious: you claim to have complete disdain for all of my opinions. You criticize other people for discussing issues with me. You treat me with derision and claim that I get in the way of rational discussions. Why then, do you demand that I explain myself in detail?

I didn't demand squat. I made a request. You';re the one who said you wanted to discuss this issue. Do you want me to point you to the post where you made a big deal about wanting to discuss this? So discuss it. Or don't. But don't say you want to discuss a topic if you're later going to get all pissy when someone wants to, you know, discuss the topic with you.

 

[timschochet]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here. Also detail how our infrastructure will be able to handle this huge influx of immigration.

I can, and maybe later I will. But I'm curious: you claim to have complete disdain for all of my opinions. You criticize other people for discussing issues with me. You treat me with derision and claim that I get in the way of rational discussions. Why then, do you demand that I explain myself in detail?

I didn't demand squat. I made a request. You';re the one who said you wanted to discuss this issue. Do you want me to point you to the post where you made a big deal about wanting to discuss this? So discuss it. Or don't. But don't say you want to discuss a topic if you're later going to get all pissy when someone wants to, you know, discuss the topic with you.

I'm always happy to discuss this topic. I'm just surprised that YOU want to discuss it.

Basically, I would like this country for return to the "Ellis Island" days, when anyone who was not a public health risk could get in. So far as criminals and terrorists and the like, we're reaching a technological point at which we can scan each person coming in, and if the buzzer goes off, stop them.

 

[matttyl]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So let's make illegally crossing our border a felony. Problem solved in your eyes? Honest question.

I believe it is a felony if you've crossed multiple times illegally, but only a misdemeanor if it is your initial illegal crossing.

 

[matttyl]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this..."If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

It was a rhetorical argument. What I meant was that is how it WILL be regarded, especially by most Latinos IMO. You can disagree with me and not be racist.

You said "how can anyone." I'm anyone, and I'm not Latino. I have to agree with poopdawg that what you said before was pretty stupid.

I explained what I meant. I apologize if you took it the wrong way; that was not my intent.

How can anyone take "how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated" any other way?

 

[matttyl]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So you still would have border patrol and a fence up to stop these people from getting in or just throw up a sign that says please wait here(felon,terrorist,health threat)and we will be right with you?

I am in favor of the border patrol, and reasonable fences on our borders, right now.

"Reasonable fences" means based on cost. I don't think it's necessary to spend billions on building a fence. If it can be done cheaply, and does not interdict trade, I'm good with it.

Can we have the current illegals here build that fence (and be on the southern end of if once completed)? Sorry, is that racist?

 

[timschochet]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So let's make illegally crossing our border a felony. Problem solved in your eyes? Honest question.

I believe it is a felony if you've crossed multiple times illegally, but only a misdemeanor if it is your initial illegal crossing.

I don't think illegally crossing the border should be a felony, no matter how many times you do it.

 

[Jayrod]

Yup, still want to punch you in the neck, tim.

 

[timschochet]

matttyl, you'll have to take my word for it that I do not regard those who disagree with me on this issue as racist. I do not regard those who are opposed to affirmative action as racist. I do not regard those who are opposed to israel's treatment of the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

It's very easy to label people. Unfortunately, I do it all the time. I try not to. What I wrote about the fence was not an attempt to do so. Again, to anyone who took it that way, I apologize.

 

[timschochet]

Yup, still want to punch you in the neck, tim.

That's very unChristian of you.

 

[matttyl]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So let's make illegally crossing our border a felony. Problem solved in your eyes? Honest question.

I believe it is a felony if you've crossed multiple times illegally, but only a misdemeanor if it is your initial illegal crossing.

I don't think illegally crossing the border should be a felony, no matter how many times you do it.

I believe it's currently a misdemeanor only (for the first time). If you attempt to cross using someone else's SS number or card, that's deemed "identity theft" and thus a felony. Multiple attempts to cross can be deemed a felony.

 

[HellToupee]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

 

[Politician Spock]

Yup, still want to punch you in the neck, tim.

That's very unChristian of you.

Doing it would be unChristian.

Wanting to do it makes him human.

 

[Sarnoff]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

 

[Jayrod]

Yup, still want to punch you in the neck, tim.

That's very unChristian of you.

Doing it would be unChristian.Wanting to do it makes him human.

Human and unChristian are often similar.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

 

[Sarnoff]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

I encourage everyone to read what you posted about the "crime" and make up their own mind as to what you said.

 

[CBusAlex]

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here.

Background checks? This doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

That's BS.....you knew you messed up and said you'd leave for a while because of what you wrote. Just stop Tim. You think you're smart but the only thing you're good at is making an ### of yourself. You had one of you meltdowns during that thread.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

I would appreciate it if you would credit me for keeping that meme about you alive and at the forefront.

You are welcome.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

That's BS.....you knew you messed up and said you'd leave for a while because of what you wrote. Just stop Tim. You think you're smart but the only thing you're good at is making an ### of yourself. You had one of you meltdowns during that thread.

jeez...this thread is going in a weird direction

 

[Politician Spock]

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here.

Background checks? This doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle.

Well, now that NSA knows everything about every person in the world, you're right.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

That's BS.....you knew you messed up and said you'd leave for a while because of what you wrote. Just stop Tim. You think you're smart but the only thing you're good at is making an ### of yourself. You had one of you meltdowns during that thread.

jeez...this thread is going in a weird direction

What do you expect in a thread that Tim posts over and over in? He can't stop.

 

[Politician Spock]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

That's BS.....you knew you messed up and said you'd leave for a while because of what you wrote. Just stop Tim. You think you're smart but the only thing you're good at is making an ### of yourself. You had one of you meltdowns during that thread.

jeez...this thread is going in a weird direction

What do you expect in a thread that Tim posts over and over in? He can't stop.

He has 6 times as many posts as the second highest poster. The FFA plumbing can't handle that much poop in one thread.

 

[HellToupee]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

do you really want Tim representing you on this issue? He thinks child rape is OK if the girl's got enough upstairs to fill out a training bra. Are those views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Christ almighty what kind of sick ******* thinks like this

Dig up the old Polanski thread. Don't get me wrong, he's against raping a 7 year old, but he argued that the statutory rape of a 13 year old with the body of a 20 year old hardly constituted a "crime" (air quotes were Tim's) to be condemned for.

Yeah, that's not correct. But you run with it, everyone else has.

I would appreciate it if you would credit me for keeping that meme about you alive and at the forefront.

You are welcome.

 

[timschochet]

Any of you guys ready to talk about immigration and the current situation again? Or should we continue to discuss my feelings about child rape, and how many posts I have?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/tears-for-the-border-children.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

The fight over how to process and care for masses of children from Central America who have crossed into this country is quickly becoming a spectacle of the obscene.

While the government tries to abide by the law as written and handle the children with as much care as any child would deserve, under any circumstances, the public continues to see images of angry adults intent on confronting buses full of minors.

This month, demonstrators in Murrieta, Calif., forced buses carrying immigrants to turn back. A group in Oracle, Ariz., this week blocked a road to prevent a bus filled with immigrant children from making it to a temporary housing facility.

The latest protest came after the county sheriff tipped local residents off about the incoming bus. According to the Associated Press:

Sheriff Paul Babeu “is credited with stirring up the anti-immigrant protesters via social media postings and a press release Monday and by leaking information about the migrants’ arrival to a local activist.”

Adam Kwasman, a Republican congressional candidate and state legislator, also showed up to protest the children’s arrival. When a school bus was spotted, Kwasman tweeted a picture of it with the words, “Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law.”

Kwasman even regaled a local reporter with what he said he saw on the bus:

“I was able to actually see some of the children in the buses and the fear on their faces. This is not compassion.”

That was until the reporter informed Kwasman that the children on the bus weren’t migrant children but local YMCA campers who, according to “reporters at the scene,” were “laughing and taking pictures on their iPhones.”

Kwasman’s response: “They were sad, too.”

Well, I know that I’m sad. We should all be.

I’m sad that the fate of children has been so consumed by political theater and callous fabrication.

Some of these children will no doubt be found to simply be illegal immigrants and sent back home, but others, likely many, will indeed qualify for refugee status.

In fact, MSNBC reported last week that of more than 400 children who fled their homes, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees “found that almost 60 percent of children had legitimate claims to seek asylum in the United States. Most were escaping recruiting attempts by violent gangs who forced participation or threatened the entire families of children who refused.”

And yet, rather than refer to these children as just that — children — or possibly refugees, some Republicans have taken to calling their entry into the country an “invasion.” They have suggested that these kids are disease-ridden. Representative Louie Gohmert even suggested on the House floor that the wave of children posed an existential threat to the country, and Gov. Rick Perry hinted that the influx could be some sort of Obama administration conspiracy.

All this has raised the tenor of xenophobic hysteria in this country and is likely to poison the well of comprehensive immigration reform.

A Pew Research Center Poll released Wednesday found that most Americans want to speed up the process by which these children are processed in this country, even if some who are eligible for asylum are deported.

When that question is viewed through an ideological lens, 60 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents want to speed up the process, while Democrats are evenly split.

At this point, the entire issue has taken on partisan dimensions. Many of the president’s core supporters — blacks, liberal Democrats and young people — are more likely to support following the current policy. On the other hand, constituencies more likely to oppose the president — men, whites, older people and Republicans, particularly those who are supporters of the Tea Party — favor speeding up the process.

In fact, this issue has chilled Republican views of immigration in general. There has been a 10-percentage point drop — from 64 percent in February to 54 percent now — in the share of Republicans who support “a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants.”

This is not the best face of a great nation. This is the underside of a great stone, which when lifted sends creepy things slithering in all directions. We are better than this. We are more compassionate than this. We are more honorable than this.

This is not the time to give in to our lesser angels, but the time to rise with our better ones.

 

[timschochet]

This is not the best face of a great nation. This is the underside of a great stone, which when lifted sends creepy things slithering in all directions. We are better than this. We are more compassionate than this. We are more honorable than this.

This is not the time to give in to our lesser angels, but the time to rise with our better ones.

Damn. Amen.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Any of you guys ready to talk about immigration and the current situation again? Or should we continue to discuss my feelings about child rape, and how many posts I have?

Wow.....it's so much fun watching the train wreck that you are here.

 

[Gawain]

Any of you guys ready to talk about immigration and the current situation again? Or should we continue to discuss my feelings about child rape, and how many posts I have?

Wow.....it's so much fun watching the train wreck that you are here.

I am convinced that in 2017, OB or :e: or 40 or one of the other longish cliques will reveal that they're behind the chronicle of tim. He's a wonderful fisherman.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here. Also detail how our infrastructure will be able to handle this huge influx of immigration.

I can, and maybe later I will. But I'm curious: you claim to have complete disdain for all of my opinions. You criticize other people for discussing issues with me. You treat me with derision and claim that I get in the way of rational discussions. Why then, do you demand that I explain myself in detail?

I didn't demand squat. I made a request. You';re the one who said you wanted to discuss this issue. Do you want me to point you to the post where you made a big deal about wanting to discuss this? So discuss it. Or don't. But don't say you want to discuss a topic if you're later going to get all pissy when someone wants to, you know, discuss the topic with you.

I'm always happy to discuss this topic. I'm just surprised that YOU want to discuss it.

Basically, I would like this country for return to the "Ellis Island" days, when anyone who was not a public health risk could get in. So far as criminals and terrorists and the like, we're reaching a technological point at which we can scan each person coming in, and if the buzzer goes off, stop them.

This is a joke, right? And, even if it's serious, it doesn't address all of the questions I posed. Lastly, assuming I agreed with you, to implement such a plan would require us securing our borders, would it not? I mean, what's the point in implementing your plan if anyone can still just walk over if they want. Right?

 

[timschochet]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

 

[BeaverCleaver]

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point.)

This has to be some messed up shtick you have going.

 

[timschochet]

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point.)

This has to be some messed up shtick you have going.

Why? Aren't you in favor of more secure borders?

 

[StrikeS2k]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

 

[eurotrashman]

This is not the best face of a great nation. This is the underside of a great stone, which when lifted sends creepy things slithering in all directions. We are better than this. We are more compassionate than this. We are more honorable than this.

This is not the time to give in to our lesser angels, but the time to rise with our better ones.

Damn. Amen.

But we are a Christian nation!!!!

 

[BeaverCleaver]

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point.)

This has to be some messed up shtick you have going.

Why? Aren't you in favor of more secure borders?

just shut the #### up. Of course I am about the borders. It's about the number of times you flip flop here despite acting like you know everything. You truly have no clue on what a joke you are here so now I'm starting to wonder if it's shtick because no one other than Datoon can be so clueless.

 

[Christo]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So long as we also build one on the Canadian border too, right?

 

[timschochet]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

I actually have less of a problem with this than I used to. My only concern is that if that is done first, the political will for the second part won't be there.

How about this as a compromise: we agree on securing the border and a Path to CItizenship right now, but the "Path" won't begin until after the border is secured. If the politicians won't spend the money to secure the border, then the "Path" never begins.

 

[timschochet]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So long as we also build one on the Canadian border too, right?

The reason that all borders should be secured is because of terrorism. That is my biggest concern, not illegals. So yes, that means all borders. Not sure it should be a fence. Maybe it should, but it just seems like such an ugly symbol. Surely in our technological age there's a better way to do this?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So long as we also build one on the Canadian border too, right?

The reason that all borders should be secured is because of terrorism. That is my biggest concern, not illegals. So yes, that means all borders. Not sure it should be a fence. Maybe it should, but it just seems like such an ugly symbol. Surely in our technological age there's a better way to do this?

You mean like those electric fences for dogs? No ugly fences.

 

[Politician Spock]

The reason that all borders should be secured is because of terrorism.

Link

 

[StrikeS2k]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

I actually have less of a problem with this than I used to. My only concern is that if that is done first, the political will for the second part won't be there.

How about this as a compromise: we agree on securing the border and a Path to CItizenship right now, but the "Path" won't begin until after the border is secured. If the politicians won't spend the money to secure the border, then the "Path" never begins.

No compromise. Reagan made that deal in 1986. We were going to go after employers to remove the incentive for illegals to come here for work. Just give them amnesty and we promise to go after the employers. And it didn't happen. So I'm sorry if you're concerned about the 2nd part not happening. The anti illegal immigration side already got f-ed once. This one ain't going down that road again until the border is secure.

Seriously Tim, whether the border is secure or not the Latino vote is a huge bloc. Both sides will still be courting it. Just because more aren't coming doesn't matter. So your point is really irrelevant and if you insist on pursuing it I'll have to assume you aren't serious about securing the border in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

I actually have less of a problem with this than I used to. My only concern is that if that is done first, the political will for the second part won't be there.

How about this as a compromise: we agree on securing the border and a Path to CItizenship right now, but the "Path" won't begin until after the border is secured. If the politicians won't spend the money to secure the border, then the "Path" never begins.

No compromise. Reagan made that deal in 1986. We were going to go after employers to remove the incentive for illegals to come here for work. Just give them amnesty and we promise to go after the employers. And it didn't happen. So I'm sorry if you're concerned about the 2nd part not happening. The anti illegal immigration side already got f-ed once. This one ain't going down that road again until the border is secure.

Seriously Tim, whether the border is secure or not the Latino vote is a huge bloc. Both sides will still be courting it. Just because more aren't coming doesn't matter. So your point is really irrelevant and if you insist on pursuing it I'll have to assume you aren't serious about securing the border in the first place.

Not surprised by your response. What I'm hoping is that eventually the public will lean more to the "Path to Citizenship" side. Polls in recent years have indicated that there is movement in that direction so we'll see.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

I actually have less of a problem with this than I used to. My only concern is that if that is done first, the political will for the second part won't be there.

How about this as a compromise: we agree on securing the border and a Path to CItizenship right now, but the "Path" won't begin until after the border is secured. If the politicians won't spend the money to secure the border, then the "Path" never begins.

No compromise. Reagan made that deal in 1986. We were going to go after employers to remove the incentive for illegals to come here for work. Just give them amnesty and we promise to go after the employers. And it didn't happen. So I'm sorry if you're concerned about the 2nd part not happening. The anti illegal immigration side already got f-ed once. This one ain't going down that road again until the border is secure.

Seriously Tim, whether the border is secure or not the Latino vote is a huge bloc. Both sides will still be courting it. Just because more aren't coming doesn't matter. So your point is really irrelevant and if you insist on pursuing it I'll have to assume you aren't serious about securing the border in the first place.

Not surprised by your response. What I'm hoping is that eventually the public will lean more to the "Path to Citizenship" side. Polls in recent years have indicated that there is movement in that direction so we'll see.

You ignored the point of my last post. Why do you insist on tieing a secure border to a path to citizenship?

 

[timschochet]

The answer to your last question is yes, Strike. We would have to secure the borders.

As a matter of fact, I've come around in my thinking on this point. We need to secure the borders better no matter what else happens. I would be in a favor of a fence or some other means, so long as it doesn't interfere with trade (and doesn't cost too much.)

So let's secure the borders and then we can talk about where we need to go from there regarding immigration. It seems to me this should be a no brainer. If we secure the borders the GOP won't be able to use that as an excuse not to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform anymore.

I actually have less of a problem with this than I used to. My only concern is that if that is done first, the political will for the second part won't be there.

How about this as a compromise: we agree on securing the border and a Path to CItizenship right now, but the "Path" won't begin until after the border is secured. If the politicians won't spend the money to secure the border, then the "Path" never begins.

No compromise. Reagan made that deal in 1986. We were going to go after employers to remove the incentive for illegals to come here for work. Just give them amnesty and we promise to go after the employers. And it didn't happen. So I'm sorry if you're concerned about the 2nd part not happening. The anti illegal immigration side already got f-ed once. This one ain't going down that road again until the border is secure.

Seriously Tim, whether the border is secure or not the Latino vote is a huge bloc. Both sides will still be courting it. Just because more aren't coming doesn't matter. So your point is really irrelevant and if you insist on pursuing it I'll have to assume you aren't serious about securing the border in the first place.

Not surprised by your response. What I'm hoping is that eventually the public will lean more to the "Path to Citizenship" side. Polls in recent years have indicated that there is movement in that direction so we'll see.

You ignored the point of my last post. Why do you insist on tieing a secure border to a path to citizenship?

First, I'm not sure how YOU define a secure border. We may very well have separate definitions.

But that aside, I insist on tying them together because realistically its the only way we're going to get a Path to Citizenship done. So it's not a moral issue for me; just a political reality.