Borderwall

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Borderwall

Patole
Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on the wall.  Why do you oppose or agree with the building of the wall and how do you think it would or would not make a difference?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Ciro
oppose but I am not American so I dont fully understand the problem and I currently live in a socialist type country and love it so I would be of a bias opinion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Podrido
In reply to this post by Patole
An interesting yet divisive endeavour, good sir.

The US already has an extensive border fence in place, some of which is around 20ft tall or so, and which has done little to curb undocumented immigration into the US. If anything I think the biggest deterrent to illegal immigrants is the violence, racism, vulnerability and lack of welcome they face upon entry to the country.

I fail to understand why illegal immigration is a problem for people in the US however, and would enjoy for someone to explain it to me.

That being said, if people are fleeing violence I think it's a moral obligation to help them, especially in instances where US policy contributed to the violent situations people are fleeing from. (Introduction of Latin Kings, MS13, 18th St Gang etc into Latin America from the US has caused a world of pain and is typically why people flee from places like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.) To this end I feel the US is obligated to do something not just morally, but because it's a problem of their own creation.

More people entering the country also helps to bolster the economy does it not? And the sorts of jobs immigrants typically end up filling aren't the sort of jobs privileged Americans are willing to take anyways. (Jobs seems to be the general complaint after all.)

If its criminals pro-wallers are worrying about, the US is already home to something like 1.4 million home bred gang members spread across 33,000 different criminal organizations. One might propose that issue takes more precedence, as I see a common argument for the wall is that immigrants are somehow to blame for nationwide crime rates. (This is factually incorrect as immigrants are, as a whole, less likely to commit crime than non-immigrants. Specifically due to the vulnerability of their stay.)

This is nearly the same level of gang members as found in China - a country with a population of 1.38 billion to the USA's own 327.2 million (4.09 times larger.)

It is worth noting that the USA's intentional homicide rate is about 5 per 100,000 in comparison to China's 1 per 100,000. (A country four times smaller with a murder rate 5 times higher than most developed countries in general certainly lends to the idea there are many other factors at play than simple immigration.)

Most importantly, illegal immigration is down something like 81.5% since the year 2000 and continues to steadily decline. Why bother with a wall at this point? Seems like a waste of money.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -

As read upon the plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Just a lurker.
H39
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

H39
In reply to this post by Patole
No difference, as long as there is a huge demand there will be someone who will offer to supply.

Europe and Mexico have a wall of 9000km and i don't see it stopping drugs from coming to Europe.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Tokz
That's a good point H39.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Mica
In reply to this post by Patole
I do not support illegal immigration.  I watched this video many years ago and it persuaded my current view.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

ElS1
The border cartels make as much money off "immigrants" as drugs now.    They charge several thousands for each person.   All that money is used to strong-arm anyone that gets in their way.    Cartels pay people to watch the highways and roads.    Any people caught trying to get through are usually killed.    Kidnapping is also very common, whether they pay the "coyote" or not.   Criminals don't have to keep their word - 'things change,  too bad'.    
  Remember this story? http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2019/07/veracruzboy-survives-after-being-left.html

Completing the wall won't stop criminals - they never stop until they're dead.   It does make them raise the price,  which discourages more people not to go there.     It also takes some of the load off the border patrol so they can do their job better.
 It is about weakening the cartels in those areas.   The borders are the worst hurt in all of Mexico,  passing migrants are a big part of the fodder that's fuels the evil deeds going on.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

El_Tacticool
In reply to this post by Patole
My entire family came here illegally back in the late 70's.  They were all legal now thanks to Regean.  That's 6 uncles and 3 aunts of mine.  Most of their kids were born here.  They avg about 5 kids each.  Each one of my cousins, had about 3 kids each as well.  So there are a lot of us that pay Taxes, purchased homes, served the US Armed Forces, bought cars, plenty of beer etc.  And this is just my family alone.  Most came here on Visas. over stayed their visits and became legal immigrates.  A wall won't due much.  It hasn't so far.  The city I grew up in has been taken over but Indians and Chinese immigrates who have most of the High Tech jobs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Podrido
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Mica
@Mica

While I think this video makes some relatively interesting points, its only real suggestion is to stop taking in immigrants, and not really for any valid reason if you consider a great deal of immigrants are migrating not to escape poverty, but to escape violence primarily.

There is no proposal made on how you can solve world poverty, and I don't think anybody really thinks taking in illegal immigrants or immigrants in general is a means of solving or even addressing world poverty.

I think on a basic Human level, just because you can't help 'x' number of billion people, doesn't mean you shouldn't help those you can. I find that to be a cop out of an argument, personally.

If I can help even just -one- person escape violence, then I am happy.

Edit:

Further to that there is a comment made wherein by taking certain people from impoverished countries you then deprive said countries of its better off, more educated people who then turn their backs on their home countries.

I think this is factually untrue and can be proven the world over, simply even if you just look at the well known idea and empirical evidence that suggests immigrants both legal and illegal frequently send money and support back to their families back home. (Given the fact they are now earning more than $2/day.)

Those immigrants who become wealthy often return to do much more, I think there are many examples of this in celebrities in particular.
Just a lurker.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Mica
@Podrido

I suppose I am just from the "you will never finish feeling sorry for everyone" theory.  It's ironic how often I see "sustainable farming/fishing" labels.  What's the tipping point on illegal immigration in order to sustain the generous government entitlements that the USA offers?  

Dividing politics in 1/2, there is a large portion of that who believes not using a straw will overpower the toxic fumes of a volcano.  Some who believe air travel should be outlawed while traveling on a private plane to lecture about global warming.  These are the same who believe by having a border, we contribute to global poverty and are heartless [fill in the blank].

On a personal level, one has to be internally whole to be in a successful relationship. "I need to fix myself before getting into a relationship".  Does it make sense that we host millions of people illegally and just last week over 16,000 students in Chicago are homeless? 

I agree if I can help one person, then I am happy.  But what about the people who are already here?  

Just my perspective. I own property in Mexico and I really wish that the Mexican government would treat me 1/2 as good as the USA treats criminals :-)  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Patole
In reply to this post by Patole
Interesting points, all of you.

It certainly was not my intention to be divisive, more just curious to understand where the readers might be coming from.

I am married to a legal immigrant and my grandmother was a legal immigrant to the U.S.  I primarily support the idea of the wall because, mainly, I believe that illegal immigration unfairly circumvents those that intend to immigrate through legal means. It does not seem just that someone can be waiting many, many months for a legal approval process and bearing its associated costs while someone else can just scurry across an open border and ultimately receive the same benefits much faster. Further, I do believe that unchecked immigration poses a huge burden on the legal citizens, both in the way of subsidized or wholly endowed healthcare and other social and infrastructure benefits.

However, I do agree that we should support those intending to come here to escape violence or other political prosecutions, etc., but it should be handled through legal entry.

Europe appears to have indeed reached a boiling point of unchecked immigration and it seems countries are beginning to reconsider their open border policies, with Sweden, Germany, and even the UK being good examples.

Sure, the wall won't prevent all, maybe not even most, illegal crossings or traffic, but it certainly will deter some...maybe even significantly.  If some of this deterrence translates to even a slight drop to illegal immigrant related crime or spending, I feel it is a success.

Just my humble opinion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Mica
I think it's an interesting topic to discuss and allows me to hear opposing arguments.  It's only divisive if we don't communicate with each other in a respectful manner.  Not having the same opinion is a good thing!

An interesting ruling from the supreme court on asylum restrictions late yesterday.

NBC

The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday gave the Trump administration permission to enforce its toughest restriction yet on asylum seekers at the southern border, even though a lawsuit to stop the new policy is still working its way through the lower courts.

As a result, the government can now refuse to consider a request for asylum from anyone who failed to apply for it in another country after leaving home but before coming here. The order means, for instance, that migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador cannot seek asylum in the U.S. if they didn't first ask for it in Mexico.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the court acted too quickly and should allow the case to work its way through the normal judicial process.

The administration said the new restriction is needed to respond to "an unprecedented surge" of people who enter the country illegally and seek asylum if they're caught. But officials said only a small fraction of them are eventually found to be qualified. "The rule thus screens out asylum seekers who declined to request protection at their first opportunity," said Solicitor General Noel Francisco. He said it allows immigration officials to concentrate on the asylum seekers who most need protection.

Immigration courts now face a backlog of 436,000 asylum requests. But given how few are actually granted, it's reasonable to ask whether those applicants "genuinely fear persecution or torture, or are simply economic migrants," Francisco said.

After the new policy was announced in July, a federal judge in California blocked its enforcement, ruling that it would violate existing immigration law and was improperly rushed into effect. The Justice Department took the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but also asked the Supreme Court to let the government carry out the restrictions while the case is on appeal.

The ACLU, representing immigrant rights groups, said the new policy would violate a federal law in effect since 1980 that allows denying asylum claims only when applicants who have been "firmly resettled" in a third country or when the US has signed a safe-third-country agreement with another nation. No such agreement has been signed with Mexico.

The Trump administration's restriction "bars virtually every non-Mexican asylum seeker who enters through the southern land border," the ACLU told the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the applicant could have safely sought asylum in another country. The court should not permit "such a tectonic change to US asylum law," especially at this early stage in the legal battle, the group said.

It's the second recent immigration-related victory for the Trump administration before the Supreme Court. In July, the justices lifted a lower court order that had blocked the government from using Pentagon construction money to build part of the border wall on the Mexican border.

The Trump administration celebrated the victory later on Wednesday. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "will commence implementing the asylum rule ASAP," the agency's acting director, Ken Cuccinelli, said in a tweet.

Asylum is a form of humanitarian relief recognized under international law. As a signatory to an international asylum treaty, the U.S. has a legal obligation to provide protection and certain rights to people who arrive at the border seeking asylum.

People may request it if they are unable or unwilling to return to their home countries because they have been persecuted there in the past or have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return, and the reason for the persecution is connected to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

An earlier move by the Trump administration to restrict asylum remains blocked by the courts. It would have denied the protection to anyone who did not enter the US through a legal port of entry.

Dissenting from Wednesday's order, Justices Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, said the new asylum policy "seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Govern­ment implemented its rule without first providing the pub­lic notice and inviting the public input generally required by law."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

ElS1
   It is coming down, again,  to the philosophical question about responsible government.
The people that are leaving Mexico, etc., are saying that they are giving up their country - that they cannot govern themselves.
    What does this really mean for where we are at as humans?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

texastee
Banned User
In reply to this post by El_Tacticool
Your entire family came here... And that is hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted and stolen from medicade ..social programs..hiring extra ucis workers and flooding and destorying dmv and other social systems. For example in sf california i went to DMV and line up was 100 men long ..All illegal mexican ..none were white american. My point is you people are a cancer and a drain to the country. And coming here illegally makes you even more of a cancer. Hopefully we can forget the wall and just round up mexicans and latinos.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Chivis
Administrator
This post was updated on .
If you live in Texas you sure don't represent the vast amount of good fair caring people in the state.
I am not  one to play the race card and was raised to never receive money from social programs, or we would be disowned.  The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are very hard working people.  

I sense a racist attitude from you,  a tipoff is your terminology of "you people"

You must have gone to the california DMV in Compton and even a simpleton will know that any DMV will draw from demographics in the area if it bothers you go elsewhere.  BTW were they wearing a tee shirt saying "I AM AN ILLEGAL" ?

You are currently being watched because of complaints.  As Mica says discourse is good but be respectful.

If you can't refrain then I would suggest you go to Breitbart where you will be in a crowd of alike thinkers.
 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Chivis
Administrator
In reply to this post by Mica
Know anyone trying to get a residential visa in Mexico?  
Opening a bank account?

I could only open an account because I am a founder of a 501c3 charity...and even with that it took over 2 years for approval in mexico.

hypocrites
 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Chivis
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Mica
A major win for Trump and one I agree with.  It has always been international law to ask for asylum in the closest safe county.  El Salvador can go to costa rica for example.  

I don't blame the migrants who are economic migrants, lets be clear.  If I were in their shoes I'd be in line.  I blame these liberal organizers who have spent millions promoting this campaign and then leaving migrants stranded at the US south border.  I saw a couple of the flyers they actually guarantee jobs with staring pay of 25.telling unskilled workers that is what housekeepers and landscapers receive.

Mexico arrested 3 leaders of these orgs who promote these caravans which cause all kinds of grief for everyone including the migrants.

as for the wall.  absolutely in favor of it.  it is not a one fix cures all...but is anything?  Look at nations with perimeter walls  extremely effective.  Not a cure all, just another tool.  
 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Patole
In reply to this post by Patole
@Mica yeah I heard rumblings of that throughout the day.  Thanks for posting that report, it concisely outlines the case. I agree with the SCs decision.  While I am in the 9ths jurisdiction, it is very rare that I agree with anything they decide, or even say for that matter.  So sick and tired of them just stalling and impeding any new legislation from the administration, based solely on the fact that it is from the administration.  

@texastee I agree with you, for the most part, on the waste and abuse component of illegal immigration.  For certain it ain't fair for those trying to get in legally and the citizens and legal residents baring the burden.  The video posted by Mica provides a great analysis of how much "help" we are actually providing to the impoverished citizenry of other nations by allowing illegal immigration.  It should be required viewing for all judges and citizens alike.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Patole
@chivis Yes, exactly!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Borderwall

Mica
In reply to this post by Chivis
@Chivis
Very frustrating and took to long to do it through the system.  I basically paid my relator to have his connection at the bank open my account so they could sell me the property.  
12