• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Walks Out of Border Talks, Calls Them ‘Total Waste of Time’

I do not understand your question. Leave where?
Trump walked out. You said, elsewhere, that walls stop people from doing things you don't want (like invading a home). So how was Trump able to leave given that there were walls?
 
Trump walked out. You said, elsewhere, that walls stop people from doing things you don't want (like invading a home). So how was Trump able to leave given that there were walls?

I suspect you are referring to a question I asked about why people need guns to protect their homes if their homes have walls. I was not claiming that walls do sto illegal entry. I was using an argument wall supporters use against their support for guns
 
I suspect you are referring to a question I asked about why people need guns to protect their homes if their homes have walls. I was not claiming that walls do sto illegal entry. I was using an argument wall supporters use against their support for guns
Well, I'm not a wall supporter so I gues I'll just drop it. In fact, you could say I'm firmly against a border wall.

I am anti-illegal immigration and anti-wall, because a wall won't fix the problem. A wall is just a political football politicians use to manipulate votes and get money for pork projects.
 
I'm not forgetting anything. Trump is an idiot, but the Democrats are not even trying right now because they would rather hurt Trump than do the right thing.

You're wrong. They are trying to right the wrong.
 
First off, tunneling under the current walls will continue and it tends to happen with fencing that border patrol can not observe what is happening on the other side which is a good amount of fencing. That is why those who are responsible for securing the border want a barrier that they can see through.
Majority of the tunnels that have been discovered originated in either buildings or sewer/drainage systems; in other words areas where being able to see thru a fence would make no difference.

Second, no barrier is going to keep everyone out but it does stop many and hinders others. Barriers are a crucial aid in assisting the border patrol in maintaining the influx coming across the border along with all their drugs, guns, etc.
Yes, barriers do hinder those seeking refuge from poverty, war and criminal violence - not so much those committing crimes.

Third, if the border walls were equipped with censors those tunneling under them would be detected before they made it through to the other side. Technology with a wall barriers working together would greatly aid in truly securing the border. Those who tunnel are associated with the drug cartels.
The word you want to use is "sensors". In a border that is almost 2000 miles long, how many sensors would be needed? What would be the additional cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining and monitoring the sensors? Instead of spending $5 billion on a stupid, useless wall, spend it on upgrading the security checking systems at the ports-of-entry where commercial traffic is examined as it enters the States. Vast majority of heroin and fentanyl comes into America in cargo-carrying trucks. Cannabis was more often carried across the border by 'mules' but that traffic is no longer profitable because weed is being legalised.

If you don't think that 300 a week are dying in this country from overdoses due to heroine alone where 90% of heroine is entering this country through Mexico then you have lost all common sense. Then there is that lethal drug fentanyl that is so dangerous. And that alone doesn't even measure all the families in this country that have been devastated over a loved one becoming addicted to the drugs. Everything associated with these drugs is costing states and the federal government a WHOLE lot of money. Enough money that could solve every damn infrastructure ill in this country.
Then perhaps, we should be thinking about legalizing the use of these hard drugs. Those countries which have done this found that many addicts were able to stop their drug usage because of access to medical and mental care. Fewer people die, overall costs drop and the organisations which import and sell the illegal drugs are reduced in size.

The cost to every taxpayer for every illegal who enters this country at all different means costs the taxpayers on the average 77,000 each and a very good portion of that amount is a burden on every state and they are feeling the toll.
I do luv the figures quoted as to just how much illegals cost American taxpayers. They all come from just a couple of sources who like to play with the parameters by which they create their estimates. Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each year, even while they aren't eligible for Social Security or Medicaid, nor do they get any tax refund after filing. FAIR's "Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration" Study Is Fatally Flawed
 
In the circumstance of Trump, the level of acceptance is far less than another other politician. The reaction to not getting his way is immature and privileged, compared to most other politicians.

Yes the premise that both sides don't accept views, policies or the like is true. Its the reactions that are very different.
No.
And as I already said; The fault lies with them all.
 
Majority of the tunnels that have been discovered originated in either buildings or sewer/drainage systems; in other words areas where being able to see thru a fence would make no difference.

Yes some tunnels originate in some kind of structure close to the border. However, all the digging involved would require a vehicle such as a dump truck to haul away the dirt and other telltale signs of the activity going on. There are different types of tunnels from gopher holes to very sophisticated. But one thing they all have in common is they are used to move deadly drugs. The amount of drugs seized at the border is overwhelming yet it is just a fraction of what is getting in. When they do discover tunnels they are filled in with concrete.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/03/underworld-monte-reel




Yes, barriers do hinder those seeking refuge from poverty, war and criminal violence - not so much those committing crimes.

We have laws on how a person is to seek asylum in this country and now due to feckless immigration policies have become the laughing stock of the world giving special treatment to those who break the law by entering illegally over those who seek the proper path. And your comment is false as the border patrol this past year alone apprehended thousands of known criminals.

The word you want to use is "sensors". In a border that is almost 2000 miles long, how many sensors would be needed? What would be the additional cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining and monitoring the sensors? Instead of spending $5 billion on a stupid, useless wall, spend it on upgrading the security checking systems at the ports-of-entry where commercial traffic is examined as it enters the States. Vast majority of heroin and fentanyl comes into America in cargo-carrying trucks. Cannabis was more often carried across the border by 'mules' but that traffic is no longer profitable because weed is being legalised.

Spell check can be a real problem at times. I have no doubt a good amount of the drugs are apprehended at the ports of entry but if someone is going to go to the trouble of building a tunnel then obviously it must be very lucrative for them to do so.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-border-tunnels-20150501-htmlstory.html




I do luv the figures quoted as to just how much illegals cost American taxpayers. They all come from just a couple of sources who like to play with the parameters by which they create their estimates. Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each year, even while they aren't eligible for Social Security or Medicaid, nor do they get any tax refund after filing. FAIR's "Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration" Study Is Fatally Flawed


What is fatally flawed is not recognizing the cost of each individual state along with the federal government in the cost per illegal. The burden on the states is great. The studies I mentioned do include both. They also deduct the taxes of those working. However, the majority of illegals are not well educated and work at low paying jobs and after deducting what taxes they do pay found what they receive in welfare/services is far much greater than what they pay in taxes. Many are operating using falsified identification while a good number get paid under the table and don't pay any taxes while collecting services.
 
Let's not forget that Trump had control of the House and the Senate for 2 years, until last week.
Dishonesty.
While they were certainly were Republican he certainly did not have them.

Your commentary is like saying he had you, but you know that isn't true.
 
You said


This thread is about building a wall, not a barrier. You implied that because they were in favor of building a barrier, their opposition to building a wall was playing politics. I merely pointed out that your argument was an apples to oranges comparison.

Wow - seriously? :shock: :lamo
 
Yes. Seriously.

Your argument was seriously flawed for the reason I described - a reason you have not even TRIED to refute .

You are welcome

The technical term for your posts in this line of discussion is locum bovis stercore. ;)
 
Yes Because the Ratio of 330 MILLION US Citizens per capita to 11-20million illegals its going to OBVIOUSLY out weigh the crime capita.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-them-total-waste-time-14.html#post1069522074

With that, in a prior POST almost everyone AGREES that a MAJORITY of illegals are NOT CRIMINALS (AFTER illegally entering our nation) As in all fairness the moment they enter the US undocumented they have committed a misdemeanor (crime) and on the second attempt it is then a felony. (Which funny. MOST MAJOR Crimes committed by an Illegal they have been caught on MULTIPLE occasions.)

With that the action of coming to AMERICA Undocumented then entering our BORDER illegal is what sets this ALL of in the first place. The Crime/Death is AFTER they make the CHOICE to come to America Illegally.

IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO. X amount of people would NOT be killed by illegals and X amount of children would not be trafficked or die of illness due to the trek.

Per capita is comparing Apples to Apples, per 1000 for example , it is not comparing the whole of one to the whole of another

The rest of your comment is speculation

Also if you apply in this logic to illegals you would have to apply the same logic to legals. you see it's just not logical when the rubber hits the road
 
Per capita is comparing Apples to Apples, per 1000 for example , it is not comparing the whole of one to the whole of another

The rest of your comment is speculation

Also if you apply in this logic to illegals you would have to apply the same logic to legals. you see it's just not logical when the rubber hits the road

Yes I understand that, But context plays as well.

1) Per Capita basis Americans commit more crimes I got it No disagreement. Is there a reason/science behind it? Well sorta
2) Illegals commit less because AS is stated MOST do not come her to commit crimes, most are just look for work I can reason WITH that. The Bigger reason is there is a great INCENTIVE to NOT commit a crime. DONT bring attention to ones self to get deport. American Citizens do NOT have an incentive to "behave" .Illegals do.


The rest speculation?
1) I dont know anyone personally that has specifically said ALL illegals are hardened criminals. NOT ONE.
2) The moment an UNDOCUMENTED individual crosses our border they have committed a crime PERIOD. 1st offense is a misdimeanor, 2nd is a Felony. It is a crime to enter our borders without a VISA or reciprocity Visa or Travel documentation authorizing you to enter our country.

Who Killed Officer Sihg? Molli Tibbets, Kathryn Steinly. THEY were KILLED by a person that was Undocumented and Unauthorized to be IN the US. Meaning someone how the crossed our border ILLEGALLY

I have no Idea what I said was speculation, this is all facts?

What Logic? A Legal Migrant is provided the rights to remain in this country. If the commit crimes the will be penalized like any NORMAL US Citizen, BUT the earned the right to remain in the US because they applied legally?

An ILLEGAL that commits a crime has NO business even being in the COUNTRY in the first place to even have the CHANCE to commit the crime?

What logic am I trying to not apply? The Law is the Law is the law.
 
1) I dont know anyone personally that has specifically said ALL illegals are hardened criminals. NOT ONE.
2) The moment an UNDOCUMENTED individual crosses our border they have committed a crime PERIOD. 1st offense is a misdimeanor, 2nd is a Felony. It is a crime to enter our borders without a VISA or reciprocity Visa or Travel documentation authorizing you to enter our country.


Trump's "zero tolerance" is a new policy where children were separated from parents on a class B misdemeanor.

NEVER in our history did we treat first timers as criminals, at least not en masse as we are doing now.


Calling a first timer "criminal" is like calling someone who is starving who steals a loaf of bread a criminal.

WTFU and get some compassion, but, of course, the right, especially Trump, have none.


No one is saying we should promote illegal entry, just not treat misdemeanors as criminals and take their kids away.


That's what dems are saying.
 
Trump's "zero tolerance" is a new policy where children were separated from parents on a class B misdemeanor.

NEVER in our history did we treat first timers as criminals, at least not en masse as we are doing now.


Calling a first timer "criminal" is like calling someone who is starving who steals a loaf of bread a criminal.

WTFU and get some compassion, but, of course, the right, especially Trump, have none.


No one is saying we should promote illegal entry, just not treat misdemeanors as criminals and take their kids away.


That's what dems are saying.

what made it even worse was having no mechanism in place to reunite those children with their parents
 
what made it even worse was having no mechanism in place to reunite those children with their parents

When people commit a crime resulting in their being incarcerated, should their children be incarcerated along with them? Perhaps the best solution to this would be to immediately deport both the parent and the children, together.
 
When people commit a crime resulting in their being incarcerated, should their children be incarcerated along with them? Perhaps the best solution to this would be to immediately deport both the parent and the children, together.

Yep, let us send these "criminals" back to what they were running from.

When Deportation Is a Death Sentence

In the past decade, a growing number of immigrants fearing for their safety have come to the U.S., only to be sent back to their home countries—with the help of border agents, immigration judges, politicians, and U.S. voters—to violent deaths. Even as border apprehensions have dropped, the number of migrants coming to the U.S. because their lives are in danger has soared. According to the United Nations, since 2008 there has been a fivefold increase in asylum seekers just from Central America’s Northern Triangle—Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—where organized gangs are dominant. In 2014, according to the U.N., Honduras had the world’s highest murder rate; El Salvador and Guatemala were close behind.

For some reason :roll: the Trump administration is now emulating the FDR position on refugees. Bit funny don't you think, seeing as how modern Republicans are constantly denigrating the "socialistic" practices of Franklin D Roosevelt.
In the years following the Second World War, the United Nations established a principle of international law known as non-refoulement, or non-return, which forbids the removal of asylum seekers to countries where they are likely to be tortured or killed. The principle was enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, formalizing the concept of the “refugee” and insuring safe harbor for people who could show “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” No one with a credible fear of persecution could be expelled “in any manner whatsoever to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”

For the U.S., the effort to protect refugees was also an act of atonement. In 1939, the government had rejected a boat carrying more than nine hundred Jewish escapees from Nazi Germany. At least two hundred of them were later killed in the Holocaust. As the refugee crisis worsened, countless more were refused entry. President Franklin Roosevelt had warned the public that Jews posed a national-security threat, and argued for tighter restrictions on their numbers.
 
Actually the only thing you could peg is your boyfriend.

A Libbie making gender jokes? I guess your rules of inclusivity and morality are subjective, huh?
There's a good Libbie...:lamo
 
Dishonesty.
While they were certainly were Republican he certainly did not have them.

Your commentary is like saying he had you, but you know that isn't true.

Yes, your posts are the epitome of dishonesty.
 
What is your fascination with hate? Hate is the opposite of love, friend. If you love Donald Trump, I'd prefer you keep that to yourself.

By the way, most regulations were put in place to keep people safe. Donald Trump, and you and the rest of his adoring fans, oppose them. Are you selfish, or simply filled with hate?

Well that's...silly.
I see how much you hate Trump. Its rather obvious actually.
So much so, that you'd forsake the security and safety of Americans, just so you can oppose Trump.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

why would a cop seek to learn about the immigration status of someone (s)he encountered. it is not any portion of their duties

When a cop stops a person and asks for his/her ID, and then realizes the ID is either false or non-existent, he has cause to detain the person.
Just a little bit of investigating would show who the person is...et voila.
 
Back
Top Bottom