• 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!

Yes, There's a Crisis at the Border

VanceMack said:
The difference between now and then is that in 1999, even the ****ing corrupt idiot leftists in the rat party supported immigration laws and efforts to stop illegal immigration, including building walls. Many of the same corrupt pieces of **** that sat in Congress in 1999 and voted to build walls and strictly enforce our immigration laws are the same rat ****s that today call their own past efforts racist.

Of course..the fact that there is video of these ****ing corrupt assholes and their hypocrisy doesnt have even the slightest impact on their words today or their nodding bobblehead idiot leftist supporters nodding in agreement with them.
Click to expand...


Come on now - with a little more effort you should be able to come up with several more vile adjectives to throw in about people who disagree with you and hit new heights of hateful hyperbole.
 
haymarket said:
Come on now - with a little more effort you should be able to come up with several more vile adjectives to throw in about people who disagree with you and hit new heights of hateful hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I dont have much love for the repugnant leftist pukes that are selling out the country. Guilty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is why some folks assert that folks are for more open borders.
Click to expand...

A similarly specious argument could be made that people who are in favor of 2nd amendment rights are for more school shootings. Just because you don't believe a particular tragedy is a national crisis warranting undue government intervention doesn't mean you are in favor of it.
 
VanceMack said:
Only idiot leftists would consider that 78,000 illegal immigrants...enough to fill an entire NFL stadium to capacity, if you need a visual...crossing into this country illegal would not be classified as an emergency. Such is the environment they themselves have created.
Click to expand...

Only idiot rightists would consider multiple school shootings to not warrant the declaration of a national emergency in order to suspend the second amendment and outlaw all firearms...
 
lwf said:
A similarly specious argument could be made that people who are in favor of 2nd amendment rights are for more school shootings. Just because you don't believe a particular tragedy is a national crisis warranting undue government intervention doesn't mean you are in favor of it.
Click to expand...

The 2A is not a right to fire a gun and has never been used as a defense for a "gun crime". It is not "undue government intervention" to enforce federal immigration law, in fact, the opposite is true - attempts to limit its enforcement are wrong.
 
National Border Patrol Council President: There is a national emergency on our border -- Here's proof

From the National Border Patrol Council President,
Oh the hypocrisy.

While a plurality of Democrats claimed a humanitarian border crisis in 2014, they’ve changed their tune in 2019. Using political rhetoric instead of facts, those same Democrats are claiming that there is no crisis today except in President Trump’s mind. But a simple apples-to-apples numbers comparison reveals their hypocrisy.

More drugs, more people crossing the border illegally, more minors of exploitable age, more people from countries other than North and Central American ones, and more people with criminal records. The facts are the facts.
Click to expand...

Consider that in the first 5 months of fiscal year 2014 – the year Democrats claimed a humanitarian border crisis – the United States Border Patrol made approximately 164,492 illegal border crossing arrests.

In the first 5 months of this fiscal year (October through February) that number has increased by more than 106,000. By the end of February, we had approximately 271,147 arrests.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The 2A is not a right to fire a gun and has never been used as a defense for a "gun crime". It is not "undue government intervention" to enforce federal immigration law, in fact, the opposite is true - attempts to limit its enforcement are wrong.
Click to expand...

Congress has the right to ensure that money appropriated for immigration law is not wasted. Declaring a national emergency in order to strip Congress of this right is a dangerous precedent that a future anti-gun president could use for their own agenda. Not wanting the current president to set this precedent for the sole purpose of wasting my tax dollars on a strategy that doesn't work in order to fulfill a campaign promise is hardly an argument for open borders.
 
lwf said:
Only idiot rightists would consider multiple school shootings to not warrant the declaration of a national emergency in order to suspend the second amendment and outlaw all firearms...
Click to expand...
:lamo

Its sad how easily you swallow the **** you are spoon fed from the antigun lobby.

Do you KNOW how many of the mass shootings in this country dating back to 1982 actually involve schools, and how infinitesimally small the percentages are regarding firearm ownership and school shootings? Or how completely stupid you just made yourself look in attempting to compare an incident that occurs .009 times a year in some 300,000 public schools with an incident of risk occurence .000000003 times a year with a population of over 120 MILLION law abiding citizen gun owners to the reality that there are some 78000 in one month alone coming into this country illegally, and that many of those ARE in fact criminals, with 5,000 in a given year coming across our southern border from Asia and the middle east?
 
lwf said:
Congress has the right to ensure that money appropriated for immigration law is not wasted. Declaring a national emergency in order to strip Congress of this right is a dangerous precedent that a future anti-gun president could use for their own agenda. Not wanting the current president to set this precedent for the sole purpose of wasting my tax dollars on a strategy that doesn't work in order to fulfill a campaign promise is hardly an argument for open borders.
Click to expand...

The question is whether arresting, detaining and deporting many thousands of folks annually who illegally cross the border is less "wasteful" than denying them easy entry.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Its sad how easily you swallow the **** you are spoon fed from the antigun lobby.

Do you KNOW how many of the mass shootings in this country dating back to 1982 actually involve schools, and how infinitesimally small the percentages are regarding firearm ownership and school shootings? Or how completely stupid you just made yourself look in attempting to compare an incident that occurs .009 times a year in some 300,000 public schools with an incident of risk occurence .000000003 times a year with a population of over 120 MILLION law abiding citizen gun owners to the reality that there are some 78000 in one month alone coming into this country illegally, and that many of those ARE in fact criminals, with 5,000 in a given year coming across our southern border from Asia and the middle east?
Click to expand...

Okay then, let's just use "gun violence" in general and call that a national emergency. Far more people are killed by firearms in america than are killed by illegal immigrants. For that matter, let's declare alcohol related deaths a national emergency, if American lives are what we're concerned about, right?

The crisis at the border is most definitely NOT a national crisis. Because if it is, we suddenly have to justify why we haven't declared a whole bunch of other much worse and much more widespread human tragedies in this country national crises, and some of those things we just may want to keep the government out of. It is the height of shortsightedness to be in favor of Trump's national emergency with a gaggle of extreme left-wing politicians poised to seize control of the government in the next two to six years.
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah...I dont have much love for the repugnant leftist pukes that are selling out the country. Guilty.
Click to expand...

again - you need to consult your right wing dictionary as it seems you are holding back.
 
lwf said:
Okay then, let's just use "gun violence" in general and call that a national emergency. Far more people are killed by firearms in america than are killed by illegal immigrants. For that matter, let's declare alcohol related deaths a national emergency, if American lives are what we're concerned about, right?

The crisis at the border is most definitely NOT a national crisis. Because if it is, we suddenly have to justify why we haven't declared a whole bunch of other much worse and much more widespread human tragedies in this country national crises, and some of those things we just may want to keep the government out of. It is the height of shortsightedness to be in favor of Trump's national emergency with a gaggle of extreme left-wing politicians poised to seize control of the government in the next two to six years.
Click to expand...
:lamo

You literally came back. After kicking your own ass with that stupid argument you decided to try to double down. Hey...this is just a tip...a friendly bit if advice. Any time you think you are going for NOT making yourself look stupid by promoting an argument you regurgitated from Nancy Pelosi...just...dont start. for your own sake

Ok...so you ran like hell form your previous argument because even you know how stupid that was and now you want to talk 'gun violence' in general. You LITERALLY want to compare ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...nothing vague.,..nothing ambiguous...the enforcement of existing American immigration law, with a Constitutionally protected right and to do so, you are using violent crimes that occur in a majority of minority communities...violent crimes which you LITERALLY have never addressed once because that would require that you actually address who is COMMITTING the majority of those violent crimes and do something about THEM...as your springboard to launch an attack against a Constitutionally protected right, eligible to ALL law abiding adult citizens and practiced responsibly by some 120 million law abiding citizens...and the ONLY REASON you or that ****ing idiot Pelosi make your argument in the first place is because you are asshurt because the current president is ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE EXISTING US LAW...US Law which Pelosi herself and that ****ing twat Schumer and most of the elected democrats have previously voted to enforce and have voted to spend 10 times what the current president is attempting to spend.

You REALLY arent thinking any of this out, are you? You just heard that ****ing idiot Pelosi make her impotent little threat (if HE does that, then maybe WE will do THIS) and you FELL for it? You Decided to regurgitate it?

:lamo

Tell you what. If you are SINCERE...if you really care about gun violence...then you and several other like minded individuals should RIGHT NOW start doing sweeps in majority minority communities where this illegal activity is occurring. Show some ****ing guts. Stand by your impotent little threat...THEN come back and tell us how you think you are going to suspend the Constitution, and how well you think thats going to play out with 120 million law abiding citizen gun owners.

FM
 
haymarket said:
again - you need to consult your right wing dictionary as it seems you are holding back.
Click to expand...

Every few years I decide to bother to read something you wrote and invariably...immediately...you remind me why I dont bother.
 
VanceMack said:
Every few years I decide to bother to read something you wrote and invariably...immediately...you remind me why I dont bother.
Click to expand...

Great. Lets me know I am doing something right.
 
Winston said:
If Democrats were to say ,"The South Will Rise Again." we'd be talking about Tenochtitlan.
Click to expand...

And I will keep mentioning that until people realize what the democrats did
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

You literally came back. After kicking your own ass with that stupid argument you decided to try to double down. Hey...this is just a tip...a friendly bit if advice. Any time you think you are going for NOT making yourself look stupid by promoting an argument you regurgitated from Nancy Pelosi...just...dont start. for your own sake

Ok...so you ran like hell form your previous argument because even you know how stupid that was and now you want to talk 'gun violence' in general. You LITERALLY want to compare ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...nothing vague.,..nothing ambiguous...the enforcement of existing American immigration law, with a Constitutionally protected right and to do so, you are using violent crimes that occur in a majority of minority communities...violent crimes which you LITERALLY have never addressed once because that would require that you actually address who is COMMITTING the majority of those violent crimes and do something about THEM...as your springboard to launch an attack against a Constitutionally protected right, eligible to ALL law abiding adult citizens and practiced responsibly by some 120 million law abiding citizens...and the ONLY REASON you or that ****ing idiot Pelosi make your argument in the first place is because you are asshurt because the current president is ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE EXISTING US LAW...US Law which Pelosi herself and that ****ing twat Schumer and most of the elected democrats have previously voted to enforce and have voted to spend 10 times what the current president is attempting to spend.

You REALLY arent thinking any of this out, are you? You just heard that ****ing idiot Pelosi make her impotent little threat (if HE does that, then maybe WE will do THIS) and you FELL for it? You Decided to regurgitate it?

:lamo

Tell you what. If you are SINCERE...if you really care about gun violence...then you and several other like minded individuals should RIGHT NOW start doing sweeps in majority minority communities where this illegal activity is occurring. Show some ****ing guts. Stand by your impotent little threat...THEN come back and tell us how you think you are going to suspend the Constitution, and how well you think thats going to play out with 120 million law abiding citizen gun owners.

FM
Click to expand...

Wow. You seem really pissed off. Sorry about that.
 
lwf said:
Wow. You seem really pissed off. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Citing the other person's <emotion> was petrified about 20 years ago as a debate tactic.


Hilarious how the DP Left are forced to resort to such TIRED, OLD ALINSKY BULL****...in the absence of any real valid points....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The question is whether arresting, detaining and deporting many thousands of folks annually who illegally cross the border is less "wasteful" than denying them easy entry.
Click to expand...

I'm all for denying them easy entry, but the problem is that a wall does not deny them easy entry. If manpower is sacrificed in areas where a wall is built, there will be a net increase in border crossings in that area due to the ease with which a wall can be bypassed. If manpower is increased in any particular area, a wall would then be unnecessary except in areas of high population concentration where walls already exist. Any way you slice it, border protection boots on the ground is the second best way to control illegal border crossings. The best way is investing in the economies of the countries where the refugees are coming from so that they have no need to come here. The second worst way to control illegal border crossing is with a physical barrier. This is nearly as useless as doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
Wow. You seem really pissed off. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
:lamo

There ya go. When you have nothing else, declare the other person is 'angry'. Or maybe racist...you could use that.

:lamo

You just slammed your hand in the door...twice. Believe me...it was FUN pointing out how stupid you made yourself look. No 'anger' at all.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

There ya go. When you have nothing else, declare the other person is 'angry'. Or maybe racist...you could use that.

:lamo

You just slammed your hand in the door...twice. Believe me...it was FUN pointing out how stupid you made yourself look. No 'anger' at all.
Click to expand...

Look, my pompous friend. I don't know what made you identify me as a threat, but I have no interest in contributing to your self abuse.
 
lwf said:
I'm all for denying them easy entry, but the problem is that a wall does not deny them easy entry. If manpower is sacrificed in areas where a wall is built, there will be a net increase in border crossings in that area due to the ease with which a wall can be bypassed. If manpower is increased in any particular area, a wall would then be unnecessary except in areas of high population concentration where walls already exist. Any way you slice it, border protection boots on the ground is the second best way to control illegal border crossings. The best way is investing in the economies of the countries where the refugees are coming from so that they have no need to come here. The second worst way to control illegal border crossing is with a physical barrier. This is nearly as useless as doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Hmm... walls work well only where many people are. Is that not true, as CPB states, where many illegally cross the border?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... walls work well only where many people are. Is that not true, as CPB states, where many illegally cross the border?
Click to expand...

They work well to stop vehicles. For people on foot, they work only in conjunction with overwhelmed CBP officers to slow down large numbers attempting to cross. Look at it this way:

If there are enough officers on station, a barrier larger than a chain-link fence is unnecessary. If there are no officers on station, a barrier of any size is useless. If there are insufficient officers on station, a barrier helps those understaffed stations by slowing down border crossers.

If you have money to spend on the above scenario, does it make more sense to increase the number of walls, or to increase the number of officers? Is there any situation where a wall bigger than a chain link fence is a logical place to spend money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom