Maybe didn't need to tell Mexico to pay for the Wall?

[RichA]

As many Americans would be glad to chip-in to pay for it, especially those forced to live on or near the border with disgusting, violent, backward Mexico.

[David Johnston]

On 9/1/2016 10:23 AM, RichA wrote:
> As many Americans would be glad to chip-in to pay for it, especially those forced to live on or near the border with disgusting, violent, backward Mexico.
>

Oh sure, an 80 billion dollar wall can be funded on subscription. I
definitely believe that.

[FPP]

A. Nobody is forced to live anywhere.

B) Maybe Trump is just a tough-talking pussy.
--
Being slightly paranoid is like being slightly pregnant - it tends to
get worse over time. -Molly Ivins

[RichA]

The government (Clinton) blew $200 billion on the International Space Station, a "make-work" project for out of work Russian scientists (post-1990) so they wouldn't go build bombs for filthy Muslims. No one has said a word about the ISS being the most expensive, most unproductive space mission of ALL TIME. Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion to keep their country safer and BETTER??

[David Johnston]

Because:

1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.

2. They gave at the office.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqan8o$vih$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/1/2016 5:43 PM, RichA wrote:
> > On Thursday, 1 September 2016 13:21:54 UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2016 10:23 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>> As many Americans would be glad to chip-in to pay for it,
> >>> especially those forced to live on or near the border with
> >>> disgusting, violent, backward Mexico.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh sure, an 80 billion dollar wall can be funded on subscription.
> >> I definitely believe that.
> >
> > The government (Clinton) blew $200 billion on the International Space
> > Station, a "make-work" project for out of work Russian scientists
> > (post-1990) so they wouldn't go build bombs for filthy Muslims. No
> > one has said a word about the ISS being the most expensive, most
> > unproductive space mission of ALL TIME. Why wouldn't Americans be
> > willing to put up a few billion to keep their country safer and
> > BETTER??
> >
>
> Because:
>
> 1. It wouldn't work.

Somehow the Israelis make theirs work.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/ISR-EGY_border_6521a.
jpg

http://i.imgur.com/tjmoSHb.jpg

[David Johnston]

Oh yes, the length of the Israeli border compared to their population
density makes the problems of the two nations totally alike.

[Ed Stasiak]

> David Johnston
> > RichA

> >
> > Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion
> > to keep their country safer and BETTER??
>
> Because:
>
> 1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
> legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.

Worked pretty good for the East Germans.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/System_of_gdr_border_fortification.jpg

[David Johnston]

And if you were willing to adopt the degree of "documents please"
internal policing that East Germany had, you certainly could stop
illegal immigration almost entirely. But that would make the wall
redundant.

[FPP]

News Flash: This isn't Israel. They have, what... a 7 mile wall? Our
border with Mexico is what again? 2000 miles.
I'm not even bothering to look up the exact figures, because it isn't
worth it. Your comment is the height of idiocy.

Big surprise!

First, most illegals come here on visas, not over the border. A wall
won't stop that.

Second, the net number of illegals coming over, at present, is almost zero.

Third, how do you put up a wall along the Rio Grande? Any idea? Big
balloons, maybe?

Fourth, land rights will be a nightmare.

Fifth, the cost is around $20,000,000,000, and upkeep might be close
the cost to build it.

Sixth, the cost of just the upkeep would be almost 750,000,000. A
fucking YEAR!

Seventh, our economy depends upon those people coming here to do the
jobs that Americans will NOT do. Go ask Georgia how they made out when
they tried to stop migrant workers. Georgia lost around $140,000,000
in rotted fruit that wasn't picked.

That's off the top of my head.

A stupid idea from a stupid candidate for stupid supporters. What does
that make your brilliant comment? Any idea?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
--


I learned two things growing up:
1: God loves you, and you're going to burn in hell forever.
2: Sex is the dirtiest and most dangerous thing you can possibly do, so
save it for someone you love. -Molly Ivins

[FPP]

Identical, in fact. They even use some of the same letters in both
names! 'Cept the "L".
No kiddin'!

[FPP]

Another
>
News Flash: This isn't Germany, either!
--
"Admit it: When Michael Jackson (a poor black boy) grew up to be a
rich, white woman and married Elvis Presley's daughter, the
Scientologist… it made you proud to be an American, didn't it?" -Molly
Ivins

[FPP]

It also wouldn't pass the first lower court it was brought to, much
less SCOTUS.

[trotsky]

Wow! Do they have the "tunnel technology" that Trump spoke of, too?

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/08/25/but-wait-theres-more-donald-trumps-border-wall-to-feature-tunnel-technology/

[trotsky]

Yes, right until Republican God Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear
it down. Are you going against Reagan, Ed?

[FPP]

And, yet, if I say that rounding up minorities worked great for Germany
in the 30's, I'd get all kinds of shit for it... go figure.

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 7:20 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 12:10:04 +0000, trotsky <gms...@email.com> said:
>
>> On 9/2/16 1:23 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> David Johnston
>>>>> RichA
>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion
>>>>> to keep their country safer and BETTER??
>>>>
>>>> Because:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
>>>> legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.
>>>
>>> Worked pretty good for the East Germans.
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/System_of_gdr_border_fortification.jpg
>>>
>
>
> Yes,
>>>
>> right until Republican God Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear it
>> down. Are you going against Reagan, Ed?
>
> And, yet, if I say that rounding up minorities worked great for Germany
> in the 30's, I'd get all kinds of shit for it... go figure.

Are you kidding? Pubie would lambaste you with complaints of "ad
hominems" (sic) that violate "Goodwin's Law" (sic).

[Adam H. Kerman]

Uh, what? The Commies had a huge immigration problem, did they? East
Germany was run as a prison camp; they were preventing EMIGRATION to
West Germany and West Berlin.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqb6aq$2pi$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Our economy depends upon those people coming here to do the

> jobs that Americans will NOT do. Go ask Georgia how they made out when
> they tried to stop migrant workers. Georgia lost around $140,000,000
> in rotted fruit that wasn't picked.

So all the lip service the Left pays to border enforcement in their
constant shilling for "comprehensive immigration reform" is just a lie,
right? You guys *want* illegals to keep coming. Which is why the Left
say they're for border enforcement in order to get votes and support for
their package, yet reject any attempt to actually do it, and reject any
"enforcement-before-amnesty" amendments that are introduced.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqb10d$llr$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ever been to the southern desert border, Johnston? The population
density down there is pretty much the same as what you see in that first
Israeli picture.

[David Johnston]

On 9/2/2016 10:51 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nqb6aq$2pi$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Our economy depends upon those people coming here to do the
>> jobs that Americans will NOT do. Go ask Georgia how they made out when
>> they tried to stop migrant workers. Georgia lost around $140,000,000
>> in rotted fruit that wasn't picked.
>
> So all the lip service the Left pays to border enforcement in their
> constant shilling for "comprehensive immigration reform" is just a lie,
> right? You guys *want* illegals to keep coming.

"You guys". Like that isn't true on the other side.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's a hell of a lot of privately-owned range land that they'd have
to confiscate, though. Israel doesn't have private land ownership, so
I suppose it's easier.

I don't see why we'd want this. I truly think the Israelis are embarassed
that they were forced to build this, but this is a military occupation that's
coming up on five decades, and they were trying to prevent small rockets
from being smuggled in.

All we're trying to do is keep potential employees away.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm calling you out once again, Johnston. You're the one choosing to
participate in yet another stupid political discussion.

For the record, state your opinion on illegal immigration, and stop
taking cheap shots until you do.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqccfa$t4l$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Not really. Just a 10-foot strip paralleling the actual border. Wouldn't
even have to confiscate it. Just impose an easement.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcbtb$uee$1...@dont-email.me>,

Point taken. Both parties are horribly corrupt on this issue.

[FPP]

There's that heavy hob nailed jackboot of the big gub'mint coming down
on the necks of the people again.
You know... the one you hate, whenever it helps your fellow American in need?

> To build the border wall the federal government has brought
> condemnation lawsuits against more than 300 Texas landowners.
> Homeowners, farmers, nature preserves, and municipalities all face the
> imminent loss of their property for a patchwork of walls that have “no
> discernible impact” on the overall numbers of immigrants or smugglers
> who cross the border, according to the Congressional Research Service.
>
> The wall is a rhetorical point used by politicians who do not represent
> border communities to claim that they are working to protect the
> homeland. For them, the real impact of the border wall is irrelevant;
> all that matters is the perception among voters who will never actually
> see it. Members of congress who do represent Texas border residents
> should be fighting to defend our lands and our homes, literally the
> homeland that the border wall is supposed to secure. Instead, Texas’
> Senators have worked to fund and build the wall that today stands in
> Hidalgo County and is tearing through Brownsville.
>
> Land nearest the Rio Grande has always been prized because of the rich
> soil and the year-round availability of water. Many families along its
> banks still hold title to lands that were granted to their forefathers
> by the King of Spain as early as the 1740’s, decades before the United
> States and Mexico became sovereign nations, and more than a century
> before the Rio Grande became their shared border. For these owners, the
> land is a priceless piece of their family’s history.
>
> http://notexasborderwall.blogspot.com/2009/05/border-wall-vs-property-rights-texas.html

But,
>
hey... fuck 'em, right?

[FPP]

On 2016-09-02 18:13:16 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

Sure! Easy as pie.

> What Donald Trump doesn’t want you to know about his plan to build a
> “Great Wall” between the U.S. and Mexico: He’d need to steal private
> property from Americans to build it.
>
> In 2013, the federal government succeeded in using eminent domain to
> acquire the land rights to build a border fence across Dr. Eloisa G.
> Tamez’s ancestral home in 2013. Dr. Tamez’s land has been in her family
> since the King of Spain granted it to them in 1767. But it rests on the
> U.S.-Mexican border, so the Department of Homeland Security took it to
> erect a border wall under a federal law enacted during the Bush
> administration.
>
> The Great Wall of Trump would mean hundreds, if not thousands, of Tamezes….
>
> The Government Accountability Office reports (PDF) that “federal and
> tribal lands make up 632 miles, or approximately 33 percent, of the
> nearly 2,000 total border miles.” What of the remaining 66 percent?
> “Private and state-owned lands constitute the remaining 67 percent of
> the border, most of which is located in Texas.”
>
> That means that if Trump’s plan to build another 1,000 miles of wall is
> carried to fruition, thousands more homeowners will see their property
> destroyed or partially walled-off.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/01/donald-trumps-great-wall-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.46f0113b0506

But,
>
hey... fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

The joke being that a wall will do fuck-all to stop illegal
immigration. And everybody who knows anything about the problem says
so.

But, hey, we've gotta' give the rubes something, right?

[Adam H. Kerman]

An easement is a taking, same as the government taking fee simple title to
the land. The property owner lacks use of his property that's subject to
the easement. Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
within a certain distance of the international border. That also prevents
someone from full use and enjoyment of his land. Even the electric company
doesn't have that kind of power when enforcing easements for line poles.

Full militarization of any of the United States international boundaries
is entirely un-American.

I'd rip out what we have right now, and stop spending this massive amount
of money on the Border Patrol, just to fight off people trying to find
work. If most of the illegals went back to crossing from Baja California
into California, no one would give a shit, because no one gave a shit
when it happened in the past. It was only when they built the California
fence and that east-west moat, shoving the problem into New Mexico and
Arizona, that it became a really serious problem.

[FPP]

It isn't the left who are employing those migrant workers, is it?

Our economy demands that we use migrant labor... and it''s the left
that wants to do that within a system of laws that can control the flow.

it's the right who uses that labor, but wants to pretend they hate it.

Who's the liar here? The left that acknowledges the necessity of the
workers, or the right that uses the workers, but pays lip service to
getting rid of them?

It's an easy one... take your time.

[FPP]

But only one side is refusing to do anything about the problem,
amirite? They prefer to demonize the very workers they can't live
without.

Yeah, they're both sides are giant gaping assholes... but one side is
perpetuating an unworkable situation, and then exploit it for their
political gain.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcj3o$pmg$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-09-02 16:51:07 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nqb6aq$2pi$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Our economy depends upon those people coming here to do the
> >> jobs that Americans will NOT do. Go ask Georgia how they made out when
> >> they tried to stop migrant workers. Georgia lost around $140,000,000
> >> in rotted fruit that wasn't picked.
> >
> > So all the lip service the Left pays to border enforcement in their
> > constant shilling for "comprehensive immigration reform" is just a lie,
> > right? You guys *want* illegals to keep coming. Which is why the Left
> > say they're for border enforcement in order to get votes and support for
> > their package, yet reject any attempt to actually do it, and reject any
> > "enforcement-before-amnesty" amendments that are introduced.
>
> It isn't the left who are employing those migrant workers, is it?
>
> Our economy demands that we use migrant labor... and it''s the left
> that wants to do that within a system of laws that can control the flow.
>
> it's the right who uses that labor, but wants to pretend they hate it.

No, it's the Republicans who do that. The Right wants to put a stop to
it.

[George M. Middius]

FPP wrote:

> Our economy demands that we use migrant labor... and it''s the left
> that wants to do that within a system of laws that can control the flow.
>
> it's the right who uses that labor, but wants to pretend they hate it.

It's either that or guarantee every citizen a decent living including
access to health care. Today's conservagreeders would rather eat their
chidlren than part with money.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcj1b$ajq$2...@news.albasani.net>,

But it doesn't foreclose the owner's continued use of the land.

> The property owner lacks use of his property that's subject to
> the easement.

That's not true. The property owner can continue to use it. She just
can't prohibit the other party from using it also. And other than a
little maintenance now and then, there wouldn't even be any need for the
government to physically come on to the vast majority of that land after
construction is done.

> Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
> international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
> within a certain distance of the international border.

Where do you get that from? And even if true, it would be simple matter
to write the law to exempt legitimate land owners from it.

> Full militarization of any of the United States international boundaries
> is entirely un-American.

Is there somewhere that I can find a definitive list of everything that
is "un-American", because people constantly make that claim and I
suspect it's rather self-serving.

For example, I could claim that allowing millions of illegals to flood
the country, depressing wages for American citizens, burdening our
public schools and health care system, forcing taxes to go up to pay for
all the services they use, etc. is "un-American".

Where's the definitive authority on what is and is not "un-American", so
we can see who is right?

> I'd rip out what we have right now, and stop spending this massive amount
> of money on the Border Patrol, just to fight off people trying to find
> work.

Yes, I know you're an open-borders maven who thinks we should just throw
open our borders to anyone who wants to walk across. I've said it before
and I'll say it again:

Talk with agents of ICE and Border Patrol and they'll tell you about how
15 years ago, between one and five out every 100 illegals caught along
the southern border would be what they call OTM (other than Mexican) and
of those, they were usually from other Latin American countries like
Guatemala or Honduras. Now they're finding a ratio of 25-40 per 100 are
OTMs and they aren't just from Latin American countries anymore. They're
from countries like Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Ranchers
along the border routinely find Islamic prayer rugs and Arabic
newspapers discarded on their land. And when it's reported, the
politicians and upper-level officials in the government just don't want
to hear it, just like they didn't want to hear the FBI field agents who
were telling them they had Middle Eastern guys taking flight lessons who
had no interest in learning how to land the plane.

What legitimate reason could there possibly be for a guy to travel all
the way from Yemen with the US as his destination, but go to Mexico
first and have himself muled across the border in the dead of night by a
coyote? He's "just looking for a better life" and a job picking
strawberries? Riiiggghhht.

All this hand-wringing over national security and fighting a "war on
terror" overseas is absolute nonsense if no effort is made to secure our
borders. You don't go out into the city to hunt down potential thieves
while at the same time leaving the doors and windows to your home wide
open.

Why are we the only nation in the world that's not supposed to control
its own borders?

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Worked pretty good for the East Germans.
>

> Uh, what? The Commies had a huge immigration problem, did they?

No, they had a huge emigration problem until they locked down
the border, but it worked both ways.

> East Germany was run as a prison camp; they were preventing
> EMIGRATION to West Germany and West Berlin.

The issue was the effectiveness of border control and there’s no denying
that the “Iron Curtain” was very effective at preventing border crossings
in either direction and that the U.S. could easily do better today.

There is nothing “un-American” about keeping control of our borders.

[FPP]

Why do you want to build a wall that does nothing to stop illegal immigration?
Isn't that the question? Building a wall is a talking point for the
rubes who don't know any better.

Trump knows he can't build it, and everybody know it will do nothing to
fix the problem. It's a bright shiny object to distract the dull
witted from actual solutions.

If you build a 50 foot high wall, somebody else will make a 51 foot
ladder, and a 51 foot rope.
--
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil." - Roosevelt

[FPP]

Now you're pretending the Republicans aren't "the Right".

And water isn't wet, and the check is in the mail...
--
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators don't know whether
to answer "Present" or "Not guilty" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman

>
> All we're trying to do is keep potential employees away.

Most of them end up on welfare and the ones who do work, are only
putting downward pressure on wages and benefits for everybody.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-f1.jpg

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-5EBE7F...@news.giganews.com>,

Anything you build on it is subject to being torn down at the
government's whim, so your use of it is pretty much limited to driving
over it or looking at it.

And other than a
> little maintenance now and then, there wouldn't even be any need for the
> government to physically come on to the vast majority of that land after
> construction is done.

No, but you have to allow access at all times, which means you have to
set aside even more land for that.

>
> > Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
> > international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
> > within a certain distance of the international border.
>
> Where do you get that from? And even if true, it would be simple matter
> to write the law to exempt legitimate land owners from it.
>
> > Full militarization of any of the United States international boundaries
> > is entirely un-American.
>
> Is there somewhere that I can find a definitive list of everything that
> is "un-American", because people constantly make that claim and I
> suspect it's rather self-serving.

First rule, don't ask to see the list.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[FPP]

We totally should. Which is why a wall isn't much of a solution.
You want to stop illegal immigration in it's tracks? Fine any employer
that knowingly hires one.

End of problem.

Building a wall around your house won't keep the insects out. Remove
the food source, and the unwanted pests disappear.
--
Donald J. Trump is always thinking three steps ahead. Unfortunately
for him, he's generally facing backwards at the time.

[FPP]

Then
>
why doesn't one side want to fix the problem. Really fix it, rather
than play on people's fears and prejudices?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Why are you, of all people, arguing against the constitution? Yes, an
easement is a taking. If the government has an easement for underground
utilities, say a sewer, the land owner cannot dig. Maybe he can plant
certain crops, but he won't be able to plant a tree, as a for instance.
He can't fence it off without providing access to it.

If the easement is overhead, say a line pole with electric and communications
wires, the land owner cannot erect a building or plant a tree without
affecting.

You certainly know that a long, long time ago, federal courts found
against the federal government's argument that as long as the land owner
had partial use of his land, he wasn't entitled to compensation. A taking
had occurred. With 10 seconds of googling, I'm not finding the name of
the case.

>>The property owner lacks use of his property that's subject to
>>the easement.

>That's not true. The property owner can continue to use it. She just
>can't prohibit the other party from using it also. And other than a
>little maintenance now and then, there wouldn't even be any need for the
>government to physically come on to the vast majority of that land after
>construction is done.

Bullshit. The federal government has militarized the international border,
with various detectors and heat sensors looking for human movement. They've
got cameras. That's hugely intrusive to the landowner, who would end up
getting spied upon when they're looking for illegals.

>>Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
>>international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
>>within a certain distance of the international border.

>Where do you get that from?

How the hell are you going to absolutely enforce the international boundary
if the federal government cannot stop and question and possibly arrest anyone
it finds that it deems to be suspicious? What, a landowner will have to
carry ID when he's minding his own business on his own property?

>And even if true, it would be simple matter to write the law to exempt
>legitimate land owners from it.

Yeah, right, 'cuz arguing with cops and federal authorities that "You
have no legitimate grounds to take me into custody!" has never gotten
anyone shot for contempt of cop.

>>Full militarization of any of the United States international boundaries
>>is entirely un-American.

>Is there somewhere that I can find a definitive list of everything that
>is "un-American", because people constantly make that claim and I
>suspect it's rather self-serving.

>For example, I could claim that allowing millions of illegals to flood
>the country, depressing wages for American citizens, burdening our
>public schools and health care system, forcing taxes to go up to pay for
>all the services they use, etc. is "un-American".

>Where's the definitive authority on what is and is not "un-American", so
>we can see who is right?

Remind me again: If as a result, goods and services are cheaper, doesn't
that mean that raises the standard of living of consumers, they buy more,
and thus there's a higher demand for labor?

I always love the "higher population depresses the economy" nonsense,
given that the opposite is true.

To the extent they pay Social Security taxes (which they don't if they're
paid under the table, I'll agree) and don't retire here, then they're
making a positive contribution to the health care system.

To eliminate paying illegals under the table, to enforce industrial hygiene
and minimum wage and overtime and hours of services laws and OSHA, I'd
give illegals SSNs, which would mean they'd be paying payroll taxes too.

>>I'd rip out what we have right now, and stop spending this massive amount
>>of money on the Border Patrol, just to fight off people trying to find
>>work.

>Yes, I know you're an open-borders maven who thinks we should just throw
>open our borders to anyone who wants to walk across. I've said it before
>and I'll say it again:

>Talk with agents of ICE and Border Patrol and they'll tell you about how
>15 years ago, between one and five out every 100 illegals caught along
>the southern border would be what they call OTM (other than Mexican) and
>of those, they were usually from other Latin American countries like
>Guatemala or Honduras. Now they're finding a ratio of 25-40 per 100 are
>OTMs and they aren't just from Latin American countries anymore. They're
>from countries like Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Ranchers
>along the border routinely find Islamic prayer rugs and Arabic
>newspapers discarded on their land. And when it's reported, the
>politicians and upper-level officials in the government just don't want
>to hear it, just like they didn't want to hear the FBI field agents who
>were telling them they had Middle Eastern guys taking flight lessons who
>had no interest in learning how to land the plane.

>What legitimate reason could there possibly be for a guy to travel all
>the way from Yemen with the US as his destination, but go to Mexico
>first and have himself muled across the border in the dead of night by a
>coyote? He's "just looking for a better life" and a job picking
>strawberries? Riiiggghhht.

I highly doubt this is any kind of cost effective way to fight potential
terror. I'm not sure there is a cost effective way to do it. I'm just
going to live my life.

>All this hand-wringing over national security and fighting a "war on
>terror" overseas is absolute nonsense if no effort is made to secure our
>borders. You don't go out into the city to hunt down potential thieves
>while at the same time leaving the doors and windows to your home wide
>open.

Maybe war on terror is nonsense in and of itself.

>Why are we the only nation in the world that's not supposed to control
>its own borders?

All those arbitrary partitions the British and the French drew after WWI
in the former Ottoman Empire have kept that region in a state of war
most of the time ever since. There's something seriously fucked about
the vast majority of international boundaries. The one dividing the US
and Mexico cut off centuries of well-established north-south migration.
It's beyond stupid. That should be an open border.

There aren't too many international borders in this world that we wouldn't
be better off doing without. The only one that can be pointed to as
peaceful for 150 years is the 49th parallel. All the rest are fuck.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Worked pretty good for the East Germans.

>>Uh, what? The Commies had a huge immigration problem, did they?

>No, they had a huge emigration problem until they locked down
>the border, but it worked both ways.

Uh, no, the heavily fortified East German border isn't what prevented
immigration. That would be the lack of a free society.

>>East Germany was run as a prison camp; they were preventing
>>EMIGRATION to West Germany and West Berlin.

>The issue was the effectiveness of border control and there=E2=80=99s no de=
>nying
>that the =E2=80=9CIron Curtain=E2=80=9D was very effective at preventing bo=

>rder crossings
>in either direction and that the U.S. could easily do better today.

How much more do you want to spend?

>There is nothing =E2=80=9Cun-American=E2=80=9D about keeping control of our=
> borders.

If nations didn't draw international boundaries, then decide to prevent
centuries of well-established migration patterns, then the issue of
control would be entirely irrelevant.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That includes ILLEGALS? That's impossible to believe, given most of those
welfare programs are Social Security programs, and the others require
Social Security numbers anyway. There's no legal public housing nor rent
subsidy if all members of the household aren't here legally.

If other members of the household who aren't undocumented immigrants
are on welfare, then I'd still have SSNs for the head of household which
would make it possible for him to work legitimately.

Someone undocumented doesn't need to be eligible for welfare.

[trotsky]

Interesting, Ed. This chart is from an independent organization called
"The Center for Immigration Studies". They claim to be non-partisan,
but every quote in favor of them is from a Republican:
http://cis.org/About Do you know if they're funding by the Koch Bros.?

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 3:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a think tank that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has "been part of a broad-based and well-planned effort to attack immigration in all forms" even though it now seeks -- and has largely attained -- more mainstream credentials.[1] It bills itself as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization"[2] and testified before Congress almost 100 times between 1995 and 2009.[1] According to its website, CIS is "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." CIS states that its vision of America is "pro-immigrant, low-immigration," seeking "fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."[2] But according to the SPLC, "the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked."[1] CIS is part of the John Tanton Network, the anti-immigrant "empire of organizations" created by, or connected to, population-control advocate and nativist John Tanton.

[David Johnston]

On 9/2/2016 10:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nqb10d$llr$1...@dont-email.me>,

> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/2016 9:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>> In article <nqan8o$vih$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not what I was talking about. The United States has one of the largest
militaries in the world...but in proportion to its land mass Israel has
the U.S. beat hollow.

[David Johnston]

I am more concerned with whether measures to stop illegal immigration
will be cost-effective than whether they are "morally" right. I think
that Clinton's efforts to increase border security by fencing off large
parts of the border made the problem worse by making it more expensive
and dangerous to cross. So instead of crossing the border to work for a
while and then go back they crossed and stayed. I think the problems
with Trump's wall are that it

1. Wouldn't be very effective.
2. Will be very expensive for a already cash-strapped American
government. Particularly since you can't just build a wall and forget
about it. It's an ongoing expense to keep it maintained.
3. Will trash American-Mexican relations as Trump attempts to "make
them pay for it". It would probably mean the collapse of NAFTA followed
by high tariffs that would be ruinous for all three economies.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcnln$l5q$1...@news.albasani.net>,

It's not a complete taking, but even so, the Constitution allows for
taking of private property for public purpose, so long as the owner is
justly compensated. How am I arguing against the Constitution?

> >>The property owner lacks use of his property that's subject to
> >>the easement.
>
> >That's not true. The property owner can continue to use it. She just
> >can't prohibit the other party from using it also. And other than a
> >little maintenance now and then, there wouldn't even be any need for the
> >government to physically come on to the vast majority of that land after
> >construction is done.
>
> Bullshit. The federal government has militarized the international border,
> with various detectors and heat sensors looking for human movement.

How are security systems equivalent to militarizing something? I have
security cameras on my house that have thermal/night-vision features.
Have I militarized my home?

> >>Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
> >>international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
> >>within a certain distance of the international border.
>
> >Where do you get that from?
>
> How the hell are you going to absolutely enforce the international boundary
> if the federal government cannot stop and question and possibly arrest anyone
> it finds that it deems to be suspicious? What, a landowner will have to
> carry ID when he's minding his own business on his own property?
>
> >And even if true, it would be simple matter to write the law to exempt
> >legitimate land owners from it.
>
> Yeah, right, 'cuz arguing with cops and federal authorities that "You
> have no legitimate grounds to take me into custody!" has never gotten
> anyone shot for contempt of cop.

Well, if you're going to posit a government that refuses to follow the
law, then no government action can ever be legitimate.

Although, when it comes to the border, we *already have* a government
that refuses to follow the law and in many instances works in direct
contravention to what the law requires.

Well, then you're just like those government bureaucrats who want to put
their hands over their ears and chant "la-la-la" when the boots on the
ground are telling them something is seriously fucked.

Last time that happened, we ended up with a huge smoking hole where the
WTC used to be.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcm6m$4fj$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Because progs won't let us do *anything* that stops or discourages
illegal immigration. Anything that has even the slightest potential of
working is immediately shouted down as raaaaaccciiiissst.

Even talking about illegals going back to their home countries of their
own volition is now deemed raaaaaccciiiissst by the prog intelligentsia.

> If you build a 50 foot high wall, somebody else will make a 51 foot
> ladder, and a 51 foot rope.

Well, if all the illegals are forced to hump massive ladders and
hundreds of pounds of rope across the desert just to get here, that
logistical nightmare alone with slash their numbers significantly.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqcm8v$4fj$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-09-02 19:28:30 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nqcj3o$pmg$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-09-02 16:51:07 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <nqb6aq$2pi$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Our economy depends upon those people coming here to do the
> >>>> jobs that Americans will NOT do. Go ask Georgia how they made out when
> >>>> they tried to stop migrant workers. Georgia lost around $140,000,000
> >>>> in rotted fruit that wasn't picked.
> >>>
> >>> So all the lip service the Left pays to border enforcement in their
> >>> constant shilling for "comprehensive immigration reform" is just a lie,
> >>> right? You guys *want* illegals to keep coming. Which is why the Left
> >>> say they're for border enforcement in order to get votes and support for
> >>> their package, yet reject any attempt to actually do it, and reject any
> >>> "enforcement-before-amnesty" amendments that are introduced.
> >>
> >> It isn't the left who are employing those migrant workers, is it?
> >>
> >> Our economy demands that we use migrant labor... and it''s the left
> >> that wants to do that within a system of laws that can control the flow.
> >>
> >> it's the right who uses that labor, but wants to pretend they hate it.
> >
> > No, it's the Republicans who do that. The Right wants to put a stop to
> > it.
>
> Now you're pretending the Republicans aren't "the Right".

They haven't been for quite a while now. This whole illegal immigration
bullshit is just bright-line evidence of that.

[David Johnston]

Yeeeah...still not believing that one.

[FPP]

100% demonstrably false. The Senate passed a bi-partisan Immigration
bill. There were enough votes in the House to easily pass it, if it
were put up for a vote. Obama promised to sign it into law.

What happened to it? The House Republicans blocked it, and it did not pass.
Proof that it isn't the progs stopping reform, but rather the cons.

>
> Even talking about illegals going back to their home countries of their
> own volition is now deemed raaaaaccciiiissst by the prog intelligentsia.
>
>> If you build a 50 foot high wall, somebody else will make a 51 foot
>> ladder, and a 51 foot rope.
>
> Well, if all the illegals are forced to hump massive ladders and
> hundreds of pounds of rope across the desert just to get here, that
> logistical nightmare alone with slash their numbers significantly.

Yes, because getting over a wall is *so* hard!
How does that stop the majority of undocumented workers coming in with
a valid visa - which is how most of them get here.

The wall will do practically NOTHING.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-53F4DC...@news.giganews.com>,

What compensation am I receiving for the easements across my lot?

[FPP]

Let's call them who they were... the Republican President of the United
States, and his incompetent administration.

[FPP]

Sure... and the sun doesn't rise every day.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >

> > Most of them end up on welfare and the ones who do work, are only
> > putting downward pressure on wages and benefits for everybody.
>

> Someone undocumented doesn't need to be eligible for welfare.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-t6.jpg

Hardly surprising, as we’re not getting Mexican scientists and doctors,
the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
payers to take care of.

If they can’t make it in Mexico, what makes you thing they’ll make it here?

[Ed Stasiak]

> trotsky
>
> *snip

“I don’t like what they’re saying, so I reject anything they say!”

[FPP]

Since they're coming here secretly, and illegally, how do you know what
we're getting?

[RichA]

On Friday, 2 September 2016 08:10:09 UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/2/16 1:23 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> David Johnston
> >>> RichA

> >>>
> >>> Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion
> >>> to keep their country safer and BETTER??
> >>
> >> Because:
> >>

> >> 1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
> >> legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.

> >
> > Worked pretty good for the East Germans.
> >

> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/System_of_gdr_border_fortification.jpg
>
>
> Yes, right until Republican God Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear
> it down. Are you going against Reagan, Ed?

Except in this case, the Mexicans aren't trying to keep anyone IN, in-fact, they like it when their own people leave. Let useless mouths to feed, house, etc.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Historically, there was north-south migration between the southwest and
Mexico, so they still should be willing and wanting to go back if that's not
interfered with.

[RichA]

On Friday, 2 September 2016 08:20:45 UTC-4, FPP wrote:

> On 2016-09-02 12:10:04 +0000, trotsky <gms...@email.com> said:
>
> > On 9/2/16 1:23 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>> David Johnston
> >>>> RichA
> >>>>
> >>>> Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion
> >>>> to keep their country safer and BETTER??
> >>>
> >>> Because:
> >>>
> >>> 1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
> >>> legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.
> >>
> >> Worked pretty good for the East Germans.
> >>
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/System_of_gdr_border_fortification.jpg
>
>
> Yes,
> >>
> > right until Republican God Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear it
> > down. Are you going against Reagan, Ed?
>

> And, yet, if I say that rounding up minorities worked great for Germany
> in the 30's, I'd get all kinds of shit for it... go figure.

Aside from the stupid move to rid itself of Jews, it did get rid of a number of "drains" on society and it showed in the post-war years when Germany went on to become the most successful of the European countries by a long shot. They're STILL propping up the more pathetic countries there.

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Hardly surprising, as we’re not getting Mexican scientists and doctors,
> > the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
> > payers to take care of.
>

> Since they're coming here secretly, and illegally, how do you know what
> we're getting?

I generally try not to make discussions personal here but you’re
getting stupider with every post.

Do you honestly believe upper-class, college educated Mexicans
with valuable and marketable skills, are shlepping across the
desert to squat with dozens of others in a shitty rental house in
the ghetto and sponge off American welfare?…

[David Johnston]

Oh are those the only options? Upper-class and college educated or
worthless welfare bum?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Let's call it a taking and anticipate that the land owner would need to
be compensated.

>>>>The property owner lacks use of his property that's subject to
>>>>the easement.

>>>That's not true. The property owner can continue to use it. She just
>>>can't prohibit the other party from using it also. And other than a
>>>little maintenance now and then, there wouldn't even be any need for the
>>>government to physically come on to the vast majority of that land after
>>>construction is done.

>>Bullshit. The federal government has militarized the international border,
>>with various detectors and heat sensors looking for human movement.

>How are security systems equivalent to militarizing something? I have
>security cameras on my house that have thermal/night-vision features.
>Have I militarized my home?

I thought we were deploying the same military technology that would be
used to secure an occupied area against intrusion. I didn't think it was
a civilian version, but actual technology developed for use in war.

>>>>Regardless of the actual size of the no man's land at the
>>>>international border, federal law will make everyone subject to arrest
>>>>within a certain distance of the international border.

>>>Where do you get that from?

>>How the hell are you going to absolutely enforce the international boundary
>>if the federal government cannot stop and question and possibly arrest anyone
>>it finds that it deems to be suspicious? What, a landowner will have to
>>carry ID when he's minding his own business on his own property?

>>>And even if true, it would be simple matter to write the law to exempt
>>>legitimate land owners from it.

>>Yeah, right, 'cuz arguing with cops and federal authorities that "You
>>have no legitimate grounds to take me into custody!" has never gotten
>>anyone shot for contempt of cop.

>Well, if you're going to posit a government that refuses to follow the
>law, then no government action can ever be legitimate.

As a matter of practicality, I can see that the civil rights of more people
just minding their own business would be put at risk from all that policing.

>Although, when it comes to the border, we *already have* a government
>that refuses to follow the law and in many instances works in direct
>contravention to what the law requires.

You get that point.

I suppose.

>Last time that happened, we ended up with a huge smoking hole where the
>WTC used to be.

That was because idiot FBI top bosses during the Clinton years refused to let
the FBI investigators follow the criminal case against bin Laden after
the 1992 bombing, and then the State department thwarted the FBI investigation
in Yemen, which then led to the attack on that ship (I forget the name of
the ship).

CIA got the blame (for failing to predict the future), and so did INS. The
truth of the matter was that we weren't treating it like a police
investigation, as it should have been. It wasn't a matter of spying,
or counterspying, or immigration policy. It was a matter of policing.

I don't agree with treating this differently than it should be.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Most of them end up on welfare and the ones who do work, are only
>>>putting downward pressure on wages and benefits for everybody.

>>Someone undocumented doesn't need to be eligible for welfare.

>http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-t6.jpg

>Hardly surprising, as we=E2=80=99re not getting Mexican scientists and doct=

>ors,
>the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
>payers to take care of.

>If they can=E2=80=99t make it in Mexico, what makes you thing they=E2=80=99=
>ll make it here?

Where the hell do you get that we get the dregs of their society? We
get relatively ambitious people who can't find work there as the Mexican
economy is generally fucked up.

The Mexican economy will always be fucked up as long as it discriminates
against 95% of its population.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqd57v$2ul$1...@news.albasani.net>,

No one's stopping them from going back.

(No one's stopping them from coming here in the first place, either,
which is the problem.)

[BTR1701]

In article <nqd2rj$do4$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

We don't need reform. The laws we currently have are perfectly fine. We
need enforcement.

And if the federal government refuses to enforce the current immigration
laws, why should I believe they'll implement any enforcement measures in
whatever new law they try to pass?

> >> If you build a 50 foot high wall, somebody else will make a 51 foot
> >> ladder, and a 51 foot rope.
> >
> > Well, if all the illegals are forced to hump massive ladders and
> > hundreds of pounds of rope across the desert just to get here, that

> > logistical nightmare alone will slash their numbers significantly.

>
> Yes, because getting over a wall is *so* hard!

Humping a 50-foot ladder through the Sonoran desert sure as fuck is.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqd2uq$e3f$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And the current administration is doing the exact same thing now.

"La-la-la! I don't want to hear it! Be quiet and stop rocking the boat."

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-A8450...@news.easynews.com>,

I have no idea. Perhaps a tax break? If you're not receiving anything,
you need to get a lawyer and pursue it, because you're entitled to
compensation.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqd5t7$kqt$1...@dont-email.me>,

Actually, yeah. Mexico's middle class is almost non-existent. You're
either well-off, or you're living at the poverty line.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqd0ld$7tp$1...@dont-email.me>,

Of course not. It being inconvenient for you and all.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's fairly decent analysis.

[RichA]

Only to liberals for whom the middle class only serves as a cash-cow.

[David Johnston]

<snort> I don't believe it because it's unbelievable. Why the hell
would Middle Eastern illegals still be carrying newspapers that would be
weeks, probably more than a month old by time they made the crossing
only to discard them just as they entered the United States? Why would
anyone believe that nonsense? And just how many trilingual
Arabic/Spanish/English speaking illegals are there to make this trek?

[FPP]

News Flash: Mexicans have truck technology, just like the white folk do.

Now use your imagination and see if you can visualize this... you put
the ladders on the truck, and drive the truck to the wall.

Gettin' the picture now, Ansel Adams?

[FPP]

3000 dead. (9-11)

1800 dead. (Katrina)

A little proportionality might be in order.

[FPP]

Thanks. Now answer the question. Do you know who is coming over, or not?

[FPP]

On 2016-09-03 02:03:37 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> In article <nqd5t7$kqt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2016 6:29 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> FPP
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>

>>>>> Hardly surprising, as we’re not getting Mexican scientists and doctors,

>>>>> the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
>>>>> payers to take care of.
>>>>
>>>> Since they're coming here secretly, and illegally, how do you know what
>>>> we're getting?
>>>

>>> I generally try not to make discussions personal here but you’re

>>> getting stupider with every post.
>>>
>>> Do you honestly believe upper-class, college educated Mexicans
>>> with valuable and marketable skills, are shlepping across the
>>> desert to squat with dozens of others in a shitty rental house in

>>> the ghetto and sponge off American welfare?…

>>>
>>
>> Oh are those the only options? Upper-class and college educated or
>> worthless welfare bum?
>
> Actually, yeah. Mexico's middle class is almost non-existent. You're
> either well-off, or you're living at the poverty line.

So, do YOU know who's coming over, or not?

It's a pretty simple question. It calls for a very simple answer...
"yes", or "no" will do.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqdg2j$cf7$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Why the hell would Middle Eastern illegals still be carrying newspapers
> that would be weeks, probably more than a month old by time they made
> the crossing only to discard them just as they entered the United States?

Probably because that's when they got done reading them. And why would
they necessarily be that old (other than it's necessary for you to
discount them, that is)? This isn't 1492, you know. It doesn't take
months to cross the ocean.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-664D74...@news.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-A8450...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-53F4DC...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nqcnln$l5q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why are you, of all people, arguing against the constitution? Yes, an
> > > > easement is a taking.
> > >
> > > It's not a complete taking, but even so, the Constitution allows for
> > > taking of private property for public purpose, so long as the owner is
> > > justly compensated.
> >
> > What compensation am I receiving for the easements across my lot?
>
> I have no idea. Perhaps a tax break? If you're not receiving anything,
> you need to get a lawyer and pursue it, because you're entitled to
> compensation.

Lol, okay, I never heard of easement compensation. I'm not complaining,
'cause I knew it was there when I bought the place. This is just a new
concept to me.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[David Johnston]

I was rather assuming that it usually takes some time to make criminal
contacts, particularly in a foreign country where you may not even speak
the language. And it seems quite remarkable to me that hundreds or
thousands of illegal immigrants would hang on to the newspapers they had
when they left just so they could discard them along with their prayer
rugs right on the border just to announce their arrival to the locals.
It's bullshit. Fabulation.

[David Johnston]

On 9/2/2016 8:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nqd5t7$kqt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2016 6:29 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> FPP
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>

>>>>> Hardly surprising, as we’re not getting Mexican scientists and doctors,

>>>>> the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
>>>>> payers to take care of.
>>>>
>>>> Since they're coming here secretly, and illegally, how do you know what
>>>> we're getting?
>>>

>>> I generally try not to make discussions personal here but you’re

>>> getting stupider with every post.
>>>
>>> Do you honestly believe upper-class, college educated Mexicans
>>> with valuable and marketable skills, are shlepping across the
>>> desert to squat with dozens of others in a shitty rental house in

>>> the ghetto and sponge off American welfare?…

>>>
>>
>> Oh are those the only options? Upper-class and college educated or
>> worthless welfare bum?
>
> Actually, yeah. Mexico's middle class is almost non-existent. You're
> either well-off, or you're living at the poverty line.
>

"living at the poverty line" isn't the same thing as "worthless welfare
bumb".

[FPP]

On 2016-09-03 01:53:45 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> We don't need reform. The laws we currently have are perfectly fine. We
> need enforcement.
>
> And if the federal government refuses to enforce the current immigration
> laws, why should I believe they'll implement any enforcement measures in
> whatever new law they try to pass?

Is that what Breitbart tells you?

Obama has deported more people than anybody else. The laws ARE being
enforced... and the fact that we still have major problems is proof
that they need to be reformed.

If things were so great, why did they have the same problems in the
Bush administration? Or weren't there illegals in the country then?

> Under Bush, the majority of immigrants that the U.S. sent home were
> simply “returned.” Nobody took their fingerprints or put a permanent
> mark on their immigration records. Instead, U.S. authorities put them
> on buses and sent them back across the border. Between 2001 and 2008,
> there were over 8.3 million of these informal “returns,” according to
> the Department of Homeland Security.
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

So,
>
yeah... the problem didn't start with Obama, and the laws have been
enforced for decades. It's the system that needs an overhaul.

It's conservative tripe that nothing ever needs fixing.

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nqcm6m$4fj$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-02 19:46:19 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <nqcj1b$ajq$2...@news.albasani.net>,

>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>

>>>> I'd rip out what we have right now, and stop spending this massive amount
>>>> of money on the Border Patrol, just to fight off people trying to find
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know you're an open-borders maven who thinks we should just throw
>>> open our borders to anyone who wants to walk across. I've said it before
>>> and I'll say it again:
>>>

>>> Talk with agents of ICE and Border Patrol and they'll tell you about how
>>> 15 years ago, between one and five out every 100 illegals caught along
>>> the southern border would be what they call OTM (other than Mexican) and
>>> of those, they were usually from other Latin American countries like
>>> Guatemala or Honduras. Now they're finding a ratio of 25-40 per 100 are
>>> OTMs and they aren't just from Latin American countries anymore. They're
>>> from countries like Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Ranchers
>>> along the border routinely find Islamic prayer rugs and Arabic
>>> newspapers discarded on their land. And when it's reported, the
>>> politicians and upper-level officials in the government just don't want
>>> to hear it, just like they didn't want to hear the FBI field agents who
>>> were telling them they had Middle Eastern guys taking flight lessons who
>>> had no interest in learning how to land the plane.
>>>
>>> What legitimate reason could there possibly be for a guy to travel all
>>> the way from Yemen with the US as his destination, but go to Mexico
>>> first and have himself muled across the border in the dead of night by a
>>> coyote? He's "just looking for a better life" and a job picking
>>> strawberries? Riiiggghhht.
>>>

>>> All this hand-wringing over national security and fighting a "war on
>>> terror" overseas is absolute nonsense if no effort is made to secure our
>>> borders. You don't go out into the city to hunt down potential thieves
>>> while at the same time leaving the doors and windows to your home wide
>>> open.
>>>
>>> Why are we the only nation in the world that's not supposed to control
>>> its own borders?
>>
>> Why do you want to build a wall that does nothing to stop illegal
>> immigration?
>
> Because progs won't let us do *anything*

Who is "us"? You and your other brain cell?

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 6:59 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> trotsky
>>
>> *snip
>
> “I don’t like what they’re saying, so I reject anything they say!”


Excellent declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, Ed.

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 7:23 PM, RichA wrote:

> On Friday, 2 September 2016 08:10:09 UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 9/2/16 1:23 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> David Johnston
>>>>> RichA
>>>>>

>>>>> Why wouldn't Americans be willing to put up a few billion
>>>>> to keep their country safer and BETTER??
>>>>
>>>> Because:
>>>>

>>>> 1. It wouldn't work. Half of illegal immigrants actually arrive
>>>> legally. As for the rest, they're familiar with boats and tunnels.
>>>
>>> Worked pretty good for the East Germans.
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/System_of_gdr_border_fortification.jpg
>>
>>
>> Yes, right until Republican God Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear
>> it down. Are you going against Reagan, Ed?
>

> Except in this case, the Mexicans aren't trying to keep anyone IN, in-fact, they like it when their own people leave. Let useless mouths to feed, house, etc.


Except in both cases they're against the principles with which America
was founded. Nice try, though.

[trotsky]

On 9/2/16 7:10 PM, FPP wrote:

> On 2016-09-02 23:56:58 +0000, Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> said:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> Most of them end up on welfare and the ones who do work, are only
>>>> putting downward pressure on wages and benefits for everybody.
>>>
>>> Someone undocumented doesn't need to be eligible for welfare.
>>
>> http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11
>>
>> -t6.jpg
>>

>> Hardly surprising, as we’re not getting Mexican scientists and doct

>> ors,
>> the dregs of their society are being pawned off on the American tax
>> payers to take care of.
>>

>> If they can’t make it in Mexico, what makes you thing they’
>> ll make it here?

>
> Since they're coming here secretly, and illegally, how do you know what
> we're getting?

In the case of the rapists Trump is using the it takes one to know one
principle.

[FPP]

Turnabout is fair play..

Trump went to Mexico, and when he went, we weren't sending Mexico our
best. We sent them a rapist, a criminal; he's a liar - and sometimes,
I assume, he was a good person.
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine

[moviePig]

I'm not an engineer, but I play one on TV newsgroups. And, if Trump got
his wall, I'd bet that, within months, at least a dozen new compact
wall-scaling products would hit the market. Hell, it could even become
a competition, like Battlebots...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[FPP]

A wall... probably the 3rd or 4th invention, after fire, and the wheel
- can be easily defeated by the 5th and 6th inventions - the ladder,
and the rope.

Ironic, ain't it?

[FPP]

Oh, I forgot... somewhere in that list should be "prostitution".

[Ed Stasiak]

> David Johnston
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Do you honestly believe upper-class, college educated Mexicans
> > with valuable and marketable skills, are shlepping across the
> > desert to squat with dozens of others in a shitty rental house in

> > the ghetto and sponge off American welfare?…

>
> Oh are those the only options? Upper-class and college educated
> or worthless welfare bum?

The ones with marketable skills don’t need to sneak over illegally,
corporate America will fall all over itself to get them H1B visas.

[Tom Benton]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:07:51 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2016-09-02 19:46:19 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <nqcj1b$ajq$2...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>

>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 9/1/2016 9:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>>>> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2016 5:43 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 1 September 2016 13:21:54 UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2016 10:23 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As many Americans would be glad to chip-in to pay for it,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially those forced to live on or near the border with
>>>>>>>>>>>> disgusting, violent, backward Mexico.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh sure, an 80 billion dollar wall can be funded on subscription.
>>>>>>>>>>> I definitely believe that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The government (Clinton) blew $200 billion on the International Space
>>>>>>>>>> Station, a "make-work" project for out of work Russian scientists
>>>>>>>>>> (post-1990) so they wouldn't go build bombs for filthy Muslims. No
>>>>>>>>>> one has said a word about the ISS being the most expensive, most

>>>>>>>>>> unproductive space mission of ALL TIME. Why wouldn't Americans be

>>>>>>>>>> willing to put up a few billion to keep their country safer and
>>>>>>>>>> BETTER??
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. It wouldn't work.
>>>

>Isn't that the question? Building a wall is a talking point for the
>rubes who don't know any better.
>
>Trump knows he can't build it, and everybody know it will do nothing to
>fix the problem. It's a bright shiny object to distract the dull
>witted from actual solutions.

>
>If you build a 50 foot high wall, somebody else will make a 51 foot
>ladder, and a 51 foot rope.

I would think that mandated use of E-Verify would be more effective
than the wall.
__________________________________________________


"It's just a flying saucer, Ed...We gotta go!"

Peggy Blumquist

[David Johnston]

On 9/3/2016 9:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> David Johnston
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Do you honestly believe upper-class, college educated Mexicans
>>> with valuable and marketable skills, are shlepping across the
>>> desert to squat with dozens of others in a shitty rental house in
>>> the ghetto and sponge off American welfare?…
>>
>> Oh are those the only options? Upper-class and college educated
>> or worthless welfare bum?
>
> The ones with marketable skills

Uh-hunh. Fruit picking. Marketable skill or not?

[David Johnston]

On 9/2/2016 2:44 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/2/16 3:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> All we're trying to do is keep potential employees away.

>>
>> Most of them end up on welfare and the ones who do work, are only
>> putting downward pressure on wages and benefits for everybody.
>>

>> http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-f1.jpg
>>
>
>
> Interesting, Ed. This chart is from an independent organization called
> "The Center for Immigration Studies". They claim to be non-partisan,
> but every quote in favor of them is from a Republican:

I checked. That's not true.

> http://cis.org/About Do you know if they're funding by the Koch Bros.?
>

[trotsky]

Are you "borrowing" from Rob Reiner?

[David Johnston]

The wall isn't about being effective. It's about being symbolic.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-34000...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <atropos-664D74...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-A8450...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <atropos-53F4DC...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <nqcnln$l5q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why are you, of all people, arguing against the constitution? Yes, an
> > > > > easement is a taking.
> > > >
> > > > It's not a complete taking, but even so, the Constitution allows for
> > > > taking of private property for public purpose, so long as the owner is
> > > > justly compensated.
> > >
> > > What compensation am I receiving for the easements across my lot?
> >
> > I have no idea. Perhaps a tax break? If you're not receiving anything,
> > you need to get a lawyer and pursue it, because you're entitled to
> > compensation.
>
> Lol, okay, I never heard of easement compensation. I'm not complaining,
> 'cause I knew it was there when I bought the place. This is just a new
> concept to me.

If you're not the original property owner, you won't get anything. The
gov has to pay the owner at the time the taking is imposed. After that,
the property is sold already encumbered by the easement and the sale
price reflects that-- i.e., it would sell for more if there was no
easement. So you basically got paid for the easement when you bought it
at a lower price than it would have ordinarily sold for.

[BTR1701]

In article <nqdogl$tto$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/2/2016 11:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <nqdg2j$cf7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/2/2016 8:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <nqd0ld$7tp$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Yeeeah...still not believing that one.
> >>>
> >>> Of course not. It being inconvenient for you and all.
> >>>
> >> Why the hell would Middle Eastern illegals still be carrying newspapers
> >> that would be weeks, probably more than a month old by time they made
> >> the crossing only to discard them just as they entered the United States?
> >
> > Probably because that's when they got done reading them. And why would
> > they necessarily be that old (other than it's necessary for you to
> > discount them, that is)?
>
> I was rather assuming that it usually takes some time to make criminal
> contacts, particularly in a foreign country where you may not even speak
> the language.

And again, you're assuming (conveniently for your argument) that those
contacts are being forged anew with each person who comes across.

> discard them along with their prayer rugs right on the border

No one's saying they're "right on the border", Johnston.

[BTR1701]

In article <5ptlsb1gdfqs6lav5...@4ax.com>,

Tom Benton <oo...@hooka.gov> wrote:

> I would think that mandated use of E-Verify would be more effective
> than the wall.

Oh, but that's raaaaaciiiisst, also, didn'tcha know?

Basically anything that has the potential to actually be effective in
combating illegal immigration is automatically raaaaaciiiisst.