Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

What is the Point of Open Borders?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DavidSF
    started a topic What is the Point of Open Borders?

    What is the Point of Open Borders?

    I saw this article on American Thinker that, for me, really lays it out the way it should be seen.

    Democrats heatedly deny being in favor of open borders, but their actions and even their own words say otherwise. Much the same could be said about many Republicans. Both parties want an unrestricted flood of immigrants to America, but for different reasons.

    Democrats want a permanent underclass that reliably votes Democrat. Republicans want cheap labor to keep their Chamber of Commerce donors happy. Neither party acknowledges any negative consequences of the current open borders policy, allowing far more than voters and workers to enter our country.
    agree so far? I do, but the article goes on to say,

    Gallup tells us that 147 million adults would move to the US if given the chance. That’s almost half the current US population. How many of these adults have children? If you assume one child per adult, you have just doubled this number. Don’t forget grandma and grandpa. Pretty soon we’ve more than doubled the US population.

    More people with no increase in the necessary infrastructure to support such a population increase. As a country we can’t even maintain our infrastructure with our current population. Look at the subway stations or airports in New York City. Or the bridges over Western Pennsylvania rivers. Or the potholed streets of Chicago.

    Who in Washington DC, among our elected leadership, sees a problem with unrestricted immigration? Only one man.



    There is certainly no similar sentiment from the leadership across the aisle. According to Nancy Pelosi, “Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation.”

    She’s not alone. Hillary Clinton, fortunately not in power, instead only coughing in half-filled lecture halls, shares Pelosi’s views, “Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.”

    Chuck Schumer joined the chorus declaring that President Trump will not get the U.S.-Mexico border wall “in any form.”

    Republicans are hardly any better. Despite control of both houses of Congress for the past two years, with a president firmly in favor of shutting the open border, Republicans could not find a way to fund a wall. Funding Planned Parenthood, despite campaign promises to the contrary, was easy for Paul Ryan to push through. And Republicans wonder why they did so poorly during the midterm elections?
    the article ends with:

    Congress has a “wall” of metal detectors, roadblocks, and armed security keeping members of Congress safe from invaders. Many of them individually have walls and fences around their homes. Yet the country and people they supposedly represent are not entitled to the same protection? Border security = national security.

    Politicians who ignore the reality of, “If you bring there here, here becomes there” are unsuited for public office. Instead we have a most unlikely politician promising to stop digging an even deeper hole. Chosen overwhelmingly by the American people to, among other things, build a wall, the ruling class, along with the media, is doing everything in its power to bring him down, even if it means subverting the rule of law to do so.
    i cannot say as how I disagree with any of it.

    what are your thoughts?

  • DavidSF
    replied
    2/15, 10:45 EST,
    President Trump just announced he is signing a national emergency declaration for our southern border.

    for the record, ABC NEWS has posted a list of national emergencies declared by previous administrations.
    Last edited by DavidSF; 5 days ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Originally posted by redrover View Post

    y common sense tells me to ignore all the racist fairy tales and remain grounded in reality.
    Hey, Braintrust: “Mexican,” “Latino,” and “Hispanic” are not races. In fact, if you could read, and you were willing to do even a small amount of fact-finding despite your hatred, you could easily figure out those from south of our border are multiple races including European, African, Asian, and Mestizo Indian.

    so your race baiting falls flat, again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    As I said above;

    ".....all the hypocrites he loves & supports, were at one time PUBLICLY IN FAVOR OF BORDER SECURITY !!

    If he could read, he would know this..
    ."

    Rover READ ???

    NEVER !!!

    BUT, for those of us who CAN read....

    Illegal immigration and democrats - in their own words

    They were for it UNTIL Donald Trump did the unthinkable.

    Ruined hilary clintons chance to be Americas first "woman president" !!

    HOW DARE HE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Then their irrational hate took over and they've been stupid ever since !

    But we do have their own words . . . .

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LET DEMOCRATS' OWN WORDS SINK IN


    Sen. Harry Reid (1993) attacking the Republican leadership:

    “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship. And guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in … county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”

    Sen. Diane Feinstein (1994):

    “We can enforce our borders. I think we should enforce our borders. To have a situation where 40 percent of the babies born on Medicaid in California today are born of illegal immigrants, creates a very real problem for the state. To have 17 percent of our prison population, at a cost of $300 million a year, be illegal immigrants who come here and commit felonies? That’s not what this nation is all about.”

    President Bill Clinton, SOTU address (1995):

    “We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws. Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. … Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers. … That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes. … It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years … and we must do more to stop it.”

    Sen. Tim Kaine (2005):

    “I’m deeply opposed to illegal immigration. And I call on the federal government, the president, and immigration services to stop the in flood of illegal immigrants into this country.”

    Sen. Barack Obama (2006):

    “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (2007):

    “I believe we have very serious immigration problems in this country. I think as you’ve heard today, sanctions against employers who employ illegal immigrants is virtually nonexistent. Our border is very porous. And I think we need a path to citizenship, which I think this bill addresses, in a significant way. My main concern about this bill is what it will do in terms of driving wages down, not only for low-wage workers, but for professional, skilled workers, as well. And I think at a time when the middle class is shrinking, the last thing we need is to bring over, a period of years, millions of people into this country who are prepared to lower wages for American workers. I think it’s a bad idea.”

    Sen. Charles Schumer (2009):

    “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress.”

    Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (2015):

    “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.”

    Anti-border wall Democrats need listen to their own words and then explain in their response to the American people why they did such an about-face under Trump. The answer should be obvious: party politics.

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/sotu-let...words-sink-in/

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    Good idea...

    Now redrover won’t have to exert himself actually clicking on the link.
    Not as if it matters, he can't read anyways.

    ... see above where he brings up the unrelated issue of racism regarding border security.

    It's comical really, given that all the hypocrites he loves & supports, were at one time PUBLICLY IN FAVOR OF A BORDER WALL.

    If he could read, he would know this.

    He can't, so he doesn't.

    Only wants to claim a security wall on our border has something to do with racism LOL

    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    y common sense tells me to ignore all the racist fairy tales and remain grounded in reality.
    Yes, you have a very special brand of that common sense you do : )

    Leave a comment:


  • redrover
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    From the article cited...

    These arguments against a barrier wall hold no water.

    Here's why....


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The wall will separate families.

    The liberal argument: An immigrant might go looking for a better life in the U.S., but he leaves his wife and children behind. In time, he can earn money, buy property, and bring the rest of his family into the country as well. However, if Americans build a wall, then that man cannot bring his family into the country, and they must stay separate, or he will be deported while his family is allowed to come in.

    Response: This narrative assumes many things. It assumes (1) that illegal aliens are not already subject to horrible exploitation from traffickers, (2) that they are somehow able to find jobs and buy property, (3) that the family will have no choice but to come in illegally as well, and (4) that no one had a choice in any of this and that the U.S. is somehow at fault for this situation.

    No doubt, many immigrants will separate from their families out of desperation, but this is nonetheless a choice. They can also choose to stay with their families and seek opportunity where they are and go through the legal process of living in America or emigrate to another country. If they come to America illegally, they will struggle with integrating and finding legitimate work, which will then prevent them from finding a place to live. And if they come here illegally, that doesn't mean their family members have to do the same.

    A wall does not separate family members. Family members separate themselves. A wall may prevent them from making a foolhardy decision and may actually do more to keep families together.


    2: The wall won't work.

    The liberal argument: Studies will show that most illegal immigration happens as a result of people overstaying their visas, not by people walking across the Rio Grande. If conservatives were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would track down people who violate the terms of their visa and deport them. Also, walls can be easily circumvented.

    Response: Because "undocumented immigrants" are just that — undocumented — this makes studies guessing at the number of illegal aliens here because of overstaying a visa and those crossing the border without papers highly suspect. It also throws into doubt the statistics of how many illegal aliens commit additional crimes. People with visas, even expired ones, can be counted. People who bunk at their friends' houses after a bumpy ride on a coyote's truck cannot be counted.

    This also brings up another problem: immigrants who apply for visas in the first place are quite different from the ones who don't. Even to visit the U.S., people must do a great deal of paperwork (and pay money) to prove the validity of their stay in the country. They are generally law-abiding, productive people. By contrast, those who cross the border without papers are the ones who have no chance of acquiring a visa — i.e., criminals and the desperately poor trying to claim asylum.


    Therefore, it is a different matter to deal with aliens crossing the border because there was no wall to block them and dealing with immigrants who overstay their visa because they have integrated into American life. The first presents a security problem, which can largely be addressed with a wall; the second presents a documentation problem, which can be addressed with reform to immigration laws.

    Concerning the hypothetical claim that illegal aliens can just build tunnels or pay off border officials to circumvent the wall, actual data prove otherwise. Walls may not prevent all illegal crossings, but they will stop most of them — because that's what walls do. As Rep. Crenshaw tweeted: "When you're trying to cross a border, and there's a 20-plus foot steel slated barrier in your way, it seriously inhibits your ability to cross. A sensor tells a Border Agent, miles away, that [he has] to find you now. I wonder which one works better."


    3. The wall is immoral.

    Liberal argument: Migration is a human right. People in poor countries are entitled to migrate to richer ones that offer more opportunity, and it is only moral and fair that those richer countries let them. Only selfish racists would object to this.

    Response: Having open borders or no borders is unsustainable and irresponsible. It is unsustainable because American businesses and government cannot offer jobs and social services to every person who would come, particularly low-skilled workers who consume more and produce less than average. Unregulated illegal immigration would quickly overwhelm the system and turn America into a third-world country.

    Eliminating borders would also enable the villains who drive people north in the first place. Latin American governments already do close to nothing for their people, and there would be little reason to change this. The U.S. would absorb their vast underclass and embolden them to be even less responsible. This already happens now, with immigrants seeking asylum from bad governments, yet liberals somehow blame the U.S., not Honduras or Venezuela, for corruption and heartlessness.


    4: Let's reform immigration law instead.

    Liberal argument: Illegal immigration is a problem because coming in the U.S. legally is such a hassle. If people were really interested in reducing illegal immigration, they wouldn't bother with a wall, but would make it easier to come here legally. Border officials could enforce immigration laws more effectively if those laws were fair and coherent.

    Response: The process of becoming an American citizen is tedious and outdated and could use serious reform, but one should remember that its byzantine nature evolved from the idea of testing an immigrant's goodwill and ability to fit into American culture. There would be a tradeoff with making it easier to come and live here legally. If it's too easy and no quota is set, then poor immigrants will overwhelm American communities. If it's too difficult and very limited quotas are set, prospective immigrants will have to paradoxically break the law to have legal status.

    All that said, calling for immigration reform in reaction to building a wall is a distraction. A wall is meant to physically stop illegal entry into the country. Immigration law is meant to regulate legal entry into the country. A wall has no bearing on the process of becoming a legal resident, and immigration laws have no bearing on keeping people from walking across a border without permission.


    People come into the country illegally because the incentive is high and the difficulty of crossing illegally is relatively low. A wall would significantly raise the difficulty of coming in illegally and thereby encourage prospective immigrants to seek legal means of entry. Instead of making legal immigration easier with laxer laws and a less secure border, the U.S. can at least make illegal immigration harder with a more secure border, which would then make existing laws easier to enforce.

    Recommending immigration reform as a solution also inevitably moves the conversation from the clear goal of securing the border to the dense thicket of immigration policy. It complicates a simple concrete idea with questions about immigrant quotas and criteria for citizenship, national interests, and so many other things. This then diverts public attention away from the wall — and the media know this, which is why they bring it up only now, when a wall is seriously considered.

    Logic and experience prove that a wall on the border is the first step toward a better immigration policy. It will allow Americans to finally determine the quality and quantity of immigrants they would like to take in, which is a nation's sovereign right, and it will validate the immigrants, who followed the rules and show a genuine interest in contributing to their new country. In other words, the wall can go a long way in making America great again.

    Liberals know this, and this is why they fight it with every phony argument they can. Americans need to see past the propaganda and trust in their common sense.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...beat_them.html

    y common sense tells me to ignore all the racist fairy tales and remain grounded in reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Good idea...

    Now redrover won’t have to exert himself actually clicking on the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    Interesting article in American Thinker about the false arguments against a wall and potential responses to those arguments.

    You’ll have to read the article to get the responses (which guarantees RR won’t do so, thus perpetuating his comical use of those arguments), but thee arguments against the wall, which we’ve all heard, are:
    1. The wall will separate families.
    2. The wall won't work.
    3. The wall is immoral.
    4. Let's reform immigration law instead.


    of course, we know ... well, most of us know none of these arguments hold water. But American Thinker has reasoned responses for each one.
    From the article cited...

    These arguments against a barrier wall hold no water.

    Here's why....


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The wall will separate families.

    The liberal argument: An immigrant might go looking for a better life in the U.S., but he leaves his wife and children behind. In time, he can earn money, buy property, and bring the rest of his family into the country as well. However, if Americans build a wall, then that man cannot bring his family into the country, and they must stay separate, or he will be deported while his family is allowed to come in.

    Response: This narrative assumes many things. It assumes (1) that illegal aliens are not already subject to horrible exploitation from traffickers, (2) that they are somehow able to find jobs and buy property, (3) that the family will have no choice but to come in illegally as well, and (4) that no one had a choice in any of this and that the U.S. is somehow at fault for this situation.

    No doubt, many immigrants will separate from their families out of desperation, but this is nonetheless a choice. They can also choose to stay with their families and seek opportunity where they are and go through the legal process of living in America or emigrate to another country. If they come to America illegally, they will struggle with integrating and finding legitimate work, which will then prevent them from finding a place to live. And if they come here illegally, that doesn't mean their family members have to do the same.

    A wall does not separate family members. Family members separate themselves. A wall may prevent them from making a foolhardy decision and may actually do more to keep families together.


    2: The wall won't work.

    The liberal argument: Studies will show that most illegal immigration happens as a result of people overstaying their visas, not by people walking across the Rio Grande. If conservatives were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would track down people who violate the terms of their visa and deport them. Also, walls can be easily circumvented.

    Response: Because "undocumented immigrants" are just that — undocumented — this makes studies guessing at the number of illegal aliens here because of overstaying a visa and those crossing the border without papers highly suspect. It also throws into doubt the statistics of how many illegal aliens commit additional crimes. People with visas, even expired ones, can be counted. People who bunk at their friends' houses after a bumpy ride on a coyote's truck cannot be counted.

    This also brings up another problem: immigrants who apply for visas in the first place are quite different from the ones who don't. Even to visit the U.S., people must do a great deal of paperwork (and pay money) to prove the validity of their stay in the country. They are generally law-abiding, productive people. By contrast, those who cross the border without papers are the ones who have no chance of acquiring a visa — i.e., criminals and the desperately poor trying to claim asylum.


    Therefore, it is a different matter to deal with aliens crossing the border because there was no wall to block them and dealing with immigrants who overstay their visa because they have integrated into American life. The first presents a security problem, which can largely be addressed with a wall; the second presents a documentation problem, which can be addressed with reform to immigration laws.

    Concerning the hypothetical claim that illegal aliens can just build tunnels or pay off border officials to circumvent the wall, actual data prove otherwise. Walls may not prevent all illegal crossings, but they will stop most of them — because that's what walls do. As Rep. Crenshaw tweeted: "When you're trying to cross a border, and there's a 20-plus foot steel slated barrier in your way, it seriously inhibits your ability to cross. A sensor tells a Border Agent, miles away, that [he has] to find you now. I wonder which one works better."


    3. The wall is immoral.

    Liberal argument: Migration is a human right. People in poor countries are entitled to migrate to richer ones that offer more opportunity, and it is only moral and fair that those richer countries let them. Only selfish racists would object to this.

    Response: Having open borders or no borders is unsustainable and irresponsible. It is unsustainable because American businesses and government cannot offer jobs and social services to every person who would come, particularly low-skilled workers who consume more and produce less than average. Unregulated illegal immigration would quickly overwhelm the system and turn America into a third-world country.

    Eliminating borders would also enable the villains who drive people north in the first place. Latin American governments already do close to nothing for their people, and there would be little reason to change this. The U.S. would absorb their vast underclass and embolden them to be even less responsible. This already happens now, with immigrants seeking asylum from bad governments, yet liberals somehow blame the U.S., not Honduras or Venezuela, for corruption and heartlessness.


    4: Let's reform immigration law instead.

    Liberal argument: Illegal immigration is a problem because coming in the U.S. legally is such a hassle. If people were really interested in reducing illegal immigration, they wouldn't bother with a wall, but would make it easier to come here legally. Border officials could enforce immigration laws more effectively if those laws were fair and coherent.

    Response: The process of becoming an American citizen is tedious and outdated and could use serious reform, but one should remember that its byzantine nature evolved from the idea of testing an immigrant's goodwill and ability to fit into American culture. There would be a tradeoff with making it easier to come and live here legally. If it's too easy and no quota is set, then poor immigrants will overwhelm American communities. If it's too difficult and very limited quotas are set, prospective immigrants will have to paradoxically break the law to have legal status.

    All that said, calling for immigration reform in reaction to building a wall is a distraction. A wall is meant to physically stop illegal entry into the country. Immigration law is meant to regulate legal entry into the country. A wall has no bearing on the process of becoming a legal resident, and immigration laws have no bearing on keeping people from walking across a border without permission.


    People come into the country illegally because the incentive is high and the difficulty of crossing illegally is relatively low. A wall would significantly raise the difficulty of coming in illegally and thereby encourage prospective immigrants to seek legal means of entry. Instead of making legal immigration easier with laxer laws and a less secure border, the U.S. can at least make illegal immigration harder with a more secure border, which would then make existing laws easier to enforce.

    Recommending immigration reform as a solution also inevitably moves the conversation from the clear goal of securing the border to the dense thicket of immigration policy. It complicates a simple concrete idea with questions about immigrant quotas and criteria for citizenship, national interests, and so many other things. This then diverts public attention away from the wall — and the media know this, which is why they bring it up only now, when a wall is seriously considered.

    Logic and experience prove that a wall on the border is the first step toward a better immigration policy. It will allow Americans to finally determine the quality and quantity of immigrants they would like to take in, which is a nation's sovereign right, and it will validate the immigrants, who followed the rules and show a genuine interest in contributing to their new country. In other words, the wall can go a long way in making America great again.

    Liberals know this, and this is why they fight it with every phony argument they can. Americans need to see past the propaganda and trust in their common sense.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...beat_them.html


    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Interesting article in American Thinker about the false arguments against a wall and potential responses to those arguments.

    You’ll have to read the article to get the responses (which guarantees RR won’t do so, thus perpetuating his comical use of those arguments), but thee arguments against the wall, which we’ve all heard, are:
    1. The wall will separate families.
    2. The wall won't work.
    3. The wall is immoral.
    4. Let's reform immigration law instead.


    of course, we know ... well, most of us know none of these arguments hold water. But American Thinker has reasoned responses for each one.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    I found the following graphic showing how bad our problem has gotten:

    16623D86-6A67-48B4-96CD-9A13A468D2DD.png

    Leave a comment:


  • SupPackFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Voland View Post
    Well, I live with open borders. Open borders are a fact of everyday life here. Yet we also do a few things differently than you :
    Our home is in Germany, about 12 km or so from the border with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. My company and office is in the south of Luxembourg (yes, that country is tiny), about 5km from the border with France (across that around half our employees commute). Our company does business across the European Union and Switzerland, but mainly in the Greater Region with Luxembourg at the center. Meaning Germany, France and Benelux ( Luxembourg plus Netherlands and Belgium).
    We rely on having no border, visa, documentation, recognition etc.- issues when jumping back and forth between countries and to be able to serve our customers everywhere in Europe without delays, legal procedures etc. Looking at a map might help for whom that is unclear. That is why all our workers are EU citizens or at least legal residents. But how do authorities know ? Because an "open" border is not the same as an unpoliced one ( here lies an apparently popular misunderstanding among Americans). Controls have just been transferred to a different level than impractical qeues at the old border posts ( that I pass everyday). For us having our ID is mandatory (for everyone !) and registration of adress as well. My ID is a small plastic card with a chip in my wallet that I can be asked to basically show anytime and anywhere. Just one of these days I bumped into a police spot check on a train crossing from Luxembourg into Germany. It was a swift affair, they checked peoples IDs and that was it ( they didn´t find someone without document).
    I will, as a matter of routine, be asked to show my ID in loads of common transactions, from making large purchases ( such as f.e. a car), checking in a hotel, booking a flight, seeking any (!) public service ( I could f.e. request social services in Germany ( where I live) or in Luxembourg ( where I work), but not in France ( and yes, based on your documentation of identity ) renting a flat, or applying for a job. An employer that couldn´t in a heartbeat present the numbers of ALL the IDs of ALL employees would be in deep shit. And someone sought by police in one country will be wanted by police in all EU countries, because the members, especially those bordering each other, share their law enforcement databases.
    It seems to me that what you need in the US is a workable and enforceable system to track, identify and document people, and that inevitably has to involve some kind of ID. Not least because the majority of your illegal immigration comes from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across the southern desert, right ?
    I find your comments very interesting and also quite representative of why residents of other nations find it difficult to understand the political fight over illegal immigration in the US. You make the mistake of integrating logic, reason, and statistics into your opinions. But in the US this argument is between hyper emotion and grounded rationality.

    Why do we not simply make ID mandatory in the US? Just as in Germany ID is required to book a flight or hotel, open a bank or investment account, make a major purchase, attend a political rally, or apply for a job. What an ID is not required for is to receive government benefits or vote. Only 7 states require photo ID to vote, and 32 require some proof of identification. New York and California along with 16 other states expect only a name before being handed a ballot.

    Why is photo identification such a big issue in the US? Those who oppose mandatory ID would tell you because identification is racist. Somehow it has been determined more difficult for minorities to obtain an ID card than whites. That argument has developed because the race card has been proven to work every time. Emotion defeats logic consistently. But anyone paying attention with an open mind can see it is demagoguery aimed at winning elections.

    We have this rather new phenomenon called ‘sanctuary cities’. In a sanctuary city local law enforcement refuses to report ‘undocumented’ criminals to the federal immigration agency. These cities that openly violate federal law include New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, and all of California.

    Sanctuary cities all vote heavily for the democrat party. Coincidentally these population centers reside in states that do not require photo ID to vote. So when the democrat political party is in stark opposition to a single tax dollar dedicated to building a border wall an obvious conflict of interest appears. But instead of using such logic we are supposed to believe democrats oppose the wall on moral grounds – in attempt to honor the Statue of Liberty and oppose republican racism.

    You mention generally accepted statistics showing the vast majority of illegal aliens in the US have overstayed their visa after entering via highways and airports rather than crossing our southern border. We know how many overstay visas because we have documentation of such individuals entering the United States – and then no apparent closure of their visa with a departure date. In contrast we have no idea how many cross our southern border illegally. Just a WAG (wild ass guess). Therefore, to suggest anyone knows what percentage of illegal immigrants overstayed visas vs snuck across the southern border is ridiculous.

    However, what we do know is that getting a visa requires vetting. Those who qualify for a US visa are generally more educated and employment capable than those who sneak across the border. It is exponentially more likely that an illegal alien who snuck across the southern border is a criminal or victim than those who entered via visa. Gang members, drug mules, and 13-year-old sex slaves are probably not entering through JFK International Airport carrying visas. Criminal enterprises by necessity target our porous southern border.

    What you are describing in Germany is a border you can cross without stopping. The border may not be policed but once inside Germany an individual can be randomly checked for ID at any moment. This may seem like no big imposition to you but in the US democrats would tag this as being ‘asked for your papers’ in comparison to living inside the iron curtain of the Soviet Union. Then the assumption of racial profiling would be put forward. Those who appear Hispanic would be much more likely for a ‘random’ ID check. On that emotional argument alone the German solution could not take place in the US.

    Does Germany not have a refugee problem? Please correct me if I am wrong. Those who are not citizens of the EU are not ‘legal’ within your borders. So they are allowed to stay while applying for refugee status. But due to open entry the growing volume of refugees has overloaded the abilities of your system to process them. Is there not a chance that due to the refugee problem Germany may need to start policing its borders?

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    A National ID, or any kind of mandatory ID, whether federal, state, or even voter, is strenuously opposed by those politicians who wish to remain in power; these politicians believe if all voting (purchasing, hiring, etc) is only for citizens, only, they will be booted out of office.

    Personally, I do not think they are far from wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Voland
    replied
    Well, I live with open borders. Open borders are a fact of everyday life here. Yet we also do a few things differently than you :
    Our home is in Germany, about 12 km or so from the border with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. My company and office is in the south of Luxembourg (yes, that country is tiny), about 5km from the border with France (across that around half our employees commute). Our company does business across the European Union and Switzerland, but mainly in the Greater Region with Luxembourg at the center. Meaning Germany, France and Benelux ( Luxembourg plus Netherlands and Belgium).
    We rely on having no border, visa, documentation, recognition etc.- issues when jumping back and forth between countries and to be able to serve our customers everywhere in Europe without delays, legal procedures etc. Looking at a map might help for whom that is unclear. That is why all our workers are EU citizens or at least legal residents. But how do authorities know ? Because an "open" border is not the same as an unpoliced one ( here lies an apparently popular misunderstanding among Americans). Controls have just been transferred to a different level than impractical qeues at the old border posts ( that I pass everyday). For us having our ID is mandatory (for everyone !) and registration of adress as well. My ID is a small plastic card with a chip in my wallet that I can be asked to basically show anytime and anywhere. Just one of these days I bumped into a police spot check on a train crossing from Luxembourg into Germany. It was a swift affair, they checked peoples IDs and that was it ( they didn´t find someone without document).
    I will, as a matter of routine, be asked to show my ID in loads of common transactions, from making large purchases ( such as f.e. a car), checking in a hotel, booking a flight, seeking any (!) public service ( I could f.e. request social services in Germany ( where I live) or in Luxembourg ( where I work), but not in France ( and yes, based on your documentation of identity ) renting a flat, or applying for a job. An employer that couldn´t in a heartbeat present the numbers of ALL the IDs of ALL employees would be in deep shit. And someone sought by police in one country will be wanted by police in all EU countries, because the members, especially those bordering each other, share their law enforcement databases.
    It seems to me that what you need in the US is a workable and enforceable system to track, identify and document people, and that inevitably has to involve some kind of ID. Not least because the majority of your illegal immigration comes from people overstaying visas, not sneaking across the southern desert, right ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    Here is difference between a great man who had a national holiday created to honor him and the nation's biggest disgrace.https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/m...der-wall-trump
    That you find the current president to be "the nation's biggest disgrace" is your opinion.

    Others think the same of Clinton.

    Others think the same of Bush. .. obama etc etc

    At your link;

    Martin Luther King Jr was a bridge builder, not a wall builder,said King

    The issue of the day for Martin Luther King was racism, freedom etc for people of color.

    That's a much different issue than a nation allowing itself to be invaded by hundreds of thousands of aliens ,...

    ................- which no other country on Earth allows by the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • redrover
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    Pelosi being abandoned by her own too LOL

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now two top Democrats are calling Nancy out on her tantrum.

    From Breitbart:

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on Wednesday criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) decision to disinvite President Donald Trump from delivering his State of the Union Address…

    “I’m not sure what her intentions are. I have much respect for Speaker Pelosi, but I think this is a wrong approach to be taking right now.”

    But then came the real kicker. Joe Manchin may be a swing vote in the Senate, but now her right-hand man is turning on her.

    Her own House Majority Leader. From Washington Examiner:

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office walked back his stunning declaration Wednesday afternoon that the State of the Union would not proceed as planned.

    Even her own people are fed up with her childish antics.

    Pelosi claims we shouldn’t have the SOTU because of “security concerns.” The real reason? She doesn’t want to be embarrassed by Trump.

    The State of the Union is a prime opportunity for Trump to once again show America how Democrats are crippling our country.

    Of course, Nancy would like to cancel that.

    But even her own party members know that’s a pathetic excuse. Trump has every right to address the nation and expose the Left’s corruption.

    Nancy has nowhere left to hide – Donald has backed her into a corner.


    https://buzzconservative.com/2019/01...LzUATIRAQdRDt8
    Here is difference between a great man who had a national holiday created to honor him and the nation's biggest disgrace.https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/m...der-wall-trump

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X