But does it say that to faithfully execute that law, a wall must be built?
Harris: I’ll ‘Take Executive Action’
- Thread starter Blacksmith101
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
But does it say that to faithfully execute that law, a wall must be built?
shootin the breeze
Missed it by that much
Where does the Constitution say, "Thous shalt not build a wall?" Trump is not defying the Constitution. A law exist to appropriate the land. Eminent Domain. I don't know the details for how the people affected are compensated but the law exists to allow the fed to fix a problem. How on earth can you say the inflow of illegals which are breaking our systems and contributing nothing (except gang crime in the case of MS13 coming through) is not an emergency? That is the shocking statement here. Yes a wall costs money and will need to be maintained but I would expect the cost over time to be less than hiring thousands upon thousands of BP officers who still won't be able to be everywhere all the time. Perhaps those people could cover the exempted areas that were carved out in the agreement Trump signed? Those exemptions allow public use of existing parks and such (don't remember the whole list).
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,288
Perhaps you need to review how the law has changed over the years? Most recently:
Searching on "Kelo v. City of New London" will provide a lot more to get upset about.
Yes, it's a barrier. Just like the control gates at a border crossing. It's for public use just like an Air Force base is public use: it provides for the common defense. If you're saying that a physical barrier protecting a border isn't public use, then NOTHING oriented around public safety and security is.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
Kelo is one of the worst decisions of modern times by SCOTUS...maybe one of the worst of our history. The Constitution is to reserve freedoms and restrict the power of the government to restrict those freedoms. The Kelo decision upends that intent.
I hear the thunder of hooves running to the gun stores to buy up all the ammo and firearms available. Gotta buy some stock in those manufacturers
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,288
I hear the thunder of hooves running to the gun stores to buy up all the ammo and firearms available. Gotta buy some stock in those manufacturers
Only if it looks like a Democrat is going to win.
People already do that every time someone needs to put up a cell tower, a new elementary school, a storm drain, a sidewalk, or a new ramp to a highway. That aspect of this discussion is a deliberate red herring.
Again, true for every single public project ever. So citing it now, in this particular context, is either a lazy rhetorical device, deliberate disingenuosity, or a matter of being completely uninformed about the wider and centuries-long topic of public use/domain and the baggage that comes with it. People who only bring it up in this particular case are doing so for purely TDS reasons.
Who are you arguing with? Who says that people who deliberately enter or stay in the country illegally "contribute nothing?" That's not the issue. It's that millions of people who want to come here and participate legally and legitimately in our society are being cheated by those who decide to do so illegally, with the support of people here in the country who like that traffic for purely political reasons.
You make it sound like illegal aliens are actually running the farms, transportation systems, warehouses, distribution businesses, retailers, and everyone else in that entire chain of activities/industries that "put food on our tables." Migrant pickers and such are PART of that long chain, and can work here legally if they want to follow the law. Employers DO have to pay legal workers a bit more. The impact on that one part of the cost basis for a cleaned, inspected, shrink-wrapped, refrigerated, on-the-shelf-when-you-want-it bit of produce at your local grocery store is minimal.
There is also no data to show that illegals are actually chupacabras. Or that they secretly gather every winter on their hidden moon base. Why do you bring that up? Who do you claim is saying that? Classic straw-man argument.
That might be meaningful if you provided actual numbers.
How? If yet another several thousand people show up the border (as they do every month) with NO mechanism to physically prevent them from simply walking across, what happens? Are you suggesting that "beefed up security" will somehow repel them? How will they do that? Threaten to shoot them? No. They would simply do ever more of what they already do: herd them to a facility, get them a preliminary hearing on their claim of being refugees, whereupon they are told to re-appear a year and half later for a hearing they never attend. That's the scam, and you know it.
And THEY know it. 90% of those who DO bother to actually attend their subsequent hearings are determined to not qualify for refugee status. They know that means they'll be deported, which is why millions and millions of them have simply disappeared into the country, never to appear before that judge. If you don't PHYSICALLY PREVENT THEM from getting illegally across the border, and control their physical movement on our terms, then the scam will continue to accelerate exactly as it has. If you want "beefed up security" that will actually cut down on that nonsense, then it comes in the form of physically controlling the border. It's called a wall. If you don't like that word, use a different one. It's the same need and net result.
If you're advocating for catch and release, it's because you're deliberately advocating for hundreds of thousands more illegals in the country every year, year after year.
If you build a physical barrier in order to REDUCE the number of paid people it takes to control a given stretch of the border, the reduction in foot traffic that helps to establish is LESS susceptible to year-to-year budget variations thereafter. It's YOUR call for "beefed up security" that is most vulnerable to those changes.
The "straw man and slam the door" approach isn't very good form.
So why would that be any different now? What is special about this and please tell me you aren't actually trying to equate the gravity of building a cell tower or an off-ramp to a 2,000-mile border wall.
Nothing to do with TDS. It is just common sense. This administration is attempting to do something that every other has chosen not to for the host of reasons I have cited.
Shootin the breeze, I quoted him.
Those that go through the process to come here legally don't usually do so to be underpaid for manual labor. That's how that works. Those without papers cannot demand more money because they are here illegally. And what good are managers without the millions of laborers doing the actual work?
Again, I quoted someone
https://www.apnews.com/48d0ad46f143478d9384410f5ae3d38b
So change policy. It still does not leave a wall as the most reasonable and cost-effective option.
I don't support catch and release at all. But I think people also forget that Hundreds of thousands also leave every year.
So front load the investment with 30Bn+, then spend hundreds of millions maintaining it every year. I have not done the math to which is more cost effective. What I do know is that I'd rather pay border agents than construction workers when our roads and bridges are being held together by hope at this point. If we should be engaging is such a grand social engineering feat, let it be to modernize our infrastructure.
It's NOT special, and that's the point. But people who never have a thing to say about the land they want to tie up in sprawling solar or wind farms (for example) ARE pretending that while that won't be any problem at all, in terms of eminent domain, that the exact same thing will make securing the border impossible. It's the usual hypocrisy.
Another straw man argument. Who has proposed a 2000 mile wall? Nobody. There are stretches of the border that will benefit from a physical barrier. Just as those places have been identified AND WALLED OFF in the past (with those barriers still standing, today, and being very effective where they've been used correctly), the border control specialists have been crystal clear about how much specific areas would be far better secured and put their human and other resources to far better use if physical control of the border in those areas was put in place or improved. Anyone arguing against a "2000 mile wall" is being deliberately misleading.
So, the hundreds of miles of existing physical barriers are actually naturally occurring features of the landscape? No. They were built by previous administrations, for exactly the same reasons that extensions to those existing barriers in high-traffic areas are being called for now.
And if legal immigrants weren't having their wages undercut by cheaters willing to break the law, "underpaid" wouldn't be part of the discussion. Yes, then farmers would have to make more decisions about investing in automation to cut back on the need for manual labor. That's already happening.
Any border security model that doesn't physically prevent someone from stepping over the border results - by default - in catch and release. That's not a mystery to anyone, so the opposition to preventing physical border crossings is tacit (and often enthusiastic) support for catch and release. It's one or the other, unless you're calling for massive permanent incarceration. Are you?
It's seasonal! A completely porous border encourages exactly that. This has been going on for decades. When somebody has made the choice to ignore the law, then they're also deciding they're not the least bit worried about things like dates on work visas, then transfer of cash out of the country, etc. It's just normal business when there are no consequences for ignoring the immigration laws that other people obey.
We spend more that than every year as a consequence of having an uncontrolled border. It's a no brainer.
To do WHAT, exactly? Stand there and issue a stern lecture about how the crowd of hundreds of people walking across the border right in front of them shouldn't do so? Shoot them? No. All more border control agents can do is round people up AFTER they've crossed a non-existent physical barrier, and then queue them up and release them on their own recognizance for a future immigration hearing that essentially NONE of them will ever attend, and that will result in deportation for the vast majority of the tiny number that obey the law and show up. You're right back to catch and release - only you want more of it, not less of it.[/QUOTE]
Beancounter
Active Member
- Jul 8, 2012
- 145
Didn't King Donnie just do that with bumpstocks????
So if it's not special, why so shocked that people would object as they usually do?
I'd have to make a first straw man argument to again make one. The 2,000-mile wall term is not precise, but when you add to the wall already in existence, you add natural physical barriers and whatever other barriers deemed necessary, you get about 1,900+ miles of barrier. So it kinda works.
I think if you asked LEO and officials in those towns they would argue that it is unnecessary or ineffective. I know because they keep making statements that go ignored by wall advocates
No previous administrations have conducted such a broad and invasive propaganda campaign as this one has in regards to the wall. Please don't act like the idea hasn't been to wall off the US and Mexico from each other, because it totally has and that would actually be the disingenuous statement here. It is a chant, it's on shirts, Mexico was supposed to pay, now we are stiffed with the bill. Some of the barriers work, some don't. Some have come down, some have been left up. But we are talking all of 600mi of physical and virtual barriers protected by technology, not a wall.
Immigrant laborers are not actually cheating anybody. They are working harder and being paid less. What is to stop those farmers and people "Running" the show from only hiring legal immigrants or citizens and paying them a higher wage? Because you and I won't pay $12 for a box of strawberries. They cheat no one. Most americaans couldn't and wouldn't work in those conditions in that industry at the wages required to make those products affordable.
So spend our efforts on changing policies. Because if they scale a 30ft fence(ladder technology) they're in here. What are the odds that there is a border agent within reach to stop them from entering our country? Can you see how silly it is? All tehy ahve to do is get over. So the right move is to change how we process them after they get here. Life....finds a way
The transfer of cash out of the country pales in comparison to the products and industry they create. They still have to buy food here, rent homes here, pay taxes here. Whatever is left may be sent out of the country. It's their money.
I'll need some numbers on that.
Immigration reform, amigo. Easier and cheaper than building a wall. And has much more broad support to boot.
So anyway, Kamala Harris is never even going to be the dem nominee, so we good here.
Reptile
Ultimate Member
I wonder whether Ms Harris would have second thoughts if she saw the movie "Executive Action"?
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,972
Propaganda:
The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause also : a public action having such an effect
In my estimation, the word "propaganda" is misused with reference to the current administration; it seems far more apropos to use it to describe the work of the opposition, in both parties.
The president has intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented the will and intent of illegal immigrants in order to stir support for his cause. Textbook Propaganda. One member made a perfect example of this indoctrination by suggesting illegals offer nothing but gang crime. Something the president suggests at every opportunity despite its egregiousness. The propaganda is working.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,288
PowPow
Where's the beef?
I do believe there will be court challenges by many affected property owners should wall construction actually commence.
I also think these challenges will originate from folks who are not politically agreeable with the concept or simply from folks who would say, "Not in my back yard!" Do I believe that the federal government will provide proper compensation in exchange for such land? We'll have to wait and see about that. One person's idea of fair is often another's idea of theft.
Kamala Harris would allow illegals to stream in at even higher rates than they already are. It is already out of control. This country is being changed into a third world hellhole. My 9 year old son will need to fluently habla Español in order to function in society by the time he's old enough to live on his own. My prediction is that his taxes will pay nothing but interest on the continually growing national debt and entitlements to people who are in the country illegally.
We have bigger problems than the wall. It will ultimately end with either mass roundup and deportation or no more country named United States of America. Nobody will have the guts to do a mass roundup and deportation, so the writing is on the wall. No pun is intended. Our future is clear. Kamala and those in her party will end this nation. I'm not sure we can stop it. They are already well on their way to subverting the function of the electoral college. We will soon be a mob rule banana republic.
It's long past the time to wake up! We are losing our country.
I also think these challenges will originate from folks who are not politically agreeable with the concept or simply from folks who would say, "Not in my back yard!" Do I believe that the federal government will provide proper compensation in exchange for such land? We'll have to wait and see about that. One person's idea of fair is often another's idea of theft.
Kamala Harris would allow illegals to stream in at even higher rates than they already are. It is already out of control. This country is being changed into a third world hellhole. My 9 year old son will need to fluently habla Español in order to function in society by the time he's old enough to live on his own. My prediction is that his taxes will pay nothing but interest on the continually growing national debt and entitlements to people who are in the country illegally.
We have bigger problems than the wall. It will ultimately end with either mass roundup and deportation or no more country named United States of America. Nobody will have the guts to do a mass roundup and deportation, so the writing is on the wall. No pun is intended. Our future is clear. Kamala and those in her party will end this nation. I'm not sure we can stop it. They are already well on their way to subverting the function of the electoral college. We will soon be a mob rule banana republic.
It's long past the time to wake up! We are losing our country.
If this bat$hit crazy cvnt were to do this, it would trigger secession of states like Montana or Texas, as could trigger (God forbid) Civil War II.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (3 Viewers)- Latest: Bountied
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000?
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 13
-
-