President Trump will deliver a prime-time address Tuesday, 9PM

Aug 11, 2018
593
451
215
We don't need any more "standard" legal immigration. It should be "standard" that our elected officials put our own people first. We need to reverse the post-1965 attempt at culturally engineering a compliant consumerist population, which the American people would NEVER have approved if it had been presented to them honestly.
The US is literally a country of immigrants.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
i don’t think they hate anything. They want people using legal immigration. People who jump in line of honest legal immigration suck. The only people hating seem to be the left.
If that was true then they wouldn't default to fearmongering and stirring the emotions of reactive anger. They don't stick to the message of honest immigration.
 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2016
752
767
250
Other than Donald trump wanting money, what about the American Southern border situation has elevated it to a crisis?
Caravans of thousands of people rushing our border on top of existing illegal entry issues, no big deal, right?

Gotta do your research man. Pair this information with that second graph.

I know that in your old age you've gained more wisdom than this. So I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.
The original point still stands. The graphs show apprehensions way day as some sort of "proof" that less people are coming in the country. The very data you posted proves apprehensions were down DISPROPORTIONATELY as compared to the populations. So we've actually gotten worse at it.

Even if you built a solid argument around "well we have less illegal immigrants than we used to" it's a piss-poor argument as it is still widely acknowledged we have 10+ million illegal immigrants with the true number being unknown. Unless you're willing to agree that Liberal issues no longer require any further solves once any "improvement" has been made.

X is on the decline so fuck it. Yeah right. You wouldn't apply that to AIDS being on the decline so fuck it. Or unarmed blacks being killed by cops is on the decline so fuck it Kaepernick can go slither away back to just being an unemployed QB. Racism in western countries has observably been on the decline for decades, imagine someone honestly arguing that racism was worse in the 60s so it is not a problem worth fixing today. X is on the decline is a piss poor argument when dealing with anything that is still an addressable issue today. Those charts also only covers apprehensions. When these partisan hacks that are suddenly against 5.7B for a wall were funneling 8x more than that towards border security during those high points I sure hope they got more arrests out of that.

As usual nobody is acknowledging that he brought up more than a wall as part of his latest proposal that is being brought to the table tomorrow. His ask also includes cutting edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons etc. More agents, extra judiciary to help process the absolute backlog, bed space, humanitarian and medical support. He was also looking for the closure of border policy loopholes. The proposal was developed by law enforcement professionals at the DHS. (I guess it is fine to question your security apparatus this week) It looks like a comprehensive border security package to me which is what people have been asking for instead of the wall. The more vectors closed off the more focused you can be on what remains. Reducing it to just herp derp wall makes me question if your country's biggest problem is actually education. Or was that part edited out of the DNC approved fact checked version of this video?
Spot on. The fact of the matter is Democrats want to create an underclass of illegal "victims" that will forever vote Democrat. It is clear as day as every policy favors them in big, democratic, sanctuary cities. The short-term goal is turning Texas blue.

Pointing the finger as to who's shutdown this is is the most pointless discussion ever. No one is willing to budge. Not the House, not the Senate, not the President.

We literally have thousands of years of data showing the effectiveness of walls. Foolproof? No. Nothing is. The fact is we spend tens of billions on this issue per year. There are clear travel advisories on the dangers of the areas people are pouring in from. There is no doubt that drugs, trafficking, and other crimes happen as a result. Give us a break with your sudden concern of 5 billion in spending. We are over 20 trillion in debt and no one gave half a shit then. You're trying to justify why a tiny portion of our budget can't be spend on a physical border for known problem area.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pramod
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
Caravans of thousands of people rushing our border on top of existing illegal entry issues, no big deal, right?



The original point still stands. The graphs show apprehensions way day as some sort of "proof" that less people are coming in the country. The very data you posted proves apprehensions were down DISPROPORTIONATELY as compared to the populations. So we've actually gotten worse at it.

Even if you built a solid argument around "well we have less illegal immigrants than we used to" it's a piss-poor argument as it is still widely acknowledged we have 10+ million illegal immigrants with the true number being unknown. Unless you're willing to agree that Liberal issues no longer require any further solves once any "improvement" has been made.



Spot on. The fact of the matter is Democrats want to create an underclass of illegal "victims" that will forever vote Democrat. It is clear as day as every policy favors them in big, democratic, sanctuary cities. The short-term goal is turning Texas blue.

Pointing the finger as to who's shutdown this is is the most pointless discussion ever. No one is willing to budge. Not the House, not the Senate, not the President.

We literally have thousands of years of data showing the effectiveness of walls. Foolproof? No. Nothing is. The fact is we spend tens of billions on this issue per year. There are clear travel advisories on the dangers of the areas people are pouring in from. There is no doubt that drugs, trafficking, and other crimes happen as a result. Give us a break with your sudden concern of 5 billion in spending. We are over 20 trillion in debt and no one gave half a shit then. You're trying to justify why a tiny portion of our budget can't be spend on a physical border for known problem area.
There aren't
Caravans of thousands of people rushing our border on top of existing illegal entry issues, no big deal, right?



The original point still stands. The graphs show apprehensions way day as some sort of "proof" that less people are coming in the country. The very data you posted proves apprehensions were down DISPROPORTIONATELY as compared to the populations. So we've actually gotten worse at it.

Even if you built a solid argument around "well we have less illegal immigrants than we used to" it's a piss-poor argument as it is still widely acknowledged we have 10+ million illegal immigrants with the true number being unknown. Unless you're willing to agree that Liberal issues no longer require any further solves once any "improvement" has been made.



Spot on. The fact of the matter is Democrats want to create an underclass of illegal "victims" that will forever vote Democrat. It is clear as day as every policy favors them in big, democratic, sanctuary cities. The short-term goal is turning Texas blue.

Pointing the finger as to who's shutdown this is is the most pointless discussion ever. No one is willing to budge. Not the House, not the Senate, not the President.

We literally have thousands of years of data showing the effectiveness of walls. Foolproof? No. Nothing is. The fact is we spend tens of billions on this issue per year. There are clear travel advisories on the dangers of the areas people are pouring in from. There is no doubt that drugs, trafficking, and other crimes happen as a result. Give us a break with your sudden concern of 5 billion in spending. We are over 20 trillion in debt and no one gave half a shit then. You're trying to justify why a tiny portion of our budget can't be spend on a physical border for known problem area.
Pew research shows that there are X million illegal immigrants residing here, but half of that came from the border that you fear so much. The numbers are going down via attrition and deporting illegals based on a few factors.

So you want to spend billions of dollars based on a random uptick to 50k border crossers in a year or two, when the overall population is trending down? That's bad value.

It's fine to keep doing what we're doing now because it's working, and especially when there's no studies to show the effectiveness of the wall. Who cares about the great Wall of China. Data drives the roost, and we need it specific to our situation. We need the information to be relevant to us.

But regardless of that data, Trump still treats it like he's trying to create a monument, so that's already a hard no.
 
Last edited:
Nov 5, 2016
7,394
7,549
300
I don't care where (just far)
There was no America to immigrate to when the first people came from England. They were settlers and colonizers. After a time the children of those settlers founded America. Please stop with the nonsense of a nation of immigrants.
I kind of feel like this is a semantics loophole.

Maybe they founded America post emigration, but they definitely emigrated.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
1,813
3,196
230
Did they come to the country illegally?

Look, if you guys want to have a discussion on immigration, go for it. But these disingenuous arguments aren’t winning you anything and they aren’t solving anything, and above all else, they aren’t making you look like anything but a total tool. Let’s keep the bumper sticker politics on the bumpers.
 
Likes: finowns
Aug 30, 2018
509
787
230
Trump did a brilliant job of laying out the facts. Nancy and Chuck had zero facts and felt flat, as expected. Also, their response was a generic response because they previously recorded it (I wonder how many takes it took?). They used the talking point that he was a liar (Nobody Important was using the same thing yesterday, surprise), but even the fact checkers had a hard time disputing anything he said.

I thought the best line of the night was "(We build walls) not because they hate the people outside but because they love the people inside.''
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
Did they come to the country illegally?

Look, if you guys want to have a discussion on immigration, go for it. But these disingenuous arguments aren’t winning you anything and they aren’t solving anything, and above all else, they aren’t making you look like anything but a total tool. Let’s keep the bumper sticker politics on the bumpers.
I was responding to Barsinister’s implication that “nation of immigrants” refers only, or primarily, to people present at and before the founding. Try to keep up.
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
Jun 13, 2014
4,019
989
345
USA
By all accounts, the current ongoing surge is exceeding the figures from 2014, which no one ever had any problem designating as a "border crisis." This should not be controversial, and the only people scandalizing this are entertainers and advocates who do not have the best interests of our country at heart.

Pulling out enormous charts showing a decades long decline does not convince anyone or help solve the problem right now. It only shows how disingenuous you are.
 
Likes: Joe T.
Feb 3, 2018
3,521
3,654
370
33
USA
Why are Chuck and Nancy aliens posing as political talking heads? The costumes are literally falling apart. Scary shit. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would find them relatable or trustworthy. They seem ready to eat brains at the first chance they get.
 
Likes: Joe T.
Nov 5, 2016
7,394
7,549
300
I don't care where (just far)
Why are Chuck and Nancy aliens posing as political talking heads? The costumes are literally falling apart. Scary shit. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would find them relatable or trustworthy. They seem ready to eat brains at the first chance they get.
So are they aliens, or zombies?

Trump did a brilliant job of laying out the facts. Nancy and Chuck had zero facts and felt flat, as expected. Also, their response was a generic response because they previously recorded it (I wonder how many takes it took?). They used the talking point that he was a liar (Nobody Important was using the same thing yesterday, surprise), but even the fact checkers had a hard time disputing anything he said.

I thought the best line of the night was "(We build walls) not because they hate the people outside but because they love the people inside.''
My honest take is Chuck did fine. I thought Pelosi was awful.

The line about the wall, isn’t that basically the chick’s line from Last Jedi after she crashes into Finn?
 
Last edited:
Likes: infinitys_7th
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
My honest take is Chuck did fine. I thought Pelosi was awful.

The line about the wall, isn’t that basically the chick’s line from Last Jedi after she crashes into Finn?
From my view, they did enough to keep their "resist" base in line. But for the moderates and independents, I think they lost the war. Trump stayed on message, benefits from 4 prior months of coverage about unauthorized migrants taking caravans to crash the border, highlighted their prior support for barriers, made good points about how little 5 billion is for the federal budget, presented tangible stats on crime that people will relate to, and the fact checkers were getting egged by people for going out of their way to explain why his stats were true but somehow not true. Chuck and Nancy's entire shtick was that the Orange man is bad. Good enough for their base, but for those who are in the middle there was no substance to take from it, and no one in their right mind actually believes the dems will work with him once the leverage is stripped. If they had any intention to do so the government would have already fully re-opened.
 
Likes: Zangiefy360
Sep 16, 2012
6,823
10
440
24
Did they come to the country illegally?

Look, if you guys want to have a discussion on immigration, go for it. But these disingenuous arguments aren’t winning you anything and they aren’t solving anything, and above all else, they aren’t making you look like anything but a total tool. Let’s keep the bumper sticker politics on the bumpers.
If they came in the later 19th century or early 20th then a lot of them probably did. There just wasn't the same centralization of records among ports of entry.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,294
684
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
The US is literally a country of immigrants.
So because there were immigrants in the past, we have to maintain open borders forever and do nothing to protect and hand down our country to our children in good shape...? OK.

This is the #2 dumbest argument for open borders. #1 is the idea that we have to have open borders because we added some commie chick's lousy poem onto the Statue of Liberty after the fact.

That's all bullshit. The American nation has as much right to perpetuate itself as any other nation on earth.
 
Likes: slugbahr
Oct 3, 2004
1,492
1,032
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
Thing is Democrats have been pushing for more border security, increased number of border patrol personnel, more thorough screening at points of entry, etc. The difference right now is Trump and McConnell are holding part of the government hostage and unwilling to compromise as they seemingly forgot they had two years to get funding through. Give people their income back, make the government work again, then debate and hash out the specifics. Trump's inability to get funding after the last two years is his failure as a president.
The Democrats are blocking bills completely unrelated to border funding until the government reopens. They could have thrown the blame entirely on Trump and been able to convince their followers of that before, but not anymore.

I'd also challenge the claim that the GOP and Trump are the ones completely unwilling to compromise when it can be argued Trump is the one most open to it - remember that the wall was originally going to be concrete and estimated to cost up to $70B according to Democrats, but few seem to be talking about that. Given that fact alone he's moved the most from his original position.

The Dems could get DACA and other immigration reforms accomplished by letting that barrier funding through, reforms that would be beneficial to millions of Americans/families, yet they're refusing because... they're afraid their far left supporters will get upset Trump got a campaign promise through? A campaign promise 40% or so of polled individuals are comfortable accepting anyway. Dems are in the same boat as Trump, unwilling to budge because of how it'll be perceived. Compromise is vital to a functional US government, when you weigh the pros and cons of that $5.7B barrier funding the pros seem to far outweigh the cons to me.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Manus
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
Thing is Democrats have been pushing for more border security, increased number of border patrol personnel, more thorough screening at points of entry, etc. The difference right now is Trump and McConnell are holding part of the government hostage and unwilling to compromise as they seemingly forgot they had two years to get funding through. Give people their income back, make the government work again, then debate and hash out the specifics. Trump's inability to get funding after the last two years is his failure as a president.
Please be honest. Chuck and Nancy are holding the government hostage just as much as Trump and the Turtle, and they are doing it for no reason other than to win a fight against Trump.
 
Jan 26, 2018
895
925
200
Because it doesn't work. How can a wall stop or slow down illegal immigration. It is so easily bypassed.
Ask Hungary how well it worked.


Hungarian Border barrier

"Attempted border entries have fallen since the barrier was constructed. During the month of September 2015 there was a total number of 138,396 migrant entries, and within the first two weeks of November the average daily number of intercepted migrants decreased to only 15, which is a daily reduction of more than 4,500."
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,813
3,196
230
I was responding to Barsinister’s implication that “nation of immigrants” refers only, or primarily, to people present at and before the founding. Try to keep up.
If they came in the later 19th century or early 20th then a lot of them probably did. There just wasn't the same centralization of records among ports of entry.
Exactly my point. A hundred years ago, this was a different nation, with different policies. You think immigration would’ve been like it was on Ellis Island if the country was in the middle of 7 wars and had a major terrorist attack killing thousands in living memory? Whether this nation was built by immigration or not is irrelevant to immigration now. It’s just a distraction meant to morally shame opponents to immigration and has no other purpose in the discussion. Hence the disingenuous part.

I also feel like the argument that immigrants are only doing the jobs that Americans won’t to be disingenuous too. Picking up day laborers in front of the Home Depot is hardly a something we should be proud of.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
It is more about not wasting money. What happened to Mexico is going to pay for it?
No it is not. It is about 2016 and deep rooted hatred of the president (and those who don't buy into the far left agenda). You know it, I know it, we all know it.

5 billion to make the parts of the country happy who voted for him happy is peanuts. This is not about money. It is about hatred for fellow Americans.

And enough with the bullshit about Mexico paying for it. No one ever expected a check from Mexico, beyond maybe the incest bread trailer park dummies. That this talking point festers proves my point about just how much the left hates the right.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
Exactly my point. A hundred years ago, this was a different nation, with different policies. You think immigration would’ve been like it was on Ellis Island if the country was in the middle of 7 wars and had a major terrorist attack killing thousands in living memory? Whether this nation was built by immigration or not is irrelevant to immigration now. It’s just a distraction meant to morally shame opponents to immigration and has no other purpose in the discussion. Hence the disingenuous part.

I also feel like the argument that immigrants are only doing the jobs that Americans won’t to be disingenuous too. Picking up day laborers in front of the Home Depot is hardly a something we should be proud of.
It’s not so different. Then, as now, you had ethnic nationalists trying to restrict immigration and complaining about their jerbs being terk.
 
Aug 12, 2011
8,411
129
610
Why are Chuck and Nancy aliens posing as political talking heads? The costumes are literally falling apart. Scary shit. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would find them relatable or trustworthy. They seem ready to eat brains at the first chance they get.
Not that it matters, but they all looked horrible. I couldn't stop staring at Trump's mouth. His lower jaw seems disconnected from his upper jaw when he talks. Found this gif while looking for an example. I don't know why it exists, but whatever.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
I also feel like the argument that immigrants are only doing the jobs that Americans won’t to be disingenuous too. Picking up day laborers in front of the Home Depot is hardly a something we should be proud of.
It is extremely disingenuous. Of course less people want the jobs when they have to work for peanuts to compete with those who will. Newsflash - people will take non-flashy jobs when they believe the pay is worthwhile. Case in point - Uber,
 
Jun 23, 2014
1,165
102
345
Regarding the Hungarian wall, there are some fundamental differences we need to consider
1. It is 110 mile long, Trump is proposing 1000 ~ 2000 mile long wall. Much easier to have a ladder or tunnel some where in the middle.

2. Immigrants have other options other than Hungry in Europe, Hungry was No 6th in term of immigration in Europe. South and Latin American immigrants don't have alternatives other than US. A wall might even make illegal immigration trafficking more organized.

3. Hungry is land locked, there are water on both side of US and Mexico, if the wall is effective enough, illegal immigrants can take the water route.

I doubt a wall can make huge difference.
 
Feb 25, 2017
311
333
230
It is extremely disingenuous. Of course less people want the jobs when they have to work for peanuts to compete with those who will. Newsflash - people will take non-flashy jobs when they believe the pay is worthwhile. Case in point - Uber,
Great point. The talking point of Americans are not willing to do "dirty" jobs is a farce. Americans will do "jobs that no one wants" if the pay and work condition are fair.

Taxi drivers(from my experience in Los Angeles are mostly racial minorities) are being push out of the industry by Americans willing to do the type of jobs most of these politicians say Americans wouldn't do.

With the coming advent of automation and AI, it is only a matter of time when most of the menial low skill jobs such as agriculture, fast food, labor jobs of America will be replaced by efficient machines. People are beginning to realize there will not be enough jobs for everyone, as is already the case in all major cities. When push come to shove, it is only a matter of time the sane American citizens of all political parties will rally against illegal immigration.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Liberty4all
Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
240
Regarding the Hungarian wall, there are some fundamental differences we need to consider
1. It is 110 mile long, Trump is proposing 1000 ~ 2000 mile long wall. Much easier to have a ladder or tunnel some where in the middle.

2. Immigrants have other options other than Hungry in Europe, Hungry was No 6th in term of immigration in Europe. South and Latin American immigrants don't have alternatives other than US. A wall might even make illegal immigration trafficking more organized.

3. Hungry is land locked, there are water on both side of US and Mexico, if the wall is effective enough, illegal immigrants can take the water route.

I doubt a wall can make huge difference.
Statistics in Hungary and Israel say otherwise. You are talking nonsense.
 
Likes: Liberty4all
Feb 25, 2017
311
333
230
Regarding the Hungarian wall, there are some fundamental differences we need to consider
1. It is 110 mile long, Trump is proposing 1000 ~ 2000 mile long wall. Much easier to have a ladder or tunnel some where in the middle.

2. Immigrants have other options other than Hungry in Europe, Hungry was No 6th in term of immigration in Europe. South and Latin American immigrants don't have alternatives other than US. A wall might even make illegal immigration trafficking more organized.

3. Hungry is land locked, there are water on both side of US and Mexico, if the wall is effective enough, illegal immigrants can take the water route.

I doubt a wall can make huge difference.
You have the reasoning ability of a middle/high school person. The wall is meant to augment human security, not replace it. It's design to push illegal immigrants into designated ports of entries where their claims of "asylum" can be deny and they can promptly be removed from American soil. You don't seem to understand that the USA government have all the means to know where/how/when the illegal immigrants are near its border, it is just restricted in action by outdated asylum laws written for completely different purposes.

The USA only tolerant illegal land crossing. It will go berserk if foreign boats start invading its coast.
 
Last edited:
Jun 23, 2014
1,165
102
345
You have the reasoning ability of a middle/high school person. The wall is meant to augment human security, not replace it. It's design to push illegal immigrants into designated ports of entries where their claims of "asylum" can be deny and they can promptly be removed from American soil. You don't seem to understand that the USA government have all the means to know where/how/when the illegal immigrants are near its border, it is just restricted in action by outdated border walls written for completely different purposes.

The USA only tolerant illegal land crossing. It will go berserk if foreign boats start invading its coast.
But most of them are illegal, they have no proper reason to claim "asylum", they need to enter the country illegally, and stay illegally. They will not just go to port of entry because there is a wall.