Too much money, and violates the tenth amendment

Reinforcement of National Borders falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government under national security. However if the states were willing to pay for the costs through state taxes then I would be alright with having a congressional bill sanctioning state border construction. Also its not that much in cost relative to the cost of trying to track and deport illegal aliens.

Too much money, and is border patrol even constitutional?

We'll stop propping up Ukraine and cut the military aid budget. I'm pretty sure border patrol is constitutional because national borders fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

No we don't. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/aug/28/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-obama-administration-released-104000-crim/

^Read that. It makes me throw up.

Over. My. Dead. Body.

I understand the concern over drones, sensors, and cameras. But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later. They promised border security in the late 1980s and they lied to us. We need to fix the damn problem. No more open borders.

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them).

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

Why not?

Chain immigration creates a problem with too much legal immigration. The number of legal immigrants should be kept at a constant number and should be based on 1) merit and 2) high-skills they possess.

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

Because businesses are abusing the H1B system to get cheap labor even if their industry or business sector doesn't have a supply shortage of qualified American workers.

Edited 3/13/2016 23:03:24

3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

No, we don't. Obama's illegal executive action makes sure of that.

I understand the concern over drones, sensors, and cameras. But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later. They promised border security in the late 1980s and they lied to us. We need to fix the damn problem. No more open borders.

The government thinks any place within the US that a migrant could be is near the border. I don't want the government doing authoritarianism under the guise of border security.

Reinforcement of National Borders falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government under national security. However if the states were willing to pay for the costs through state taxes then I would be alright with having a congressional bill sanctioning state border construction. Also its not that much in cost relative to the cost of trying to track and deport illegal aliens.

The illegal immigrants are breaking our laws, not invading militarily.

Because businesses are abusing the H1B system to get cheap labor even if they're industry or business sector doesn't have a supply shortage of qualified American workers.

Those American workers have to compete to succeed

Edited 3/13/2016 23:09:33

We'll stop propping up Ukraine and cut the military aid budget.

Doing less awful things is not a justification for doing more awful things.

But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later.

TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good.

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?

Chain immigration creates a problem with too much legal immigration. The number of legal immigrants should be kept at a constant number and should be based on 1) merit and 2) high-skills they possess.

Why do you want your country to win? The point is not to win, the point is to better as many folk as you can, as much as you can. Then, all we win.

@TeamGuns

It's not racist to increase border security. What's racist and xenophobic is to say mexicans that come to our country are all rapist, thieves and drug dealers, but some I assume, are good people. That's a xenophobic sentence no?

No. Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people. Drug mules from Mexico are highly documented, for an example. If he was xenophobic he would be saying 'All foreigners are bad people, obviously the problem here isn't Mexicans, but the crime some of them bring in. Besides, Trump spoke out recently about accepting skilled foreign labour into the US, but of course you don't mention that.

Btw, Idk why Sanders should apologize, he hasn't asked his supporters to attack trump.

No, but all that race baiting language from Sanders such as 'white people don't know what its like to live in a ghetto or be poor' has fed the BLM war rhetoric and made the current situation as it is. Of course he isn't the only one responsible. Besides, everyone was leaping on Trump to disavow David Duke, now nobody asks Sanders to disavow violent BLM protesters. No peaceful political discussion should be interrupted, whether from silent or violent protesting, no?

Not like trump who says "beat the crap out of them, I'll pay for any sue"

It is absolutely hilarious, after our last discussion on abusing the context of quotes that you did it again.

The entire quote is ..
''The security guys said, Mr. Trump, there may be some people in the back with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em. Would you? Seriously. Ok? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.''

Oh look. It was actually a hypothetical situation, and one on self-defence, too. But of course you coveniently choose to omit that.

or says "there was blood comming out of her, whatever"

How does that, in any way incite violence?

Edited 3/13/2016 23:29:10

"TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good."
No, it isn't. It is unsustainable.

"So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?"
Wot? How is voting a human right?

Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people.

It's also an obvious truth that some Americans are Christian extremists, murderers, rapists, neonazis, and many other horrible things. His point was, though, that saying "some" illegal immigrants are good folk, when they're clearly by far in majority is quite xenophobic.

The entire quote is ..
''The security guys said, Mr. Trump, there may be some people in the back with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em. Would you? Seriously. Ok? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.''

Oh look. It was actually a hypothetical situation, and one on self-defence, too. But of course you coveniently choose to omit that.

I don't see how it's taken out of context. He's asking them to beat up folk who want to heckle him - unless throwing a tomato will somehow critically injure him, and it really is in self-defence.

"TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good."
No, it isn't. It is unsustainable.

Really? Since I think America, from a very big part to immigration, grew from 5 million in 1800 to 325 million in 2016 while keeping it's somewhat high living standards is a proof of sustainability, amongst others.

"So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?"
Wot? How is voting a human right?

Not saying voting, but

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them).

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

sounds like he wants to throw out the window other human rights, like right to a fair try in court.

Edited 3/13/2016 23:38:27

Doing less awful things is not a justification for doing more awful things.

Your line of thinking is dangerous if not completely unreasonable. You're asking the US 1) not to enforce our immigration laws 2) give illegal immigrants special treatment even though they've broken the law 3) to risk American security by having open borders 4) to call the rule of law an "awful thing".

bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good.

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America? How much legal immigration do you think we should have? How much wage competition should we force onto Americans? How much should we bankrupt the US to help other people?

So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?

Voting is not a human right.

Why do you want your country to win? The point is not to win, the point is to better as many folk as you can, as much as you can. Then, all we win.

Dude do you not understand the idea of national sovereignty? I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are. You essentially want American policy to redistribute wealth worldwide. I.e. make American poorer to make the world richer. That's insane. I wouldn't tell the UK, Russia, China, India, or any other country to subvert and sabotage their own economies to help the world and neither should the US. Things like this make me glad foreigners can't vote in the US.

sounds like he wants to throw out the window other human rights, like right to a fair try in court.

You've convinced me you have a miscommunication problem. I said they would get all the rights as citizens, including the right to a fair trial. The only thing they wouldn't get is the right to vote. How is that a violation of human rights??!!!

Edited 3/13/2016 23:44:06

"Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote."
The only thing he is denying them is voting, unless you're saying citizens don't get a trial. Work on reading comprehension.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

- Step one: say something that is a total non-sense.
- Step two: when someone answer you with facts, keep denying what they say.
- Step three: when the argument is clearly lost, just attack personally the person in order to maker it's arguments non-valid, by calling her a communist or defender of ISIS.

Really, it's the same fucking rethoric everytime. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what communism is, or they wouldn't call everyone communists when it's clearly not the case.


Immigration is good to a country. Over 20 countries that received huge ammounts of immigrants in recent years, only one had bad consequences overturning the good ones. And guess what country it is? Lebanon. Where a quarter of the population (more then one million) is made up of refugees. The 19 other countries had good consequences beating the bad ones. So unless you're a lebanese, clearly refugees contributed to your country.

It's also an obvious truth that some Americans are Christian extremists, murderers, rapists, neonazis, and many other horrible things. His point was, though, that saying "some" illegal immigrants are good folk, when they're clearly by far in majority is quite xenophobic.

Xenophobic is defined as 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.' Quite obviously this is not the case, I have already stated he supports high skilled foreign workers and also supports legal immigration. A xenophobic would not. The problem he has here isn't against people of other countries, its against people who come into the country illegally and also against the crime that such people bring.

And whats wrong with using 'some'?. I don't doubt that the majority of illegals are good folk, the word 'some' just suggests a plurality. You used the word 'some' when you describe particular Americans as Christian extremists, murderers etc, although peaceful folk are obviously the far in majority too.

I don't see how it's taken out of context. He's asking them to beat up folk who want to heckle him - unless throwing a tomato will somehow critically injure him, and it really is in self-defence.

Your comment shows your obvious bias, that you are more interested in criticising Trump instead of the anti-Trump protestors. You focus not on the provacation, but the response. If you go into an arena of peaceful political discussion and you throw a tomato at someone, you don't really deserve much sympathy. Trump doesn't advocate violence against people who disagree with him, his rhetoric is against people that make an active attempt to disrupt a private and peaceful political rally. Protestors actively disturbing peaceful rallies and stopping free, peaceful speech is the problem.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read. Second, I'm not a Trump supporter so avoid using that straw-man to bolster your argument.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

And you haven't even responded to my argument at all...

Your line of thinking is dangerous if not completely unreasonable. You're asking the US 1) not to enforce our immigration laws 2) give illegal immigrants special treatment even though they've broken the law 3) to risk American security by having open borders 4) to call the rule of law an "awful thing".

1/3) Yes, I absolutely support open borders. In an ideal world, we would all live without countries or polities, but that's far from going to happen. And sure, someone can bring in a gun and shoot some folk (I don't know why they would specifically go to America, but whatever), but someone can also put a video online, an idea. Mashriqar propoganda, for example. And as Stalin said, "An idea is much more dangerous than a gun. Why should I give my folk ideas if I'm against giving them guns?".

2/4) I'm against these laws.

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America?

Yes. Immigration in bulk, good news.

How much wage competition should we force onto Americans?

I just now told you, the point isn't winning. Americans need to get over their lazy sofas and work for less, if they want to earn money. Otherwise might as well set up 50,000$/year minimum wage and illegalise firing folk. It's competition which comes of freedom which drives it all. Jobs are never stolen from Americans by Mexicans or anybody else. Americans are just too spoiled to compete as well as Mexicans or other folk.

Dude do you not understand the idea of national sovereignty?

I understand it. It's an awful, counter-productive system that all countries will keep on saying it is good since that is what is good for the oligarchies running these countries. I would greatly support the EU project, were it not for its ridiculous desks and socialism. Schengen zone is a wonderful thing.

I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.

I do not think I am communit, not rabid, but yes, I am a globalist. I am very anti-patriotism/nationalism. Tell me, how many more wars and folk killed have been started by nationalism than globalism? How much more centrist teaching has come of patriotism, to the point of forgetting the second bloodiest war in the last 200 years is not the First World War? And tell me, why does cultural supremacy and nationalism come hand-in-hand?

You essentially want American policy to redistribute wealth worldwide. I.e. make American poorer to make the world richer.

No Americans will be made poorer. I am for giving folk as many opportunities as possible, though. If one fellow can't keep up with another, that's capitalism, for you.

That's insane. I wouldn't tell the UK, Russia, China, India, or any other country to subvert and sabotage their own economies to help the world and neither should the US.

What is a government? Why were governments founded? They were founded to help folk. That's all there is to it (also, it doesn't "subvert and sabotage" their economies).

You've convinced me you have a miscommunication problem. I said they would get all the rights as citizens, including the right to a fair trial. The only thing they wouldn't get is the right to vote. How is that a violation of human rights??!!!

The only thing he is denying them is voting, unless you're saying citizens don't get a trial. Work on reading comprehension.

I wasn't talking about legal immigrants, so you both can curb your hostility. Would illegal immigrants "on the path" to legalisation and illegal immigrants "on the path" to being deported get their human rights? It sounds like you are not for it (note, I wasn't sure of your meaning, that's why I said "it sounds like" - meantime, you go barging in claiming as if I say you are for committing human rights abuses).

Edited 3/14/2016 00:30:04

Xenophobic is defined as 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.' Quite obviously this is not the case, I have already stated he supports high skilled foreign workers and also supports legal immigration. A xenophobic would not. The problem he has here isn't against people of other countries, its against people who come into the country illegally and also against the crime that such people bring.

And whats wrong with using 'some'?. I don't doubt that the majority of illegals are good folk, the word 'some' just suggests a plurality. You used the word 'some' when you describe particular Americans as Christian extremists, murderers etc, although peaceful folk are obviously the far in majority too.

He is implifying that the majority of Mexicans are these crimers. Also, my example was wrong, I mixed myself up. Better:

"Americans are neonazis, Christian extremists, muderders, and some, I suppose, are good folk. I'm friends with many Americans."

Your comment shows your obvious bias, that you are more interested in criticising Trump instead of the anti-Trump protestors. You focus not on the provacation, but the response. If you go into an arena of peaceful political discussion and you throw a tomato at someone, you don't really deserve much sympathy.

I don't see how you're defending this. I'm somehow biased since I don't think folk who throw potatoes should be stoned? I'm not for throwing tomatoes in such a setting, but I'm definitely not for stoning folk. But you are?

Protestors actively disturbing peaceful rallies and stopping free, peaceful speech is the problem.

Protesting is the absolute purest form of free speech there is. Silencing protestors, as you say for, is cutting away free speech. What if I said we need to arrest Donald Trump since he has said some bad things about Obama? In Belarus, it is to arrest somebody if they insult the president, be lucky it's not done as policy in America.

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read.

Maybe you should learn how to write. I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.. Seeing this as implying me as communist is definitely a valid outlook (maybe I'm wrong, though, I'm not native English nor is TeamGuns, so right me, then).

@Pulsey, I believe Жұқтыру answered that for me. Plus, those are long texts needed to be writen everytime you say something wrong, I'm glad someone is helping me at it.


@[AOE] JaiBharat909

I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.

=> http://snag.gy/CCMIt.jpg

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read. Second, I'm not a Trump supporter so avoid using that straw-man to bolster your argument.

Funny how you you can lie about having called him a communist, when the comment with you calling him one is still there...

Edited 3/14/2016 00:42:50

How is X a commie for supporting the free market?

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America?

Yes. Immigration in bulk, good news.

Arguments like this are why Trump is winning in America.

Tell me, how many more wars and folk killed have been started by nationalism than globalism?

Its not nationalistic to want your laws to be followed or for immigrants to come into your country legally. If that is the threshold for nationalism than refusing to drink any soft drink except Coca Cola should be labeled fascistic.

Jobs are never stolen from Americans by Mexicans or anybody else. Americans are just too spoiled to compete as well as Mexicans or other folk.

How is it fair if these people are coming in illegally?

What is a government? Why were governments founded? They were founded to help folk. That's all there is to it (also, it doesn't "subvert and sabotage" their economies).

Governments weren't founded to protect folk. They were founded to establish order. Countries work for their own self interest. You talk about competition so much but you don't realize that it is international competition between countries working for themselves that drives change, innovation, and economic growth.

Would illegal immigrants "on the path" to legalisation and illegal immigrants "on the path" to being deported get their human rights?

This is a stupid question. Both of them already do. Illegal aliens that are arrested and sentenced for deporation by the federal government get due process and a day in court. Legal immigrants "on the path" to citizenship would get due process if they were residing in the US. If these legal immigrants were still waiting for citizenship (say they are applying from a foreign country) they would get the due process given to them in their native country.

Funny how you you can lie about having called him a communist, when the comment with you calling him one is still there...

There were two parts to the sentence. One part said I am not a communist. Second part said I am not a rabid globalist like you are. The "like you are" referred only to the second quality of him being a rabid globalist.

How is X a commie for supporting the free market?

He's not. He's said multiple times that he likes competition. However he does believe in world wide wealth distribution...so I'm not sure what to call that (quasi-globalist redistributism??).

Edited 3/14/2016 00:46:21

@Pulsey, I believe Жұқтыру answered that for me. Plus, those are long texts needed to be writen everytime you say something wrong, I'm glad someone is helping me at it.

He only answered half my post. But if you don't want to be embarrassed like last time, I understand. However, don't go around labelling people bad at arguing when all you do is just ignore good arguments, and cherry pick other ones. I wouldn't have started this if you didn't say that.

Edited 3/14/2016 00:45:16

Defending wealth distribution doesn't make you a communist nor a socialist for instance. You need more to be called socialist, and calling someone communist in this case is just ignorance about the word communism.

Hmmmm, I hate to do it, but I'll read again that long post so I can destroy you... I really thought Жұқтыру answering it would be enough for you. Too bad ye like my attention :(

Edited 3/14/2016 00:47:43