The wall and increased border patrol agents should suffice. We shouldn't need the military unless the drug cartels weapon up and bring the drugs across en mass.
This country will not be able to sustain a drastic increase in population. If the current laws do indeed allow for free access to the US then the laws will have to change. We will soon be running out of real estate and resources if this keeps up. There are so many things going on under the surface not just with illegal immigration which will turn our country into a homogenized third world country.
I don't think open borders is a realistic idea. There needs to be a vetting process of some kind so that criminals and other bad people don't get into our country. That being said I also don't think we need to shut down immigration. I would like to make the process simple enough so that more and more people chose to immigrate legally vs illegally.
Your fears of immigrants is irrational. There are not thousands of Mexicans running the border with pounds of drugs on them. As a matter of fact, there are more immigrants leaving to Mexico then coming to America. While it may be true that the majority of terrorists are Muslims, the majority of Muslims are not terrorist. Don't blame the entire group for a handful of bad apples. Also there is no need to fear the Canadians.
Maybe we should teach our politicians the constitution. They seem to forget when they supported the Patriot Act, torture, death penalty, and a president who is in violation of the constitution right now.
We don't need a wall. It will cost 25 billion dollars plus maintaining the wall will cost more. Also there are more immigrants leaving to Mexico then coming to America to the wall would increase the number of immigrants by making it harder to leave. Also if you want to stop the drug cartel then you need to legalize drugs. This will take away there monopoly on the market and bankrupt them. The Cartel cant keep up with American Corporations.
With the absence of of that silly reference to "illegal immigration," you seem to have your head on almost right. We cannot sustain a drastic increase in population, yet the side you're on keeps repeating the mantra that as long as they come here "legally," they have no problem with it. Really? Where I live, the county demographics in the 1980s were 83 percent white, and 17 percent other. Last night, on tv, the blacks were complaining about the number of white cops. The police spokesman said there had been massive changes over the last decade and now this county is a " majority minority population (his terminology.) What he means is that we are now predominantly non-white. And it was planned that way. Naturalization - which is citizenship is what is changing the demographics of your country, not the free market.
You talk about being out of touch with reality... Yeah right, some country that hates your guts is going to tell you that Mir Seddique Mateen is a stand up kind of guy and will be an asset to your country. I guess if you have a problem with gays, you might have a point. You should READ the thread. Congress has NO authority over immigration. Their authority ends with Naturalization. You should read the thread and see if you can keep up.
There you go. You've proven that a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day. Not only do you legalize drugs, but you tax them when they leave Mexico and tax them coming into the United States. Put a little tax money into the equation and that damn border will always have plenty of Americans and Mexican Federales policing it.
You cannot find constitutional precedent for a wall. Your money is better spent on putting Americans to work. Do you even understand a Cost / Benefits Analysis works or do I have to explain the downside of the wall to you again?
The answer has been provided umpteen times. Because of your last sentence your questions do not merit a serious reply
Please use the following source for the revisions to the immigration laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ation_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States It doesn't change any of the summaries of the changes but it's certainly a far more acceptable source. As for people that agree with me the criteria is simple. Those that want to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes and to become Americans should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Only those that would choose to come to the United States for nefarious or criminal purposes should be denied entry.
We don't need open borders to reduce the white population in the US. The media is doing that quite effectively with it's subliminal brain washing in movies, TV shows and even commercials depicting inter-racial couples. In just a few generations there will no longer be any races left.
Then while we are at it we should legalize terrorism as well, maybe they will stop trying to come here to kill us.
Tax drugs and the Mexicans match us man for man on the border to protect their part of that tax and your problem is solved. There is no profit in denying people their Liberty. When governments are motivated by money, they become very effective. If you don't believe that, ask the IRS. I'll answer the balance of your post a little later.
I've been reading the swill the anti-immigrant lobby spews for the last 15 years. They all tell us they have no problem with "legal" immigration, you know. It's those "illegal" immigrants coming from the southern border they hate so much. And every day I have to tell your side a great big fricking surprise... and tomorrow you will act like you still don't know and you'll STILL be hawking the same snake oil. The people from south of our border aren't committing terrorist acts. By contrast, that "legal" variety that went through the background checks, vetting procedures, got those silly a** human registration papers, etc. have themselves - or their immediate offspring committed the worst atrocities in the history of this country. This would include, but not be limited to: Nidal Hasan (who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers), the San Bernadino shooters (more that a dozen that time), Boston Marathon Bombers, and Omar Mateen (the son of a political radical) who slaughtered 49 people and injured 53 more.
How ridiculous! Whatever the people want, the people should get?????? This is not a democracy. The United States government guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government (see Article 4 Section 4) of the Constitution. You do realize you sound like the original snake oil salesman of a really bad idea, don't you? What do you mean there doesn't have to be a precedent if it is what the people want? Do you even realize the concept of a precedent? Do you even KNOW what you just said? You have a problem with Liberty? You have problems with Freedom? Do tell. Honestly, I thought I had heard it all.
You keep quoting me for a reason. You like quoting me and arguing about something and I'm wondering sometimes if you smoke weed, have an emotional problem or what. Actually I'm afraid to ask. Let me clue you in on something pal: EVERY SOURCE YOU'VE QUOTED ADMITS TO THE POINTS I HAVE BEEN ARTICULATING ALL ALONG. Wow! Isn't that a big freaking surprise? So, what are you arguing about? When people come to the United States for purposes of NATURALIZATION (citizenship) we do extensive background checks on them since, as citizens, loyalty to our nation and possible service may be involved as would the privilege of voting. When people come from next door that are our friendly neighbors (we have no political tensions) then they should be able to ride up to the border, flash their ID and proceed. THAT sir, is exactly how it was done on Ellis Island all the way up until recent times. You sources even bear that out. The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into to their states in order to do business. The founders of this country did not deny admittance to this country by people who could not become citizens. Maybe you don't realize this and maybe you're hearing this for the first time, but the anti-immigrant lobby only sees citizenship as an option to enter the United States. The anti-immigrant lobby abhors the concept of unalienable Rights. The sources point it out, however, that people who could not become citizens were allowed into the United States AND that non-citizens were afforded unalienable rights as the government has NO authority to withhold same. The facts remain. We are not at war with Mexico nor any country south of it. They do not pose a military threat to this country. They do not need to become citizens in order to do business in this country. We don't need them to be citizens. The free market operates on the fact that I offer someone a business opportunity and they accept or reject it. We are not a socialist country so the government does not, constitutionally, get to determine what an individual company does or does not need. When it comes to the people the United States has an opportunity to keep terrorists out, they don't. They make citizens out of them It casts doubt about the effectiveness of these background checks. Given that, what in the name of God are you arguing about all the time?
I think we should force some lesser nation to try it first and see if it works or not. Some Euro-trash hellhole would be sufficient, like France or the soon to be Divided Kingdom...
We have had open borders since the Mayflower Compact (1630) and before that. The facts are NOBODY on the constitutional side of the fence supported this nutty idea of shutting the border down until the Tea Party hijacked the Republican Party. It was all Democrat talking points. Every American president, including Ronald Reagan, was opposed to the closing of our borders. America was founded on the very principle of open borders. The notion that we should have a militarized border is paranoia at a level the defies all logic. You should try reading this thread - and if you can't, the only thing we can do is repost what is already known. If you have something not covered already, have at it.
