Actually Democrats and Hillary have explictly stated that outposts, drones and patrols are the best and most effective border security and have expressed nuanced plans to fund it .
There is a legitimate reason to oppose a plan for a "wall". It's unpragamtic and actual security experts have stated multiple times that drones and outposts with other types of sensor technology are more useful. At this point funding a "border wall" is nothing to do with actual pragmaticism but rather appeasing Donald Trump's desire to pander to his devoted base and have talking points such as "we built the wall" to his idiot mindless hord .
All this means is that he doesn't give a F what happens to them. You argue that the Democrats should give him anything he wants to appease him, a pretty dangerous precedent. What's to stop him from taking more hostages and making bigger demands? Nope, this is about the wall. Do you have evidence that proves to the contrary? I have plenty of evidence that Democrats DO want border security. Your entire argument is that the opposing party should just bow down Trump's demands, I know for a fact you didn't agree with hat strategy when the president was Obama. And if Bernie, Booker, or Harris or whoever the Dems offer up to become president is president my guess is that you won't take the same stance that the minority party is at fault for instances like this.
take hilary out of the equatin, she lost and any position she had is null. but to security itself, just shows they are **** negotiators you have. guy wins with wall position, thinks he has a mandate. other side is full stop against it and is shocked when the winner doesn't bend?!?! i mean for godsakes, learn how to negotiate. at the very least offer a pilot wall program, while sneaking in your security measures you prefer. or perhaps, a phased approach offer where phase 1 includes your security approach and phase 2 includes physical wall. something, anything, that convinces the winner (hello!!) who thinks they have a mandate to go along with it. dealing with a problem with anger usually doesn't work and we're seeing that with the democrats. way too angry from the election and it has wrecked them.
They were brought to this country by their parents, so unless we've started to judge kids in court the same that we judge adults...
So offering amnesty and citizenship means he doesn't give a F what happens to them because he also wants to do something about the larger problem at the same time? Again, crazy mental gymnastics you've got going on. I argue that there's no valid reason to oppose the deal if they want a secure border AND they want amnesty for DACA people, it would be a win-win situation. The only reason to oppose the bill would be that they don't want yet another accomplishment before the mid-terms. It would be solely a "#Resist" thing. You can point to lip service by Democrats but in reality the ONLY reason they don't want a border wall to be part of border security is because it is something Trump ran on. When it comes down to it, the Democrats would rather deport all of the DACA people than give Trump something he ran on. It's not like the wall would harm anyone and if their narrative is to be believed it would be wholly ineffective, so why not just do it so that DACA people get a path to citizenship if it's not just a "#Resist" thing?
So I guess we are all criminals. I'm assuming you don't have a spotless driving record. Also, a civil infraction isn't a crime. It's why you don't label speeders and people driving with expired registration criminals. Criminal misdemeanors are the lowest bar for when you would label someone a 'criminal'.
Yep, because he's willing to allow those people to be deported if he doesn't get what he wants Well, we are talking about the WALL. When you are ready to talk about the wall and not 'Border Security' I'll reply again. Oh...okay so no evidence for your claim. Get back to me when you are ready to discuss the wall. I'm interested in hearing why you think it is needed.
Well they SHOULD be deported if the law doesn't change. How is that hard to understand? The wall is part of enhancing border security. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but when combined with other things it would result in a fairly secure border. That said, even if you think the wall would be ineffective, there's no reason to stand in the way of DACA people getting a path to citizenship just to prevent the wall from being built....well no reason outside of politics and "#Resist" BS.
#fiscalresponsability #imminentdomainissues #wildlifeissues #rewarding a baby because he loves pandering to an idiotic base .
Which wasn't even what we were discussing. Congress is discussing the law. I have no motivation to go back and forth on laws and ethics with you AGAIN. You clearly take the stance that the law is the law. I understand. I'll be sure to bring it up again when you think the law should be changed for your politics and constantly go "It's the LAW!" until it annoys you. ...... So much for fiscal responsibility yeah, let's just waste hundreds of billions on a wall just because #MAGA Man, you were so against Trump and his immigration stance before the election, it is amazing how you completely changed your tune since he became president. Spoiler Oh, and this one in particular is a nice nugget. Not sure what happened between before the election and his inauguration. Once he became president you went all in on him.
more stupid replies that make it look like liberals are in favor our broken shitty current visa lottery system the anger is just making folks stupid
Walls work: Berlin Korea Israel And yes: these walls have outposts, drones, and other such infrastructure.
And a much more limited land mass with the actual wall. There are already walls in place along some spots of the border.
What is this trash? Trump has offered the perfect compromise. 1. If republicans had their way, all illegals are deported, and what they view as 'good' border security would be implemented 2. If democrats had their way, all illegals would be amnestied, and what they view as 'good' border security would be implemented. Trump is actually more liberal here. 3. Trump wants illegals amnestied, and what he views as 'good' border security implemented. Republicans are open to the compromise, Democrats are not. Why not? Because they disagree on what 'good' border security is? LOL. Essentially Trump wants 1.8 million amnestied, and a wall built to avoid a future where we have another 1.8 million we will need to amnesty or kick out- which occured under Reagen when he amnestied and didn't implement good border security. DEMS should jump all over that. They can amnesty 1.8 million Americans, and if they think Trumps 'border' security sucks, that shouldn't bother them because that would just lead to more votes for them. The issue is, they are worried what Trump deems as 'good' border security would work.. and thus illegal immigration and future votes would take a hit. THis is just showing they are not serious about border security, and they give zero F#CKSD about dreamers. Politics at it's most selfish and nastiest by the dems. DEMS are going to take a huge L here. I'm basing this assumption off my own survey performed at a nursing school where 90% of the students are women and voted for Hillary. Americans have the heart to not want to kick dreamers out, they want them to become citizens. However, Americans also don't want a completely open border. What Trump believes to be 'good' border security, financially, is a drop in the bucket and WORTH the try to amnesty 1.8 million Americans and potentially resolve illegal immigration once and for all.
