RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The Wall
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 18706



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/19 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I always said his asking price for the "Wall" was way too high. The $1-$2 billion price tag plus more $$$ for security would get the deal done. And no one wants another shutdown. It leaves a bad mark on both sides. Even #45 knows this.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58703
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/19 10:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Considering he said repeatedly that it would cost "not one dime" of taxpayer money, any price should be considered too high



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51057



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/19 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I’m against anything more than just improvements to what they already have now. This will be like a concession to Trump, and you can be sure he’ll spin it as a win for himself, so that he won’t shut down the government again. That’s analogous to bargaining with hostage takers.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/19 12:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Both Democrats and Republicans fought Trump on building a wall. And neither party called for an open border with Latin America or the punishment of employers who hire illegal workers. An illegal workforce being illegally hired by US employers at the expense of American workers is preferred by both sides.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51057



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/19 9:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b6dU-BIDFlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51057



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/19 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lD_CjfYsIMI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51057



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/15/19 11:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FFPvAIUkczw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11672
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 10:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Both Democrats and Republicans fought Trump on building a wall. And neither party called for an open border with Latin America or the punishment of employers who hire illegal workers. An illegal workforce being illegally hired by US employers at the expense of American workers is preferred by both sides.



Was it worth it to vote for Trump, the guy who employs undocumented illegals, because he and the likewise employers you mention aren't punished?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51057



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump Declared a Border Emergency. Here’s How It Could Be Undone in Court

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/border-wall-national-emergency.html

Quote:
The groups argue that communities along the border would be harmed, not saved, by the construction of the wall, and that Mr. Trump had no legal basis for declaring an emergency. Theirs would be the first in an array of legal challenges already coalescing in an effort to thwart Mr. Trump’s plan.


With Mr. Trump determined to go forward, these are just some of the legal battles that are expected.
Private Property Owners
Precedent suggests that those living in the path of the planned wall may have a difficult time challenging it in court: Landowners have lost nearly all of the earlier cases aimed at preventing the federal government from seizing their property, though some ended up securing more compensation than initially offered.
Political Opponents
Democratic leaders in Congress have vowed to overturn the emergency declaration. “This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed president, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a joint statement.
Tribal Sovereignty
The Trump administration has been loath to respond to claims of rights abuses, and it has stopped cooperating with United Nations human rights investigators. That could mean that tribes need to rely on the legal system in the United States to resolve differences over the wall.
Environmental Resistance
Even if an environmental challenge might have an uphill climb in the courts, it could have the effect of delaying wall construction in parts of the border, potentially for months or years.


Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11881
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 12:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11881
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


Precisely. It's simple politics: Do we want The Big Fat (Orange) Elephant outta the room, or to stay another 4 years?? Razz Laughing

But--and I'm sure you'll view this as only my opinion--The Dems logic that the money is better spent on *smarter* border security than a plain wall represents, IS a far sight more tenable than HIS view that a wall--any wall--will get him re-elected, damn the consequences or ineffectiveness of any wall.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/19 2:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I doubt that any Democrat believes that there is technology that will do better than a wall at stopping illegal border crossings. And with catch and release for anyone with a minor in the group, even if a drone/laser beam detected their crossing, it is at that point too late. They get ankle bracelets (which will be quickly cut off) and they are on their way to work illegally for some USA employer to the detriment of American blue collar workers. Although most Americans must believe that is it to the benefit of American consumers.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11672
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 9:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Do stats show an increase or decrease in illegal southern border on-foot crossings over the past 20 yrs?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18417



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 10:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


False.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 2:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Do stats show an increase or decrease in illegal southern border on-foot crossings over the past 20 yrs?


There are no stats kept on successful crossings (people that were not apprehended) for obvious reasons. The number of people apprehended is down. But, the situation with regard to apprehensions has changed. Economic migrants are now more aware of the ability to claim the NON-internationally recognized and seemingly unverifiable "crime asylum" and also aware that if you have a minor (or someone young enough to claim to be a minor) in your group then you are not going to be held and your only issue will be getting your ankle bracelet cut off after they release you with an unenforceable requirement to return for a judicial decision.

But pointing to a decline in apprehensions (which are still over 400,000 a year) as a reason not to need a wall is problematic. Some amount of the decline in apprehensions can be attributed to "fencing" which has been shown to almost eliminate illegal crossings wherever it is built:

Quote:
The first iteration of current fencing along the U.S.-Mexico took place during the 1990s where the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton authorized the construction of fencing along the California-Mexico border. Then, in 2006, President George W. Bush expanded the border fence by signing the Secure Fence Act into law, which authorized the construction of a fence along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.




Last edited by tfan on 02/17/19 2:49 pm; edited 3 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 2:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


False.


H.R. 6061 (109th): Secure Fence Act of 2006

Quote:

Chuck Schumer Democrat NY: yea
Hillary Clinton Democrat NY: yea
Barack Obama Democrat IL: yea
Joseph Biden Democrat MD: yea


Quote:
On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."

The bill was introduced on September 13, 2006 by Congressman Peter T. King, Republican of New York. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283–138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 – the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80–19.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 2:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
Both Democrats and Republicans fought Trump on building a wall. And neither party called for an open border with Latin America or the punishment of employers who hire illegal workers. An illegal workforce being illegally hired by US employers at the expense of American workers is preferred by both sides.



Was it worth it to vote for Trump, the guy who employs undocumented illegals, because he and the likewise employers you mention aren't punished?


Trump did not campaign on punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens and only mentioned requiring the use of E-Verify a few times. And an E-Verify requirement is meaningless without punishment. A few states have E-Verify as a requirement and they still let employers get away without using it. Anyone who voted for Trump based on him punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens was not paying attention to what he said during the campaign.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11672
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 4:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
Both Democrats and Republicans fought Trump on building a wall. And neither party called for an open border with Latin America or the punishment of employers who hire illegal workers. An illegal workforce being illegally hired by US employers at the expense of American workers is preferred by both sides.



Was it worth it to vote for Trump, the guy who employs undocumented illegals, because he and the likewise employers you mention aren't punished?


Trump did not campaign on punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens and only mentioned requiring the use of E-Verify a few times. And an E-Verify requirement is meaningless without punishment. A few states have E-Verify as a requirement and they still let employers get away without using it. Anyone who voted for Trump based on him punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens was not paying attention to what he said during the campaign.


No one said otherwise.

I asked if voting for Trump, a man who actually breaks the law and hires illegals, was worth it.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18417



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/19 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


False.


H.R. 6061 (109th): Secure Fence Act of 2006

Quote:

Chuck Schumer Democrat NY: yea
Hillary Clinton Democrat NY: yea
Barack Obama Democrat IL: yea
Joseph Biden Democrat MD: yea


Quote:
On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."

The bill was introduced on September 13, 2006 by Congressman Peter T. King, Republican of New York. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283–138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 – the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80–19.


A fence and a ridiculously expensive wall across the entire border is not the same thing..



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14666
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/19 2:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Shades wrote:
Quote:
“I expect legal challenges to tie this up for a long time,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “The president and his people are aware of this, but they may care more about the optics of the wall than what actually happens on the border.”


This is the Big Fat (Orange) Elephant in the room: EVERYBODY knows it's all about appeasing his deplorable base for 2020, and not for his 'stated reasons'.


Just like everyone knows that the Democrats are fighting a wall because Trump wants one, and not for their "stated reasons".


False.


H.R. 6061 (109th): Secure Fence Act of 2006

Quote:

Chuck Schumer Democrat NY: yea
Hillary Clinton Democrat NY: yea
Barack Obama Democrat IL: yea
Joseph Biden Democrat MD: yea


Quote:
On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."

The bill was introduced on September 13, 2006 by Congressman Peter T. King, Republican of New York. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283–138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 – the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80–19.


A fence and a ridiculously expensive wall across the entire border is not the same thing..


Of those, only Schumer is still in the Senate. Of current Senators are currently running for president (Harris, Warren, Klobachar, Sanders, Gillenbrand, Booker) none were in the Senate at the time.

In fact, only five current Democratic Senators voted for that bill at in 2006 (Stabenow, Schumer, Wyden, Baucus, & Feinstein).

I fail to see what the votes of Obama, Biden, and Clinton (none of whom are elected officials) cast more than a decade ago have to do with anything.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/19 6:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:

I asked if voting for Trump, a man who actually breaks the law and hires illegals, was worth it.


I personally did not vote for Trump. I live in California which is not a swing state so individual votes don't count. I almost exclusively vote for a minor party candidate. This time I voted for Jill Stein.

But I don't understand the sentiment. If Trump campaigns on two issues that the other 22 candidates don't campaign on with one exception (Bernie Sanders was also talking "bringing jobs back") why would Trump Enterprises hiring illegals make someone feel that their vote was not worth it? What would make them feel it was not worth it is if either:

a) Trump didn't build a wall and/or didn't bring jobs back
b) Trump didn't try to build a wall and/or didn't try to bring jobs back

That is assuming that Trump's signature issues were why they voted for him. If they just voted for him because they are Republican and he was the Republican candidate, then illegal immigration and job export are probably things they condone like most Americans. They probably would have held their nose to vote for him and are likely not surprised he had to pay off mistresses and don't have a problem with illegal workers mowing their lawn or painting their house.

Now if you are suggesting that people would be upset to have voted for a candidate, and then found out they broke the law (either Trump Enterprises hiring or mistress blackmail payout), I doubt that many 2016 Trump voters would have said no to a question of "Has Trump ever broken the law?" or "Will you think your vote was wrong if it turns out Trump or his company has broken the law in some way?"




Last edited by tfan on 02/18/19 7:55 pm; edited 4 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/19 7:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:


A fence and a ridiculously expensive wall across the entire border is not the same thing.


But that isn't the sentiment of the Democrats - fence versus wall or lots of fence versus some fence. They are not saying "I will fund a fence but not a wall". They also aren't saying "I will fund a fence along significant portions of the border, but not where the terrain makes crossing very difficult".




Last edited by tfan on 02/18/19 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/19 7:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:

Of those, only Schumer is still in the Senate. Of current Senators are currently running for president (Harris, Warren, Klobachar, Sanders, Gillenbrand, Booker) none were in the Senate at the time.


Clinton, Obama, and Biden are not in the Senate, but they are still Democrats whose comments are broadcast nationwide and if you put a microphone in front of them now and said "What about building a wall or putting more fence on the southern border?" I can't seem them giving a yes in the current climate, even though they once gave a yes. From memory, Clinton was against a wall (and didn't substitute fence for it) during her 2016 campaign. Trump forced them to flip.

Quote:
In fact, only five current Democratic Senators voted for that bill at in 2006 (Stabenow, Schumer, Wyden, Baucus, & Feinstein).


And how many didn't flip after Trump came on the scene? What caused the Democrats to universally decide more wall/fence was immoral/unnecessary in 2018 when Democrats didn't universally feel that way in 2006?

Quote:
I fail to see what the votes of Obama, Biden, and Clinton (none of whom are elected officials) cast more than a decade ago have to do with anything.


Top Democrats were in favor of fencing in 2006. Fencing to keep out illegal immigrants. Now top Democrats are 100% against it. I say it is because of Trump, not because a new illegal-immigration-loving crop came in (there are some exceptions to that like Ocasio-Cortez). What do you attribute it to?




Last edited by tfan on 02/18/19 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18417



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/19 7:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:


A fence and a ridiculously expensive wall across the entire border is not the same thing.


But that isn't the sentiment of the Democrats. They are not saying "I will fund a fence but not a wall". They also aren't saying "I will fund a fence along significant portions of the border, but not where the terrain makes crossing very difficult".


Because Donald isn’t promoting “fixing parts of the fence”

He’s using building a giant expensive wall as a distraction.

Democrats sentiments towards border security vary. Some think there should be an upgrade in technology (a “smart wall”..technology that didn’t exist in 06) some are for easier paths to citizenship..many don’t see it as a huge issue. You are oversimplifying Democrats stances here.

No one (not even Republicans..shh) wants this wall. It’s an expensive vanity distraction that will be ineffective.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin