The Wall

[Savy]

January - February is usually a good month to border cross. Less heat means 1 less obstacle to crossing.

I havent researched / reached out to other jurisdictions, but illegal border crossings in mine are substantially down from where they usually are around this time of year. The guess is that its because of people getting scared of Trump, but theres obviously no way to prove that.

How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?

Also in my previous post I meant you get a bias sample not that you are bias as a starting point. I imagine you make better decisions than most on most of the information you get.

[wufwugy]

How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?

I have no idea how that could be demonstrated. It can be pretty easily explained with reason though.

If we take labor for example, illegal labor undermines those who are most responsible for order, which ultimately makes sense as being a net loss to society. It's funny how the Trump election is in part backlash by those most responsible for order being tired of being undermined.

[Savy]

I have no idea how that could be demonstrated. It can be pretty easily explained with reason though.

If we take labor for example, illegal labor undermines those who are most responsible for order, which ultimately makes sense as being a net loss to society. It's funny how the Trump election is in part backlash by those most responsible for order being tired of being undermined.

Think of what your original point was, reread your post a times, think of what your point was again and then whether you think it is actually a good post. Let me know your conclusion.

[wufwugy]

Think of what your original point was, reread your post a times, think of what your point was again and then whether you think it is actually a good post. Let me know your conclusion.

I'm not acting like we have quantities. We have theory.

[Savy]

I'm not acting like we have quantities. We have theory.

Try and make a post arguing the exact opposite point that you just did, use economics but don't use Trump.

You mean the cost to being black?

Specifics are always bad when arguing a point. Hate crimes across the board are up.

[JKDS]

How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I tend to disagree.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

Also in my previous post I meant you get a bias sample not that you are bias as a starting point. I imagine you make better decisions than most on most of the information you get.

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

[Savy]

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

As I read the post back I thought it sounded like me being out of order but I didn't know how to edit it to get my point across. The fault on the understanding was down to me. I do however think that implys a lot.

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

This argument seems to be we set a ruling, the people who bypass it get an advantage rather than whether the original ruling is good in the first place. It's a bullshit we all know this, I can prove it if you really want me to, but can we get to the more serious question. I promise I won't answer in such a dismissive (if completely correct and true) way as I did to wuf.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I'm fairly certain that's an impractical option, but I only cite all of recorded history as my data, so not my area of expertise.

Although, in this day and age... IDK if that's still as relevant. America can't be taken over by any conceivable land invasion. I mean, it could be done... in the sense that the Mongols eventually killed 90% of the Chinese people, but the cost would be enormous. If America has one thing, it's fierce patriotism.

Is there really a fear of invasion from our (2) neighbors, even by an enemy force infiltrating those countries to enter with minimal scrutiny?
I am totally uninformed and out of my element, but I seriously doubt it.

I still think a wall is a terrible idea, but only under all circumstances. Even if immigration is tightened, I still think a wall is well proven to me a temporary stopgap solution at most and always a costly mistake in the long run.

I tend to disagree.

I mostly do, too.
I doubt my sense of practicality is representative of the greater public's on all issues.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

As is, with the laws as they are, you're, of course, correct.

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane.

IDK if this addresses a totally different issue, though. There'd still need to be an amnesty for past criminal acts, in light of the new law, and loads of people are against that idea.

[BananaStand]

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane

Great idea. I've heard the cartels wanted to outsource their mule hiring and interview process. Pretty generous of us to do it for free

[MadMojoMonkey]

Great idea. I've heard the cartels wanted to outsource their mule hiring and interview process. Pretty generous of us to do it for free

Only a troll would suggest that national policies should be justified with rumors and hearsay.

Only a troll would suggest that the USA is the only, or even most inviting, place which would attract immigration.

If you're not an intentional troll, then your sense of evidence or what constitutes a motivating standard for national policy is completely irrelevant to the topic.

***
I do have to give credit where it's due. You're standing up for what you believe against like half a dozen people who disagree with you.
I can forgive the fact that you crossed my statements with other people's statements in that sense.
My other critiques hold.

Until you see the nuance in each of your political rivals' thoughts, you will not get the respect you feel you deserve.
FYI
We can't respect you when you keep arguing against points no one has made.

[BananaStand]

Only a troll would suggest that national policies should be justified with rumors and hearsay..

Only a troll would misinterpret sarcasm as sincerity.

Only a troll would suggest that the USA is the only, or even most inviting, place which would attract immigration.

Only a troll would make a claim like this without looking it up. Go ahead, look it up.

If you're not an intentional troll, then your sense of evidence or what constitutes a motivating standard for national policy is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Ok, I'll humor you, what would be the 'motivating standard' for your idea of an 'express lane' over the southern border? How do you not see massive potential for fraud and abuse of that policy. The only way to counter that, would be to screen these people. Except you made them exempt from screening.

My other critiques hold.

I flat out, don't care.

[MadMojoMonkey]

.

I can't respect you when you keep arguing against points I have not made.

[BananaStand]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Assume for a minute we had totally open borders. Assume for a minute that anyone could move to any country at any time.

What would happen then? The poorest people would seek out the country with the most benefits. You'd have a 'race to the bottom'.

The debate over whether open borders is a good thing or not is totally moot. Pointless discussion. Because the fact is that America is wholly unprepared to operate under such a policy. Countries operating as 'welfare states' (like the US), have the most to lose from an open borders