Two days and 39 posts later, still no examples of:
If the OP isn’t going to substantiate or defend his thesis, what is the point of debating it?
Why shouldn't the U.S. and other first world countries take a hardline stance on illegal immigration
So? Illegal immigrants hold public freakin’ rallies and INS doesn’t bother attempting to round up people who have noisily outed themselves, so why would you expect them to bother with the two people you know?
Do you understand that most “illegals” would be totally “legal” if not for immigration quotas denying them visas?
And the immigration quotas have no relationship to actual demand for immigrant labor, nor to any economic reality, but are decided in Washington to appeal to xenophobic voters? Imagine if politicians and bureaucrats in Washington told your business how many employees it could hire and how many units it could sell–or how many of its customers could live in a given state. What would you call that?
Look, I can accept environmental regulations to keep CAFO’s from draining aquifers. I can accept quotas in Affirmative Action (and I think SCOTUS was wrong to strike them down) as socially utile. But a quota kind of needs a reason, and needs to be credibly enforceable. The labor market may be enough regulation in itself, which means immigration quotas might not be necessary; and certainly the present quotas have been so out of touch with labor demand as to be widely ignored, hence the substantial illicit migration across the border.
But I think immigration quotas are probably unnecessary for the USA at this time, and if we’re going to have them, we’d damn well better have them be realistic enough that we can expect immigrants to follow them. Our quota for Mexican migrants probably wouldn’t be such a problem if it were three or four times higher and included the “guest worker” visas W Bush wanted to pass.
And, no, you can’t really secure the border. Ask Italy or Greece about migrants coming in over sea. Barriers don’t entirely stop migrants. If the numbers are great enough, they’ll still push through.
Would you mind to elaborate? After all, even the land-mine-riddled Inner German border, with standing shoot-to-kill orders, in a police state, couldn’t stop people from escaping.
The INS doesn’t actually exist anymore, its duties were divvied up between Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection.
It isn’t a ‘thesis’. It is a real question and the part you are asking about is only a side-comment to it. What I was thinking of when I wrote the part that you snipped was safe-haven cities that refuse to acknowledge existing immigration laws and calls for yet another round of amnesty. Those are generally supported by the Left but that isn’t the important part. What is important is the fact that some cities and states refuse to acknowledge existing Federal immigration laws so that is yet another complication when looking at the issue.
I’m glad to hear it. Please show us the cost model.
So the workability of the government taking on a large project is dependent on someone on a message board being able to provide a cost model? Hmmm, I guess that the government cannot build an interstate highway, fight a war, send people to space or administer a public assistance program. Interesting.
Now, back in the U.S. of Reality, of course the government can do these things. And of course they can build a wall and secure the border. What in the world makes you think that they can’t? Now if you believe, as some others evidently do, that “securing the border” means guaranteeing that zero—0—people will ever sneak through, then I suggest you save us both time and look up both the Excluded Middle fallacy and No True Scotsman.
Dude, that is the worst argument anyone has ever made for anything. First, you are perfectly free to cite somebody else’s cost estimate for securing the border. Second, “government can do this because it did that” is ridiculous logic. On that basis, they can also build an elevator to Mars or create a supersoldier with laser eyes.
No, the value of an argument on a message board is dependant on supporting that position with credible evidence. So far, yours hasn’t met that standard.
Nonsense. Walls and fences are not fantastical notions. Look what’s around the white house. Or Disneyworld. They exist. And they work. I love Ann Coulter’s analogy. “Saying walls don’t work is like saying buckets don’t work.” We know we can build a wall, a really good wall. The question is whether we have the will to make it really secure. Do you deny that this is true?
Thinking that the workability of a large scale government project is dependent upon someone on a message board being able to show the costs is The Onion-level absurdity.
Dude, you are taking the position that “it’s not hard,” not merely that it’s possible. Yes, building a wall is obviously possible. It’s not obvious that it isn’t hard. That means you get to show that it isn’t hard. After 11 years you know that damn well. We are naturally going to assume that if you don’t even attempt to prove it, it’s bullshit.
Nope. You’re trying to shift the burden of proof. We KNOW walls and fences can be built. We KNOW they can be great aids in making places secure. Cite: The White House and Fort Knox. The only question is if we have the will to do it…if we want to make it a priority.
What exactly is your point? That walls can’t be built? That places can’t be made secure? That if I can’t show you the costs that it’s an impossibility. That’s ridiculous—plus some.
Nice try. Well, not really. My clim is that the only thing in the way is the will to do it. It’s not like you’re fantastical elevator to Mars. According to your logic, the D-Day assault, putting a man on the moon, the Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam, and building an interstate highway system also were provably unworkable if a layperson was unable to provide cost models for those endeavors.
Hey, I also don’t know the cost model or engineering required to make buckets. Uh-oh.
Yes. That is what I am saying. The border is not Fort Knox. You can’t make the border secure. It is not possible. There is no wall that can prevent a motivated immigrant or their smugglers from breaching with a tunnel or a ladder. Not high enough, not deep enough, not long enough, not armed enough. We have built walls before, and they failed. Your idea is laughable.
No, just that any layperson who insisted they were workable without even a shred of evidence would be making things up.
First, you seem to think that the talk of building a wall means that it’s just a wall. That the purpose of building the wall would not be aided by manpower and technology. Well, then you’re wrong. The only thing standing between us and a secure border is the will to make it happen. Insisting that it can’t be done is absolutely ridiculous.
My evidence is walls and fences the world over. As far as making them secure, we can make them as secure as we desire, just as we can with buildings—you know, those things with four walls and a roof? Any insistence otherwise ignores millions of examples. Go visit Fort Knox, your state prison, The White House, Tiffany’s. You really should get out and see all the walls that have been built. Pretty cool. Buckets are pretty cool, too.
You don’t have to “find a way” to do that. Just stop arresting and deporting people who were born elsewhere.
I’m cool with preventing escaping (non-political prisoner) felons from immigrating and quarantining those with highly contagious alien diseases (are there any diseases immigrants can bring to this country that we don’t already have?). But otherwise, there is no legitimate reason to prevent someone who wants to be an American from moving here and becoming one.
Borders are for delineating where our laws apply and what our military will defend. They’re not for telling people where they can and can’t live based on their birthplace or ethnicity. Do you really think a free country should have laws against moving?