I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

(07-10-2015 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 04:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Illegals represent 3% of the population. 11,319,000. 38% of all federal convictions are by illegal immigrants. 3% of the population. 18% of drug trafficking convictions in America, illegal immigrants. 3% of the population. 25% of all kidnapings in America are done by illegal immigrants. 3% of the population. Murder, 7%. Drug possession, 56%. Illegal immigrants represent 3% of the population.

United States Sentencing Bureau.

Of course Paul...but for FY13, 31.2% of all federal cases were for Immigration issues. And when the federal conviction case rate is almost 100%, you've already got nearly all of that 38% from the jump.

Quote:Immigration
Immigration offenses were the second most common serious federal crime in fiscal year 2013, representing 31.2 percent of the federal criminal case load. The majority of these offenses involved either the unlawful reentry into the United States or remaining in the United States without authority (83.2%). Another 10.0 percent involved alien smuggling activities. Offenders sentenced under the immigration guidelines are different from other federal offenders in several ways. For example, although United States citizens committed the majority of all federal crimes (55.1%), the overwhelming majority (94.1%) of immigration offenses were committed by non-citizens. Similarly, while Hispanics accounted for only 32.5 percent of non-immigration offenders, they account for 95.1 percent of immigration offenders. Also, immigration offenders had significantly less education than other offenders. Nearly 80 percent of immigration offenders had less than a high school education, compared with less than 35 percent of offenders convicted of other crimes. Additionally, while men committed most federal crimes not involving an immigration offense (83.6%), men committed an even higher proportion of immigration crimes (93.5%).

Overview of Federal Criminal Cases
Fiscal Year 2013

The argument being made is that the illegals are committing some extraordinary amount of crime other than just crossing the border. And the stats simply do not support that. Sorry.

It's still a lot of crime though. Wtf is do hard to understand? They dont belong here, period.

It's not just the crime either. It's their using public services, hospitals, welfare, jobs... That all adds up and it warps our economy. No matter the exact number it's too much.

Even if illegals had a lower murder rate than the general population, it doesn't matter. We shouldn't have any murders by illegals because they don't belong here.

They need to go.

The problem that nobody is talking about is that we can't send them back. This is not because we can't round them up or can't process them, although both of those are daunting problems.

Rather, the problem is that we have nowhere to send them. If we send 10-20 million people back to Mexico, what happens to Mexico? They can't absorb them. By far the most likely result is a failed anarchic state. Is that what we want on our southern border? I think not. How tempting would a failed anarchic Mexico be to the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIS? How long before they are launching Scuds out of Mexico into SAT, PHX, and LAX? Who wants that?

Give them work permits. Get them registered so we know where they are and can keep track of them. The ones who commit crimes do time here and then go back. The rest we monitor and require them to do certain things to stay here. After X years they have to be fluent in English to keep their permits. After Y years they have to pass tests on US government and laws--in English. Instead of bilingual classes, the schools teach their children English first and then put them into regular classes--in English. And no path to citizenship without at least a lengthy probationary period before the process can start--I'm thinking 10-15 years, during which they have to stay squeaky clean.

Deal with the future with a combination of 1) easier and more plentiful green cards and work permits for those coming to work, plus 2) tighter border security.

(07-11-2015 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem that nobody is talking about is that we can't send them back. This is not because we can't round them up or can't process them, although both of those are daunting problems.

Rather, the problem is that we have nowhere to send them. If we send 10-20 million people back to Mexico, what happens to Mexico? They can't absorb them. By far the most likely result is a failed anarchic state. Is that what we want on our southern border? I think not. How tempting would a failed anarchic Mexico be to the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIS? How long before they are launching Scuds out of Mexico into SAT, PHX, and LAX? Who wants that?

Give them work permits. Get them registered so we know where they are and can keep track of them. The ones who commit crimes do time here and then go back. The rest we monitor and require them to do certain things to stay here. After X years they have to be fluent in English to keep their permits. After Y years they have to pass tests on US government and laws--in English. Instead of bilingual classes, the schools teach their children English first and then put them into regular classes--in English. And no path to citizenship without at least a lengthy probationary period before the process can start--I'm thinking 10-15 years, during which they have to stay squeaky clean.

Deal with the future with a combination of 1) easier and more plentiful green cards and work permits for those coming to work, plus 2) tighter border security.

You have be careful with amnesty. We allowed that to 3 million illegal Mexicans in 1986 and what did we get for that? 12 million more.

(07-11-2015 09:59 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  You have be careful with amnesty. We allowed that to 3 million illegal Mexicans in 1986 and what did we get for that? 12 million more.

But remember, that was a horse trade between Reagan and democrats. Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for democrats agreeing to tighten borders. Then democrats welshed on their end of the deal. Bunch of lying b*****ds.

What you need is a welsh-proof deal on border tightening.

(07-10-2015 09:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 05:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 11:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Humorous considering dead people vote in this country.

But their votes aren't counted.

The dead in Chicago gave Illinois to Kennedy in 1960. The dead are a key demographic group.

1960 was 55 years ago dude.

Thats just another way of saying that the dead have been instrumental in giving democrats the win for more than half a century.

If you're losing to dead guys, maybe you should rethink your strategy. LMFAO

If your counting on dead guys...

(07-11-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 05:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But their votes aren't counted.

The dead in Chicago gave Illinois to Kennedy in 1960. The dead are a key demographic group.

1960 was 55 years ago dude.

Thats just another way of saying that the dead have been instrumental in giving democrats the win for more than half a century.

If you're losing to dead guys, maybe you should rethink your strategy. LMFAO

Noones losing to dead guys braniac, but election shave been lost because dead guys vote. And they vote democratic.

You know, all of those voter fraud incidents that you swear dont exist.

The fraud that the voter id laws will clean up. Oh yea, you are dead set against those.

(07-11-2015 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:59 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  You have be careful with amnesty. We allowed that to 3 million illegal Mexicans in 1986 and what did we get for that? 12 million more.

But remember, that was a horse trade between Reagan and democrats. Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for democrats agreeing to tighten borders. Then democrats welshed on their end of the deal. Bunch of lying b*****ds.

What you need is a welsh-proof deal on border tightening.

which lends to the point that both parties don't want to rock the boat.....damned be the future of this cuntry

to uconn.....there is a reason the statisticians realized awhile back that the hispanic base would grow at a higher pace on a percentage/numbers basis.....

reagan was a pawn....nothing more, nothing less....he was right there with carter in ability outside of the camera....

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

Cost.Given that you hate paying taxes, the wall would cost a lot of money- and not even stop illegal immigration because a god majority is by people overstaying their visa's.

(07-11-2015 08:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

Cost.Given that you hate paying taxes, the wall would cost a lot of money- and not even stop illegal immigration because a god majority is by people overstaying their visa's.

Securing the homeland is a responsibility of the federal government. The cost would be nothing, as we could simply cut something that is not the federal governments responsibility. Problem solved. Actually we could cut more stuff thats not required, build a wall, and cut taxes. Win-Win.

(07-11-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 05:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But their votes aren't counted.

The dead in Chicago gave Illinois to Kennedy in 1960. The dead are a key demographic group.

1960 was 55 years ago dude.

Thats just another way of saying that the dead have been instrumental in giving democrats the win for more than half a century.

If you're losing to dead guys, maybe you should rethink your strategy. LMFAO

Or get photo ID in every state.

(07-11-2015 09:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 08:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

Cost.Given that you hate paying taxes, the wall would cost a lot of money- and not even stop illegal immigration because a god majority is by people overstaying their visa's.

Securing the homeland is a responsibility of the federal government. The cost would be nothing, as we could simply cut something that is not the federal governments responsibility. Problem solved. Actually we could cut more stuff thats not required, build a wall, and cut taxes. Win-Win.

So you are one of those big military and nothing else guys. Gotcha.

(07-11-2015 08:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

Cost.Given that you hate paying taxes, the wall would cost a lot of money- and not even stop illegal immigration because a god majority is by people overstaying their visa's.

agree rob.....the rest is senseless irrelevant rhetoric.....

Uconn...I've mentioned motion sensors/heat sensors/drones as a plausible alternative in a handful of threads....

I'm actually surprised nobody has bitten on this pro or con....I'd like to hear both sides fire back....but I'm not the donald AND I'm in missippy

(07-11-2015 10:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 08:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

Cost.Given that you hate paying taxes, the wall would cost a lot of money- and not even stop illegal immigration because a god majority is by people overstaying their visa's.

agree rob.....the rest is senseless irrelevant rhetoric.....

Uconn...I've mentioned motion sensors/heat sensors/drones as a plausible alternative in a handful of threads....

I'm actually surprised nobody has bitten on this pro or con....I'd like to hear both sides fire back....but I'm not the donald AND I'm in missippy

Pretty sure all of those are being used. Problem is covering the WHOLE border with the technology.
http://www.businessinsider.com/border-se...ity-2013-3

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

We have a wall and it fails daily.

(07-12-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

We have a wall and it fails daily.

The wall didnt fail. Obama let them straight in. In a few years, the only national "marker" that will bear Obamas name will be the "Obama rape trail" marker that led from Mexico into the US. Kind of like the trail of tears for the american indians. Except this trail was created by Obama saying "send your kids on up in here, but give them some birth control first and pack a few jars of vaseline for the trip."

(07-12-2015 03:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

We have a wall and it fails daily.

The wall didnt fail. Obama let them straight in. In a few years, the only national "marker" that will bear Obamas name will be the "Obama rape trail" marker that led from Mexico into the US. Kind of like the trail of tears for the american indians. Except this trail was created by Obama saying "send your kids on up in here, but give them some birth control first and pack a few jars of vaseline for the trip."

Obama let them in? I had no idea he had the keys to the gate.

(07-12-2015 03:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've never heard one legitimate argument on why a wall is a bad idea.

We have a wall and it fails daily.

The wall didnt fail. Obama let them straight in. In a few years, the only national "marker" that will bear Obamas name will be the "Obama rape trail" marker that led from Mexico into the US. Kind of like the trail of tears for the american indians. Except this trail was created by Obama saying "send your kids on up in here, but give them some birth control first and pack a few jars of vaseline for the trip."

Honest question, do you have any examples of legislation or executive orders from Obama referring to immigration which are significantly different from the last 5 presidents?