Only pointing out that a true open border society only works if all parties have open borders.
Mexico does not, therefore that particular relationship with the U.S. and Mexico is not feasible.
Gonna stick to responding to only arguments from now on.
But feel free to drop comments like this or how open borders is a pro-capitalism stance in an abstract situation that has no bearing to this conversation.
Mexico not having open borders has nothing to do with what I’ve said.
Think again it happens all the time. They are whores…at least most of them. Real leaders come along every now and then.
We have the worst pick between the two parties that I can remember.
We can single out Trump all day long for his long list of flip-flops out right lies, profanity and crassness etc… And we can single out Hillary Clinton for her many lies flip-flops being investigated by the FBI her handling of Benghazi and the list goes on.
This is absolutely mind numbing that we have to choose between these two.
1 Like
Yup. That’s why I’m pissed we are where we are today. There were better options.
1 Like
Ok?? Just because its possible to do something does not mean we should do it.
Except the wall doesn’t solve the current issues the fence is having… it will run into the same issues.
Do you also want to shoot people if they attempt to cross our fence/wall?
Yes, exactly like that. We saw what someone with no bi-partisan abilities and no experience governing worked out, why do it again?
[quote=“Drew1411, post:2954, topic:212571, full:true”]
Ok?? Just because its possible to do something does not mean we should do it.[/quote]
To be clear, you don’t want illegals to be deported regardless of how humanely and effectively it can be done you are just plain against it? Is that correct?
[quote=“Drew1411, post:2954, topic:212571, full:true”]
Except the wall doesn’t solve the current issues the fence is having… it will run into the same issues.[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this? Why do you keep ignoring the hosts of examples across the world and throughout history that prove it to be untrue?
Erecting a wall difficult to penetrate =/= shooting people.
Setting that aside you do know hundreds of migrants die crossing attempting to cross into the US from Mexico?
“According to the United States Border Patrol, 1,954 people died crossing the U.S–Mexico border between the years 1998-2004.[3] In the fiscal year ending September 29, 2004, 460 migrants died crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.[4] In 2005, more than 500 died across the entire U.S.-Mexico border.[5] The number of yearly border crossing deaths has doubled since 1995.[6] In 2009, 417 deaths were reported across the border.[7] Yet the statistics cited by scholars and the media are only the number of known deaths and do not include those who have never been found, underestimating the actual number of migrants that have died attempting unauthorized border crossings.[8]”
If you don’t want more migrants to die, a wall difficult to penetrate that dissuades migrants from attempting to come to America will prevent deaths.
Most of them die as a result of hypothermia and dehydration. Think how many lives can be saved once they realize tough US borders make it almost impossible to illegally enter America? They’ll stay right where they are.
As far as dealing with illegals I would like something similar to what Australia does.
When a migrant is caught at the border making an attempt to cross illegally, hold them in a buttfuck nowhere detention centre located in a remote area for months.
Doing this will completely sap the will of these illegals to ever try to attempt something like this again and by extension send a message to others thinking of doing this.
No deadly force, no inhumane treatment, just a standard detention centre that sends a clear message.
I honestly think that Barack Obama’s failings were less about experience and more about his agenda to “fundamentally change America” as he promised to do. If you think about it his many, many mistakes are really due to the philosophy that there is no American exceptionalism and that we should be more like Europe.
Is that what I said? No. I’m arguing that deporting them is a stupid policy that does not have the benefits you are arguing for. It would cost money, you would need to invade privacy of citizens, and it would disrupt the economy. Some illegals have been here for 15+ years, have children that are citizens, property, jobs… etc. How do you handle that humanly and effectively without spying on citizens? You have not shown that it can be done, you have pointed to Berlin and the Nazis. That is not how I would like US citizens to be treated because some idiot candidate thinks it’s a good idea that he promised to his right-wing devotees.
Because in the US we have private property. Citizens have rights. We have funding for a fence but have issues with getting it complete, a wall would have the same issues. How is that hard to understand?
You mentioned Berlin and how they did it. If you don’t want to use it as an example, don’t.
People die all the time. That is different than being shot.
Honestly I don’t really see the point in debating this anymore with you. You obviously won’t change your mind (see the change the mind thread) and I am not learning anything about your counter-argument other than countries in the past have put up walls before.
I think its a bit of both.
I don’t want to get into a big Obama sucks derail, but just because Obama was/is bad is not an excuse for the current nominees.
I agree but when you say that we’ve already gone down a road with an inexperienced candidate I am merely saying that he was bad not because he was inexperienced. Keep in mind he’s been on the job 71/2 years and he’s still bad so it’s not about the experience.
Obama wasn’t/isn’t considered bad because the media has propped him up since day 1.
If the media went after Obama or Hillary with the same vigor as they went after Trump, not a chance they would have withstood that level of scrutiny.
2 Likes
This is the correct response.
1 Like
But open borders are not capitalist or free-market; at least, not necessarily so. My property does not have open borders. If my neighbors and I decide to combine our properties, that combined property will still not have open borders unless that is something we have agreed upon. If we hire a security company to keep trespassers off of our property and that security company refuses to do so, will we continue to use it(interestingly enough, the security company would be filling the role, on our property, that many “conservatives” believe the U.S. Government should)? Private property is a key piece of capitalism and free markets.
If the U.S. Government is to be seen as a legitimate governing body, and not as a ruling body or tyrant, should it not be protecting its freely and voluntarily established borders?
Do you consider entitlements free-market capitalist creations? Because that’s your and your neighbors combined property then, too.
So, is there not a free exchange going on between individuals? One demands labor, the other wishes to supply it. The government interferes through some degree? Surely the free market doesn’t fail to arrange the best outcomes in all situations. Surely.
[quote=“Sloth, post:2965, topic:212571”]
Do you consider entitlements free-market capitalist creations? [/quote] Absolutely not.
[quote]Because that’s your and your neighbors combined property then, too.[/quote] Huh?
[quote]So, is there not a free exchange going on between individuals? [/quote] If the U.S. is a freely and voluntarily established nation, then there is free exchange between individuals within the rules of the nation.
[quote]One demands labor, the other wishes to supply it. The government interferes through some degree? [/quote] Both must comply with the laws of the government they have chosen(or wish to choose) to represent their interests.
[quote] Surely the free market doesn’t fail to arrange the best outcomes in all situations. Surely.
[/quote] Huh? Of course the free market doesn’t fail to arrange the best outcomes in all situations–such is not the responsibility of the free market; arranging the best outcomes is entirely the responsibility of the parties involved. Since all employers in the U.S. have voluntarily entered this country to do business, they surely must comply with the laws of this country. Surely.
It sure is great to hear how unconstitutional and wrong the idea of securing the border and passing laws to ensure compliance with laws intended to do so(almost undoubtedly within the constitutionally implied powers of the federal government) is; while, at the same time, this country has federal gun control laws(obviously established in violation of the compact supposedly freely and voluntarily agreed upon by the citizens of this country) and federal drug laws(whose constitutionality are very tough-at best-to argue).
1 Like
Pro Second Amendment and Pro gay rights? Check.
Fiscal conservatives? Check.
Two Term Governors with actual experience running shit? Check.
If voters actually look at what they want…75% of them would consider themselves Libertarian.
Donald Trump can suck my “fringe candidates” ass.
4 Likes
That’s not what I said, though. I simply pointed out the fact that open borders is the purest free-market stance…