As Suspected: The truth on the border

[JustRalph]

Obama is not going to give up 10 million new Dem Voter's over a little thing like Border Security. Btw, Obama won the last election by 10 million popular votes......... another 10 million Dem voters casts the Repubs into a galaxy far far away from ever having any say in Government

http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/06/20/obama-tells-kyl-in-private-oval-office-meeting-i-wont-secure-border-bc-then-republicans-will-have-no-reason-to-support-comprehensive-immigration-reform/

Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting:
I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.

more at the link/including some poorly shot video

[boxcar]

Obama is not going to give up 10 million new Dem Voter's over a little thing like Border Security. Btw, Obama won the last election by 10 million popular votes......... another 10 million Dem voters casts the Repubs into a galaxy far far away from ever having any say in Government

http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/06/20/obama-tells-kyl-in-private-oval-office-meeting-i-wont-secure-border-bc-then-republicans-will-have-no-reason-to-support-comprehensive-immigration-reform/

Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting:
I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.

more at the link/including some poorly shot video

Geesh...and here all along I thought the libs' stance on this issue was all about compassion and tolerance and "American values"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

Boxcar

[Tom]

This is treason. We all know the penalty.

[TheBid9]

Immigration Reform = Amnesty = Votes = Democratic/Liberal Control
Till Kingdom Come.

[boxcar]

Immigration Reform = Amnesty = Votes = Democratic/Liberal Control
Till Kingdom Come.

:ThmbUp: You're a quick study.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

This was a private meeting with only Obama and Kyl present. Why should I take Kyl's word for what was said. Here he has a perfect chance to make Obama look bad, and all he has to do is lie. Of course we all know that Kyl is a strong proponent of immigration reform and has supported it at every opportunity. Or has he?
http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/factcheck/201006080004
excerpt:
Kyl Should Know Something About Killing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation -- He's Very Good At It
2007
Sen. Kyl Repeatedly Voted Against Cloture On Immigration Reform. In June 2007, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against three cloture motions on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. All three motions failed. [S.Amdt.1150 to S. 1348, Vote#203, 6/7/07; S.1348, Vote#204, 6/7/07; S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, Vote#206, 6/7/07]

Sen. Kyl Voted Against Securing The Border And Enforcing Current Immigration Law. In 2007, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against an amendment submitted by Sen. Coburn (R-OK) that would "require the enforcement of existing border security and immigration laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be granted." The amendment failed 54-42. [S.Amdt. 1311 to S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, Vote#202, 6/7/07]

2006
Sen. Kyl Voted Against The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2006. In 2006, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against S. 2611, or the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," which would "provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes." The bill passed by a vote of 62-36. [S. 2611, Vote#157, 5/25/06]

[Tom]

Well, it will easy enough to prove. All Ovomit has to is actually secure it.

mostie, how much you betting he does? Your pension?

[JustRalph]

Mostie, instead of addressing the issue at hand.......attacks Kyl. Simple, right out of the Liberal Play book..........

[boxcar]

This was a private meeting with only Obama and Kyl present. Why should I take Kyl's word for what was said. Here he has a perfect chance to make Obama look bad, and all he has to do is lie. Of course we all know that Kyl is a strong proponent of immigration reform and has supported it at every opportunity. Or has he?
http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/factcheck/201006080004
excerpt:

At least he doesn't have the very long trail of lies behind him that BO does. How's that for starters? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Kyl Is the low life who sneaked the UIGEA in to Safe Harbors Act. No one should believe one word that come from his mouth. He has previously made such outlandish statements as that terrorists get their funding from internet gambling accounts. Anybody who lie about that would lie about anything. Don't let your hatred of Obama blind you to this lying religious wacko of a politician. When your ADW turns down your credit card, you can thank Senator Kyl.

[mostpost]

Mostie, instead of addressing the issue at hand.......attacks Kyl. Simple, right out of the Liberal Play book..........
The issue at hand is did President Obama tell Senator Kyl that we would not enhance border security, because doing so would lose Republican support for comprenhensive immigration reform. Kyl has lied about other things.
Senator Kyl said:
Sen. Kyl: "...the fact that insurance premiums will continue to go up, the cuts in Medicare - $500 billion, all of those things will be in the bill no matter what..."
But the CBO reported:
CBO: House Bill Will Result In Lower Costs For American Families. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2016, premiums will be $5,300 for an individual and $15,000 for a family of four in the Exchange. Without reform, the average family premium is expected to grow to $24,000. [CBO, 11/2/09; House Education and Labor Committee, 11/2/09]
and:
Sen Kyl claimed:
Sen. Kyl: "...the good news is that according to all public opinion surveys...the American people aren't buying it. They know that this will add to the deficit, they know it increases spending, and they know it isn't deficit neutral..."
Which was contradicted by:
CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period. [Congressional Budget Office, 12/19/09]
Finally Sen. Kyl alleged:
Sen. Kyl: "And when it comes to the economy and jobs, I think that's really where we have the president beat. Two quick points: number one, start with not passing this health care bill which will kill jobs because it imposes new taxes on small businesses. How do you help small businesses hire more people when you pile more health care taxes on them?"
Whereas the facts are:
Health Care Reform Will Create Up To 4 Million American Jobs In The Next Decade. According to the Center for American Progress, "Relative to baseline employment forecasts from the Employment Projections Program at the U.S. Department of Labor, we estimate that moderate medical savings from health care modernization as envisioned under the legislation now before Congress would lead to an average of 250,000 additional jobs created annually. Under the larger assumption about savings due to health care reform, 400,000 new jobs a year would be created on average." [Center for American Progress, New Jobs Through Better Health Care, January 2010]

Small Businesses Will Receive Tax Subsidy Under Democratic Health Care Reform. The Christian Science Monitor reported that under President Obama's health care plan, "small businesses would get tax subsidies for offering insurance to their workers, low- and some moderate-wage workers will get their own subsidies to purchase coverage (and some may even be newly covered by Medicaid). Small firms would get access to exchanges that should make it less costly for them to insure their workers. And, perhaps most important, the bill would take some small steps to control future health costs." [Christian Science Monitor, 3/6/10; parentheses original]

Bill Exempts Many Businesses From Shared Responsibility Requirement. The House health reform bill exempts "firms with a payroll of less than $500,000" from fines for not offering health insurance to their employees. In fact, "86% of America's businesses are exempt from the shared responsibility requirement."

three examples of why we can't trust Senator Kyl.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=TheBid9]Immigration Reform = Amnesty = Votes = Democratic/Liberal Control
Till Kingdom Come.[/QUOTE
In the same way that Tax Cuts and the destruction of unions = Excess profits = Corporate Contributions = Republican/Conservative Control Till Kingdom Come.
In the same way except that the former is a paranoid fantasy of republicans, while the latter is an ongoing threat as proven by the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited spending by corporations in the political arena.

[boxcar]

The issue at hand is did President Obama tell Senator Kyl that we would not enhance border security, because doing so would lose Republican support for comprenhensive immigration reform. Kyl has lied about other things.
Senator Kyl said:

and:
Sen Kyl claimed:

Finally Sen. Kyl alleged:


three examples of why we can't trust Senator Kyl.

All dubious lies at best. We'll see who's lying once they figure out what is actually in the bill -- you know...the one that was never read before it was passed! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And the same one that is so complex, they can't get it off the ground yet. :bang: :bang:

Meanwhile, BO's lies are clear cut, certain and irrefutable. Until you can come up with something better with Kyl, I'll stick with him.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Mostpost is clearly in the ballpark with his distrust of Senator Kyl. Now, if only I could fathom why his keen skepticism doesn't extend to all of the other lying dregs that belong to the other party.

[boxcar]

Mostpost is clearly in the ballpark with his distrust of Senator Kyl. Now, if only I could fathom why his keen skepticism doesn't extend to all of the other lying dregs that belong to the other party.

Because he believes liberals don't lie? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Hey Mostie...here's a simple one for ya....if it wasnt said by OBAMMY, then I am sure the WH will come out and refute it! Its that simple..

[mostpost]

Hey Mostie...here's a simple one for ya....if it wasnt said by OBAMMY, then I am sure the WH will come out and refute it! Its that simple..
If they responded every time a Republican said something stupid, they wouuldn't have time to tie their shoes much less run the country. ;)

[boxcar]

If they responded every time a Republican said something stupid, they wouuldn't have time to tie their shoes much less run the country. ;)

And if the moronic Dems didn't occupy themselves with the busy work of tying their shoes during the health care debate, the bill might have been read before it passed.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

If they responded every time a Republican said something stupid, they wouuldn't have time to tie their shoes much less run the country. ;)

Well considering they arent running the country...the must have the most securely tied shoes in town :lol:

[serp]

Pardon the interruption but why is our border not secured already? Wasn't there a republican president just a few years ago? Is this a problem regardless of party affiliation? Is there something technically difficult about it? Something that might require reform?

We need to hurry up on this. I'm tired of hosers taking our jobs.

[boxcar]

Pardon the interruption but why is our border not secured already? Wasn't there a republican president just a few years ago? Is this a problem regardless of party affiliation? Is there something technically difficult about it? Something that might require reform?

We need to hurry up on this. I'm tired of hosers taking our jobs.

Here are even better questions: Assuming any fundamental reforms on immigration passes (i.e. amnesty), how is that law going to better secure our borders? BO consistently makes this bogus connection between reform and border security. How are the two dependent upon one another? Why can't we have tight border security now with our existing laws? Other nations can control their borders, but not the U.S.?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Too funny.

l_dIWgY7Hms

[mostpost]

Hey Mostie...here's a simple one for ya....if it wasnt said by OBAMMY, then I am sure the WH will come out and refute it! Its that simple..
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100621/US.Obama.Kyl.Immigration/
excerpt:
WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday disputed a Republican senator's claim that President Barack Obama refuses to secure the Mexican border until Congress agrees to a wide-ranging overhaul of immigration laws.

excerpt:
Obama has taken steps to improve border security, while also saying security must be part of a broader approach to immigration. He recently pledged to spend an additional $500 million on security and to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.

Obama ties border security to immigration reform not because he is trying extort Republican votes, but because he understands that no amount of border security will be effective unless we address the underlying problem.
This means:
1. Reforming the Department of Immigration
2. Providing severe penalties fot employers who hire illigal aliens and enforcing those penalties.
3. Establishing a comprehensive and cooperative program with Mexico.
4. Providing a path to U.S citizenship to those who are here illegally. This does not mean amnesty. It means that after they fulfill their obligations under the law they would be allowed to apply for reentry and eventual citizenship.

Sen. Kyl is too much of a dunce to see the difference.

[boxcar]

Obama ties border security to immigration reform not because he is trying extort Republican votes, but because he understands that no amount of border security will be effective unless we address the underlying problem.
This means:
1. Reforming the Department of Immigration
2. Providing severe penalties fot employers who hire illigal aliens and enforcing those penalties.
3. Establishing a comprehensive and cooperative program with Mexico.
4. Providing a path to U.S citizenship to those who are here illegally. This does not mean amnesty. It means that after they fulfill their obligations under the law they would be allowed to apply for reentry and eventual citizenship.

Sen. Kyl is too much of a dunce to see the difference.

Wrong! You're the dunce! BO would very much desire bipartisan support for such an unpopular amnesty bill (despite your lame use of euphemisms to the contrary). Most in this country don't want the U.S. government to "take that path". :rolleyes:

Noting additional needs to be done except to enforce the already stringent federal immigration laws currently on the books. Walls, fences armed patrols on the ground and air, satellite surveillance, drones, etc. would be all that is needed, plus a crackdown on all employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. End of story. Securing our borders is not rocket science. The only real problem here is the lack of will by the U.S. government.

Boxcar

[Tom]

three examples of why we can't trust Senator Kyl.

This is one of the dumbest post I have read from you.
You post total garbage for facts.


btw, there is NO NEED for comprehensive immigration reform. We have adequate laws and a proven system that works when existing law is enforced. With the level of jobless Americans, why do we need ANY new citizens?

I'll tell you why - two reasons. More dem voters and more union dues. End of story.

[NJ Stinks]

Here are even better questions: Assuming any fundamental reforms on immigration passes (i.e. amnesty), how is that law going to better secure our borders? BO consistently makes this bogus connection between reform and border security. How are the two dependent upon one another? Why can't we have tight border security now with our existing laws? Other nations can control their borders, but not the U.S.?

Boxcar

Serp's questions were much better than yours! :p

[BlueShoe]

Immigration Reform = Amnesty = Votes = Democratic/Liberal Control
Till Kingdom Come.
In a nutshell, that is it. A system called one party rule. Want an example of just how such a system works? Just look south to the country of origin of these potential new voters, Mexico. The PRI ran Mexico for 70 years, and during their regime, a system of crime and corruption became so ingrained in Mexican society that it is virtually impossible to eliminate it. With an overwhelming majority at the polls with the addition of newly legalized voters, the far left radicals now controlling the Democratic Party would have free reign to install the Marxist/Leninist society they have long yearned for.

[boxcar]

Serp's questions were much better than yours! :p

Then mine should be a piece of cake for you to answer intelligently. But fear not: I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for an empty drum to empty its contents of knowledge. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[TheBid9]

[QUOTE=TheBid9]Immigration Reform = Amnesty = Votes = Democratic/Liberal Control
Till Kingdom Come.[/QUOTE
In the same way that Tax Cuts and the destruction of unions = Excess profits = Corporate Contributions = Republican/Conservative Control Till Kingdom Come.
In the same way except that the former is a paranoid fantasy of republicans, while the latter is an ongoing threat as proven by the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited spending by corporations in the political arena.
What Republican/Conservative control are you talking about? Unions have a stranglehold on this country like never before- go ask BO! And Republicans certainly do not have the market cornered on corporate contributions.And I wonder when I'll see my next tax cut?

[JustRalph]

I guess Mostie is going to have to call a bunch of other Senators a liar

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/mccain-backs-kyl-obama-told-other-gop-senators-that-border-security-is-conditioned-on-amnesty/

[newtothegame]

yep...and I guess mosty will also have to defend Obama and his administration on the "more obama admin thuggery" thread as well...cause looks like the WH will have to attempt to defend those "lies" as well lol..

[highnote]

The only real problem here is the lack of will by the U.S. government.

I agree. Bush had every opportunity to secure the border and didn't. So did Reagan and so did Bush I. So did Clinton. If you think Obama deserves to be criticized that's fine, but you also need to criticize the other presidents.

Why can't we have tight border security now with our existing laws? Other nations can control their borders, but not the U.S.?

I think European borders are pretty porous given the E.U.

Maybe Canada, Mexico and U.S. should band together like the European Union? The U.S. would be to Mexico as Germany is to Greece.

[newtothegame]

I agree. Bush had every opportunity to secure the border and didn't. So did Reagan and so did Bush I. So did Clinton. If you think Obama deserves to be criticized that's fine, but you also need to criticize the other presidents.



I think European borders are pretty porous given the E.U.

Maybe Canada, Mexico and U.S. should band together like the European Union? The U.S. would be to Mexico as Germany is to Greece.

He didnt criticize any single president in that post....he said "the U.S Government" which would include this, and past administations.
It just so happens that THIS administration is taking heat as things have gotten way out of hand on the border with drugs, killings and then you add in the ever increasing deficit and things come to light that have been going on but are now in the spotlight.
But if it helps, Bush 1 Bush 2 clinton..Obammmy...they've all done a poor job. And I am sure you can go further then that if ya like!

[Tom]

If you look back into Ted Kennedy's fiasco of a life in the 80's', you will where a lot of today's problems originated. Whoda thunk it - a democrat screwed up the country.

[highnote]

If you look back into Ted Kennedy's fiasco of a life in the 80's', you will where a lot of today's problems originated. Whoda thunk it - a democrat screwed up the country.


Hard for me to believe that one man had that much influence. If so, what does that say about opposition party's ability to counteract his influence?

[Tom]

He used his position in the senate to ignore the immigration laws that were enacted in I think 1986? Just like the dems are doing today.

What does it say about them John? It says that they mobilized and by 1993 threw the bums out and took control.

[boxcar]

I agree. Bush had every opportunity to secure the border and didn't. So did Reagan and so did Bush I. So did Clinton. If you think Obama deserves to be criticized that's fine, but you also need to criticize the other presidents.

And your point is what? As NTG wrote, I didn't criticize any one president. I criticized the U.S. government!

But why do you think all these presidents have refused to tackle this issue and perform their constitutional duty of securing our borders? Do you believe it was because they lacked the political will, or do you think they all believed the U.S, the richest, most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet. was/is incapable of protecting our own borders?

[quote]I think European borders are pretty porous given the E.U.

So, you're saying here in one breath that the EU's borders are insecure due to the formation of the EU, correct?

Maybe Canada, Mexico and U.S. should band together like the European Union? The U.S. would be to Mexico as Germany is to Greece.

But now in the next breath, you're suggesting that the U.S. should follow in the path of the "enlightened" EU by forming an international union of our own so that our borders become even more porous than they currently are! ? :bang: :bang: :bang: With all due respect, your logic escapes me. What manner of sophistry is this!?

Also, have you ever heard the adage, "Too many cooks spoil the broth"? Why do we need other nations to assume responsibility for our borders? Again, we're not capable of securing our own? Heck...if that's the case, and since we have other nationals from other Hispanic nations sneaking across, such as Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, etc., maybe the U.S. should really toss our sovereignty to the wind and form a North, South and Central American Union. Get everyone on board. Let's make this a complex and comprehensive deal. You libs thrive on the complicated and complex. This way when our border security breaks down completely, we wouldn't have a lack of countries to blame for not keeping their part of the bargain. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not one of your better posts or ideas, John. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[highnote]

[QUOTE=swetyejohn]And your point is what? As NTG wrote, I didn't criticize any one president. I criticized the U.S. government!

And the president is the head of the U.S. gov. I seem to recall you using every chance you can get to bash a president who is a democrat. Or have I been misreading you? Did you never put any of the blame on Obama or Clinton? Is it only Reagan, Bush I and Bush II who you are blaming for failing to secure the borders?

But why do you think all these presidents have refused to tackle this issue and perform their constitutional duty of securing our borders?

I figured you had the answer to that. You blame it on the U.S. gov. The potus is the head of the U.S. gov. So what should have been done by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama?


So, you're saying here in one breath that the EU's borders are insecure due to the formation of the EU, correct?

Incorrect. I said they were porous. Since at least the mid-60's I can remember news reports from Europe about terrorist bombs exploding in major cities. I can't say there has been a huge escalation of terrorist attacks. There has probably been an increase and surely immigration is an issue in Europe, but it doesn't seem like it is the biggest concern they have.



But now in the next breath, you're suggesting that the U.S. should follow in the path of the "enlightened" EU by forming an international union of our own so that our borders become even more porous than they currently are! ? :bang: :bang: :bang: With all due respect, your logic escapes me. What manner of sophistry is this!?

This sophistry is a mixture of facetiousness, sarcasm and hyperbole.

NAFTA has some characteristics that are similar to the EU. Some countries have benefitted more than others, but eventually the piper has to be paid... with cash and not with credit -- as Greece is finding out.

Not one of your better posts or ideas, John. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

That's a matter of opinion. :cool:

[boxcar]

And the president is the head of the U.S. gov. I seem to recall you using every chance you can get to bash a president who is a democrat. Or have I been misreading you? Did you never put any of the blame on Obama or Clinton? Is it only Reagan, Bush I and Bush II who you are blaming for failing to secure the borders?

Yeah you have because when I specifically say the "U.S. Government" that includes all presidents who have allowed this situation to go on. If I wanted to zero in specifically on the current head of the government, I would have said "BO". Learn to read already -- just not your preconceived ideas into my posts. :rolleyes:

I figured you had the answer to that. You blame it on the U.S. gov. The potus is the head of the U.S. gov. So what should have been done by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama?

Are you for real? How about enforcing the current laws on the books? How's that for starters? :rolleyes: Or is America some third world banana republic that isn't capable of protecting itself? Or is the crux of the problem a lack of will for enforcement on behalf of all leaders -- past and current?

Incorrect. I said they were porous. Since at least the mid-60's I can remember news reports from Europe about terrorist bombs exploding in major cities. I can't say there has been a huge escalation of terrorist attacks. There has probably been an increase and surely immigration is an issue in Europe, but it doesn't seem like it is the biggest concern they have.

Explain to me, then, how "porous" makes for secure borders. :rolleyes:

This sophistry is a mixture of facetiousness, sarcasm and hyperbole.

Yeah, I get a wee bit incredulous when I read ill-conceived, illogical drivel that better reflects the rantings of an uneducated eight year old. :rolleyes:

First, you get bent out of shape because you equated the phrase U.S. government" with only BO when there was no justification for such a restricted interpretation -- even though BO is the current president. We all know that this situation has been going on for DECADES! :bang: :bang: And, yes, I have been very critical of Bush in the past for this, as well as for other policies of his with which I have strongly disagreed.

Then you tell us that the solution is for the U.S. to emulate the ever-so "enlightened" Europeans. We should form a multi-nation union so that we, too, can have porous borders just like over in Europe. :bang:

But now you're trying to tell us that having "porous" borders really isn't all that bad, and we should not equate that condition with having insecure borders. :bang: But if porous borders are such a good thing, why did you bring the EU into the topic? Didn't you bring them into it to show us that we're not the only ones in the world with border problems? :rolleyes:

And then by recommending that there's strength in the number of nations that can help the U.S. to secure its borders certainly implies that we're a poor, weak, incompetent, ill-equipped and technologically backward country that cannot take care of its own security. We need other countries to help us secure our own borders and maintain our sovereignty! :rolleyes:

You know, John, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night! And you, sir, could never rise early enough to fool me. And that's not my mere opinion either. That's a fact! :cool:

Boxcar

[highnote]

Are you for real? How about enforcing the current laws on the books? How's that for starters? :rolleyes: Or is America some third world banana republic that isn't capable of protecting itself? Or is the crux of the problem a lack of will for enforcement on behalf of all leaders -- past and current?

Not only is it lack of will of all past and present leaders, but it's also a lack of will by a critical mass of U.S. citizens. When the situation becomes dire then action will be taken. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that's the way our country seems to approach this.



Explain to me, then, how "porous" makes for secure borders. :rolleyes:

Let's go back to the 1950s. We probably had a lot less technology to secure our borders then than we have today. We probably spend a lot more on security now than in the 1950s. Yet, our borders are less secure now.

So if we spend billions on beefing up security at our borders the big question is going to be -- what is the benefit? Spending money on security is not a very productive use of capital. It's going to result in higher taxes. Our taxes are going to rise now due to the ongoing wars and the world security we provide. Also, we're going to have higher taxes in order to pay for healthcare -- if the law doesn't get repealed. Of course, business will not have to pay for their employees' healthcare costs, so this could mean higher wages for employees or the extra capital could be put to more productive uses.



Yeah, I get a wee bit incredulous when I read ill-conceived, illogical drivel that better reflects the rantings of an uneducated eight year old. :rolleyes:

No one is forcing you to read my replies or reply to my posts. Feel free to use the Ignore option. I'll miss you.

First, you get bent out of shape ....

Huh? Believe me, I would not get bent out of shape over anything you post. :cool: I'm just here to have a debate. I'm not here to raise my blood pressure or anyone else's.

And, yes, I have been very critical of Bush in the past for this, as well as for other policies of his with which I have strongly disagreed.

OK. Fair enough.

Then you tell us that the solution is for the U.S. to emulate the ever-so "enlightened" Europeans. We should form a multi-nation union so that we, too, can have porous borders just like over in Europe. :bang:

I thought I clarified that in my last reply. Let me spell it out again so you don't misunderstand what I said... "I w-a-s b-e-i-n-g f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s.




You know, John, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night! And you, sir, could never rise early enough to fool me. And that's not my mere opinion either. That's a fact! :cool:


You thinking I can't fool you is your opinion. I have no problem with that. If you want to think it is a fact, I have no problem with that either.

I'm not posting here to try to fool you. I'm just trying to have a debate.

[highnote]

He didnt criticize any single president in that post....he said "the U.S Government" which would include this, and past administations.

Well excuuuuuuse me. I interpret one phrase differently than the way it appears it was meant to be understood and you're all over me like a bum on a baloney sandwich.... and it wasn't even your post for crissakes. :D

Boxy's a big boy. I'm sure he appreciates you coming to his defense, but he handles himself just fine.

[newtothegame]

Well excuuuuuuse me. I interpret one phrase differently than the way it appears it was meant to be understood and you're all over me like a bum on a baloney sandwich.... and it wasn't even your post for crissakes. :D

Boxy's a big boy. I'm sure he appreciates you coming to his defense, but he handles himself just fine.

That's obvious in his post that seem to run circles around you.

I got into this because like so many other libs...you read what you want to read versus what is written. Personally, there are some things (at face value) that you say that seem to have some merit. But, if you dig slightly deeper...your ramblings just fall apart.

For example: You make a valid arguement about spending biillions to protect the border and how it will cost tax payers more in taxes. TRUE! But the part you fail to mention is how much would be saved by stopping the massive influx onto our side of the border by ILLEGALS who take jobs from LEGAL citizens, do NOT pay into the tax system except on goods purchased with cash at the local grocery, leave millions in un paid med bills which ultimately cause increases in medical for the rest of us, etc etc....

Then you discuss the 1950's and how we had less technology and in essence were saying that our borders were more secure...Well DUHHH!!! There wasnt a huge immigration problem so therefore our borders did SEEM more secure. Not too mention, without said technology (which you already conceeded), our economy wasnt no where close to where it is in the last few decades (again why would illegals wish to come here without the golden egg being here yet).


You again make a valid point about getting things done and how it takes a critical mass of the populous to have the will. This is true in most things. But how could you possibly make that statement on an immigration thread when the mass of the people WANT OUR BORDERS CLOSED! Do you not look at polls? In AZ, where this has seemed to be the epicenter, more then 70% of the people are in agreement with the state and NOT the government. Polls around the country seem to reflect the same thing. Just this past week in Nebraska a similiar law was passed regarding illegals and business' hiring them.

You make a point, and then shoot yourself in the foot. But its ok, its a common theme around here with the libs!!!

[newtothegame]

Sure....Obammy has no hidden agendas....lol

White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE

The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/

[Tom]

How do we protest illegal immigration?



Go to the White House, climb the fence and pitch a tent on the lawn.
Declare it your homestead, demand that you be provided welfare, a driver’s license,whatever else you can get. Tell them you will not go home, that this is now your home, that it is your right to be there.

Then go do the same thing at every Mexican embassy or consulate in the country.

Go the homes of Senators and congressmen, ones with fences, and do it there. Go to Nancy Pelosi’s new offices and claim a few of them for your own use. Tell her God wanted you to be there.

[highnote]

That's obvious in his post that seem to run circles around you.

I didn't get that impression, but OK. If you or anyone else thinks so, that's fine with me.


For example: You make a valid arguement about spending biillions to protect the border and how it will cost tax payers more in taxes. TRUE! But the part you fail to mention is how much would be saved by stopping the massive influx onto our side of the border by ILLEGALS who take jobs from LEGAL citizens, do NOT pay into the tax system except on goods purchased with cash at the local grocery, leave millions in un paid med bills which ultimately cause increases in medical for the rest of us, etc etc....

My reply did not cover every aspect of every consequence. Your points are valid. I'll go into more details on my thoughts on them later when I get time. I'm not sure if keeping the illegals out will make as big of a positive economic impact that you think it would. It may make things worse. I need to think this through. You might be right, though.

Then you discuss the 1950's and how we had less technology and in essence were saying that our borders were more secure...Well DUHHH!!! There wasnt a huge immigration problem so therefore our borders did SEEM more secure. Not too mention, without said technology (which you already conceeded), our economy wasnt no where close to where it is in the last few decades (again why would illegals wish to come here without the golden egg being here yet).

Again, this was just an overview statement. Boxy wanted to know how porous equated to secure. It's obviously more complicated than what I posted. I am well aware of that. However, these short posts can not possibly cover the topic in-depth. A long form format like a book or at least a magazine article would be needed. I'm sure there are doctoral dissertations on this very topic!


You again make a valid point about getting things done and how it takes a critical mass of the populous to have the will. This is true in most things. But how could you possibly make that statement on an immigration thread when the mass of the people WANT OUR BORDERS CLOSED! Do you not look at polls? In AZ, where this has seemed to be the epicenter, more then 70% of the people are in agreement with the state and NOT the government. Polls around the country seem to reflect the same thing. Just this past week in Nebraska a similiar law was passed regarding illegals and business' hiring them.

A mass of people may want the borders closed, but my point was: until a "critical" mass is reached nothing is going to happen. Not just a mass, but a CRITICAL mass. I don't know what that number is, but it doesn't appear that we've reached it yet.

You make a point, and then shoot yourself in the foot. But its ok, its a common theme around here with the libs!!!

LOL. conservatives here are not immune. ;)

Basically, what the form of this forum is good for is for sharing ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. I've been enlightened more than once by a conservative perspective I've read here. The idea of a debate or discussion should be to reveal the truth. The implementation of every conservative idea would not necessarily be a good thing and vice-versa liberal. Everyone sees the world differently. If I show you three coins -- a penny, a nickel and a dime -- and ask you describe the primary relationship of the three coins, you will describe the primary relationship differently than someone else. You may say they're all round. Someone else may say they have different monetary values, someone else may say they are all different sizes. Which one is the primary relationship? It depends on the person. Just like we all have different views on immigration, economic policy, war, etc. All the views may be valid and discussing them will hopefully lead to greater understanding.

So a note to conservatives (and libs)... basically I don't think you are wrong, I believe we all just see things differently. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I debate with you it's because I see relationships differently than you and by hearing your side maybe we can find a hybrid solution that is better than both of our current biased views.

[boxcar]

Not only is it lack of will of all past and present leaders, but it's also a lack of will by a critical mass of U.S. citizens. When the situation becomes dire then action will be taken. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that's the way our country seems to approach this.

When did any any private citizen take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution? I thought that was the sworn responsibility of elected leaders? But be that as it may, I take it that you fully support the AZ law since they, evidently, think the situation is dire in their state?

Let's go back to the 1950s. We probably had a lot less technology to secure our borders then than we have today. We probably spend a lot more on security now than in the 1950s. Yet, our borders are less secure now.

So if we spend billions on beefing up security at our borders the big question is going to be -- what is the benefit? Spending money on security is not a very productive use of capital. It's going to result in higher taxes. Our taxes are going to rise now due to the ongoing wars and the world security we provide. Also, we're going to have higher taxes in order to pay for healthcare -- if the law doesn't get repealed. Of course, business will not have to pay for their employees' healthcare costs, so this could mean higher wages for employees or the extra capital could be put to more productive uses.

So, since you're not real big on security, should we dismantle our armed forces? What a terrible waste of money to have support all the men and women who are actually serving our country. :rolleyes: Instead, you'd rather spend the money on worthless, lazy deadbeats who come to this country looking for handouts -- looking to leach off hard working, productive taxpayers? You're all for spending big bucks to increase the size of the welfare state, right?

Also, the excuses you give for the U.S. not securing our borders all these decades is beyond lame. Other countries have done it. And for all these years, we have still been the wealthiest, most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet. If other countries have been able to protect their sovereignty, why haven't we? The only real difference between CAN DO countries and this CANNOT DO country (according to the Left) is a little item called the WILL. It's as simple as that.

No one is forcing you to read my replies or reply to my posts. Feel free to use the Ignore option. I'll miss you.

Why would I want to ignore you? It's you guys on the left who make me look like a genius, and I'm not adverse to basking in the bright rays of Brilliance at your expense. :D (Stay tuned: Later, I will once again dazzle all you leftists with that brilliance you guys so unwittingly gift to me on a daily basis in terms of golden opportunities.) ;)

I thought I clarified that in my last reply. Let me spell it out again so you don't misunderstand what I said... "I w-a-s b-e-i-n-g f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s..

This was why you were essentially parroting the Dem party line about a cooperative effort between Mexico and the U.S. :rolleyes:

You thinking I can't fool you is your opinion. I have no problem with that. If you want to think it is a fact, I have no problem with that either.

Here's a little advice I have often given to libs due to their self-imposed limitations: When dialoging with me, it's best to err on the side of caution and safety by assuming the above latter option. ;)

I'm not posting here to try to fool you. I'm just trying to have a debate.

Good. I'll be looking forward to your comments on my next post.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You make a point, and then shoot yourself in the foot. But its ok, its a common theme around here with the libs!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: Great observation of a classic syndrome that plagues all libs.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

While I have a few minutes, I'd like to make good on a promise I made to John to dazzle all libs with my brilliance that they all help provide for me. :) Our day's Birthday Boy came very nigh to stealing my limelight, though when he wrote this excellent post earlier:

How do we protest illegal immigration?


Go to the White House, climb the fence and pitch a tent on the lawn.
Declare it your homestead, demand that you be provided welfare, a driver’s license,whatever else you can get. Tell them you will not go home, that this is now your home, that it is your right to be there.

Then go do the same thing at every Mexican embassy or consulate in the country.

Go the homes of Senators and congressmen, ones with fences, and do it there. Go to Nancy Pelosi’s new offices and claim a few of them for your own use. Tell her God wanted you to be there.



As good as the above post was, I think I can take Tom's idea to an even more fundamental level -- to where we all live -- figuratively and literally. The analogy I'll be making should certainly strike chords with homeowners, particularly.

Swetyejohn, are you a homeowner, sir? Do you own your own home? Or are you a squatter in someone else's? Or are you a trespasser? (I assume you know what the definitions are of both these terms?) Also assuming for sake of this "debate" (to borrow your term), let's say you are a homeowner. Do you allow anyone to come into your house who is iuninvited? Do you allow strangers to come in and make themselves at home and have unfettered run of your domain and domicile and make use of your hard-earned assets and resources, such as food, clothing, your automobile, your boat, etc., etc.? Do you? Truthfully. As a matter of course, you engage in such a practice? Do any of you libs out there engage in this practice?

No? Not one of you do on a personal level? Then, why not? Why don't you?
If you're fine with having uninvited strangers (illegal aliens) squat on MY land -- in MY country, then why aren't YOU okay with uninvited strangers trespassing on YOUR domain and squatting in YOUR domicile and consuming YOUR personal assets and resources? Surely, you're not a bunch of hypocrites, are you? You're not one of those who say, "It's okay for any and all uninvited strangers to trespass and squat on my national lands, just as long as long as they don't do that stuff on my chunk of real estate and in my house"!? Surely, you're not one of those kinds of hypocrites, are you?

The title to this post says it all: A man's home is his castle in every sense of this adage. This is why none of us allow uninvited strangers to trespass and squat where WE personally live. Bottom line, everyone: We too are territorial creatures. We naturally protect and secure what is our own! It's as natural as the sun following the moon the next morning!

It's also natural because of the Universal Law of Distrust which I have discussed on other occasions. We know this is a Moral Law due to our universal experience. We know that all men are presumed untrustworthy until proven otherwise. All men, in this regard, are presumed guilty! This, too, is why none of us allow trespassers and squatters to overrun our domain and domicile, isn't it? Be honest.

Another reason why protection and securing our home and property is natural is because we have a God-given right to own whatever it is we can personally afford to own and maintain. This is one of those inalienable rights -- a genuine right! A biblical right!

Even law enforcement officials cannot legally barge into your home to make searches and seizures unless you have granted them permission or they have obtained a search warrant from a judge.

And just as an aside, since one of my hobbies is sailing: Try boarding someone's private boat or yacht when you haven't received permission from the captain and see what happens. What I just said above, applies tenfold with boat owners!

But "strangely" :rolleyes: you libs are just fine with having uninvited strangers come to our shores or cross our borders to loot, plunder, steal, kidnap and murder people whose land this is! :bang: :bang: You don't give a flip about all the injury, havoc and deaths our uninvited strangers in our midst have caused to innocent people whose land this is. The only thing you care about is how many votes can the Democrats procure by giving amnesty to millions of uninvited strangers. What every single one of you is lusting after are millions of new voters who will remain loyal to the party from now until kingdom come out of their gratitude for amnesty, and in very many cases endless welfare benefits and various entitlements!

But true Americans don't want our culture and our values stolen out from under us. Nor do we want all our future generations to be strapped with paying for all the entitlements of illegal aliens. Oh, yes...I'm well aware what is stated on the Statue of Liberty. But that, folks, applies only to invited guests to this country -- not gatecrashers! Not to people who circumvent the system and break our laws.

Now, Mr. Swetyejohn, objected earlier to all the money that would be wasted on securing and protecting our borders, for he wrote:

So if we spend billions on beefing up security at our borders the big question is going to be -- what is the benefit? Spending money on security is not a very productive use of capital. It's going to result in higher taxes. Our taxes are going to rise now due to the ongoing wars and the world security we provide. Also, we're going to have higher taxes in order to pay for healthcare -- if the law doesn't get repealed. Of course, business will not have to pay for their employees' healthcare costs, so this could mean higher wages for employees or the extra capital could be put to more productive uses.

My answer is that we need to change our priorities. Protecting and securing our borders and shores is a genuine national security concern. I laugh when I hear this phrase "our national security" so glibly bandied about by libs in the context of global warming, energy use, etc. But have you ever head a lib use this phrase in the context of our illegal alien invasion problem?

Moreover, we want to protect our way of life, our value system, our culture and the American dream. We don't want unarmed and even armed invasions of our borders and shores so that sleazy, crooked, corrupt, lying politicians can perpetuate their careers with amnesty votes -- so that this country would be under one-party rule from now until the cows come home.

So, John, I have delivered what I have promised you -- another well crafted, flawless, impeccably sound, eminently logical analogy that demonstrates the perversion of all your pro-amnesty nuts because it is so unnatural. We know it's unnatural and perverse because none of us allow trespassers and squatters to take over our property and homes. Therefore, I have also shown that you anti-Rule of Law folks are once again two-bit hypocrites.

All you, libs, have a great night. ;)

Boxcar

[highnote]

Boxy,
What your posts lack in content you make up for in volume! LOL

Just kidding. I'm at a wedding this weekend and will reply when I get a chance. Have a great weekend.

js

[newtothegame]

Boxy,
What your posts lack in content you make up for in volume! LOL

Just kidding. I'm at a wedding this weekend and will reply when I get a chance. Have a great weekend.

js

have a great time this weekend John...
Look forward to more DEBATES with ya....
:lol:

[boxcar]

Boxy,
What your posts lack in content you make up for in volume! LOL

Just kidding. I'm at a wedding this weekend and will reply when I get a chance. Have a great weekend.

js

Well...have a great time. Don't eat or drink too much, though. Don't forget to pass the word along at the wedding that everyone should conserve on their resources because I have declared that July will be our first National Invite an Illegal Alien to your Home Month in which every red-blooded, kind-hearted, compassionate, caring, patriotic American will for one full month provide for illegals food, shelter and the complete run of your house and everything else in it, including all the keys to everything under lock and key, since security isn't a big deal to you.

Have a good one! ;)

Boxcar