Should we have a secure border with mexico so people who cross are people we let in ?

@dancingtongue Because all of those things should be decided by who we let in not by who gets in. We own nobody the obligation to let people into this country based on their representation of the worlds population levels. If you must know why Europeans got in more it is because they offered more. We need smart immigration based on the needs of our country not based on who the cartel gets paid to bring across. We don't have the means or the obligation to fix the worlds problems and we do more in that vein that any other country on the planet.

@Johnson212 I agree, any quotas should be based on need rather than ethnicity. We already do that with our H-1B and H-2B visa programs for highly educated and trained specialists, particularly for the technology fields. The agricultural and hospitality industries need similar provisions for low-paying, unskilled labor jobs that are going unfilled in this country. Free market philosophies should apply to labor as well as goods and capital.

@Johnson212 You are aware of illegal immigrants here from countries than Mexico and Central America, right? Europe, Asia, the Middle East and tons from Eastern Europe. The difference is they overstay their visas which makes them illegal. My thinking? You don't like brown people. Personally, I'd take one hard working, humble brown person escaping horrific conditions, and risking their lives to do that, over ten "real 'muricans" who live to whine and blame.
Maybe that's just me. Character counts in my world.

@Ynotisay I simply recoginize our country needs to control its immigration not leave it up to whoever has the money to pay the cartel to get them across. You have to control access before you can do that.

@Johnson212 And you don't see that the reason the cartels have a smuggling business is because of our unrealistic and discriminatory immigration laws? Reform the laws to meet modern needs and times, not only does the border become manageable but smuggling people in is no longer profitable for the cartels.

@dancingtongue that made me laugh hard

@MasterLee What's so funny? Make a sound rational rebuttal so we know where you are coming from.

@dancingtongue the problem is justifying criminal behavior. The moment they cross the border illegally, they've broken the law. Every additional day illegals stay in the country, they continue breaking the law. It isn't hard to understand.

But of course, liberals have to spin the race card narrative, and every other excuse they can conjure up because the real objective is to grant these criminals citizenship and create a voting super majority.

@BizSuitStacy Reality is that every one of us breaks the law, nearly daily, because too many laws have not been changed to keep up with an ever-changing reality, they never made any sense in the first place, they are largely unenforceable or all of the above. Or have you never heard of "scoff laws".

Without getting into any of the discriminatory aspects of both past and current immigration laws, immigration laws have not met labor needs in this country since the bracero program was ended by JFK to placate the unions. If you believe in free markets, then you should also believe that there shouldn't be restraints on labor going where employers are begging to fill jobs. But that essentially is what we have been doing for nearly 60 years now as bipartisan legislation to bring the laws into the 20th, and now 21st, century, only to have it blocked by one side or the other, and unions have been just as guilty on one end of the spectrum as the most conservative isolationists on the other. Meanwhile, there are jobs that need workers, workers needing jobs, and to call either criminals for circumventing out-of-date, unrealistic, and dysfunctional laws is just wasting time on fixing the problem. Unless you like exercises in counting the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.

@sree251 rebut your plea to emotionalism?

@dancingtongue It is a binary choice because what is questioned only has two answers. It simply asks the question of if the border should be secure enough so that the people who cross are the ones we let in or not.

@Johnson212 It implies that their is nothing broken with our immigration laws or the way asylum requests are processed adjudicated. For there to be a realistic solution to securing the borders, there have to be realistic immigration laws reflecting economic and humanitarian needs. If you believe in free economic markets, it needs to include free labor markets, imho, that allow workers willing to fill jobs that are going begging for applicants. Otherwise you are going to hordes of potential workers storming whatever walls you build and employers turning a blind eye to green cards and treating immigration as the scoff-laws they have become. Address the dysfunction of the current immigration laws and you have whittled down the border problem to a manageable size. You can label anyone illegal and a law breaker by creating a stupid law that everyone is going to ignore. Treat it as a binary question if it makes you feel better emotionally, but if you want to solve the problem, put the horse in front of the cart and fix the immigration laws first.

@dancingtongue [quote]Reality is that every one of us breaks the law, nearly daily[/quote]

Such as?

But go ahead and keep playing the race card. We all know it's not about racism...it's about overwhelming the welfare system, and democrats creating a permanent super majority. And they let in just enough violent criminals to create diversions during the election. This isn't going to end well for people like you

@BizSuitStacy Did I mention race at all?

As for overwhelming the welfare system, studies don't show that to be the case. The preponderance of illegal immigrants are hesitant to seek any form of welfare, including public health services, for fear of being discovered and deported. Actually, the opposite frequently occurs where, if they have a fake SSN, they have payroll taxes collected from them but benefits can't be collected, so they subsidize the rest of us.

[quote] This isn't going to end well for people like you
[/quote]

Is this a threat? And what kind of "people" do you think I am?

@dancingtongue
You:
[quote]Did I mention race at all?[/quote]

Also you:
[quote]Why not admit that immigration laws (1) have been discriminatorily weighted towards Western Europeans for centuries[/quote]

Time for a refill on your aricept

@BizSuitStacy As for the "everyone breaks the law" comment, you can go to practically any jurisdiction and find obsolete laws or outdated laws on the books -- some dating back to the 19th century -- which no longer are enforced because it would be ridiculous. Ever so often you will find a meme of the funnier ones still on the book.

@dancingtongue [quote]As for overwhelming the welfare system, studies don't show that to be the case.[/quote]
Really? Studies, huh? Conducted by whom?The same people trying to overwhelm the welfare system? Wake up ding dong. Look at what's happening in sanctuary cities where people dependent on gov't assistance are being shoved aside to the tune of $155 billion per year (that the gov't admits to).


[quote]Is this a threat? And what kind of "people" do you think I am?[/quote]
Oh...do you think that a Trump landslide victory is some sort of threat? 🤣 You're a communist twinkie repeating the leftist narrative.

@BizSuitStacy OK, you are referencing a much earlier post from days ago. I thought you were referring to a current post. Still, any factual error in those statements?

@dancingtongue [quote]As for the "everyone breaks the law" comment, you can go to practically any jurisdiction and find obsolete laws or outdated laws on the books[/quote]

I heard you the first time. I asked you which laws people are breaking. Or better yet...tell me what law I'm breaking.

@BizSuitStacy https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/#

Just one study, if you care to Google beyond the MAGA silo.

@dancingtongue Having no idea where you live, or the outdated laws there, I wouldn't have any idea what you are "guilty" of. But if you care to Google or look at the real world, examples abound. Here are just a few from one site re: New York if you care to look about:

Heard the one about six girls living in a house? You should if you live in Boston, New Orleans…or New York City, where it’s illegal for more than three unrelated people to cohabitate. Don’t scoff yet: the Empire State is subject to its share of outdated, madcap laws, ranging from the embarrassingly obvious (such as the state provision that blind persons not drive automobiles) to the hilariously specific: eating peanuts while walking backwards when a concert is playing is illegal in Greene, New York.
Lawmakers are apparently concerned with more than slipping on discarded nut shells. In New York State, urinating on pigeons is a strict no-no. But women are free to publicly give “the girls” some air as long as they’re not doing it for business purposes.

In Carmel, New York, it is apparently a crime for men to mismatch their pants and jacket. Flirting on the streets of New York can earn you a $25 fine, too. The penalty for a second violation? Horse-blinders—you apparently will be required to wear them anytime you go outside.

Spitting on the street in the Big Apple is out, too, as is dancing, unless it’s only you and two buddies doing so. And if you smoke, remain 100 feet from public buildings when lighting up—or else. When out and about, leave the handcuffs at home, or risk getting a pair slapped on by a member of the NYPD. And when you take that elevator up to your hotel room, look straight ahead, keep your hands folded, and refrain from conversing with other passengers. Oh yes, and don’t use cyanide to clean your eating utensils (Really!). Or carry an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sundays. We have no idea why you’d want an ice cream cone in your pocket on any day, but, definitely refrain from doing so on church day.-

Don’t worry about that roommate law if you live in a student dorm or a group home, but why is this 60-year-old law on the books at all, you ask? A New York City rep cites safety concerns, and a former housing commissioner pointed to previous attempts to turn boarding houses into family homes. Although infrequently enforced, the law is occasionally called upon by agitated neighbors—or by tenants fed up with their landlord. Not that we’re encouraging that sort of thing.

@dancingtongue You said: "Don’t worry about that roommate law if you live in a student dorm or a group home, but why is this 60-year-old law on the books at all, you ask? A New York City rep cites safety concerns, and a former housing commissioner pointed to previous attempts to turn boarding houses into family homes. Although infrequently enforced, the law is occasionally called upon by agitated neighbors—or by tenants fed up with their landlord. Not that we’re encouraging that sort of thing."

Stacy does not understand where you are coming from. There are indeed laws of old that stay on the book and no one bothers to update it. There is a position in the government service for a guy on the English side of the channel to raise the alarm when he sees Napoleon and his army appearing. This job is still vacant.