ADVERTISEMENT

How many of you libs actually support totally open borders

I actually think positioning our troops along that border is the most cost-effective and best solution but too many folks on the left would have a major cow over that, so I see the wall as a cost-effective substitute.

As for the declining numbers of folks trying to illegally break into here, if that's the case then why all the fuss over breaking up families? Who is it that's still lining up trying to get in here without proper authorization?

Are You familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act? It may answer some questions for you.
 
Are You familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act? It may answer some questions for you.

I'm familiar with it but in the case of where the nation is under invasion I don't think it not only applies but would not stand Constitutional muster. Despite what you folks on the Left think we are under invasion.
 
I'm familiar with it but in the case of where the nation is under invasion I don't think it not only applies but would not stand Constitutional muster. Despite what you folks on the Left think we are under invasion.
It’s waaaaaaay simpler than that.

Basically, the way around it is that as a military person, you have to treat anyone found on US Soil as an American. The only way to action a target is if you’ve maintained PID as they were crossing up to apprehension. Hence the use of UAVs to assist.
 
It’s waaaaaaay simpler than that.

Basically, the way around it is that as a military person, you have to treat anyone found on US Soil as an American. The only way to action a target is if you’ve maintained PID as they were crossing up to apprehension. Hence the use of UAVs to assist.

Build that wall!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mneilmont
Lordy, why don't you do a little research Richard. Your entire response is full of made up shit and lies. We don't take in millions annually. About 1.2 million is not millions. Quit your lying.

Not to get into parsing with you but if we take in roughly a little over a million each year how could that not be "Millions annually" if you look at years say from 2000 to present? A million per year over the last 10 to 15 years is 15 million... that's 'Millions each year' is it not?(plural) And what other lies did I tell in my post that you said was "filled" with lies?
 
you've got this racist discussion down to an art form....you find racism in everything....seems to me like a guilty conscience

He just figures if he keeps repeating it long enough it'll one day suddenly become true.

I've asked him several times to outline one racist policy or proposal that Trump advocates and have never received an answer.
 
We don't take in millions annually. About 1.2 million is not millions.

And once again in keeping with the original theme of the thread how many more illegal immigrants should we allow in each year?

In fact do you actually know how many illegal immigrants come in each year? I did some research into that but I want you to do it and post your answer for me here. I think you will be amazed.
 
Last edited:
I'm not for open borders or abolishing ICE. My opinion is that the full border wall is not the most cost effective way to protect the border though. It makes sense in some areas, but definitely not all areas. Also, a wall without people patroling it is useless.

We need a virtual wall in Human Resources departments. If you get caught hiring illegals, 1 year in jail, $100,000 fine. I can’t imagine it would take more than 6 convictions to get people’s attention per instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVUCOOPER
Looks like we are all the way up to ZERO people calling for open borders ITT. This is up from the earlier amount of ZERO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DvlDog4WVU
Coop what does the "no borders, no walls" protests mean?
Don't know. Might ask them. There are crazies in every party, it does not appear to be a mainstream idea to have no borders. The purpose of this post was to see, "
How many of you libs actually support totally open borders" and I am just trying to keep everyone updated on the figures.
 
Don't know. Might ask them. There are crazies in every party, it does not appear to be a mainstream idea to have no borders. The purpose of this post was to see, "
How many of you libs actually support totally open borders" and I am just trying to keep everyone updated on the figures.

OK...so we'll just ignore those protestors on the Left calling for "no borders no walls and an end to ICE" as a bunch of crazies then.

Deal?
 
OK...so we'll just ignore those protestors on the Left calling for "no borders no walls and an end to ice" as a bunch of crazies then.

Deal?
You can do what you want. I'm just trying to keep a tallie for my bourbon brother on how many libs actually support open borders. At current count it is ZERO. Keep checking back for further updates.
 
You can do what you want. I'm just trying to keep a tallie for my bourbon brother on how many libs actually support open borders. At current count it is ZERO. Keep checking back for further updates.

I keep checking for Libs who are calling for stricter enforcement of all illegal border crossings. Right now it seems all they want is for us to find a way to let anyone who wants to come here stay here.
 
You can do what you want. I'm just trying to keep a tallie for my bourbon brother on how many libs actually support open borders. At current count it is ZERO. Keep checking back for further updates.

Most of them haven't even said whether or not if they support it. Countryroads definitely supports it so your count is off.
 
And once again in keeping with the original theme of the thread how many more illegal immigrants should we allow in each year?

In fact do you actually know how many illegal immigrants come in each year? I did some research into that but I want you to do it and post your answer for me here. I think you will be amazed.

Approx 1.2 million come in each year legally. We could handle a million more during growth. We have thousands of unfilled jobs in many industries including trades. A labor crunch will stop expansion. Here is a quote for you that appeared in Barrons; From 2017 To 2027, The Nation Faces A Shortage Of 8.2 Million Workers, According To Thomas Lee, Head Of Research At Fundstrat Global Advisors. It’s The Most Substantial Shortfall In At Least 50 Years.
 
Approx 1.2 million come in each year legally. We could handle a million more during growth. We have thousands of unfilled jobs in many industries including trades. A labor crunch will stop expansion. Here is a quote for you that appeared in Barrons; From 2017 To 2027, The Nation Faces A Shortage Of 8.2 Million Workers, According To Thomas Lee, Head Of Research At Fundstrat Global Advisors. It’s The Most Substantial Shortfall In At Least 50 Years.

I have no problem with those folks coming in legally. We do need more skilled workers. My question was how many more ILLEGALS do we allow in, and how many are coming in currently each year? Did you look that up?

Also what were all the lies in my post you criticized? How can you have such a hard time backing up something you obviously read from me?

Quote my lies or refute them or apologize for lying about me lying please Sir?
 
Approx 1.2 million come in each year legally. We could handle a million more during growth. We have thousands of unfilled jobs in many industries including trades. A labor crunch will stop expansion. Here is a quote for you that appeared in Barrons; From 2017 To 2027, The Nation Faces A Shortage Of 8.2 Million Workers, According To Thomas Lee, Head Of Research At Fundstrat Global Advisors. It’s The Most Substantial Shortfall In At Least 50 Years.

Name one person here who has said we need to curtail legal immigration. Secondly, name those who have stated we need to increase legal immigration.
 
Name one person here who has said we need to curtail legal immigration. Secondly, name those who have stated we need to increase legal immigration.
Not sure about here, but the current administration has said they want to cut legal immigration. With all the Trump absolutists on this board, I'm sure someone has agreed.
 
Mule, respect for your opinion. I can tell you that the sensors, while effective, it’s a lot more difficult than you think. We’re short probably 5k agents from being able to make that solution feasible. When you factor in salaries and overhead, costs are pretty significant for your solution. The Wall would be effective. It would cut down on a lot and would allow us to refocus our efforts towards shutting off the tunnels.

I’m guessing you haven’t ever been on the border when you reference he river?
Providing manpower to man every mile would be prohibitive. Salary and fringes would approach $100,000 per year. That is a lifetime since they would be covered in retirement too. Could probably pay for wall within 5-10 years. Also, it cuts back on narcoTICS trade. That would constitute Mexico payment. Wall would not eliminate need for manpower, but it would cut need way back/
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
Not sure about here, but the current administration has said they want to cut legal immigration. With all the Trump absolutists on this board, I'm sure someone has agreed.

No one is against legal immigration. Yes we need to control who comes in here and we need to change the policies on how some are accepted going to a merit-based system as opposed to the current setup but no one is oppposed to Legal immigration.

The arguments we are having right now is how to stop the flow of illegals pouring across our border. You deny them but there are serious voices on the left suggesting we should not stop the illegal flow either.
 
Quit your lying.

I have asked you repeatedly all day to point out for me what lies were in this post you claim I lied about? It's one thing to call a person a liar but quite another to do so and not back it up.

If you do not respond to this post by posting the lies I told in that post that you criticize either by refuting it or posting what the actual facts are, I simply won't post with you anymore because you Sir are in fact the liar.

So you will either respond to this post with the facts that prove my lies or this will be the last post you ever get from me.
 
Trump is not opposed to Legal immigration that is a lie.
He wants to cut it in half. I guess you could split hairs and say he is not completely against legal immigration, but he clearly has a yuge problem with legal immigration as it is.

It’s no surprise that Democrats have panned the White House’s immigration framework. But now Republicans are increasingly uncomfortable with President Donald Trump’s proposal to deeply cut legal immigration in exchange for protecting nearly 2 million Dreamers.

The bare-bones framework released late last week, which Trump promoted during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, would fundamentally reshape the nation’s immigration system by no longer allowing U.S. citizens to sponsor parents, adult children and siblings for green cards — amounting to the biggest proposed reduction in legal immigration in decades, experts say.


That idea, at least in concept, isn’t sitting well with many Republicans.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the overall plan from Trump is “credible” but that he would not support such significant cuts to the legal immigration side.

“The idea of cutting legal immigration in half and skewing the green cards to one area of the economy, I think, is bad for the economy,” Graham said, referring to the administration’s broad pitch to shift to a merit-based immigration system. “Not a whole lot of support for that. I want more legal immigration, not less.”

On the administration’s proposal to restrict legal immigration, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said: “We can agree to disagree to begin with, but we still get to write it.”
 
He wants to cut it in half. I guess you could split hairs and say he is not completely against legal immigration, but he clearly has a yuge problem with legal immigration as it is.

It’s no surprise that Democrats have panned the White House’s immigration framework. But now Republicans are increasingly uncomfortable with President Donald Trump’s proposal to deeply cut legal immigration in exchange for protecting nearly 2 million Dreamers.

The bare-bones framework released late last week, which Trump promoted during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, would fundamentally reshape the nation’s immigration system by no longer allowing U.S. citizens to sponsor parents, adult children and siblings for green cards — amounting to the biggest proposed reduction in legal immigration in decades, experts say.


That idea, at least in concept, isn’t sitting well with many Republicans.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the overall plan from Trump is “credible” but that he would not support such significant cuts to the legal immigration side.

“The idea of cutting legal immigration in half and skewing the green cards to one area of the economy, I think, is bad for the economy,” Graham said, referring to the administration’s broad pitch to shift to a merit-based immigration system. “Not a whole lot of support for that. I want more legal immigration, not less.”

On the administration’s proposal to restrict legal immigration, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said: “We can agree to disagree to begin with, but we still get to write it.”

So now you've gone from saying he is against legal immigration to suggesting he wants to reduce it or change how immigrants are allowed into the country.

Is this the same argument you were making a few posts earlier or have we now moved the goalposts?
 
So now you've gone from saying he is against legal immigration to suggesting he wants to reduce it or change how immigrants are allowed into the country.

Is this the same argument you were making a few posts earlier or have we now moved the goalposts?
Same position. He doesn't like it; hence, he wants to dramatically alter legal immigration and cut it in half. Thankfully Senate Rs won't allow it to happen.
 
Same position. He doesn't like it; hence, he wants to dramatically alter legal immigration and cut it in half. Thankfully Senate Rs won't allow it to happen.

So Trump proposes changes to our immigration laws and perhaps even reductions in numbers allowed in but he is against legal immigration according to the Left.

Meanwhile, arguments are made on the Left to allow illegals either in the country already or attempting to break in without proper permission to stay here and in fact they call for even greater numbers yet they of course insist they favor tougher enforecement of our immigration laws which include dismantling ICE and opposition to a physical barrier in the form of a giant wall.

This is logic on the Left. Opposition to legal limits on immigration support for virtually unlimited illegal immigration.
 
So Trump proposes changes to our immigration laws and perhaps even reductions in numbers allowed in but he is against legal immigration according to the Left.
Not the left. Me. Perhaps reductions? Nothing perhaps about it. Again, he is not totally against all forms of legal immigration, but he wants to drastically change legal immigration which leads me (notice I said me. I speak for myself) to say he's against legal immigration, in general terms. I hope that helps and good luck.
 
Not the left. Me. Perhaps reductions? Nothing perhaps about it. Again, he is not totally against all forms of legal immigration, but he wants to drastically change legal immigration which leads me (notice I said me. I speak for myself) to say he's against legal immigration, in general terms. I hope that helps and good luck.

Speaking for myself I don't want anyone here who doesn't Love the country and wants to be here and that includes native born Americans as well as legal or illegal immigrants. I also want anyone who asks to come here to come in legally and follow all of our Laws, and meet whatever requirememts we set up.

Don't like our terms, don't come here.
 
Last edited:
Name one person here who has said we need to curtail legal immigration. Secondly, name those who have stated we need to increase legal immigration.

Steven Miller wants to cut immigration. I posted a quote talking about the 8 million jobs we can't fill over the next 10 years
 
He just figures if he keeps repeating it long enough it'll one day suddenly become true.

I've asked him several times to outline one racist policy or proposal that Trump advocates and have never received an answer.
Wrong. He just doesnt know anything else. He has no argument so he calls everyone a racist. He is a simpleton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
I have asked you repeatedly all day to point out for me what lies were in this post you claim I lied about? It's one thing to call a person a liar but quite another to do so and not back it up.

If you do not respond to this post by posting the lies I told in that post that you criticize either by refuting it or posting what the actual facts are, I simply won't post with you anymore because you Sir are in fact the liar.

So you will either respond to this post with the facts that prove my lies or this will be the last post you ever get from me.

This is just precious. You should follow your own rhetoric. You did that very thing to me ! You have a very bad habit of using the term liar.
 
This is just precious. You should follow your own rhetoric. You did that very thing to me ! You have a very bad habit of using the term liar.

That post wasn't for you. I have no idea what you are talking about. Usually though you dodge most questions I ask you.
 
No way they close the private detention centers...

Hilliary is making too much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
ADVERTISEMENT