patrick.net

All of them.
bob2356 says

Exactly what immigration laws aren't being enforced in your world.

No they don't. Only Leno does that.
bob2356 says

People jaywalk all the time

When you tell border patrol not to enforce the law, that is supporting anarchy regardless of budget increases for political gain.

a href="/post/1303171&c=1383198#comment-1383198">bob2356 says

He doubled the budget for both ICE and border patrol. This is supporting anarchy?

So what?
bob2356 says

Trump disagrees with you.

That's why i used "if".
If you want that answer whats stopping you from researching it?

bob2356 says

If? We should spend 50 billion on if? Where are the studies about how cost effective a wall will be?

MrEd says

When you tell border patrol not to enforce the law, that is supporting anarchy regardless of budget increases for political gain.

Which law was the border patrol told not to enforce? Where is the order? It's true because I believe it should be true?

So every law enforcement agency supports anarchy?

You need to keep track of which alt account you are on.

MrEd says

That's why i used "if".

If you want that answer whats stopping you from researching it?

bob2356 says

If? We should spend 50 billion on if? Where are the studies about how cost effective a wall will be?

So if is a valid reason for government spending? You are supporting any government project that if it works would be good?

bob2356 says

patrick and the usual crew of patnet trumpbots are playing the mark nicely.

Dude, I'm for putting the employers of illegal aliens in jail.

bob2356 says

Every single day you gladly enjoy the benefits of the people willing to die to get here to work crappy jobs in miserable conditions for very poor wages. Yet you say we owe them nothing.

Yup, we owe them nothing. In fact, they owe us for the trouble of deporting their asses right back where they came from.

They not here to help us in any way. They are here for themselves alone. The fact that they are willing to do crappy jobs changes nothing.

Do we have borders and laws, or do we not?

bob2356 says

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite.

So am I.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/

rando says

Yup, we owe them nothing. In fact, they owe us for the trouble of deporting their asses right back where they came from.

They not here to help us in any way. They are here for themselves alone. The fact that they are willing to do crappy jobs changes nothing.

Do we have borders and laws, or do we not?

So you are willing to exploit them and say well they broke the law for me I owe them nothing. Unless you can certify that you buy nothing produced by the labour of illegals than you are just as big a part of the problem as the illegals are and a much bigger hypocrite. At least they are honest they are here to make money for themselves and their families. They are the supply, you are the demand. Equally guilty.

We have borders and laws. We have laws making it a crime to employ illegals. That legally makes you an accessory since you are aiding and abetting a criminal every time you buy something from anyone who employs an illegal. Selective values? Apparently so.

Bob is 100% correct. If you don't stop the demand, a wall isn't going to solve anything. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals, and the demand will dry up. With no demand, the immigrants will stop coming.

rando says

bob2356 says

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite.

So am I.

You need to stop getting news from a source that couldn't make it as toilet paper in the dc metro.
None of these countries are signatories of the United Nations' 1951 Refugee Convention, which defines what a refugee is and lays out their rights, as well as the obligations of states to safeguard them. For a Syrian to enter these countries, they would have to apply for a visa, which, in the current circumstances, is rarely granted

A UNHRC visa isn't rarely granted. It is never granted. Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE aren't signatories to the UNHRC and can't receive UNHRC refugees officially. The UNHRC doesn't count any refugees that aren't settled under the UNHRC protocals. Which means UNHRC certified refugees going to a signatory country. There are over 600,000 Syrians living in Saudi Arabia. In 2016 Saudi Arabia granted over 100,000 residence visa's to syrians. Saudi's claim to have taken in 2.5 million. To claim non of these people are refugees is absurd.

"Undocumented" isn't even accurate. In California, illegals can get a driver's license and are therefore "documented". Time for the press to come up with a new euphemism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html
With Saudi Arabia’s non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi Arabia are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. According to Nabil Othman, the UNHCR regional representative to the Gulf region, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia at the time of his statement. The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees..

OMG the UNHRC's own representative says there's 500,000 refugees in Saudi Arabia. But UNHRC says there are zero officially.

So now it is time for lots of breast beating about fake news by the washington times. Odds of seeing it are zero. It's only fake news if you don't agree with it.

Kinda funny how there is no official count of Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia.

Why not?

joeyjojojunior says

Bob is 100% correct. If you don't stop the demand, a wall isn't going to solve anything. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals, and the demand will dry up. With no demand, the immigrants will stop coming.

I agree!

bob2356 says

So you are willing to exploit them

WTF? Where did you even get this?

Asking lawbreakers to leave is in no way exploiting them.

Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Immigration, including illegal immigration, is overwhelmingly upward, from a poorer to a richer country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

It seems only natural to extend the definition to "illegal immigrants."

Example: Illegal squatting. Illegal squatters.

"I agree!"

Great, so let's not waste how ever many hundreds of billions of dollars on a boondoggle and instead pay down the debt with it. What do you say?

I agree that we should jail the employers of illegal aliens.

But I also want a wall because we need multiple avenues of defense against illegal immigration.

rando says

bob2356 says

So you are willing to exploit them

WTF? Where did you even get this?

Asking lawbreakers to leave is in no way exploiting them.

You are buying products every day from companies that use illegals to produce them. That makes you just as much a part of the problem as the illegals coming in.

bob2356 says

You are buying products every day from companies that use illegals to produce them. That makes you just as much a part of the problem as the illegals coming in.

It doesn't. This is a bullshit argument. In no alternatives/no disclosure system, the chain of guilt stops at the employer.
Or else you are personally responsible for waterboarding in Guantanamo. As much as the torturers. Because your taxes sponsor it.

"if" , as used, is a conjunction in the sentence deployed to convey the idea that the author has not completely evaluated the cost effectiveness of a wall to impede / keep out illegal aliens.
How you arrive at your supposition below is hard to fathom, unless one also takes into consideration the thought processes of a rabid hardliner still ill with the aftershakes of a Trumpian Victory.

bob2356 says

So if is a valid reason for government spending?

Mr Ed says

And if a wall adds to the security of the nation in a cost effective way, that should also be part of the plan.

Border Patrol agents have been ordered to release dripping-wet illegal immigrants at the Rio Grande unless they actually see them climbing out of the river, creating what amounts to “an open border with Mexico,” the chief of the agents’ labor union told Congress in new testimony last week.
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told the House Judiciary Committee that agents were given the orders verbally soon after President Obama laid out plans for limiting immigration enforcement in 2014.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/10/border-patrol-ordered-to-release-illegals-still-so/

bob2356 says

Which law was the border patrol told not to enforce? Where is the order? It's true because I believe it should be true?

rando says

So am I.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/

Except, as I said, that's not really an accurate representation of the facts - the distinction is with the use of the term refugees as is touched on in that article. Those countries issue visas rather than take in 'refugees.' They are therefore supplying education, healthcare and jobs to these people. As I stated, the UAE has issued 100,000 such visas since 2011. Other Gulf countries also do the same thing, so in the terms you are using, they may not be housing 'refugees', but it is clearly not accurate to say they aren't taking in Syrians.

Reeks of a convenient way to avoid anyone checking on the actual numbers.

rando says

Reeks of a convenient way to avoid anyone checking on the actual numbers.

What does? It's far easier to check visas issued than it is counting refugees pouring across borders and sitting in refugee camps.

The UN counts refugees.

Countries count their own visas.

rando says

The UN counts refugees.

Countries count their own visas.

So are you arguing that those countries are lying and have issued zero visas to Syrians since 2011?

bob2356 says

rando says

bob2356 says

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite.

So am I.

You need to stop getting news from a source that couldn't make it as toilet paper in the dc metro.

Patrick had linked the Washington Post, but your opinion of how that publication has fallen is duly noted and widely shared.

Chancellor Merkel said publicly Germany could import more than half a million Muslims annually, "indefinitely," and she wanted other European countries to import more. If the EU had expanded to include Turkey, then the migration would have accelerated. Turkey is already in NATO, and migration (whether legal or illegal, and by whatever name) from or via Turkey to the EU can continue just as migration from or via Mexico can occur into the USA. NATO and Gulf State wars in the mideast drive Syrian Sunnis mostly into NATO countries. 80% of Syrians blamed NATO (specifically the USA) for what happened to their country, and 20% called ISIL/Daesh "a positive influence." Nearly all the displaced migrants into NATO believe in Sunni Islam, so their most likely impacts on "liberal" democracies will probably include terror and social regression, thus demonstrating the identitarian left's betrayal of liberalism.

MrEd says

Border Patrol agents have been ordered to release dripping-wet illegal immigrants at the Rio Grande unless they actually see them climbing out of the river, creating what amounts to “an open border with Mexico,” the chief of the agents’ labor union told Congress in new testimony last week.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told the House Judiciary Committee that agents were given the orders verbally soon after President Obama laid out plans for limiting immigration enforcement in 2014.

A verbal order to 21,000 agents? Nothing in writing at any level in as big as organization as border patrol. If you really buy that I've got some land (honest it's not a swamp, it just looks like a swamp) in Florida for sale I'd really like to talk to you about. What a joke.

mostly reader says

bob2356 says

You are buying products every day from companies that use illegals to produce them. That makes you just as much a part of the problem as the illegals coming in.

It doesn't. This is a bullshit argument. In no alternatives/no disclosure system, the chain of guilt stops at the employer.

Or else you are personally responsible for waterboarding in Guantanamo. As much as the torturers. Because your taxes sponsor it.

You are more responsible than people following what was a legal order. .Because you elected the people that condoned it. Because you failed to make a stand. Because you can't be a principled person and use the I didn't want to know about it excuse.

rando says

The UN counts refugees.

Countries count their own visas.

The UN counts refugees that meet the criteria of UN refugees as per the rules of the UN. Now you are a big defender of the UN?

curious2 says

the identitarian left's betrayal of liberalism.

That's a good way to put it.

YesYNot says

the fact that the easy solution is not used is proof that they don't actually want to stop it.

That's exactly right. This is what "the establishment" is: both parties and the media agree on that question. They hedge one way or an other but they arrange that nothing is done against their agenda.
And one part of their agenda is they want immigrants to keep wages low. They really don't care about anything else.

On the other side of that we have the would-be leader who calls the media 'the opposition party'.
It's supposed to be a free speech society. But free speech is not supposed to be 95% special interests.

What has the establishment learned from the election of Donald Trump?
Nothing!... Let's put him in a mental hospital and continue with business as usual.

It's congressional testimony from the head of the union of 21000 agents. Under oath.
The Obama administration did not make it law so there would/could be no accountability.
Word has filtered down not to enforce the law to the agents on the ground, regardless of whether it is hardcoded law or not.
They obey to keep their jobs.
21,000 strong say it is so. You say it isn't. Gee who are we to believe?

bob2356 says

A verbal order to 21,000 agents? Nothing in writing at any level in as big as organization as border patrol.

As far as I know, Sombodies 1 bedroom condo is not for sale.

bob2356 says

If you really buy that I've got some land (honest it's not a swamp, it just looks like a swamp) in Florida for sale I'd really like to talk to you about. What a joke.

YesYNot says

I think that the most common argument against the wall is that it is not going to work (on it's own), and it will cost a lot up front and in maintenance. Personally, I don't think the cost is that great, but I have doubts that it will work well.

The idea that a 2000 miles wall could stop determined human beings is, of course, preposterous.
But the way it works is you add obstacles everywhere on the way, and continue by deporting those you catch everywhere in the country.

More proof.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/254844-border-patrol-agents-to-stand-down/

MrEd says

bob2356 says

A verbal order to 21,000 agents?

> bob2356 says
> You are more responsible than people following what was a legal order. .Because you elected the people that condoned it. Because you failed to make a stand. Because you can't be a principled person and use the I didn't want to know about it excuse.

Let me count: non-sequitur, lame attempt at high-ground maneuver, and a logical mistake. In only 3 lines.

1. Non-sequitur: attempt to make Joe the voter responsible for waterboarding, as if it's a response to my statement. It's not. Here is my original statement, expanded: You do pay taxes, don't you? By YOUR own logic (implied responsibility via financial support), YOUR taxes support waterboarding, YOU personally are responsible.
To that, you conveniently replaced yourself with some other abstraction, and moved on to high ground maneuver.
2. Talking about principled people - that high-ground maneuver which is founded on a lie. Your original statement - "you use products made by illegals, therefore you are just as guilty" - screams of it, and so does this follow-up. You are using the same brush to paint those who corrupted the system and those who are forced to live in the corrupted system. Thus you hide the true perpetrators.
3. "You are more responsible" BS. Those people who followed a legal order, guess what? they are at the very least voters as well! We are at least equal, in terms of responsibility. But wait... in addition to that, they actually went ahead with that order (and didn't make a stand, like you are suggesting) Do you somehow consider it а mitigating circumstance for them and claim that Joe the voter is guilty-er?

You can't make this up.

mostly reader says

Let me count: non-sequitur, lame attempt at high-ground maneuver, and a logical mistake. In only 3 lines.

Yea sure, whatever you say. Let me know how much time and effort you have put into trying to reach the high ground. I've put in plenty. Not successfully, there are far more like you than like me. But I have made the effort.

1. Joe the voter is responsible. Politicians make the call to waterboard or to ignore corporations exploiting illegals. Taxes are irrelevant. Buying and being taxed are not comparable.

2. Principled people make the effort. Voting, calling out your congressman/senator, speaking out, trying very hard not to enable to exploitation of illegals as much as possible. People saying we should get rid of these illegals without looking at what part of the problem they are and what they can do about it are hypocrites.

3. Can't follow your mumble jumble. Soldiers have a legal duty to carry out lawful orders, there is no guilt involved. Voting is a voluntary choice. Voters carry the responsibility for the actions of their choices.

I'm all for getting the illegals to go home. Get rid of the jobs they will. Building a wall is political theatre. I am very curious who will profit from building the wall and the increased enforcement though.