Senate Shelves Immigration Bill

Associated Press Writer (Via Breitbart.com) ^ | Apr 07 10:27 AM US/Eastern | By SUZANNE GAMBOA

[Rokke]

"a pro-CFR, "migrants rights" organization. "

Care to support that claim?

"there is no disputing the fact that the wall reduced crossings, which was it's intention."

Yes it did. So did the police state that accompanied it. I suppose we can try talking Mexico into forming a secret police service like the Stasi to ensure its citizens don't breathe without permission, but since the Mexicans can barely manage to form a military, I doubt they are capable. And nobody seems to be willing to admit that the magnitude of the problem of walling off 1700 miles vs 96 is even an issue. Nor is anyone willing to admit that the Berlin Wall did not become effective until it was turned into the fortress that I have twice described in this thread. That is just what this country needs right now....a hugely expensive federal initiative to build a 1700 mile long concrete fortress, equipped every 1/3 of a mile with manned watchtowers filled 24/7 with federal agents directed to shoot to kill anyone attempting to cross.

On a related note, I heard an idea on Sean Hannity's show today that I really like. We start billing the Mexican government for the expenses we incur due to their illegal aliens in our country. We deduct each and every expense from the federal aid we provide them every year, and direct that money to the agency or business that had to cover it. Add that to enforcing our existing laws and jailing folks who knowingly hire illegals, and I think we'd see some real progress.

[moehoward]

"Care to support that claim?"

Just read their mission statement, more importantly their "North American Borders and Migration Agenda". It's a page right out the CFR playbook.

Your description of a "concrete fortress" is overly dramatic. The proposed double fence will be sufficient.

Once the 700 miles is up, we can take a look at it's effectiveness. Then add more, or redirect our efforts.

Bottom line, a fence, with guards, would keep most out. Employee SS# verification along with law enforcement turning over Illegals they come into contact with for rapid deportation would go along way towards interior enforcement.

And after watching last weeks Senate debates on immigration reform, I have absolutely zero faith they are interested in anything other than legalizing every single person that finds their way into this country.

[Rokke]

"Just read their mission statement"

I honestly couldn't find one. Do you mean this? "MPI is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think-tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide"

"North American Borders and Migration Agenda".

Do you deny there are North American Borders? And can you sum up their "Migration Agenda"? If not, what is your concern with that title?

"Your description of a "concrete fortress" is overly dramatic. The proposed double fence will be sufficient."

Yeah. Tell that to the East Germans. That is exactly what they thought. So they did this...

But it didn't work. So they added to it. And added to it. And ended up with this.

The concept of a wall isn't anything new. Neither is the execution. Neither are the ultimate results.

"And after watching last weeks Senate debates on immigration reform, I have absolutely zero faith they are interested in anything other than legalizing every single person that finds their way into this country."

I don't necessarily think that. But I do have zero faith they'll actually do anything.

[moehoward]

Look, it's your source, if I can find it, you should be able to as well.

"Yeah. Tell that to the East Germans"

And here comes the straw-man avalanche. Whatever, you just want to argue.
Cya.

[evad]

And after watching last weeks Senate debates on immigration reform, I have absolutely zero faith they are interested in anything other than legalizing every single person that finds their way into this country.

"I don't necessarily think that. But I do have zero faith they'll actually do anything."

As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. As has been said many times, the problem lies in the failure to enforce existing laws. Until we do that, what's the point of additional legislation? (Rhetorical)

[evad]

oops..meant to include moe..
As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. As has been said many times, the problem lies in the failure to enforce existing laws. Until we do that, what's the point of additional legislation? (Rhetorical)

[Rokke]

"Look, it's your source, if I can find it, you should be able to as well. "

Interesting. You ask for something and I provide it right away. I even had to post the link twice just to get it right. I also quoted it directly. But when I ask for something from you, you tell me to go find it myself. Could it be you don't know where it is either?

"And here comes the straw-man avalanche."

Do you even know what a strawman is? In case you've forgotten, the current topic of our conversation is comparing the Berlin Wall and a wall along our border. If you can't support your arguments any better than you have, you join a long list of folks on this thread with similar views who can't support them either. That might tell you something about your argument.

[Rokke]

"As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. As has been said many times, the problem lies in the failure to enforce existing laws. Until we do that, what's the point of additional legislation?"

As usual, I agree with you completely.

[moehoward]

If you mean doing nothing in regards to this bill being a good thing, I agree. Doing nothing about enforcing existing laws, is clearly not a good thing.

[moehoward]

So, you want me to help you with your own source material. LOL!!

And the topic is not a Berlin wall despite your attempts at hijacking it into one.

Like I said, you just want to argue.

[bjcintennessee]

ping

[evad]

"If you mean doing nothing in regards to this bill being a good thing, I agree."

Yes.

"Doing nothing about enforcing existing laws, is clearly not a good thing."

Yes again.

[Rokke]

"So, you want me to help you with your own source material. LOL!!"

I never said a thing about a mission statement. That was your complaint. I thought I'd seen every form of dishonest debate already on this thread, but I've got to admit that even I am surprised you are bitching about something (a mission statement) that doesn't even exist. Congrats. You set a new low.

"And the topic is not a Berlin wall despite your attempts at hijacking it into one."

Your very first post to me (#1027) concerned immigration numbers from East to West Germany. Why are those numbers even an issue if you weren't referring to the Berlin Wall? You come onto a thread, make things up, and then complain I am hijacking the thread and being argumentative?! Maybe if you folks would stick to the truth, there would be nothing to argue about.

[moehoward]

No, no. My first post was to JeffAtlanta, where he called into question what period of time your numbers supposedly covered. Your name is listed secondly as a courtesy, since my response was related to your post.

And I'm not debating anything with you, because there is no debate. You acknowledge a fence/wall/barrier does reduce crossings. I simply pointed out, your source for the 400,000 number seems to be the sole entity that reports such an astronomical number. Which raises the question, why? But then that question is quickly dispatched by reading what your source's agenda is. I mean no offense, some here at FR are pro open border and all for CFR, just like the website you refer to.

[Rokke]

"I'm not debating anything with you"

That's true.

[moehoward]

See, you're starting to get it.

[gnarledmaw]

"decent legislation"

If it provides anything to illegal aliens other than a free catapult ride then it aint "decent legislation".

[mthom]

Something tells me that when a wall is not included in "comprehensive immigration reform" you wont be all that upset.