The Democrat Party's solution, at the moment under Obama, is to give amnesty to millions of illegals and do absolutely nothing about our porous borders. And then, after a few more years, we'll have another "amnesty" to take care of the millions who come between now and then. Great plan, huh?
As I said, what we are doing now is not smart. I told a previous poster in this thread that I may be a Democrat, but that is mainly on fiscal issues and a couple social issues. I am quite conservative when it comes to border patrol and foreign policy as well as most social issues.
"Modest", A 20 billion/yr problem is modest. Whereas the cost of maintaining a border is prohibitive to you? Oh I love how Liberals think in accordance to National Security. 20 billion over 10 years is the 100 trillion you said you didn't want to spend, 10 years is a mere decade. And whatever costs in the border is offset by the improved security, more jobs open to Americans and higher wages. And how can those assumptions not be healthy, while at the same time claiming that they "take the jobs we don't want to take" IE: Are therefore definitely on the low-end of the economic spectrum(while their costs are prohibitive, especially taking inflation into account). Repeat after me: Liberals do not have a good sense of Economics. Between the ACA, between simply artificially raising the minimum wage without cost controls, the field of economics is simply something the Liberal Base has little to no comprehension of. There's a reason I called it an "Investment." Or another term would be the "sum of costs". We spend that 100 Trillion on the border, and we'll get back savings in those same billions that no longer have to be spent. It's an Equilibrium in the Market Place. If it's cost prohibitive for us, why isn't it cost prohibitive for other countries? Hint: Because it's not cost prohibitive at all. Your party's just incredibly selfish(and short-sighted).
20 billion times 10 is 200 billion, not 100 trillion. Other than that, great points. The person you are responding to will complain that the cost of addressing the illegal immigrant issue is too expensive, but in the thread I linked to, the most expensive aspect of my 5 point plan may not even be necessary. Steps 1-3, which are mainly just policy changes that won't cost much to implement, may solve the problem without the need to even build a fence and patrol it (which would be, by far, the most expensive part of the plan).
I'd be less concerned with a full blown ISIS militia. They are a much more definable target. It's the small cells that could be spread out all over the country that bothers me. Reminds me of "the prefect day" or some such that describes all the individuals and all the cells doing as much damage to America, our infrastructure and citizens as they can before being killed in one day. Would we ever feel safe again? Regardless of how many were killed, how much damage could they do?
And this administration is a bigger threat than either. - - - Updated - - - ISIS is using Cartel coyotes. The Cartels only see cash.
Oh it gets richer. Thanks for the laugh. Politifact and Mediamatters blog posts. Yeah. No agenda there.
Opps, never was great at the math department . Economic Theory is another subject on the other hand. Should've used a calculator to save me the embarrassment.
Then you better start looking for another job, because whoever is vetting news for your company will soon dump all your company's assets on the advice of his new Nigerian Prince financial advisor . This is about on the level of something my grandmother would send me that she got from an e chain letter. Can any conservative explain to me why terrorists can't simply get on a plane or ship and come here direct, and how they get to Mexico if they really can't get here?
Suddenly you're worried about a mere trillion? You must be in shambles considering the nearly $7 trillion Obama has rung up for nothing in return.
Poppycock. The MDC is only concerned with money. Their religion, is a distant second. By your argument, the entirety of the Hispanic descendents in America should be Republicans because they are predominantly Roman Catholic and the Republican party represents religious people better than the Democratic Party.
You're right, they are primarily concerned with money, that's why any interruption to that money flow would be bad for anyone attempting it, and a terrorist attack on the US which could result in tighter border security would be out of the question for the MDC. Drug dealers don't play well with people who's primary objective is to wipe out their customer base. (kinda would hurt their bottom line) You know, I have made that argument myself, look how the GOP treats anyone that speaks Spanish, I think they WOULD vote Republican except the GOP is constantly crapping on their people. Kinda makes it hard to vote for someone that basically treats you like scum. I'm willing to bet if the GOP were a LOT more inclusive of the Latino community they would see that Latinos are quite conservative, and would be very receptive to much of the GOP platform.
Ah Glenn Beck, the "height of journalistic integrity" LMAO! Kinda like listening to a urine soaked hobo on a street corner scream conspiracy theories.
I already have. Sorry, this has already been debunked TWO YEARS AGO. http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...gohmert-says-al-qaeda-has-camps-drug-cartels/ And again: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/isismexico.asp
Dumping a trillion dollars into "securing the border" would be a massive waste of resources, far past the point of diminishing returns. Beyond the fiscal argument, "securing" a 2,000 mile border with fences and patrols is utterly unfeasible. The entire framing of this debate is a political ploy to activate that most American instinct; nativism.
This is one cell, not several small cells that's being reported, and I'd still class a couple of folks with an agenda like that "whack-jobs" rather than "ISIS".
I liked the other debunked thread where someone thought that we should send every right wing gun nut across the border to take out the MDC and search for these "alleged" ISIS camps. Killing two birds with one stone as it were. I mean hell, gun nuts are always going on about defending the border, and how we need to stop "the invasion of illegals" well, shouldn't they put their money (or in this case guns) where their mouths are? I bet if they did that, all the arguments us "gun grabbing leftists" have about 2nd Amendment supporters would simply disappear. They would be heroes. Saviors of two grateful nations.
They are a right wing hit job group, that runs a network of false front attack operations. They have a well established and well deserved reputation for making stuff like this up out of whole cloth. They promote fake stories through their front groups, and file nuisance suits. Judicial Watch started out as one of Richard Mellon Scaife's dumpster diving operations. This story is so ridicuous that it almost not worth laughing at!
Your recommendation that half the nation invade Mexico is an odd one. I am not claiming this story IS gospel, but referencing a similar story two years ago which nobody could prove one way or the other is not "debunking" this one. Nor is this administrations denial of more potential "workplace violence".
I didn't see this thread until this morning, but it is part and parcel to the sad pattern of right wing media, and their adherents. A right wing trash blog (in this case, the improbably named PJMedia, which has a long history of promoting fake sensationalist stories), repeats a claim by another right wing poltical attack group, Judicial Watch, regarding something that one would think Judicial Watch, would know nothing about; ISIS in Mexico. Of course, the Judicial Watch claim is not supported by any evidence, not corroborated, and contains no named sources or even comment from US officials. Yet this dubious story grew the ususal legs in the right trash blogosphere. It is a perfect product. It hits all the far right wing buttons perfectly., Bigotry, nativisim, fearmongering and paranoia, all wrapped up in one complete package, no facts required!!!!! And the target audience ate it up. We have several pages of far right wing posters taking this clearly ridiculous story at face value and trying to defend it with equally fact free assertions. The few folks here who have pointed out Judicial Watch's highly dubious reputation, or questioned this story have been roundly attacked by the angry white hide under the bed crowd. And the right wingers are all the more strident, the more obvious that this story is false. Neither Judicial Watch nor PJ Media have much of a reputation for credibility. And, of course, this ridiculous story is false: http://www.kvia.com/news/us-federal...-in-anapra-mexico-is-unsubstantiated/32367718 The sad thing is that this is a well established pattern, now. Three weeks ago, a right wing activist with a history of manufacturing dubious attacks on Hillary Clinton started a false rumor that the Clinton E-mail story had been leaked to the New York Times by Valarie Jarret. By the end of the weekend, the story was in dozens of right trash blogs, and the usual army of talk radio psycophants were on here parroting it, having fallen for it hook, like and sinker. The White House thought the story was so ridiculous that they almost didn't bother to deny it. Last week, right wing trash blogs were again filled with another fake story. A claim that a "commission appointed by the duly recognized Lybian Parlment" was coming to meet with Congress and the FBI with "shocking new evidence about the Benghazi affair" No such commission existed, and no one is meeting with Congress or the FBI. It took very little digging to trace the source of the story back, not to the Lybian Parliment, but to a right wing attack group in Alexandria, Virginia, in this case Accuracy in Media (which has ties to and tactics similar to Judicial Watch). The story was made up by a couple of conservative poltical operatives with a history of manufacturing false stories about Benghazi for the right wing audience. As in this case, the righties fell for it, hook line and sinker. It's really very sad to watch. It's certainly not constructive to see the way political operatives are panding to and promoting the fears of people for their own political and financial gain. But it is a stark and ugly reality in conservative American politics today.
