Why is a Border Wall RACIST?

That's why the Jolly Green Giant is mechanizing everything.

But the Jolly Green Giant will do it first down in Mexico. The former Mexican farm laborer who was replaced by a machine will head to el Norte to work on the Jolly Green Giant farms in America.

The Jolly Green Giant is a multinationally owned company that has no loyalty to any country and they are the big agricultural farms you see in both America and Mexico.

You might remember the Jolly Green Giant commercials. -> https://youtu.be/0U7PDgTsY2I It's when the Jolly Green Giant was saying "HO HO HO" it was the Green Giant laughing at America knowing that eventually he would have no need for migrant farm workers from Mexico and they will become wards of America's taxpayers.

 

Well, we do need a defined border, and if it's not a physical border, then it should at least be a border with substantial surveillance, and some physical barriers (fencing if need be) to prevent unimpeded access across. In fairness to Trump, even he is only proposing a wall where need be, and not where natural geographical barriers already impede easy access.

 

The China Wall.
The Berlin Wall.
The Iron Curtain.
The Bamboo Curtain.
Behind the Orange Curtain.

Maybe Trump should have gone with the Trump Curtain ?

Would the liberals, Marxist and globalist gone along with a Trump Curtain ? Just asking.

 

Oh I remember!!

They would play those commercials during Johnny Quest on Saturday mornings.

Sort of a Kid's eat your vegetables thing.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

As I said I have no issue with guarding our boarders.

But building a wall???

REALLY stupid.

AA

 

Would you support a fence ?

Maybe like Israel's fence -> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. If an alien simply avoids detection, the matter is civil, not criminal. Your side continues to rely on statutes that have little to do with people who enter the United States and do not engage in criminal activity. Let's review some of what you quoted.

If a person is removed for criminal activity like aggravated felonies, crimes against the person, drugs, etc. then that has nothing, nothing, nothing that correlates to an individual that comes into the U.S. to partake of opportunities willingly offered. The criminal fine is for entering here AFTER being removed for cause. It's the same with every section you referred to.

Now, I know how much people on the anti-immigrant side like to argue, so I'm going to give you the government's perspective here. This will respond to the "illegal alien" language as implied in Apacherat's posting. Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger:

"Do not let the fact that the term "illegal immigrants" does not appear in the document lead you to believe that the U.S. Constitution's rights and freedoms do not apply to them.

Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

Again, the anti-immigrant lobby will fight tooth and nail to falsely attempt to prove a lie to you. Apacherat has had access to the many statutes, rulings, quotes by the highest ranking immigration officials in the United States, etc. yet he still is quoting John Tanton fantasies. Let us help him out here.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey was George Bush's Attorney General. Mukasey was addressing the American Bar Association - which happens to be the most liberal body in the United States. Mukasey admonished them:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/12...ong-or-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

In addition, Mukasey, as the highest ranking immigration official in the United States ruled in an improper entry case:

"2) Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed
counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings and removal proceedings are civil in nature."

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3632.pdf

Despite the facts, that we rehash in EVERY thread, the anti-immigrant lobby wants to subvert the truth. If it isn't racist, what do you suppose the REAL motive is?

 

I've heard of the H-2A visa. Did you realize it is for agricultural workers? Did you realize that the program has annual caps on it? Do you know that those visas don't have squat to do with jobs being offered in landscaping, construction, fast food, house cleaning or semi skilled trades?

Did you realize that when an employer can hire an agricultural worker to pick cotton, but he can't hire one for working in a factory that the employer is being denied his /her Rights relative to the 14th Amendment?

 

A wall isn't racist. It's stupidity. The only time you would ever need one, is if world economies crashed and Mexicans and others came flooding across the border by the millions seeking food. And if things got that bad, a wall would not stop them.

Look, this illegal immigration problem is easily corrected. You simply take the carrot away. The carrot that brings these folks here. Employers. Change the law so that employing an illegal gets mandatory prison time. Provide a toll free number for citizens to turn in employers. This would do more to solve the problem than anything else.

So, no one in DC is serious about solving this problem. The wall, and this other crap is theater, to make dumbasses THINK they are serious about solving the problem. They know how to do it. Perhaps they are bribed not to use intelligence. Our leaders are not stupid. They are corrupt. If they are not millionaires going in, they will be in short order after they leave congress or the oval office. Can you really expect in that rarified air of wealth, that these people would give a damn about working people? Clearly they do not, and have not since Reagan. Bill Clinton got rich by selling out the average American, and destroying the party of the common man. So the dems serve the same elites who want cheap Mexican labor, as the GOPhers.

 

LOL Funny. And try to dodge the point. If you don't like dirty, then what adjective would you use for foreigners? Suspicious? Awful? Weird? Evil? Inferior? The point is that you're advocating policies to penalize people simply for being a part of a group that you consider to be different and bad. That's xenophobia. That's racism.

There's a way to deal with illegal aliens that's even cheaper still: give them all visas. And then ask why they couldn't get those visas in the first place. The first set of answers you get will be a load of voodoo economics about how people working destroys the economy that have all been completely discredited. After you show that those arguments are all total BS, then you get a long awkward silence. And then you have to wonder, if the stated reason is a complete rationalization and people are too ashamed to say the real reason, what could that real reason be? Personally, I see only one viable candidate.

Riiiight, because only liberals abuse drugs. *cough* *cough* Limbaugh *cough* *cough*

Anyway, if we let immigrants enter and stay legally it would dramatically cut down on the demand for smuggling routes into the US. Smuggling routes that can be used for either people or drugs. It's also makes it easier for drug smugglers to hide when they have a flood of ordinary people to hide in.

There aren't anywhere nearly enough H-2A's (or any other kind of visa) to meet the demand. If there were there wouldn't be an issue with illegal immigrants at all since they would be legal, documented, and paying taxes. What, you think that people risk their lives crossing through the desert because they don't want to fill out some paperwork?

"I'm rubber and you're glue - everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you," is not an argument. "Racist" is not just a generic insult to be countered with a schoolyard taunt along the lines of, "Nuh-uh, you're the doo-doo head!" "Racist" actually means something important. If the best response you can give is that of a fifth-grader, I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment.

You make my argument for me. The Trump wall is in the same category as the Berlin Wall or the Iron Curtain.

 

The wall is just another stupid, simple, Trump solution to a complicated problem. One thing for sure though is Trump does know his supporters.

- - - Updated - - -

If he is on the other side of it we certainly would support a Trump Curtain.

 

Any actual evidence that Regan gave a damn about working people would be appreciated. And of course, that especially applies to working union people.

 

Give it a rest.. Mexican is not a race. Trump ia appealing to xenophobia not racism.

 

A fifth grade mentality requires a fifth grade response, but apparently you are too embedded in your own ideology to see it. My post was as nuanced as it needed to be, and pointed directly to the fifth-grade mentality of the average liberal who cries "racist" at every policy or person that doesn't conform to their liberal agenda of identity politics. My argument was as true as blue is blue.

So get over yourself.

 

Why are you posting in the third person ?

 

The 14th Amendment isn't just the most misinterpreted amendment of the Constitution but is also unconstitutional.

FYI: The authors of the 14th Amendment used Vattel's when they wrote and debated the 14th Amendment in Congress.

 

So let me see if I follow your reasoning here. You're a good person, and only bad people are racists, so you can't be racist. Therefore any policy you support can't be racist. Does that about sum it up?

There don't have to have black people actually being lynched for it to qualify as racism. Please explain to me how, "We want to kick those brown people out of the country," is not racist.

So if the wall isn't racist, then there must be a rational reason for wanting to keep out immigrants, right? So all you have to do to show that the wall isn't racist is explain what that rational reason is.

 

And you seriously think that by interfering with the free market, dictating to employers who they can and cannot hire, and turning America into the ultimate POLICE STATE is a "solution"? Surely, you jest.

I get it. The anti-immigrant lobby is all about the Constitution when it serves to further their agenda, but totally against it the moment their opposition relies on it. What you offer is not any kind of solution to anything.

IF the anti-immigrant lobby were honest, they'd realize they do not have an economic case. The foreigners are here because they are profitable in economic terms.

The eleventh fact regarding foreigners is that they are entrepreneurial and they demonstrate the advantages of self reliance and being independent. By contrast, the anti-immigrant lobby wails about such nonsense (that is easily disproven) like so called "illegals" don't pay taxes. The reality is, had the anti-immigrant lobby not supported the National ID/REAL ID Act, they would not need (sic) a Socialist Surveillance Number... there I go again - Social(ist) Security Number and they could work just like the undocumented immigrants. But noooooo. These guys think they cannot live without the alleged benefits offered by Uncle Scam and they want everybody to be as addicted to big government as they are.

IF there is a problem to be resolved, let's make sure the public and our elected officials and judges understand the differences between citizenship and unalienable Rights. In a de jure- lawful / constitutional Republic:

Citizens vote - non-citizen foreigners don't

Citizens qualify for welfare, government aid and Social (ist) Security - non-citizen foreigners don't

Citizens qualify for a taxpayer funded education - non-citizen foreigners don't.

Okay, so what went wrong? It's all in too much governmental regulation and control. Did you ever ask yourself WHY the children of non-citizens can come to the U.S. and receive a taxpayer funded education? Is that the fault of foreigners OR is it YOUR fault for electing politicians that appointed federal judges that made those rulings?

All of this crap people about punishing people for exercising constitutional guarantees is a lot of hooey that is rooted in National Socialism. Look, if you're going to adopt their so-called "solutions," you may as well call it what it is.

 

I'm almost afraid to ask. What "third" person?

 

If you're familiar with Albion's Seed, it argues the very opposite, that the various British migrations were different peoples with different cultures that vastly effected the settlement of the US and still effect us today. Scot-Irish, Cavaliers, Puritans. Lay an election map from the primaries over a demographic map of the majority ethnicity and patterns emerge. There may be no difference between people who are descended from Athenians and Spartans now, but that's a blending more than 2000 years in the making. There were massive differences then. Tribal differences are not arbitrary. Ultimately, that seems to matter most, as the modern day middle east and 1990's Yugoslavia demonstrate.

 

Although simple corruption is possible on a lower level, the disregard of the US border is a bipartisan national project going back decades. For the Democrats, it's a way to to flood the nation with millions of uneducated, unskilled people who, in a welfare state, quickly become dependent on government. For the Republicans, it's a way to have a massive workforce that both drives down wage rates for legitimate legal workers and provides a workforce that are exempt from any sort of labor laws and protections because they're illegal. The drug issue is a side effect of that, but given the choice of securing the border to keep out drugs and stopping the flow of new voters/serfs, well, they've been choosing to ignore the drugs for decades.

 

When we aren't being diverted with Apacherat's backdoor insults, we can examine the facts.

In keeping with my list, let's look at fact number twelve.

THE organization that made the anti-immigrant lobby what it is, is the Tea Party. Now, I'd like to share a link with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

Take a look at the sign that is 3:42 into the video. The premier advocates for the nutty wall idea are at a rally. How come you suppose the rally goers weren't stomping the s#!+ out of that guy? It's not because the Tea Party has any tolerance for other viewpoints. Watch any immigration thread I'm on and I'll prove it to you. See my previous post as an example.

Oddly, I agree with a lot of the sentiments of the Tea Party folks at that rally, when you're caught red handed - or brown postered in this case, it is what it is.

 

That's because in a population of 11 plus million illegal aliens, only about 65,000 and 75,000 Canadians are in the country illegally. Considering the number of all other illegals and the fact that we share a massive border with Canada, that's insignificant.

However if we find them, we should deport them. Agree?

 

Are you one of those who said that you would be leaving America in 2017 ?

 

The third person is the most common point of view used in fiction writing and is the traditional form for academic writing. Authors of novels and composers of papers use “he,” “she,” or “it” when referring to a person, place, thing, or idea. The following quotations include the third-person singular subjective cases and are from the opening lines of three novels:

“Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested” (5). “He” is in the singular third-person masculine subjective case.

“Once upon a time, there was a woman who discovered she had turned into the wrong person” (6). “She” is in the singular third-person feminine subjective case.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” (7). “It” is in the singular third-person neuter subjective case.

In addition to having a singular and a plural case, you may have already noticed that the third person has genders and a neuter category.

- See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/ed...-and-third-person?page=2#sthash.8NKulGtf.dpuf

 

The rational reason is to enforce an an orderly manner of legal immigration, while restricting those who want to enter here illegally. Racism has nothing to do with it; just legality vs. illegality.

Why are such simple things so difficult for you to understand? I'll tell you why. It is because you and most others on the left think racially; where as those on the right think conceptually. That is why it is so easy to conceptualize the left as being racist; because they think racially, talk racially, and act racially; thereby making "identity politics" the basis of nearly all their agenda.

Your own post proves it so. You start with the premise of the wall being racist, and then expect people to prove to you that it isn't racist. Well, I just did. The wall is just a means of separating legality from illegality.