Trump, in surprise media conference, argues for border wall as shutdown continues
Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 4 years, 5 months ago to Politics
47 comments | Share | Flag
Beautifully played by the President. Get the EXPERTS in border security stating what works to counter the democrats making unfounded claims on what will not work.
Hitlery, Obama, and Pelosi convicted for treason works for me.
1) Illegal immigration for welfare and votes,
2) Cross-border child sex trafficking, and
3) Cross-border smuggling of drugs that kill more Americans every year than died in the entire Vietnam War.
If Republicans were smart....
They won't rock the boat in fear the truth might slosh on them.
BTW...Note to Natasha Chen....the TV reporter. You would look a lot nicer if you would occasionally run a brush through your hair...OMG....what is it with people looking like they just got out of bed these days.
I know it is a diplomatic move by him but I shudder every time I hear it.
Pelosi's new Speaker arrangement only means the left has no strategy or any programs to make the lives of Americans any better.
It is nauseating to see a communist leading the House again, thanks to the laziness and subversion of Ryan.
Who's the expert in logical, rational common sense?
What a concept!
Fire all your weapons that you have right at the left. I dont want illegal immigration period.
They also had a looter problem.
The term "illegal immigrant" is pure, political illiteracy.
I expect this nonsense from conservatives, but Objectivists should know better.
"Democrats have ALWAYS been for immigration regulation in one form or another."
Would you care to elaborate what that "regulation" entailed? I must have missed it b/c all I see is the left clambering for open borders.
Regulating immigration comes from the union movement and democrat voters after all.
If you have a single DUI here in the USA , you cant even VISIT Canada on a vacation for at least 5 years.
There are 35 million people in South and Central America who would relocate to the US if there were no immigration restrictions. Trying to absorb a 12% instant surge in a large nation's population strains its resources to the breaking point, particularly when the surge consists of people who don't share the language or culture.
"a rights protecting government" While we're at it, how about "a carnivorous vegan"...and maybe "a patriot act"?
We take these conversations seriously. If you have a question you want to raise do so, but please keep in mind this isn't Twitter. Feel free to expound and make your case clearly and articulately. What you'll find is that the people on this forum are incredibly intelligent and not your common forum trolls.
Then you misunderstand how this forum operates. This forum is based on productivity, but one can not vote one's self a Producer point - one has to find value in what others say. So those point totals are objective measures of Productivity as evaluated by other Forum participants. You will also find that people are rarely downvoted simply for disagreeing. I downvote for unsubstantiated arguments, inflammatory statements, and ad hominem arguments - such as the ones you are making here.
Now, if you want to argue that you have different notions about what constitutes value to you, my answer is: GREAT! We encourage people to have their own opinions and to speak them articulately. But be prepared to back up anything you say, because you will get challenged.
"The fact that I'm getting negative downvotes for pointing out the nonsense of the term "illegal immigration" and having to explain what a "rights protecting government is" tells me just how little you guys understand."
Then please share with us your viewpoint in detail. But before you do, you might want to use the "search" function and take a look at some of the debates we have already had about these subjects. I'm more than happy to rehash them with you; if you think you're bringing up novel arguments, you overrate yourself.
But just so you don't think I'm completely ignoring you, I'll lay out exactly why the term illegal immigration is completely appropriate.
Immigration is an application for association. It is that simple. If the applicant does not apply of their own free will, fails to live by the terms/rules/conditions/laws of the association, or fails to gain the approval of existing association members, their applications may be rejected and membership denied. Existing members who break the terms may be excommunicated/disfellowshipped/disbarred from that association.
To a pointed example:
When Dagny broke through the barrier into the Gulch, was she an illegal immigrant? Yes, and Galt told her so. Her method of entry into the Gulch was not through the approved channels or methods. (She had been invited and rejected the invitation.) And while she was accorded status as a guest during her stay, she was reminded that she had broken the rules and could not stay without agreeing to the rules writ large upon the power plant Galt built there.
Every nation in the world has similar rules which apply to their citizens: rules that trade promises of protection of various degrees in exchange for certain duties such as paying taxes and obeying the laws. Guests are those who are not citizens but who nevertheless apply for a lesser status of protection in exchange for a lesser status of duty (such as paying taxes, etc.), but guests are not (with ambassadorial exception) typically granted immunity from the host country's laws and rules. (Ambassadors and consul staff must register with the host nation for recognition of such status - an association contract in and of itself.)
Illegal immigrants attempt to avoid every part of the duty yet seek to avail themselves of every part of the benefit of the association. They are looters in every respect. To attempt to legitimize any such is in direct contradiction of Objectivist principles.
To Objectivists only rights violations, force or fraud, should be illegal.
Immigration is neither of those things and so should not be illegal.
It's a non-issue.
There's not much more to explain, because it really is that simple.
It's very sad how many supposed Objectivists don't get this.
"It's very sad how many supposed Objectivists don't get this."
What is sad is that you have no argument worthy of an Objectivist to offer in support of your own viewpoint. If you can't offer anything better than a logical fallacy, calling yourself an Objectivist is a farce and an affront to everyone on this forum. Either present a better argument - in detail - or I'm going to relegate you to the [Ignore] bin as not worth my time.
The fact you don't even remotely seem to be understanding my posts demonstrates you don't understand anything about objectivism.
There's not much more I can say because "rights" and "rights protecting government" are the most basic Objectivist political concepts.
You asked and I explained.
Because you don't like the explanation and have no counter argument, doesn't mean you can accuse me of logical fallacies or being uncivil.
Conflating foreign policy with immigration is just confusion.
I've explained the Objectivist position on immigration very clearly, in a single sentence, in my original post here.
Terms like "illegal immigration" are politically illiterate.
Border protection can involve things like invasion, but can't involve things like immigration, which is basically people going about their lives without violating any rights.