Who said I wanted to "accept illegal workers"?
I think it's a terrible situation that people are doing jobs here when the law says they shouldn't be doing jobs here.

It depresses wages, because they won't go to the police when they are offered less than minimum wage or forced to work overtime without pay.
It endangers them, because they won't go to the police when someone threatens them or robs them.
It increases government debt, because they don't pay their full share of taxes 

Simply doing a blanket amnesty fixes all of those problems.  Now they work in the open and pay taxes.  The only reason not to do a blanket amnesty is that it will encourage even more people to come in the coming years.  So I don't favor a big amnesty, though some people should be able to pay back taxes and get legal status afterwards.  We should also be deporting many others.

Mainly, if we simply allow employers to legally bring in extra people while unemployment is low, we won't have any of those problems.

You know a lot of what you said is factually incorrect?

Every single Hispanic worker at my nursery is in this country illegally. And every single one of them has enough paperwork so that my company can pretend they don't know they are illegal.
Every single one of them pays taxes out of their checks, and they all get a tax return, much like many of you people do.
They don't go to the police when people attack them? The also don't appear in court when cops give them a notice to appear (because they aren't actually here)

Blanket amnesty?
Let's do a blanket deportation.

Pick em up, habla englash? no?
byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Der Fuhrer vould be prout.

---

I mean why build a wall? I'm sure all these illegals will find a new way in right? What's the point in trying to fix it if they will still find a way?

I mean that's the logic we use with gun control, right?

---

I mean why build a wall? I'm sure all these illegals will find a new way in right? What's the point in trying to fix it if they will still find a way?

I mean that's the logic we use with gun control, right?

That's a good example of false equivalency, thanks.

---

Some of them pay taxes and some of them don't.
I chose to focus on the ones that aren't paying taxes cuz I see them as the bigger problem, and then you're going to turn around and bash me as factually incorrect because some of them do pay taxes?

Plus you're contradicting yourself.
Are you trying to tell me that the nursery workers don't speak English? the idea that we would just go around and round up brown people who don't speak English, and drop them off on the other side of the Rio grande, is disgusting. If that's what you're suggesting, I would rather deport you, than them.

Who cares what you would rather as it pertains to his rights?

He only gets as many rights as he recognizes in others. It's the converse of the golden rule.  If he thinks rapid and arbitrary deportation is great, let's arbitrarily and rapidly dpeort him.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

But that is a byproduct of accepting illegal workers coming across the border.  You can't have one without the other.

Who said I wanted to "accept illegal workers"?
I think it's a terrible situation that people are doing jobs here when the law says they shouldn't be doing jobs here.

It depresses wages, because they won't go to the police when they are offered less than minimum wage or forced to work overtime without pay.
It endangers them, because they won't go to the police when someone threatens them or robs them.
It increases government debt, because they don't pay their full share of taxes 

Simply doing a blanket amnesty fixes all of those problems.  Now they work in the open and pay taxes.  The only reason not to do a blanket amnesty is that it will encourage even more people to come in the coming years.  So I don't favor a big amnesty, though some people should be able to pay back taxes and get legal status afterwards.  We should also be deporting many others.

Mainly, if we simply allow employers to legally bring in extra people while unemployment is low, we won't have any of those problems.

So we are in 100% agreement on this.  Mea culpa.  From the original post that I responded to I took it that you were in favor allowing the current status quo.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I mean why build a wall? I'm sure all these illegals will find a new way in right? What's the point in trying to fix it if they will still find a way?

I mean that's the logic we use with gun control, right?

That's a good example of false equivalency, thanks.

In that case why have laws or rules at all.  People will break them regardless.  The heck with standards.  Let chaos ring!  WooHoo the wild west is back.  Street justice reigns again!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You know a lot of what you said is factually incorrect?

Every single Hispanic worker at my nursery is in this country illegally. And every single one of them has enough paperwork so that my company can pretend they don't know they are illegal.
Every single one of them pays taxes out of their checks, and they all get a tax return, much like many of you people do.
They don't go to the police when people attack them? The also don't appear in court when cops give them a notice to appear (because they aren't actually here)

Blanket amnesty?
Let's do a blanket deportation.

Pick em up, habla englash? no?
byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Plus you're contradicting yourself.
Are you trying to tell me that the nursery workers don't speak English? the idea that we would just go around and round up brown people who don't speak English, and drop them off on the other side of the Rio grande, is disgusting. If that's what you're suggesting, I would rather deport you, than them.

I took it to say that he wanted to deport illegals not speaking English... which shouldn't be a problem because they're... illegal.

You added the brown people component to his statement. You made it about race.

Who cares what you would rather as it pertains to his rights?

He only gets as many rights as he recognizes in others. It's the converse of the golden rule.  If he thinks rapid and arbitrary deportation is great, let's arbitrarily and rapidly dpeort him.

Uhh... that's not how this works.

Besides, what rights do illegals have and how would he be violating them by deporting them since they're here illegally?

---

Who cares what you would rather as it pertains to his rights?

He only gets as many rights as he recognizes in others. It's the converse of the golden rule.  If he thinks rapid and arbitrary deportation is great, let's arbitrarily and rapidly dpeort him.

Bull [BLEEP], his rights aren't yours to adjudicate while those he is speaking about do not have a right to be here.

---

That's a good example of false equivalency, thanks.

In that case why have laws or rules at all.  People will break them regardless.  The heck with standards.  Let chaos ring!  WooHoo the wild west is back.  Street justice reigns again!

Rights are a thing you know, and they make all the difference

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

He only gets as many rights as he recognizes in others. It's the converse of the golden rule.  If he thinks rapid and arbitrary deportation is great, let's arbitrarily and rapidly dpeort him.

Bull [BLEEP], his rights aren't yours to adjudicate while those he is speaking about do not have a right to be here.

Illegal immigrants should be arrested if we suspect them of entering without a visa or overstaying their visa or working when their visa does not permit work.
Then they should be taken to court, and given an opportunity to present evidence that they are here legally.  If they fail to convince the judge, then and only then do they lose their "right" to stay here.  
There must be a procedure. It will take time.  If we do it quickly and arbitrarily like Kane suggests we'll end up shipping some abuelo from San Juan (who would be a US citizen of course) to Matamoros and ditching him at the nearest Greyhound bus stop before giving him a chance to prove his identity.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think we need fencing and other things to prevent illegal crossing. But a wall doesn't add value compared to a fence.

Hey, it's great that you recognize we have a problem and want to prevent it.  It sounds like your only point of contention now is the design of the actual physical barrier and it's relative value.  What type of "fence" do you envision?  I don't think the stuff you can buy at Home Depot is going to get the job done.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Bull [BLEEP], his rights aren't yours to adjudicate while those he is speaking about do not have a right to be here.

Illegal immigrants should be arrested if we suspect them of entering without a visa or overstaying their visa or working when their visa does not permit work.
Then they should be taken to court, and given an opportunity to present evidence that they are here legally.  If they fail to convince the judge, then and only then do they lose their "right" to stay here.  
There must be a procedure. It will take time.  If we do it quickly and arbitrarily like Kane suggests we'll end up shipping some abuelo from San Juan (who would be a US citizen of course) to Matamoros and ditching him at the nearest Greyhound bus stop before giving him a chance to prove his identity.

I don't think he's advocating that we just pull all people of darker color off the street and mass catapult them over the Rio Grande. I do think he's advocating that we actively process illegals out of the country as quickly as possible while using physical barriers to prevent them from entering in the first place. Your pedantry makes it hard for you to deal with hyperbole.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

LOL at how much the Dems hate the concept of a "wall". They have suddenly become border security experts, explaining why a wall is a terrible idea but a fence is much more effective. They claim we need drones, airplanes, cameras, ANYTHING BUT A PHYSICAL WALL. "Drones" can be de-funded once Trump is out of office, but a completed wall is not easily removed.

---

I think we need fencing and other things to prevent illegal crossing. But a wall doesn't add value compared to a fence.

Hey, it's great that you recognize we have a problem and want to prevent it.  It sounds like your only point of contention now is the design of the actual physical barrier and it's relative value.  What type of "fence" do you envision?  I don't think the stuff you can buy at Home Depot is going to get the job done.

I drive by one of the two prison facilities in Orange County from time to time. Two layers of twelve foot high chain link fence with barbed wire loops at the top seem to do the job quite well, but you only need that level of security in areas that are highly populated or highly developed, near roads or cities for instance. And other areas, all you need is patrol by vehicles and aircraft and maybe a few lookout towers per mile.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

LOL at how much the Dems hate the concept of a "wall".  They have suddenly become border security experts, explaining why a wall is a terrible idea but a fence is much more effective.  They claim we need drones, airplanes, cameras, ANYTHING BUT A PHYSICAL WALL.  "Drones" can be de-funded once Trump is out of office, but a completed wall is not easily removed.

A completed wall is easily scaled by ladders if there aren't adequate patrols and cameras in place.
You have to do the other things anyway, either way.
The wall adds no value.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Hey, it's great that you recognize we have a problem and want to prevent it.  It sounds like your only point of contention now is the design of the actual physical barrier and it's relative value.  What type of "fence" do you envision?  I don't think the stuff you can buy at Home Depot is going to get the job done.

I drive by one of the two prison facilities in Orange County from time to time. Two layers of twelve foot high chain link fence with barbed wire loops at the top seem to do the job quite well, but you only need that level of security in areas that are highly populated or highly developed, near roads or cities for instance. And other areas, all you need is patrol by vehicles and aircraft and maybe a few lookout towers per mile.

It works for prisons because they know their inmates don’t have wire cutters. It’s a whole lot easier to bring wire cutters than a freaking 30-foot ladder. 

Do you not understand how difficult it’d be to carry a 30-foot ladder for every single group crossing the border? That alone would deter a great many that can’t get one, and it drastically slow those already with one. For you to say it offers nothing is naive. Especially since you think it’s equal to not having one at all.

---

Got to love the Dem grandstanding and misinformation to stir up their base. The fact of the matter is the border “wall” is and has always been mixed methods of fences, solid border and electronic surveillance mixed with officers. Nearly every administration since Reagan has approved funding to fix, reinforce, and/or improve border security. This time is no different in that the funding Trump is so adamant about will go to the DHS to fix, improve, add, replace border materials whether called a fence or wall. It would also go to hiring more officers and adding additional surveillance improvements.

---

Got to love the Dem grandstanding and misinformation to stir up their base. The fact of the matter is the border “wall” is and has always been mixed methods of fences, solid border and electronic surveillance mixed with officers. Nearly every administration since Reagan has approved funding to fix, reinforce, and/or improve border security. This time is no different in that the funding Trump is so adamant about will go to the DHS to fix, improve, add, replace border materials whether called a fence or wall. It would also go to hiring more officers and adding additional surveillance improvements.

the menu of mixed methods is exactly what Democrats are proposing putting 1.6 billion dollars towards. It is not what Trump campaigned on and not what he is asking for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

LOL at how much the Dems hate the concept of a "wall".  They have suddenly become border security experts, explaining why a wall is a terrible idea but a fence is much more effective.  They claim we need drones, airplanes, cameras, ANYTHING BUT A PHYSICAL WALL.  "Drones" can be de-funded once Trump is out of office, but a completed wall is not easily removed.

A completed wall is easily scaled by ladders if there aren't adequate patrols and cameras in place.
You have to do the other things anyway, either way.
The wall adds no value.

They dont carry enough water to stay hydrated. You stick out on all the surveillance sporting a ladder.  Interest on the National Debt is over 800 Billion.. 5 Billion for a wall is a joke. Heck all of the people abusing the education system is greater than what is being asked for a wall. 

Seriously people over staying visas should be a deportation target.  The sad thing is you have 1 party that fights and 1 that wants to just go along with the easiest path forward. 

There is no will to enforce the law. The judges are crap as well siding with their preferred policies. John Robert's is a horrible swamp monster of a chief justice. The American people never win.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

Claymores are cheap.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Got to love the Dem grandstanding and misinformation to stir up their base. The fact of the matter is the border “wall” is and has always been mixed methods of fences, solid border and electronic surveillance mixed with officers. Nearly every administration since Reagan has approved funding to fix, reinforce, and/or improve border security. This time is no different in that the funding Trump is so adamant about will go to the DHS to fix, improve, add, replace border materials whether called a fence or wall. It would also go to hiring more officers and adding additional surveillance improvements.

the menu of mixed methods is exactly what Democrats are proposing putting 1.6 billion dollars towards. It is not what Trump campaigned on and not what he is asking for.

No matter how you want to twist it, it already exists and they appropriate as I described. Unfortunately, no matter the verbiage utilized during a campaign or now, the Dems will twist and label it as this bad thing. Hell, they supported a “wall” before! Semantics just like “Mexico will pay for it”, right? $1.6B or $5.6B , it will go to the same pot and be used for anything DHS deems more critical to enabling border security. That, according to their latest report is the wall/fencing and then manning. This is simply the Dems grand standing for hubris sake.

---