Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck,
"FOFF" = Felonious Old Fat Fuck,
"COFF" = Convicted Old Felonious Fool,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset,
A/K/A P01135809, A/K/A Dementia Donnie,
A/K/A Dolt-45, A/K/A Don Snoreleone

Saturday, January 5, 2019

If Trump Does This; Then It's Time to Impeach Him

But when asked whether he had considered using emergency presidential powers to bypass congressional approval of funding, Mr Trump said he had.

"I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly. That's another way of doing it."
The Congress appropriates money and decides on what to spend it. The President doesn't have that authority under the Constitution. When there has been a true national emergency, the Congress can move very quickly.

If Trump declares a "national emergency" to get around a political dispute, then that would be the action of an autocrat. If the Right supports Trump for doing that, then we all will know that the Right's devotion to the Constitution depends on who is the president at the time (just like their devotion to reducing Federal deficits).

If Trump does try to invoke a national emergency because he can't get his way, he should be impeached, convicted and removed from office forthwith. Everyone who would then oppose an impeachment/conviction would show that they are loyal to Trump and not to the nation.


dinthebeast said...

Also, it's another convention of government that would be foolish of him to destroy.
If he does that, what's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring a health emergency and funding single payer with it?

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

Nothing, really. If Trump does this and gets away with it, we are done as a constitutional republic.

B said...

We were done several years ago when other president began abusing "Executive Orders"...First the Dems (Clinton), then Bush2, then Barry really upped the tally.

All for impeachment if Trump does it. But he would get away with it simply because Barry and others have. (Which history does not make it RIGHT, simply legal (ish)).

I ask, again, WHY ARE THE DEMS SO AGAINST A WALL? (And many Republicans as well). Why are they FOR a porous border?

Dark Avenger said...

Dems And Republican, B. And if you look, Barrack the Sekrit, Scary Muslim issues far less EOs than any of his predecessors.

Grey One talks sass said...

B asked why I am against the wall... Well, not me specifically but the question was asked so here is my reply.

I'm against the wall because A. Walls don't work. B. Walls don't do what you think they will do. and finally C. Have you looked at the entire border of the USA? We have more states with an ocean view than are landlocked.

I'm not against the wall because I want a porous border. I'm against the wall because in no way is it a best practice. There are other methods that are reliable and cost effective which work. They aren't glamorous as a wall though so they don't get the hot press.

Let me ask you this B - why are you so fixated on a wall and only a wall? Why won't you consider other options? What is so compelling that you would ignore everything else to focus only on The Wall?

CenterPuke88 said...

B., Reagan issued more per year than anyone until Donnie. FDR is the leader in the clubhouse, and Obama issued less, on average, than either Bush.

Er, because a wall, as dreamed by Donnie, won’t the professionals the people feel...and no funding for a wall does NOT equate to being for porous borders.

pigpen51 said...

It seems funny if a wall won't work, that those charged with enforcing our borders are in favor of a wall, albeit in modified form. I believe that it will take a wall in places, and electronic and other methods to reign in our illegal immigration problem. The one thing is, before you can stop illegal immigration, first you must want to do so, and the Democrats have not shown that they truly want to stop it.
Of course, the Republicans have also dropped the ball on this issue. And no matter how you might hate Trump, you must admit that the illegal immigration problem would not be on the radar had he not brought it up. The 2 parties have been content to just kick the can down the road, and ignore what is a real issue.
We as a nation thrive when we allow immigration from other countries. But there is a right way and a wrong way to let people resettle here, and those who choose the right way have been penalized by those who opt for the illegal route.

Comrade Misfit said...

Two years into Trump’s presidency and how much of a new wall has been built? Zero, or very close to it. Trump couldn’t get money for his wall with his party controlling both houses of Congress. What makes anyone think he’ll get it now?

B said...

Oddly, other counties use walls and fences to keep people out...or, as in the case of East Germany, in. Seems that that wall worked pretty well.

People live behind walled compounds. Military bases use fences...Government installations use fences...all to keep people out of those areas. "Walls don't work", and "walls don't do what you think they do"... then why do we use them in other places? How is it that a physical barrier doesn't stop or greatly reduce the flow of people and drugs compared to....nothing?

And, despite all the claims that "Walls won't work....there are better methods" I don't see any of you telling me what those "Better methods" are. Nor have we paid for nor implemented those unnamed and unspecified "better methods". You repeat the party line, and dance around, but you don't say what these "other methods" are. I really don't think there are better methods...just words.

What we are doing doesn't open border doesn't stop anyone who is willing to walk. We've been doing nothing, really for over 50 years. Since I've been voting, the Dems have been against border security and the Republicans have give lip service but do nothing. Both sides lied to Bush and them to Donnie, promising funding and a less porous border "next year"...and both of 'em got screwed by those lying politicians. So did our country.

As Pigpen points out, the men and women who are supposed to actually protect our border, not their politically appointed bosses, feel that a wall will greatly reduce the flow of illegals and drugs. One might think they, the boots on the ground, might know.

Again, if we don't want a porous border, why don't we do something? Either a physical barrier or the mythical "other methods"?

Grey One talks sass said...

The USA already has a wall in places. And the drug runners bypassed that with tunnels equipped with rails and ventilation systems. I pointed out how much of the USA is bordered by ocean - something neither of my honored opponents have addressed.

I'm not Border Security. However, I've read reports stating new technologies would be implemented if some folks weren't fixated on a Wall. (Which rhymes with ball - ooo Squirrel!!!) What new tech? I'm not an expert but I'd imagine using drones, motion sensors, dedicated satellite feeds using multiple sensory filters combined with boots on the ground.

If illegal immigration is such an important issue now why hasn't ICE picked up more folks who have overstayed their Visa? Why have they exclusively focused on People of Color? And why are they only focused on our Southern Border? I have my suspicions which all trace back to the USA's ugly past.

Honestly, if this has been such a huge issue for so long why does it remain today? Could it be that certain Powers That Be (not talking political but money, Big Money) want access to all that underpaid labor? We sent humans to the moon but we can't secure a border?

Nah... Money has never swayed any decisions in our good ole USA (heavy snark).

Added note - Oh my - I'm laughing at the idea that the Berlin Wall was impermeable. I haven't giggled that much in ages. Thanks B.

CenterPuke88 said...

And as soon as one of B’s arguments is holed, he abandons it and tries something else.

This is a fairly balanced article that show WHY a wall simply won’t work. We spend more money and have to spend more for maintenance and staffing...and all that happens is the business of getting into the U.S. becomes more profitable. The drug demand doesn’t stop, and drug mainly get through via bribes, so now we’ll have more people to attempt bribing. Low pay for the people on the ground makes taking bribes interesting, and with vastly increased staffing, that’s what we’ll get.

About half of the new “illegals” come in via a method the wall misses, visa overstays...add in the entrants from Canada (rising rapidly) and that’s over 50%. Want to build a wall with Canada too? Want to guess how many billions THAT would take? (Hint, it’s in the hundreds).

CBC story in increasing illegal entry to U.S. from Canada:

So, let’s pay for the wall that Mexico was to pay for, eh? Here’s a final note from the Brookings Institute, probably America’s best think tank, and honored to have been called “conservative”, “liberal” and “centrist” by various sides just last year.

dinthebeast said...

If you think walls work, you're denying the existence of boats and airplanes.
This is nothing more than a Republican focus-group tested campaign chant designed to secure votes from racists and you know it.
Talk to the guy who jumped over the great wall of China on his skateboard if you still think walls keep anyone out.
And if you want to keep drugs out,(which you do not or you would be advocating for Purdue Pharma, who have pumped far more addictive opioids into the US than ever crossed the Mexican border, to be shut down), you would be calling for the end to drug prohibition laws that create the financial incentive for smuggling.
Border crossing illegal immigration is at an all time low, less that one fifth of what it was a few years ago.
This is a bullshit issue by a desperate, paranoid president who just got his ass kicked in an election and is only now beginning to understand his political peril, so is doing anything and everything he can to hold on to his base.
Perhaps if he hadn't told this particular lie to them so many times, he wouldn't feel obligated to shut down part of the government he's supposed to be running to try and fund it.

-Doug in Oakland

pigpen51 said...

I have to say that Trump actually didn't get his butt kicked in an election. The results of the election were normal for a midterm.
Trump is often wrong on many issues, but on this one, I don't think so. His approach is myopic,of course, with his fixation on just a wall, when drones, electronics and other things are needed as well.
5 Billion dollars is a drop in the bucket and would not actually be worth fighting over, if it was not a political issue. When you have a budget of a trillion dollars, if you are fighting about 5 billion, then you are being partisan, and not actually acting in the best interests of the country.

dinthebeast said...

We got sixty million votes in November, which is unheard of in a midterm and on par with what McCain and Romney got in their presidential bids.

And there's this:

"Because according to reporting by The New York Times, per Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone, advisers were having difficulty getting the notoriously distracted Trump to focus on "illegal immigration" as a talking point in his campaign rallies, opted to use "the wall" symbolically in a way that made sense to the builder.

As Mr. Trump began exploring a presidential run in 2014, his political advisers landed on the idea of a border wall as a mnemonic device of sorts, a way to make sure their candidate — who hated reading from a script but loved boasting about himself and his talents as a builder — would remember to talk about getting tough on immigration, which was to be a signature issue in his nascent campaign.

“How do we get him to continue to talk about immigration?” Sam Nunberg, one of Mr. Trump’s early political advisers, recalled telling Roger J. Stone Jr., another adviser. “We’re going to get him to talk about he’s going to build a wall.”

Talk Mr. Trump did, and the line drew rapturous cheers from conservative audiences, thrilling the candidate and soon becoming a staple of campaign speeches. Chants of “Build the wall!” echoed through arenas throughout the country."

As I said, a bullshit campaign device designed to please racists, that worked too well and now has come back to bite them on their asses.

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

PP51, t was not a "normal" midterm. The percentage turnout was the highest that it has been since Wilson's first term (1914).

Comrade Misfit said...

CP88, it is my recollection that during the last big expansion of CBP (post-9/11), thy hired a bunch of people who they shouldn't have and whom were, in fact, crooked and corrupt.

jimbag said...

tRump already used "national security" to arbitrarily impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, etc. Tariffs are imposed by Congress, and with good reason. This orange jackanape has single-handedly disrupted the global economy, and somehow that didn't result in impeachment. I doubt this will, either.

For the record, my prediction is he resigns under pressure and hands the ball off to Pence did he runs as a pseudo-incumbent.

B said...

Oddly, most of our southern invaders don't enter via Canada. Nor do they enter via the ocean. Perhaps some do, but most simply walk across, because that is the easiest way. Of course, some determined souls will cross any way they can, but why leave the back door open?

The answer has been provided above by Grey One. The PTB want that cheap labor. And y'all are promoting it. It hurts our black population more than the white population.

I never said that the Berlin wall was impervious. But it did keep *most* people in East Germany from experiencing the horrors of Capitalism, didn't it? A Border Wall on our southern border will greatly reduce people entering. Will it stop everyone? Nope. But those walls in Southern California made bringing drugs over difficult enough that the cartels spend large sums of money and time building tunnels....and that traffic at the ends of those tunnels was pretty easy to find. Proof that the walls that DO exist are working.

CP's own Texas Tribune article says that the walls that do exist do work, and that more are needed. It also said that the smugglers who currently carry product over the border would have to bribe other officials and use other methods...which means that they think the wall would work enough that they would ahve to change tactics and work harder.
Again: a wall won't stop corrupt officials from letting people in, nor will it stop smuggled/hidden drugs from coming across the border or via ports of entry hidden in other shipments or people's cars or other vehicles. That's another problem and another issue.

But it will stop high bulk drugs, and it WILL stop many, if not most,people. Not all, perhaps, but most.

And right now, y'all are advocating doing more of the sing? That we always have, which isn't working. Walls work. Physical barriers. Will people keep trying to find a way across? Yes. Will officials be bribable? Yes.

The best way to stop illegal immigrants is prison sentences and fines for those who employ illegal workers. Fines high enough to make it uneconomic to employ illegals. But a border wall will greatly slow the influx of both people and drugs. Making it harder to get across the border will reduce the problems. People found harboring illegals should get prison time and/or have their property confiscated like asset forfeiture works with drugs. But, again, that is another issue.

And I'm still waiting for the other solutions that are supposed to be "better than a wall". The motion sensors don't slow anyone down... drone and satellite feeds don't either. They provide no barrier to entry. Once over the border, the illegal invaders are hard to find. And there aren't enough CBP to patrol the whole area.

So, if a wall isn't the solution. If I and the CBP folks are just wrong, what methods will you propose to secure the border. Actually secure it, not just watch people cross. Actually make it difficult to enter the US? Methods that work, not what we are using now. What are your suggestions and methods?

Or are you part of the camp that thinks that keeping invaders out of the country is "immoral" and just won't admit that you WANT people entering?

BadTux said...

B, it's telling that you mention the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain as an example of walls that worked. And of course the current Israeli Separation Wall. The thing these "walls that worked" have in common is that they rely on soldiers with machine guns machine gunning unarmed civilians to death.

Those are the only walls that work -- walls that include soldiers with machine guns willing to kill unarmed civilians. Or in the case of the Korean DMZ, blow up unarmed civilians with land mines. Glad to hear that you admit your side wants to murder unarmed civilians. Oh wait, I keep forgetting, your side doesn't consider Latin Americans to be actually *people*, your side views it more as a sanitation issue, because darkies aren't *really* people, they're just vermin, cockroaches, right?

CenterPuke88 said...

B., read “where” the article suggests walls and you’ll see that Trump’s plan won’t, in fact, address it. The current walls and attempts to fortify the border have generated new plan, buy a ticket to Canada and walk over. Since coyotes now want $3,000 per head, it can be cheaper to overfly the U.S. and then wander south. With crossings at close to an all time low, spending money where we don’t need to is criminal. Even better, Donnie’s own government figures show that cutting aid to Central America could quintuple migrants, instead of helping them find safety and jobs in their own country.

Glenn Kelley said...

If you could shut out all the drugs crossing your borders how long do you think it would take for local production to fill the demand ?
If I knew how long it takes to grow a crop of weed I'd be able to tell you .

If you as a country don't address your failed and disastrous drug laws the only thing you will have accomplished will be that you won't be able to blame your neighbours for the problem .

Take a look at the demographics of the US . You need more immigration to hold your population levels not less .

B said...

INteresting leap there, BadTux.

Perhaps you need to adjust your medication? Or simply realize you are going off the rails hating me?

I have never promoted any such thing.

And, just for the record, My mothers maiden name was Cardenas. Figure it out.

You really need to get a grip here. Disagreeing on the solution to illegal immigrant invasion is different than suggesting that they are any less than you or I am.

try to keep on topic and don't let your hate get you all delusional.

B said...

CP: if those (existing) walls do all that, and make it harder to enter such that the price for being guided across the desert higher than flying to Canada and entering that way, then those walls MUST be working. More walls for the spots that are easier to cross should make it even harder.

Which is it? Walls work, or they don't?

I think, again, that your argument falls apart here... Walls only work sometimes, but they work in some places....They make it harder to cross, but then walls won't work.

I think you are running out of arguments to repeat. At some point, why not admit that you don't want a secure(ish) border?

From your own article:
"Today in the San Diego Sector — once described as “nothing short of chaotic” by the U.S. Justice Department — walls and technology upgrades have turned the international boundary into a virtual fortress. Apprehensions have plummeted from more half a million a year a quarter century ago to fewer than 32,000 in 2016, U.S. Customs & Border Protection figures show.

Padilla said similar infrastructure upgrades are needed in the Valley, where the fencing erected a decade ago covers only about 50 miles of the border and still contains wide gaps so farmers can access land trapped between the fence and the river.

“Without that wall in San Diego, there is zero way that San Diego would be in the state that it is,” Padilla said. “Without that fence, El Paso would not be in the situation that it finds itself in now. And without the wall, South Texas will continue to account for 40-plus percent of the apprehensions.”"


re the paragon said...


You are ignoring the central point of Comrade Misfit's post. If Trump attempts to use authoritarian power to declare a state of emergency to build a wall, it is a dictatorial act, and to support Trump is to forsake the democratic principles upon which this country was founded.

So which is it? Party or Country?

B said...

RJ: And my first comment here on this post said exactly that: That I was ALL for impeachment if he does it.

Country first. Unlike many....I'm pretty consistent about that. Just 'cause I think many here hate Trump in a deranged manner, and judge him differently and by different standards than others who are "not Trump" and/or have a D after their name, doesn't make me put Party over Country. I have stated many times that I wish that we had candidates (and leaders) that we could vote FOR, rather than Against (or choose the lesser of the two weasels) like we have had for the past few decades worth of elections. But we don't.

CenterPuke88 said...

B., insulting other posters isn’t appropriate.

We”ve already walled the easy to cross areas,B., don’t you understand that? Why do you think this ungodly number is being tossed about, it’s because there are no more “easy” areas to build walls.

Now, as I said, a wall can work, but can also have unintended consequences. Some locations, erecting a wall will place large swaths of land outside the wall and unreachable by owners (and DHS and the Corps have been steamrollering this Eminent Domain process and massively lowballing property owners, except, go figure, large corporations. They’ve lost every pricing lawsuit so far)...some locations, a wall will destroy environmental preserves...many locations, a wall will block endangered animal movements...some locations simply cannot have a wall or need a wall of unusual characteristics (a floating wall in sand dunes, anyone)...the fortification of the border has numerous adverse impacts, all detailed in a huge number of studies and reviews that Donnie’s Administration is ignoring.

Look at the San Diego can swim around the wall in the Pacific...or sail around it...or fly over it...or tunnel under it...or climb over it...or bribe one of our unpaired guards, etc. Please, what is special about this “Trump Wall” that prevents any of this, the answer is nothing. The pictured steel slat wall has gaps large enough for persons to squeeze through. Using a slat style wall provides a climbing surface, the points on the top are easily padded, and two adjacent slats can be used to both climb more easily and secure a rope for descent.

The U.S. lacks the capacity to produce this steel wal, despite what Donnie says, so we’ll be importing the majority of the steel. The slats need to be driven deep into the ground to be secure, but that may not be possible in a number of the identified areas due to the geology of the border. Donnie’s price for the wall this year ignores the CBP/DHS requests for repair money, money the House Democrat and Senate bipartisan bills provided.

Donnie’s DHS and CBP budget plans into the foreseeable future don’t fund the additional necessary personnel to staff his wall of fantasy. Can someone tell me why it is difficult to understand that when people are desperate enough to risk their and their child’s lives by walking through a desert to reach a place where they can take a shit job but live without fear, that a simple construct will never be enough? The solution is a multifaceted approach toward border security AND economic/social development in Central American countries and Mexico. It is wise to invest in your neighbors, because their success will aid you. That’s why NAFTA helps reduce Mexican illegal crossings, and Donnie’s new scheme will likely reverse this trend.

B said...

So that border wall that is easy to come around is what causes people to fly to Canada then enter from the north? And is it that same wall that is so ineffective that people are building tunnels to bypass?

Walls work. More walls in more areas will reduce the flow of illegal border crossers even more. Please, don't trot out that tired "Wildlife/Nature preserve" bullshit. Lets keep building walls in the other places where people cross. Eventually we will have those areas covered with more ineffective walls and they will try elsewhere...and we can wall/fence/ etc those off as well.

Doing it your way is what we have now....You'd do nothing, and tell us how ineffective all solutions are, while still seeing thousands cross each day. Doing nothing hasn't worked. Those walls you decry for their ineffectiveness have been there over 30 years and DO need repair. But Congress (neither party!) will budget money for repair.

As for BadTux: I'll treat him better when when he stops insulting me. He's rude and insulting. You and I and others disagree, but we have been civil. He isn't.

Jack the Cold Warrior said...

Almost all the Southern "Invaders" are seeking asylum from political or gang violence in Central America. The Trump admin made them "Criminals" by shutting down entry points and arresting those that travel thru the US to the ones that are open, getting them to plea guilty, then denying asylum on the grounds they're criminals.

"That's some catch, that Catch 22!"

Doing this violates international laws the US is signatory to. But breaking laws is Trump's thing, is it not, from tax evasion, money laundering, using his charity for personal expenses, hiring illegals at his resorts; by the time Mueller is through, he's going to die in prison.

---Jack the Cold Warrior

Dark Avenger said...

Grow a skin, B.

BadTux said...

B, walls don't work. People manning walls work. Wall, fence, whatever, only difference between a eight foot razor wire topped fence and a 12 foot tall wall is the length of the ladder needed to get over it. Twelve foot walls in and of themselves just create a market for 14 foot ladders. If there is not a person on the other side of that wall to shoot, arrest, or apprehend the person who comes over the fence or wall, all you did was waste a lot of money.

Given the cost difference between a eight foot fence and a twelve foot wall, I know which one I'd want. But then, I'm not an insane ideologue intent upon building a new Iron Curtain. (Which, for the most part, BTW, was... eight foot fences topped with razor wire. It was the machine gunners in the towers that made it effective, not the fact that it was *literally* an iron wall between eastern Europe and western Europe).

CenterPuke88 said...

“Please, don't trot out that tired "Wildlife/Nature preserve" bullshit“

Really, really, you don’t get to tell me what I can talk about! The only reason I’m not calling you what I want to is out of respect for the Comrade!

It’s a fact, we’re about to bulldozer a giant barren path through the largest Monarch Butterfly preserve in Texas, and level the rest to prairie in the name of border an area that doesn’t have a crossing problem. We’re about to desecrate the Big Bend, in the name of Trump’s Wall, again for no reason. We’ve destroyed a number of other habitats in the name of security, but every time we do it we get told we’re not secure enough. Bullshit, America used to be proud not to huddle behind walls and razor wire, Americans used to prize liberty and freedom, no longer. We are now an oppressed people, beaten down by fears, police with agendas and private security. America the Free died in 2001, the cause, greedy motherfuckers! This is slowly becoming clear, we have left the Republic and entered the Empire...but I seriously doubt we’ll have a run like Rome.

dinthebeast said...

If your ancestry is not 100% native American, then you are one of those invaders yourself, B.
We have a thriving community of invaders in Oakland, and they are some of the very best citizens here.
There's a block southwest of High Street and International Blvd. owned by a family who started there decades ago with a taco truck. Can you even get any more American than that?
They are business owners, employers, and taxpayers and contribute to the country and their community.
Had we never given them a chance, the same chance we take for granted of always having ourselves, none of that would be there.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

So where is your censure of BadTux then, CP? I was called many bad things by him, "Murderer" is the least, yet you seem to feel that that is ok? Either there are rules of behavior, or there aren't. I replied in kind. Odd leap from "We need to keep people from entering illegally" to "Shoot brown people on sight", doncha think?

BadTux: Why then, are the existing walls working so well?

CP: Since the walls that we already have appear to be working, why do you claim additional ones won't? Why, if we don't have a crossing problem, do thousands of people cross daily? Leaving behind tons of trash?

That "bulldozing" will be a swath at most a couple of hundred yards wide. I doubt that the Monarch buttterflies will even notice.
And America didn't used to have a large problem of illegal invaders coming in and destroying our economy, nor did we give them free shit when they did cross. What other "habitats" did we destroy? What other species did we wipe out with those walls we currently have? Please, be as specific as possible.

Since you have implied that you think so little of me: Thanks for being civil in our discourse. It shows you have class.

I agree that the country as we knew it gave up the last gasp just after 9-11. We still, before then, however, had an illegal problem. And that is also a part of the demise of our country. There are many causes, of which 9-11 and illegal immigration are only a part. We had "border checkpoints" far from the border before 9-11, and that was caused in reaction to a porous border.

Again, I will ask: If not a "wall" to keep illegal border crossing, then what should we use? How do we keep the illegal immigrants from crossing illegally? How do we solve the issues they cause? IF we are gonna let anyone enter anytime they want, then why have any customs or immigration at any port of entry? Or do you merely want to exempt the folks entering via Mexico from our laws? I await your answer.

I'm out of this thread. It has been pointed out that we have wandered far from Comrade's initial point. You can have the last word. Flame away. But please, I really would like to know your solution to the questions I asked. You seem to evade them. Show me a better solution, if you have one.

Again, thanks for your civility, even if you think I am less than human.

BadTux said...

B, the current "walls" a) aren't walls, they're primarily fences, and b) aren't working much if any better than the previous fences worked. What *is* working is the fact that we've massed close to 20,000 Border Patrol agents on our southern border at the common entry points. Without people to apprehend, shoot, or otherwise deal with those who cross a wall, all that a 12 foot wall represents is a marketing opportunity for sellers of 14 foot ladders.

Of course, I got stopped twice by Border Patrol agents asking me if I was a US citizen during my last drive from Tucson to San Antonio, and the border communities resembled occupied territories under siege from hostile forces with all of the Border Patrol vehicles aggressively driving around and stopping people at random, but hey, we gotta give up a little freedom to make sure them thare darkies don't sneak across that thare border and killz us all, amirite?

Again: Walls don't work. What works is a massive armed Border Patrol presence willing to turn the border communities into police states. Too bad about that whole "land of the free and home of the brave" thing. That was so last century, amirite?

Comrade Misfit said...




Est-ce compris?

Verstehen sie?

Вы понимаете?

CenterPuke88 said...

Fixed it for you, Tux:

“...Border Patrol vehicles aggressively driving around and stopping (brown) people at random...”

For the casual read, how ICE fucks up and tries to deport citizens:

And for fun, data from 2003-2010 shows over 20,000 U.S. citizens were likely improperly deported:

BadTux said...

And of course US citizens getting deported isn't anything new. Cheech and Chong were singing about it in the Raygun administration.

Meanwhile, came across some interesting figures: We caught 6 terrorists at the Mexican border which is 1,954 miles long and is patrolled by 16,605 agents which is a density of 8.5 agents/mile. Meanwhile, we caught 41 terrorists at the Canadian border, which is 5,525 miles long and is secured by 2,048 agents which is a density of .4 agents/mile.

Given the numbers it is not logical to address a supposed problem on the southern border when you have 7 times as many non-US persons in the Terrorist Screening Database attempting to cross the northern border. With the disparity of resources it would make more sense to direct increased resources to the Canadian border. But I'm sure that the emphasis upon the southern border has *nothing* to do with the race of the people who are south of that border. (Cue dog whistles).

dinthebeast said...

Bad Tux: I stole part of your comment and used it elsewhere, with attribution of course. Hope you don't mind.

-Doug in Oakland