No Compromise at the Border.

[Serving Zion]

He "signaled that he was going to sign" the spending bill

Ringo

I haven't seen evidence of that.. where do you see that he gave that signal?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

We could compromise by agreeing that border security is important and taking the advice of experts on how to mitigate the issues.

The experts such as the Border Patrol and Homeland Security agree the wall is a good idea.
M-Bob

 

[Serving Zion]

We cannot take everyone who wants to come in. We have rules as to how many we let in and how people qualify.

OK, so there is no dispute about that, but I should have used stronger words.

Of course there are constraints on the sustainable rate of assimilation of refugee's into a country, so that not all refugee's can be accommodated. That is why some of them make attempts to enter illegally (otherwise they would simply enter through the appropriate channels).

So the wall guards against an easy circumvention of those legal avenues, by blocking them from walking or driving into the country outside of the appropriate channels.

The immorality is the idea that a leader has to not only disregard the safety and well-being of a person seeking refuge, but has to actively attack them in order to enforce the law.

Remember, it is a person who is not making any threats, who is fleeing an unacceptable environment and is seeking safe refuge - willing to become an active participant in the American way of life.

In other words, the leader, in absence of a wall, is being forced to choose to do evil to someone who is coming in peace, seeking protection.

Morality in that context goes toward the building of the wall, because it saves harm to civilians and refugees, and it saves a leader from being forced to enact harm against those who do not deserve to be harmed.

 

[dogs4thewin]

OK, so there is no dispute about that, but I should have used stronger words.

Of course there are constraints on the sustainable rate of assimilation of refugee's into a country, so that not all refugee's can be accommodated. That is why some of them make attempts to enter illegally (otherwise they would simply enter through the appropriate channels).

So the wall guards against an easy circumvention of those legal avenues, by blocking them from walking or driving into the country outside of the appropriate channels.

The immorality is the idea that a leader has to not only disregard the safety and well-being of a person seeking refuge, but has to actively attack them in order to enforce the law.

Remember, it is a person who is not making any threats, who is fleeing an unacceptable environment and is seeking safe refuge - willing to become an active participant in the American way of life.

In other words, the leader, in absence of a wall, is being forced to choose to do evil to someone who is coming in peace, seeking protection.

Morality in that context goes toward the building of the wall, because it saves harm to civilians and refugees, and it saves a leader from being forced to enact harm against those who do not deserve to be harmed.

The problem is the REASON we have those rules ( other than to keep the numbers manageable) is so that as much as possible we can check the motives of the people coming here. Are they really coming here seeking peace and shelter or is that a cover in other words. If they come over here illegally and are caught in the act of doing so then one could argue that stand your ground applies. In many states a homeowner may use lethal force on someone trying to get in ( even if that person has no ill intent) Now, not all homeowners ( even those with firearms will choose to do that, but it is lawful to do so in many states. Now, it is different if say someone comes here illegally commits a NON_VIOENT crime is later caught ( that person may still be deported, but would not have lethal force used on them, but if you are caught coming over here and not doing it the right way there we have the right to protect ourselves and if lethal force needs to be used so be it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why?

Mexico is the largest player, and biggest beneficiary, in the illegal immigration game. They should have some 'skin' in it.

 

[Serving Zion]

The problem is the REASON we have those rules ( other than to keep the numbers manageable) is so that as much as possible we can check the motives of the people coming here. Are they really coming here seeking peace and shelter or is that a cover in other words. If they come over here illegally and are caught in the act of doing so then one could argue that stand your ground applies. In many states a homeowner may use lethal force on someone trying to get in ( even if that person has no ill intent) Now, not all homeowners ( even those with firearms will choose to do that, but it is lawful to do so in many states. Now, it is different if say someone comes here illegally commits a NON_VIOENT crime is later caught ( that person may still be deported, but would not have lethal force used on them, but if you are caught coming over here and not doing it the right way there we have the right to protect ourselves and if lethal force needs to be used so be it.

You don't seem to see the problem that I am talking about though. I am not disagreeing with what you have said is the real problem ("to check the motives of the people coming in") - I am only saying that the method of enforcement (shooting at them) is immoral and evil when the wall is a completely harmless way to achieve the same effect.

The real problem that I am saying, is the need to use force, and I am specifically saying that a wall is morally more righteous than the use of rubber bullets.

But my greatest emphasis is my concern that the leader of the world's most prominent superpower is, in absence of the wall, being forced to enact violence against people.2

The wall saves the leader from becoming violent altogether, when you can see that violence is not appropriate.

If you like analogies, think of it this way: you are walking down the street and you see a nice flower on a bush that hangs over the fence - so you pluck it and tuck it above your ear. Now think, if the flower was inside the boundary line - then you would have to reach over into transgression because it is clearly defined as another person's property (in other words, it is not an article in the public domain, but it is private property - it would be theft). But humans are so attracted to the things they like that they do transgression on occasion, so there is some likelihood that they may still reach over the boundary and take the flower. Now, if there was a fence that was sufficient of a nuisance that they ultimately decided to not go to all that trouble, then they would have not gone over the fence to take the flower.

That shows the value of a fence for the purpose of security - it is only a deterrent that is sufficient to prevent the transgression.

What you are suggesting though, is that the house owner should have the right to use violence as a deterrent instead of a fence. Now think about it this way too, that the fence is only going to cost the home owner $40, but he would rather not build the fence, he would rather use violence because in his mind, he is justified to do violence against the transgressor. For whatever reasons, he doesn't want to put the fence there, and he is happy to use violence against a person if they happen to reach over and pluck his flower.

In that way, I say that the fence is a moral solution to the problem, and that it is sinful in a number of ways, and a disproportionate use of violence as a means of law enforcement.

I am sure that if I was the presiding leader of USA, I also would rather there was a wall that reduced the need for me to do harm to people, and that forced them to enter through the appropriate screening gates.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You don't seem to see the problem that I am talking about though. I am not disagreeing with what you have said is the real problem ("to check the motives of the people coming in") - I am only saying that the method of enforcement (shooting at them) is immoral and evil when the wall is a completely harmless way to achieve the same effect.

The real problem that I am saying, is the need to use force, and I am specifically saying that a wall is morally more righteous than the use of rubber bullets.

But my greatest emphasis is my concern that the leader of the world's most prominent superpower is, in absence of the wall, being forced to enact violence against people.2

The wall saves the leader from becoming violent altogether, when you can see that violence is not appropriate.

If you like analogies, think of it this way: you are walking down the street and you see a nice flower on a bush that hangs over the fence - so you pluck it and tuck it above your ear. Now think, if the flower was inside the boundary line - then you would have to reach over into transgression because it is clearly defined as another person's property (in other words, it is not an article in the public domain, but it is private property - it would be theft). But humans are so attracted to the things they like that they do transgression on occasion, so there is some likelihood that they may still reach over the boundary and take the flower. Now, if there was a fence that was sufficient of a nuisance that they ultimately decided to not go to all that trouble, then they would have not gone over the fence to take the flower.

That shows the value of a fence for the purpose of security - it is only a deterrent that is sufficient to prevent the transgression.

What you are suggesting though, is that the house owner should have the right to use violence as a deterrent instead of a fence. Now think about it this way too, that the fence is only going to cost the home owner $40, but he would rather not build the fence, he would rather use violence because in his mind, he is justified to do violence against the transgressor. For whatever reasons, he doesn't want to put the fence there, and he is happy to use violence against a person if they happen to reach over and pluck his flower.

In that way, I say that the fence is a moral solution to the problem, and that it is sinful in a number of ways, and a disproportionate use of violence as a means of law enforcement.

I am sure that if I was the presiding leader of USA, I also would rather there was a wall that reduced the need for me to do harm to people, and that forced them to enter through the appropriate screening gates.

I support the idea of a wall, but until then ( or if someone tries to get over the wall more force is needed.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There can be no compromising with a terrorist and that is exactly what Trump is behaving as, a terrorist.

He knows he can't get his wall through the normal channels of legislation and funding and he's finally realized Mexico ain't paying for jack so he instead decides to hold the federal government hostage until he gets his way. But the US can make no deals with terrorists, foreign or domestic. You only incentivize them to keep using the same tactic if they see that it works.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question is often ask in the news media:

“Who will compromise on the border wall, Trump or Nancy?”

But, as far as I can tell, there is no room for compromise in this dispute.

The dispute is about paying for the wall or not paying for the wall.

There is no middle ground here for compromise.

Either the wall will be paid for or the wall will not be paid for.

So the only way this dispute will end is if one side folds completely and totally gives in to the other.

This dispute over the border wall will not end in compromise, it will only end when one side completely folds.

Will it be Trump or will it be Nancy?

We may have to wait two more years to find out.

Trump is using the budget to leverage money for the wall, it's not working. The bottom line has went from 25 billion, to 5 billion and at last check, it was just over 1 billion. Is this how this guy does business because the numbers are going down not up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

While the wall (or fence) would stop illegals from crossing the border it's real strength is that it will eventually stop people from leaving their countries with crossing illegally in mind in the first place.

 

[cow451]

Mexico is the largest player, and biggest beneficiary, in the illegal immigration game. They should have some 'skin' in it.

But they’re not dumb enough to pay for a $5 billion political prop.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Mexico is the largest player, and biggest beneficiary, in the illegal immigration game.

That's not correct. YOU and I are some of the biggest beneficiaries! Did you eat food today? Yup, likely the vegetables were picked by undocumented Mexican immigrants. It would be a LOT more expensive if it was processed by American hands.

There are a LOT of your neighbors and fellow citizens whose businesses run because they are able to hire undocumented immigrants. Saves the employer some cash!

So, exactly, WHOM do you think is the biggest beneficiary?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Trump is using the budget to leverage money for the wall, it's not working. The bottom line has went from 25 billion, to 5 billion and at last check, it was just over 1 billion. Is this how this guy does business because the numbers are going down not up.

4 bankruptcies. Probably is how he runs his business.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But they’re not dumb enough to pay for a $5 billion political prop.

In the long run it may be the best $5 billion they ever spent.

 

[wing2000]

....so after spending our tax money to have wall prototypes built outside San Diego, it seems now Trump is starting over.

AP - Sunday 10:25 a.m.

President Donald Trump says he plans to call the heads of U.S. Steel and other steel companies to come up with a new design for the barrier he's insisting must be built along the southern border.

That's despite the fact that his administration has already spent millions constructing wall prototypes near the border in San Diego.

Trump had once vowed to build a concrete border wall, but now says the barrier will be made of steel slats.

He tells reporters as he departs the White House for meetings at Camp David that he'll be asking the companies to design "a beautiful steel product" and "we'll use that as our barrier."

The Latest: Trump seeking new designs for steel wall barrier

 

[EpiscipalMe]

....so after spending our tax money to have wall prototypes built outside San Diego, it seems now Trump is starting over.

AP - Sunday 10:25 a.m.

President Donald Trump says he plans to call the heads of U.S. Steel and other steel companies to come up with a new design for the barrier he's insisting must be built along the southern border.

That's despite the fact that his administration has already spent millions constructing wall prototypes near the border in San Diego.

Trump had once vowed to build a concrete border wall, but now says the barrier will be made of steel slats.

He tells reporters as he departs the White House for meetings at Camp David that he'll be asking the companies to design "a beautiful steel product" and "we'll use that as our barrier."

The Latest: Trump seeking new designs for steel wall barrier

Further evidence that Trump has no plan and no idea what he is doing vis-a-vis border security.

 

[Spiritlight]

If a wall is built people can go over it, under it and around it in multiple ways. A new problem will exist called people smugglers that will find ways to get people through and billions of dollars will have been wasted along with the cost of damaged ecosystems where animals can no longer cross.

 

[wing2000]

Further evidence that Trump has no plan and no idea what he is doing vis-a-vis border security.

He makes stuff up -- day by day.

Our government is partially shut down over a "wall" that has yet to be defined.

 

[cow451]

In the long run it may be the best $5 billion they ever spent.

People that spend money on Trump projects have a tendency to go broke, LOL.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

People that spend money on Trump projects have a tendency to go broke, LOL.

They know the risks. It's all venture capital.