[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] How would you secure the border?

[Armoured]

How many invaders into your home would you need to stop before it was cost efficient?

Riiiiight. Because illegal immigrants are analogous to home invaders. Sure, why not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, so far it sounds like juveniles trying to solve grown up problems with juvenile answers.

A brief moment of critical thinking would show that these to ideas tend to be mutually contradictory.

Read on, Mc Duff (and Ms. Mc Duff).

 

[ananda]

Riiiiight. Because illegal immigrants are analogous to home invaders. Sure, why not?

Foreign invaders are unlawfully breaking and entering into my home (country), stealing the goods and substance from my home (whether literally or through "assistance programs" intended for citizens), depriving my children of their inheritance (by unlawful theft & dilution of the workforce), and making me and my family work harder to support their thieving, parasitic activity (like my goods and food intended for my family's use disappearing from my house).

Perhaps you can tell me how they are not like home invaders?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, so far it sounds like juveniles trying to solve grown up problems with juvenile answers.

True story.
I once knew a rich man who couldn't believe the amount of work that I and another guy did on his farm in a single day's time. He spent his career in an office, and when he did actual work he piddled around for days with projects that should have taken just hours. He just didn't understand that other people were better than he at certain things.

I think that you fit into that category as well. Because you can't envision it or understand it yourself, you reject it out of hand. Critical thinking is for working out the details of a creative plan.......a plan such as mine.

 

[Willtor]

Once they're clean and working.

There are easier ways to convince people to get clean than to promise them debt if they do. Remember that many people became addicted because circumstances (that they perceived to be beyond their control, often rightly, often financial) were too hard. If we promise them more of that, they aren't going to show up. What I'm suggesting has incentives working in the direction we want.

Domestic economic activity creates tax revenue. It's our trade deficits that are killing us.

That's neither here nor there.

The point is, even for those in this thread who really love their precious money, the wall is expensive. Instead, let's do something that works, is cheaper, and (for those who haven't hardened their hearts) doesn't hurt people in distress.

 

[Armoured]

Foreign invaders are unlawfully breaking and entering into my home (country), stealing the goods and substance from my home (whether literally or through "assistance programs" intended for citizens), depriving my children of their inheritance (by unlawful theft & dilution of the workforce), and making me and my family work harder to support their thieving, parasitic activity (like my goods and food intended for my family's use disappearing from my house).

Perhaps you can tell me how they are not like home invaders?

If you'd ever actually experienced an actual home invasion, I'm sure you'd appreciate the difference.

Sure, they are costing you as a taxpayer. Granted. But are they a physical threat?

Let's try an analogy here. Imagine you own a large store. Let's say after all the numbers are in, you have a cost of a million dollars a year to shoplifting. Now, let's say, various security companies come along and offer to completely solve your shoplifting problem, however their fee will be two million dollars a year. So, no one is saying that shoplifters are OK, or that you should be happy about it, but if your options are to either wear a $1 million cost from shoplifting, or a $2 million cost from stopping shoplifting, most people would say wearing the cost of shoplifting was the more sensible option.

Since the illegal immigrants aren't actually a threat to anyone, the mental exercise is similar. Wear the cost of having illegal immigrants, or wear the cost of stopping them? I'd say go with the cheaper option, whichever it may be.

edit: why did you illegal immigrants in my earlier post?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are easier ways to convince people to get clean than to promise them debt if they do. Remember that many people became addicted because circumstances (that they perceived to be beyond their control, often rightly, often financial) were too hard. If we promise them more of that, they aren't going to show up. What I'm suggesting has incentives working in the direction we want.



That's neither here nor there.

The point is, even for those in this thread who really love their precious money, the wall is expensive. Instead, let's do something that works, is cheaper, and (for those who haven't hardened their hearts) doesn't hurt people in distress.

It's pretty easy to identify and separate hard core users from casual users who get in trouble from time to time.

 

[Jan Volkes]

True story.
I once knew a rich man who couldn't believe the amount of work that I and another guy did on his farm in a single day's time. He spent his career in an office, and when he did actual work he piddled around for days with projects that should have taken just hours. He just didn't understand that other people were better than he at certain things.

How did he become rich? by getting people like you to do all the work.

I think that you fit into that category as well. Because you can't envision it or understand it yourself, you reject it out of hand. Critical thinking is for working out the details of a creative plan.......a plan such as mine.

And you know all about dealing with other countries who think differently to you don't you? if they don't come around to your way of thinking just bomb them out of existence, why not it's the American way.
As I said, juveniles with juvenile answers.

 

[Armoured]

It's pretty easy to identify and separate hard core users from casual users who get in trouble from time to time.

So? How do you propose to help either group by promising them future debt?

 

[JustOneWay]

How did he become rich?

Probably by working smarter, not harder....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How did he become rich? by getting people like you to do all the work.

He founded an insurance company.

And you know all about dealing with other countries who think differently to you don't you? if they don't come around to your way of thinking just bomb them out of existence, why not it's the American way.
As I said, juveniles with juvenile answers.

I don't care what they 'think'. Just don't enter my country illegally.

 

[Jan Volkes]

If you'd ever actually experienced an actual home invasion, I'm sure you'd appreciate the difference.

Sure, they are costing you as a taxpayer. Granted. But are they a physical threat?

Let's try an analogy here. Imagine you own a large store. Let's say after all the numbers are in, you have a cost of a million dollars a year to shoplifting. Now, let's say, various security companies come along and offer to completely solve your shoplifting problem, however their fee will be two million dollars a year. So, no one is saying that shoplifters are OK, or that you should be happy about it, but if your options are to either wear a $1 million cost from shoplifting, or a $2 million cost from stopping shoplifting, most people would say wearing the cost of shoplifting was the more sensible option.

Since the illegal immigrants aren't actually a threat to anyone, the mental exercise is similar. Wear the cost of having illegal immigrants, or wear the cost of stopping them? I'd say go with the cheaper option, whichever it may be.

In the case of stores and shoplifting today they just add the cost of the shoplifting to the price of their goods.

 

[Red Fox]

And you know all about dealing with other countries who think differently to you don't you? if they don't come around to your way of thinking just bomb them out of existence, why not it's the American way.
As I said, juveniles with juvenile answers.

America is nothing but a global bully, stealing land, invading other countries, destroying other cultures, and trying to manipulate and control international politics and governments. In fact, America itself is a stolen country. Given the history of this nation, it's no surprise to me that there are Americans wanting to annex Mexico.

 

[ananda]

If you'd ever actually experienced an actual home invasion, I'm sure you'd appreciate the difference.

Sure, they are costing you as a taxpayer. Granted. But are they a physical threat?

Let's try an analogy here. Imagine you own a large store. Let's say after all the numbers are in, you have a cost of a million dollars a year to shoplifting. Now, let's say, various security companies come along and offer to completely solve your shoplifting problem, however their fee will be two million dollars a year. So, no one is saying that shoplifters are OK, or that you should be happy about it, but if your options are to either wear a $1 million cost from shoplifting, or a $2 million cost from stopping shoplifting, most people would say wearing the cost of shoplifting was the more sensible option.

Since the illegal immigrants aren't actually a threat to anyone, the mental exercise is similar. Wear the cost of having illegal immigrants, or wear the cost of stopping them? I'd say go with the cheaper option, whichever it may be.

We were talking about home invaders, not business invaders. You're moving the goalpost.

In my home, far more factors are considered besides mainly cost, as is the case with business invaders. Besides the issues I've already highlighted (breaking my home's laws, stealing from me, stealing from my children, increasing my workload), there are issues of preserving my family's home culture (otherwise diluted and changed by the presence of a parasitic home invader and unlawful squatter), preventing disease and other criminal activity.

I don't know anyone with any amount of common sense who would allow a home invader, foreign to their family's way of life, to continue living in their home and stealing from them because the only concern is that it would cost less to let them stay instead of evicting them. Perhaps you are the exception?

 

[Armoured]

We were talking about home invaders, not business invaders. You're moving the goalpost.

In my home, far more factors are considered besides mainly cost, as is the case with business invaders. Besides the issues I've already highlighted (breaking my home's laws, stealing from me, stealing from my children, increasing my workload), there are issues of preserving my family's home culture (otherwise diluted and changed by the presence of a parasitic home invader), preventing disease and other criminal activity.

I don't know anyone with any amount of common sense who would allow a home invader to live in their home because the only concern is that it would cost less to let them stay instead of evicting them.

I'm not moving the goalposts. You're unwilling to utilise a simple analogy.

But it's all rather moot after you came out with the real concern "there are issues of preserving my family's home culture ", which, of course, is not a problem specific to illegal immigration at all.

You tip your hand sir.

 

[Armoured]

In the case of stores and shoplifting today they just add the cost of the shoplifting to the price of their goods.

I thought it was a fairly apt and simple analogy. Apparently it's too much for some people to comprehend the idea of "cutting your nose of to spite your face".

 

[ananda]

I'm not moving the goalposts. You're unwilling to utilise a simple analogy

I spoke about home invaders, not business invaders. People have different concerns when it has to do with their home and family vs their business. You are moving the goalpost, and your analogy is invalid.

But it's all rather moot after you came out with the real concern "there are issues of preserving my family's home culture ", which, of course, is not a problem specific to illegal immigration at all.

You tip your hand sir.

On what basis do you say that that one concern is my only real concern? That is untrue. All of those things I listed are equally my concerns.

It is not I who tipped my hand, but you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So? How do you propose to help either group by promising them future debt?

It really won't be necessary to stick them with the bill.
If we decriminalize drug use Congress will have to add drug treatment to the ACA. Problem solved.

 

[Willtor]

I'm listening.

If someone is addicted to drugs, that's become a medical condition. It's one that we know how to fix, medically. It's one that probably began because of financial problems (often social problems, too, but financial is huge). If somebody started on drugs to put financial problems aside, offering them greater financial problems is disincentive. A free clinic is incentive for people who realize the decision was bad, and want to go back to dealing with the problems that led to it.

If we _really_ want to solve the problem, we'll do what Portugal when they fixed their drug problems. That would be effective, compassionate, and it would sure save us a whole heck of a lot of money down the road! But conservatives will never go for that, so don't worry about it.

But even just the free clinics is enough to put a dent in cartel income.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.