Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:34 pm
Not for actual public works projects that are supposed to be funded by the government.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.
The Rich Port wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Yes, how dare there be actual checks and balances to stop Trump bypassing the government to get his useless white elephant of a monument funded.
Granted, I would be all for the burden of this fucking stupid-ass wall falling squarely on the people who think it's a good idea.Telconi wrote:
That's silly.
Yeah it's silly to shutdown the government over a shitty wall that doesn't work, but here we fucking are.
Fartsniffage wrote:Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.
Telconi wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
Granted, I would be all for the burden of this fucking stupid-ass wall falling squarely on the people who think it's a good idea.
Yeah it's silly to shutdown the government over a shitty wall that doesn't work, but here we fucking are.
Yes, I'm aware of where we are, thanks for checking in...
Fartsniffage wrote:Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....
The Rich Port wrote:Telconi wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of where we are, thanks for checking in...
Coulda fucking fooled me.Fartsniffage wrote:
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....
Or the majority of them, which come to the U.S. legally on comfy boats and planes and overstay their work visas.
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.
The Rich Port wrote:Telconi wrote:
Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.
No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that ignorant people think there needs to be deterrence in the first place.
Granted, I'm not one for letting dangerous criminals in, but they're a MINORITY of the people coming in. We SHOULD NOT be spending this much money keeping out innocent civilians who are just looking for a better life.
So instead of admitting that's the problem, you and people like you lie about it.
So I take it you're not aware, then?
Telconi wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
Fartsniffage wrote:Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
A where does this chain of logic take you?
Telconi wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
Fartsniffage wrote:Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
A where does this chain of logic take you?
Telconi wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
The Rich Port wrote:Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.
Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.
This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.
You need to stop taking rhetoric analogy notes from Donald Trump.
Border Patrol has K9 units, so.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/alo ... ciplines-2