@AverageJoe1 saidwhat the flying fuk are you talking about
Z is saying, if i read this right, that after a baby is born, that there is no abortion. Obviously an incorrect statement on its face, a born baby cannot be aborted.
Anyway, Z, I just report the facts, you did not read the facts, which is OK, but could you write stuff that is discussable. The Forum is a treasure-trove for finding out how people think like they do... ...[text shortened]... ing newborn. Any comments, or are you going to shoot the messenger who delivers inconvenient facts?
@sonhouse saidYou are silly. The bill should have said,,,,,,let me see……Close The Border! Real men would have done that Sonhouse. You don’t strike me as a guy playing word games.
@AverageJoe1
GODDAMMIT, TRUMP killed the bill whether you believe it or not. AND it was a GOOD bill so don't give me any more of your BULLL CRAP about it.
Tell us all if you wish it would have said that, tell us why. Debate, You silly guy. Close it!?
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
Oh, you mean tell the truth for a change?
Nah, that will never happen, since Trump is your trainer.
@AverageJoe1
Close the border. Right. So Mexicans with work permits would not be able to come into the US. GREAT THINKING.
@AverageJoe1 saidhow about you start at the very least to write sober
Tell me you are not serious. Do you want me to write like shouse?
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat EXACTLY does "close the border" mean to you?
You are silly. The bill should have said,,,,,,let me see……Close The Border! Real men would have done that Sonhouse. You don’t strike me as a guy playing word games.
Tell us all if you wish it would have said that, tell us why. Debate, You silly guy. Close it!?
Please be specific.
@no1marauder saidPoint taken, as we are all saying 'close' for brevity of posting. All of us know we need, as always, year after year until you people showed up to create a new voting block, about 2 million immigrants (legal) to become Americans.
What EXACTLY does "close the border" mean to you?
Please be specific.
Futher, we all know that when a reasonable, traditional poster (you folks are not NEAR traditional) like myself says close, he is speaking about closing the hell.
I hope you do not need for me to define 'the hell'.
Thankyou for bring this question to the fore.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidI asked a simple question and you didn't answer it.
Point taken, as we are all saying 'close' for brevity of posting. All of us know we need, as always, year after year until you people showed up to create a new voting block, about 2 million immigrants (legal) to become Americans.
Futher, we all know that when a reasonable, traditional poster (you folks are not NEAR traditional) like myself says close, he is speaking ...[text shortened]... I hope you do not need for me to define 'the hell'.
Thankyou for bring this question to the fore.
What SPECIFIC measures are you talking about when you say the US should "close the border"?
Do you have any idea or are you just parroting a right wing talking point with no clue as to what it actually means?
EDIT: Here I'll give you some choices:
A) Literally close the border i.e. no one can cross from or into the US at all?
B) No immigration at all?
C) Something else? (Again be SPECIFIC about the "something else"😉.
@KellyJay saidGive me your SPECIFIC objections to the bill and explain how more Border Patrol agents, more immigration judges to more quickly process asylum claims, ending the legal policy that allowed anyone who crossed to apply for asylum even if they did not enter at designated points of entry and the other provisions of the bill were not designed to "stop border crossings".
That bill was not designed to stop border crossings it was and is a bad bill.
Of course if you literally mean no one should be able to cross the US border period, just say so.
@no1marauder saidThey had a number that they were going to let in if reached then what?
Give me your SPECIFIC objections to the bill and explain how more Border Patrol agents, more immigration judges to more quickly process asylum claims, ending the legal policy that allowed anyone who crossed to apply for asylum even if they did not enter at designated points of entry and the other provisions of the bill were not designed to "stop border crossings".
Of course if you literally mean no one should be able to cross the US border period, just say so.
@no1marauder saidYou can hardly expect me to weigh on factors that our government entities would necessarily have to ruminate and discuss for months. Meeting upon meeting to decide the best way to 'close' the border to restrict it to vetted immigrants, maybe 2M a year.
I asked a simple question and you didn't answer it.
What SPECIFIC measures are you talking about when you say the US should "close the border"?
Do you have any idea or are you just parroting a right wing talking point with no clue as to what it actually means?
EDIT: Here I'll give you some choices:
A) Literally close the border i.e. no one can cross from or in ...[text shortened]... ?
B) No immigration at all?
C) Something else? (Again be SPECIFIC about the "something else"😉.
Be real. I may ask you how to prepare the launch pad at Cape Kennedy for perfect security. You cannot do it. Ask me a more reasonable question. I do agree that there is no way for Trump to send the invaders back, that is a sretch. We ahve used most of our money to pay school loans, we just could not afford it.
Ask more reasonably, please
2 edits
@KellyJay saidHere's the details: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal
They had a number that they were going to let in if reached then what?
No, there wasn't a number they'd just "let in". Migrants arriving would be under the same rules they are now (I know your propaganda outlets keep telling you there is an "open border" but that is a falsehood; literally millions have been turned away even under Biden) i.e. people who cross are screened and if they have a legal case for remaining it must be adjudicated by immigration judges. But many are simply detained and then removed.
The bill says IF migrant encounters reach 4,000 a day at the border, the Director of Homeland Security can unilaterally deny any new applications without a screening. If it's over 5,000 a day, he must.
And that was just one provision of the bill; other sections like adding BP agents and immigration judges as well as increased funding for technology would have certainly been aimed to decreasing border crossings though nothing will "stop" them.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you have no idea what to actually do.
You can hardly expect me to weigh on factors that our government entities would necessarily have to ruminate and discuss for months. Meeting upon meeting to decide the best way to 'close' the border to restrict it to vetted immigrants, maybe 2M a year.
Be real. I may ask you how to prepare the launch pad at Cape Kennedy for perfect security. You cannot do it. Ask m ...[text shortened]... most of our money to pay school loans, we just could not afford it.
Ask more reasonably, please
Thanks for sharing.
@no1marauder saidYes it is not meant to close the border, simply make processings easier.
Here's the details: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal
No, there wasn't a number they'd just "let in". Migrants arriving would be under the same rules they are now (I know your propaganda outlets keep telling you there is an "open border" but that is a falsehood; literally millions have been turned away even ...[text shortened]... logy would have certainly been aimed to decreasing border crossings though nothing will "stop" them.