The farther back you go in history the better certain cultures were, the original colonists had one of the most liberty oriented cultures that ever existed.
I am NOT against all immigration but some cultures are more liberty oriented than others and we should weight our quotas in favor of the better ones and we must limit the total allowed so that the newcomers don't overwhelm the native culture and extinguish liberty.
So Great Britain was liberty oriented? What was the point of the revolutionary war then?
Asians are not the only immigrants and if they vote anti-liberty just because we don't want to import as many of them then they aren't very liberty oriented.
That sounds like blackmail and an invasion to me.
Cutting back on H1Bs is a perfectly legitimate policy option that is not inherently "anti-immigrant" and if immigrants vote anti-liberty because of it then is it any wonder Republicans soured on the immigrants that voted Demoncrat because of it?
I didn't say it was legitimate or not legitimate. But the fact is that the Asians changed their voting pattern as a result of actions taken by a republican president that they felt was not in their best interest and not the other way around. In other words, I was right and you were wrong.
My position is exactly what it has always been, if I had the power I would secure the border with increased patrols and reformed laws but if we can't get those right now (or not enough of them) and Trump can build the wall it is better than nothing.
Except under current asylum law the wall does absolutely nothing.
How many arrive at the wall while Border Patrols are not around and have to turn back?
The border patrol
can't turn asylum seekers back once the reach U.S. soil which is on the Mexico side of the border wall.
But don't take my word for it. Here's senator Lindsey Graham speaking on the issue. While I know you don't like Graham, he has been a solid supporter of Trump on trying to get funding for the border wall.
https://shareblue.com/lindsey-graham-admits-trump-wall-will-not-fix-border-problems/
"The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system," Graham whined, complaining that U.S. asylum laws are too generous.
Current law does allow refugees to seek asylum in the United States and have their claims heard by a court system that decides whether their fears from their home country warrant asylum.
And a wall wouldn't change that, as many of the immigrants seeking asylum cross the border at points of entry and turn themselves in to authorities to make their asylum claims.
Let that sink in.
The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system.
I'm the only person on this forum (maybe in the United States) who's come up with a proposal of how to build it in Mexico. If you want to block asylum seekers
you have to keep them from setting foot on U.S. soil! Outside of that, more judges are needed to process the claims. But instead Trump is focusing on building a wall that even his somewhat honest supporters admit won't work.
How many are caught and able to be processed and returned to Mexico while they wait for their asylum claims to be denied instead of making it into the interior undetected?
It doesn't matter. See above.
It is a big force multiplier.
No it isn't. See above.
Trump doesn't have the legal authority to take that money for hiring judges and he does have it to build the wall.
Congress won't give Trump the money for anything that would help.
With democrats digging their heels in on wall funding, Trump should have floated a proposal that including no funding for the wall but instead had the same $5 billion for immigration judges and dared Pelosi to go against it. That would have shifted the immigration debate away from an impractical wall to due process. Trump brought up judges later, but only after losing the wall fight.
That has nothing to do with the fact that I and others support one and not the other or that without the security the pressure and excuse for the police state will continue to grow.
You support (sometimes...never sure about you on that) a wall that even senate supporters of Trump on immigration admit legally
can't do anything about asylum seekers and that Trump has already indicated will include police state measures for reasons unknown. That reminds me of Bob Dole's speech when he voted to authorize the first Gulf War where he said "I hope the president will use this for peace and not war." Yeah right.
Why? You didn't really say anything.
Then you support physically securing our borders?
I never said I didn't. I do object to expanding the police state. I won't say "I support a wall even though I know you're going to put face scanning cameras on and I'm against that because....I really hope you don't do that." I think Lindsey Graham is correct in that the only way a wall stops asylum seekers is if it is built in Mexico.
Yes. It passed a law rejecting Trump's border wall.
I'm not going to argue about that all over again but we need to secure our own borders.
The only way to do that is the build the wall in Mexico.
