Cuts for Trumps stupid wall...WTF??

originally posted by: mOjOm
Ya gotta love the Trump Defenders and their dedication to defend Trump even in this. It's like a bunch of Stockholm Syndrome victims.

The problem with cutting the TSA, which I think we all agree has been a disaster from the start, is that it's just going to make a horrible problem worse. By cutting their funding their plan is of course to try and do more with less as if they weren't doing an already bad enough job already. This means that to make up for it they plan on doing more aggressive physical pat downs. They are even warning local police that they may get more reports from people complaining about abusive TSA pat downs now and this is why.

So I guess that's a step toward making America great again huh???? Because aggressive pat downs by the TSA was so fun before, now it's going to get even better. Oh goody, what a great idea.

As for the Coast Guard most of their time is spent intercepting illegals coming here by sea as well as drugs coming here by sea. According to them they are already under staffed and under resourced for intercepting all illegal ships coming here. So when your campaign platform rests so heavily on stopping illegal immigration and drugs you would think cutting back on one of the main agencies stopping that would not be wise choice. But that's what his idea is. Brilliant.

Let's face it. The reason he's building this wall is to say he kept his promise. Even if it means cutting back in places which work against the reason for building that stupid wall to start with. It's like putting a triple lock on your front door and having no locks on your back door. Just more illusions of safety.

All for a dumb wall that we weren't supposed to be paying for in the first place which we are now fitting the bill for at the expence of more important things. Classic Mismanagement of our tax dollars as usual.

Oh please another person making a comment that knows jack squat about the real Truth. I have worked on the ocean for almost 20 years and all that stuff You just mentioned about the coast guard is a bunch of hog wash. The coast guard primarily enforces regulations on shipping and fisherman. I know what I'm talking about because I've been boarded by them plenty of times.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope, sorry.

That's what he's doing to help pay for the wall.

It's only a small fraction of the funds needed too. What else is being cut for the stupid wall we'll find out soon enough.

But by all means, if you think it's wrong, go right ahead and prove your case or have fun trying.

It is what it is and once again being that you don't even live here in America WTF business is it of yours anyway??? When I want to know what's happening in the UK you'll be the first to know. But don't tell me what's happening in the place where I live because it makes you look arrogant and foolish.

How much would lasers/censors/satellites cost? I understand numbers are a thing, but 'security' could be operational tomorrow; a wall is a freak facade to maintain power over a decade. Have you ever seen how fast we respond to 911? We should be using technology, I'd rather put funding towards #ing force-field technology before America blows it's load on concrete, a product mostly made by Mexico.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Hmm, interstin. Possibly.

a reply to: MacK80

Exactly. But that's just it. It's all just a big dog and pony show. It's a way for them to spend money on their contractor buddies making a big production over something that keeps people entertained but we all know a big wall is about as stupid an idea as catapults for space travel.

But since he said it he now has to make good on his promise for his short sighted fans who are still stuck back in the 1920's without any understanding of technology.

That doesn't even address the overall idea itself. But as long as people in this country keep feeding themselves on a steady diet of Religious BS rather than science and Luvin them some nascar and bud light and Conservatism that's what we can expect.

No offense to those who fit a couple of those labels but still has their head in the game. I didn't mean you.

haha

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Not the people you see on TV, that's for sure. They're just parroting what they're told to say to drive the narrative forward. Those pulling the strings are not in the spotlight like so many people on these forums believe.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Not the people you see on TV, that's for sure. They're just parroting what they're told to say to drive the narrative forward. Those pulling the strings are not in the spotlight like so many people on these forums believe.

Bannon isn't on TV much.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: yuppa

OK.
Keep playing the trumpet miles

Example. court orders you to pay restitution. You have no job. how do you pay for it? you pay for it in other ways if you have no money. Its the same concept. personally i call it revenge and being cruel.

And Sure. i always liked playing the trumpet on the promenade on DS9. Quark hates it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MacK80

Exactly. But that's just it. It's all just a big dog and pony show. It's a way for them to spend money on their contractor buddies making a big production over something that keeps people entertained but we all know a big wall is about as stupid an idea as catapults for space travel.

But since he said it he now has to make good on his promise for his short sighted fans who are still stuck back in the 1920's without any understanding of technology.

That doesn't even address the overall idea itself. But as long as people in this country keep feeding themselves on a steady diet of Religious BS rather than science and Luvin them some nascar and bud light and Conservatism that's what we can expect.

No offense to those who fit a couple of those labels but still has their head in the game. I didn't mean you.

These are baseless accusations and generalisations.

It has become clear that every policy of this administration is to purge. We have taken the path of the Middle East governance by making all opposition to ideology the enemy. That only royalty and pure breds deserve liberty and make laws to subdue the rest. Young people should immigrate to a truly free non religious nation. This ain't changing soon and your life will be gone.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes yes I know, illegal Poms over staying their visa. They almost had an illegal Australian too, but it was with good intent.

But I doubt that drug smuggling illegal UK people are going to get past the border, or if someone slips up at the border, they get returned back home.

How fair is that... We should be allowed in, unhindered by "walls of meat" parading around in crew cuts and guns hanging off their hips, and an authoritative air around them, like judge judy and judge dredd had a fat balding baby . Right?

Over staying a visa, and simply walking in are two completely separate issues. Both need to be countered, I don't say otherwise. But entering legally, overstaying and becoming illegal, is vastly different to entering illegally, and having people support you with sanctuary cities, welfare, jobs, drivers licenses, et al, simply because this thing called a border seems irrelevant to people who don't know squat about the world, yet.

But then, in the UK, I guess you're used to having all and sundry come plop themselves in your community, and stockholm syndrome is rife.

I dunno, borders are there for a reason. making them invisible seems a little bit silly, to me. Especially when people such as Trump have government people saying he will be refused entry due to his character, while, "who is that guy? with all the face tattoos?" is able to just sneak in and given everything without question...

No, I guess I don't get it. I wasn't allowed in, but Charlie Cartel is, and it's given approval by people who have only been on the internet to learn things.

Um, excuse me savemebarry, but your position is untenable. You state that overstaying a visa and entering the country illegally are two different things. But they are not.

First of all, the moment a persons visa expires, they are guilty of the precise same offence as if they had climbed over the border fence, or simply walked over the line in areas where there is not a physical barrier. Furthermore, their presence in the US illegally, costs the taxpayer the precise same amount once the crime has been committed, regardless of how it was committed. The undocumented persons in the country, no matter how they arrived, still use sanctuary cities as havens from ICE, still have to get welfare, get work, driving licenses and other forms of ID to get by, thereby committing further offences. That counts whether they hopped off a plane and overstayed a tourist visa, or whether they walked in. You see, until the very second that a persons visa expires, they are not undocumented. So, in effect, one person could have been in the US a total of twelve years, but only had documentation for two years. Another person could have been in the US for ten years, but both have been breaking the law for the same number of years, breaking the exact same law mind you, not a different one.

And no, I am not talking about a few stray Brits and Roo Rustlers, but people from all over the world.

It is also worth pointing out, that having focused on just one point I made in the post to which you responded, not to mention having done so in a way which rather exposed some gaps in your understanding of the law on the matter, you roundly failed to respond to at least seventy percent of what I said in my post, and decided instead to talk about the notion of borders in general... I never said that there should be no borders, and I would not say that there should be no borders. What I have said is that treating the physical border with Mexico like a militarised border with an enemy nation, rather than a neigbouring one, is foolish in the extreme, if only because the vast majority of the really dangerous traffic, is coming from nations no where near Mexico, and not nations on that stupid list that the mango buffoon tried to issue either.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Um, excuse me savemebarry, but your position is untenable. You state that overstaying a visa and entering the country illegally are two different things. But they are not.

they are.

First of all, the moment a persons visa expires, they are guilty of the precise same offence as if they had climbed over the border fence, or simply walked over the line in areas where there is not a physical barrier.

I said as much.

Furthermore, their presence in the US illegally, costs the taxpayer the precise same amount once the crime has been committed, regardless of how it was committed.

I doubt it, I don't see illegal immigrants who went there with money and good intention (such as I would have) as the same as people taking an opportunistic approach to entering the US. Very different. For one, I would have gotten residency, and have become a loyal citizen, as I am sure thousand if not more would do, but getting the foot in the door is a hard task. Whilst on the other hand, there and thousands, if not more, just entering for the benefits. Trust me, I live in Australia, I know my country is a good place, and I wanted to move for reasons of the heart. But no, I was refused, and lost the woman I loved. I just wanted to fulfil the obligations that immigration requires. Have to have met your spouse within 2 years. I did it wrong, I am still in Australia.. Where is MY get in free ticket??

The undocumented persons in the country, no matter how they arrived, still use sanctuary cities as havens from ICE, still have to get welfare, get work, driving licenses and other forms of ID to get by, thereby committing further offences. That counts whether they hopped off a plane and overstayed a tourist visa, or whether they walked in.

Tell me when that works. A friend of mine went to the US, fell in love, and for 2 years went back and forth, WORKING off the books to provide his time there. Legal? No... Is he a bona fide US citizen now? yes. But he didn't expect anything, he did what he could to be with his girl, did it right, and is now a legal permanent resident.

I tried the same. But sure, let anyone in, no matter their criminal history. Mine is clean. I went through the right channels, I let everyone know, but I fkced up by saying 3 months on the visa waiver, when I should have said 25 seconds, and skipped off into the mountains..

You see, until the very second that a persons visa expires, they are not undocumented.

Really... I don't think you know how it works there, TrueBrit. You get scanned, printed, radiated, felt up, searched, the entire process.. and that's before you land at LAX or wherever. You are absolutely a documented person. I had my finger prints taken twice, scanned at every point of landing, searched, scanned for explosives.. at every point. Just with 2 bags and a return ticket for a holiday from Australia. A friggen wall?

So, in effect, one person could have been in the US a total of twelve years, but only had documentation for two years. Another person could have been in the US for ten years, but both have been breaking the law for the same number of years, breaking the exact same law mind you, not a different one.

And no, I am not talking about a few stray Brits and Roo Rustlers, but people from all over the world.

It is also worth pointing out, that having focused on just one point I made in the post to which you responded, not to mention having done so in a way which rather exposed some gaps in your understanding of the law on the matter, you roundly failed to respond to at least seventy percent of what I said in my post, and decided instead to talk about the notion of borders in general... I never said that there should be no borders, and I would not say that there should be no borders. What I have said is that treating the physical border with Mexico like a militarised border with an enemy nation, rather than a neigbouring one, is foolish in the extreme, if only because the vast majority of the really dangerous traffic, is coming from nations no where near Mexico, and not nations on that stupid list that the mango buffoon tried to issue either.

The rest is meaningless. You basically say "I agree keep bad nations out, but it's ok if crooks come in" because *I* dont grasp your long winded posts..

I wanted a wall. Our laws state that the government is supposed to fight illegal immigration and never did. I want illegal immigration stopped as completely as possible. As a result of these views, I voted for Trump. As did my Wife, two daughters and apparently quite a few more in Pennsylvania than expected.

In fact, it was Pennsylvania that put Trump over 270 on election night and that made me proud!

President is now doing what he promised...which is also why we voted for him.

So...to everyone on the left. THIS IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK! Your leaders are SUPPOSED to execute what YOU want...not what THEY WANT!

Learn how to rule...not how to be ruled.

a reply to: mOjOm

Have you ever built a large budget? I build one in excess of $100M every year for an international business unit of a global company everyone here knows. The obvious answer for you is no. His move here is SOP for budget building.

He does not want to increase the total allocation of funds to border control and drug interdiction. Rather he thinks a wall will have a higher return on investment than the weakest programs at those other agencies. Whether a wall will do what he thinks it will do is another question.

a reply to: Dawgishly

Considering it was supposed to be paid for by Mexico it shouldn't be affecting our budget in the first place.