krypto2000 said:

I didn't dispute that, I disputed the use of 2 point something billion dollars worth of US military personnel to deter us against these 4,000 specific individuals. You're arguing that oranges are good sources of vitamin C while I'm arguing that apples are too starchy.

---

XUL said:

Meanwhile, Dems voted to erect a useless fence, but they are opposed to a wall that will work.

It's all about values. They want open borders for votes. But they don't want the Mexican Catholics. They are bad

---

koods said:

qman said:

krypto2000 said:

I don't support paying them, I think that's a waste of money and not a reasonable demand, however so do I think sending the troops down at a cost of 2 billion or whatever is a waste of money. When you weigh one against the other if paying them to leave is cheaper then doesn't that actually make more sense? It may not make isolationists feel fuzzy and warm inside, but at the end of the day it will do more to actually improve their quality of life.

---

Border enforcement provides an excellent return on investment relative to having a first world nation flooded with millions of broke third world migrants.

---

Broke? They come here to work. I just don’t get the argument that the most motivated workforce in America are a drag on the economy.

---

Don't you know, they're lazy and don't work while also taking all of our jobs.

qman said:

krypto2000 said:

I didn't dispute that, I disputed the use of 2 point something billion dollars worth of US military personnel to deter us against these 4,000 specific individuals. You're arguing that oranges are good sources of vitamin C while I'm arguing that apples are too starchy.

---

Yeah, it's 4000 this time and then 8000 the next time, and then 50,000 the next time and the same rationalization can, and will be used to justify the non-enforcement of the border.

You don't select when you choose to uphold the laws depending on the cost structure of each individual case, you just up hold the law ALL of the time regardless of the cost efficiency at the time.

---

krypto2000 said:

qman said:

krypto2000 said:

I didn't dispute that, I disputed the use of 2 point something billion dollars worth of US military personnel to deter us against these 4,000 specific individuals. You're arguing that oranges are good sources of vitamin C while I'm arguing that apples are too starchy.

---

Yeah, it's 4000 this time and then 8000 the next time, and then 50,000 the next time and the same rationalization can, and will be used to justify the non-enforcement of the border.

You don't select when you choose to uphold the laws depending on the cost structure of each individual case, you just up hold the law ALL of the time regardless of the cost efficiency at the time.

---

That is simply not true and completely facitious. If the reason you uphold a law is to shpport yourself financially yet it becomes financially more costly to uphold it than to change it the rational person would reflect on what purpose the law then serves. I understand this may be what you would do, but don't impart your personal neurosis on the rest of us.

---

qman said:

krypto2000 said:

I didn't dispute that, I disputed the use of 2 point something billion dollars worth of US military personnel to deter us against these 4,000 specific individuals. You're arguing that oranges are good sources of vitamin C while I'm arguing that apples are too starchy.

---

Yeah, it's 4000 this time and then 8000 the next time, and then 50,000 the next time and the same rationalization can, and will be used to justify the non-enforcement of the border.

You don't select when you choose to uphold the laws depending on the cost structure of each individual case, you just up hold the law ALL of the time regardless of the cost efficiency at the time.

---

XUL said:

A useless fence. The Dems loved it.

Now a wall is somehow different because it would work.

---

XUL said:

Still, Tijuana is suffering.

---

koods said:

qman said:

krypto2000 said:

I didn't dispute that, I disputed the use of 2 point something billion dollars worth of US military personnel to deter us against these 4,000 specific individuals. You're arguing that oranges are good sources of vitamin C while I'm arguing that apples are too starchy.

---

Yeah, it's 4000 this time and then 8000 the next time, and then 50,000 the next time and the same rationalization can, and will be used to justify the non-enforcement of the border.

You don't select when you choose to uphold the laws depending on the cost structure of each individual case, you just up hold the law ALL of the time regardless of the cost efficiency at the time.

---

We choose not to uphold laws ALL THE FUCKING TIME. The justice system would cease to function if we didn’t. Every time you drive by a cop going ten MPH over the speed limit, you are benefiting from selective enforcement.

---

Revok said:

XUL said:

Still, Tijuana is suffering.

---

I have spoken to some Mexicans living in TJ and not one of them seemed happy about the current situation there. I was axtually somewhat surprised at what could be called a conservative vitriol in the frame of their perceptions.

---

koods said:

The socioeconomic chaos is manufactured and imagined.

Nobody. Why is the trump administration not processing migrants as they come? It’s been a month. What the fuck is the problem? Incompetence and willful metering of claims. 

Ships full of hundreds of migrants used to show up everyday in ports around the country. These migrants didn’t have visas. They just showed up with very few resources, and we handled it. Officials didn’t have computers or tools to make their jobs easier. The current employees of the CBP just are lazy, corrupt and incompetent.

---