Trump will build The Wall

Immahnoob said:
I don't know what to say, crime rates soared since they arrived. And why do we have to take refugees anyway? Our citizens don't have to suffer because of another countries stupidity.
Refugees have an incompatible religion and culture, hence why they're an issue.

SecretWings said:
Donald Trump just needs to chill the heck out and watch some anime. :<

Vamzer said:
So, what is your problem exactly? A politician, who promised something, and after he has been elected, he actually do it. I know it sounds strange, but this is, how things should work.

Mokir said:
Guess it's a good time to listen to the national trump anthem.

Mokir said:
Guess it's a good time to listen to the national trump anthem.

Vamzer said:
So, what is your problem exactly? A politician, who promised something, and after he has been elected, he actually do it. I know it sounds strange, but this is, how things should work.

Gohdhand said:


Well he promised Mexico would pay for the Wall, but right now it is American taxpayers who are footing the bill. Trump says he will eventually get Mexico to pay but the fact that he has turned to Congress for funds and Mexico repeatedly saying they will not pay leads me to believe that Mexico will never end up paying.

Actually, overstaying is a crime and ethnic groups besides whites tend to commit more crimes in general.
So they are criminals and they tend to also be violent.

But it is essential. It's essential to stop welfare leechers, job leechers, non-tax payers and overall criminals.

So you're ok with them suckling on welfare and paying less taxes then? Because you forgot to quote that part.

GamerDLM said:
Not to mention they can't get welfare or food stamps, because you know they aren't citizens, I would have thought that was common sense.

Oh wow so many false facts in such a short period of time.

Actually after checking overstaying a visa isn't a crime

but staying longer than 6 months can result in penalties to their visa when they leave (many of which can be waived assuming they don't reapply for extended stays or anything of that nature before the 6 month period). Even crossing the border illegally is just a misdemeanor so it's about as illegal as jaywalking in some areas.

But again as I have stated many times, the group that crosses the border statistically is less violent and will commit less crimes than native citizens or later generations but by all means stick to your alternative facts. (In fact from 1990 to 2010, when illegal immigration became a buzz topic, violent crime rates in the US dropped by 45% as undocumented immigration rates tripled. Falling by 14% in the top 19 immigration states compared to 7% in the rest according to the National Institute of Corrections)

This part is just pure lying. Undocumented immigrants pay about 8% of their total incomes in state and local taxes each year (compared to 5% of incomes for the average native citizen) which totals about $11.64 billion per year in state and local taxes.

Not to mention they can't get welfare or food stamps, because you know they aren't citizens, I would have thought that was common sense. Granted they can go to school and get emergency medical care.

As for the brief discussion about what kind of jobs they take. Here's the data that a majority of them are working in lower end (blue collar) jobs. Compared to the increasing amount of native citizens working in professional jobs (usually due to higher education standards for native citizens and an aging workforce).

Narmy said:

Yeah, I don't know where this meme that illegal immigrants are getting tons of welfare comes from. If you aren't a citizen then you get no government benefits.

Gohdhand said:


Well he promised Mexico would pay for the Wall, but right now it is American taxpayers who are footing the bill. Trump says he will eventually get Mexico to pay but the fact that he has turned to Congress for funds and Mexico repeatedly saying they will not pay leads me to believe that Mexico will never end up paying.

Well since you bring up anchor babies, those are also a myth. The parents can still be deported and choose to bring the child with them. But the child is a native because they were born on US soil, and the child can apply to have their parents become citizens only after the age of 21.

In fact according to the ICE over 46,000 parents of native born children were deported.

Also not sure how the National Institute of Corrections in this specific case falls under "biased sites" and I fully encouraged you to search yourself.

Also a penalty to a visa =/= crime

nor is overstaying according to federal law but by all means look that up.

Crossing the border without being checked I said is a misdemeanor and very different from entering through a visa through a check point.

kamisu said:
lmao 2k17 is gonna be one hilarious year.

The parents don't magically gain citizenship because their child is a citizen

(Also statistics have often shown the few benefits like emergency health services and school cost less than they pay total in taxes so either way the leech mentality is misguided at best)

The second part was to state how it was a myth.

The next part I think you might need to brush up on English or elaborate more because what you said has no relation to what I said. Unless you're saying the top immigration states having a decrease in violent crimes during a period in which illegal immigration tripled has no correlation. I can't even see how you could unironically try to say things like they're taking jobs if that were the case.

Next part is purely bs. A crime is defined as an act punishable by law

if overstaying a visa is not considered illegal than it is not a crime.

It's a federal misdemeanor, still a misdemeanor.

RedArmyShogun said:


As I noted on one of the pages before, Mexico can be made to pay via sanctions and tariffs, which it seems Trump is set on.

Gohdhand said:


Not a good idea. Tariffs would greatly damage Mexico's economy, something that is only going to create more illegal immigrants because people will be wanting to get out. Tariffs would also increase prices for American citizens, so on top of paying for the Wall's construction we will then have to pay the higher prices for goods as well.

Also if the US starts shitting on its economic allies then another country like China is just going to take America's place and begin trading with Mexico. With tariffs and sanctions all we will end up doing is weakening our own country.

RedArmyShogun said:
I don't recall saying it was a good idea, just that their are multiple ways Mexico could be made to pay, even the threat of unilateral sanctions could force the change in tune from Mexico City.

Gohdhand said:
Why not just threaten to nuke them if they don't pay up?

RedArmyShogun said:


That has happened in the past with the US and other countries (chiefly The People's Republic of China), and may in the present.

Gohdhand said:


The US has threatened to nuke China before in order to get them to pay for something? Do you have a link or something to when that happened? I can't imagine USSR/Russia would have taken kindly to that.

I provided you the 5% statistic way back at the beginning in the link for the total taxes they pay. It's literally like 1 paragraph down from the 8% mark.

Except it's not defined as a crime under civil or federal law.

The legal term would be "unlawful presence" which basically means their visa becomes invalid which basically happens anyway at the end-date and at worst they might have to contact an immigration lawyer to waiver any additional issues or apply for an extension.

K redundant and I wasn't saying a misdemeanor wasn't a crime, but I did say it's about equal to say jaywalking. But I think you're mixing up overstaying a visa and illegal border crossing.

Both carry the "unlawful presence term" but the crime of border crossing without being checked is a misdemeanor thus one is clearly a crime and the other isn't.

It's literally like 3 posts prior.

There is a clause that states the conditions for being in the country lawfully and the resulting punishment if the clause is broken, but it isn't technically a law thus for my definition (which is the more common one) being in the country unlawfully isn't a crime.

RedArmyShogun said:
No, to get them to stop military actions against ROC and later on in favor of North Korea, the US has also been blackmailed. Given the seriousness of these charges public information is rarely if ever given past a point. Its like in WW1 about 4 years ago it became known that the British WERE using US cruiseships to smuggle munitions. Which was the German justification in attacking them.

Had the US public knew of it at the time the US would have went to war against both sides. And a fact the US government knew.

In more recent times North Korea has made threats with its own nukes, and England may have threatened to nuke France in order to get them to turn off the missiles they sold to the Argentineans during the Falklands War. But both Governments have said they cannot confirm, nor deny the charges.

And you say that as if the USSR had not played a role in those events. As to links, there exists knowledge outside of the web, namely called books. I suggest consulting them rather than being reliant on google. But of the cases I mentioned most can be found on wiki or in published pdf documents of related material.

Of course I expect you to dance around with this in some form of spin, or to say its not believable or some other mockery, in spite of the proof from the US election and WikiLeaks how much corruption and black operations control things, people still like to pretend it doesn't apply or the situation is fine.

Immahnoob said:
@SeibaaHomu
How is Trump not a good president?

JustALEX said:

How is he a good President?

JustALEX said:

How is he a good President?

It's not just about what he does, but the way he speaks and how he uses arguments.

And yes, he might get shit done eventually, but don't expect people to think he's a good president, there are enough reasons to be more than sceptical.

Gohdhand said:
So you're essentially admitting you have no proof... Your argument is basically "there's no actual evidence, but everyone really knows what's going on in the shadows..." By your logic I can say whatever crazy thing I want about the US and just use the general bogeyman of "corruption" as a scapegoat.

You clearly have no idea how international politics works. You can't just threaten another country with nuclear destruction and expect the other nuclear powers to keep quiet (especially if they are on the opposite side as you).

Gohdhand said:
What are you talking about? Link me to a specific instance as to where the US threatened another country with nukes or vice versa or you're just spouting bullshit. Or do the only "sources" for your claims conveniently exist only in books and not on the Internet (despite basically everything being on the web these days)?

In 1958, the United States Air Force had considered a plan to drop nuclear bombs on China during a confrontation over Taiwan but it was overruled, previously secret documents showed after they were declassified due to the Freedom of Information Act in April 2008. The plan included an initial plan to drop 10-15 kiloton bombs on airfields in Amoy (now called Xiamen) in the event of a Chinese blockade against Taiwan's Offshore Islands

U.S.THREATENS ATOMIC WARFARE
On Nov. 5 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued orders for the retaliatory atomic bombing of Manchurian military bases, if either their armies crossed into Korea or if PRC or KPA bombers attacked Korea from there. The President ordered the transfer of nine Mark-4 nuclear capsules "to the Air Force's Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons, and signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets.

With the Chinese intervention, the United States confronted a hard truth: Threatening a nuclear attack would not be enough to win the war. It was as if the Chinese hadn’t noticed—or, worse, weren’t impressed by—the atomic-capable B-29s waiting at Guam.

In a report on global nuclear threats, analysts at Washington’s Stimson Center identify six overt warnings by high-ranking American officials since 1976 that the U.S. would resort to nuclear weapons against North Korea if warranted. But U.S. threats go back more than a half-century, to long before North Korea split its first atom.

In mid-August 1950, just seven weeks after North Korea invaded South Korea and five years after two U.S. atomic bombs killed at least 220,000 Japanese in Hiroshima andNagasaki, U.S. nuclear weapons were first assigned to the new war theater, according to a declassified Army planning document obtained by the AP.

Regional U.S. commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in interviews published posthumously, said he had a plan at the time to drop 30 to 50 atom bombs across the northern neck of the Korean peninsula, to block further Chinese intervention.