# Border policy



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

https://www.wate.com/news/national-worl ... 1770130859

I see a grocer in Arkansas has stirred a little controversy. At least his advertisement may also have stirred a little thinking. In his grocery add he also has a remark that says:

Heaven has a wall, a gate, and a strict immigration policy, Hell has open borders. Let that sink in. :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Once again Tiny Trump goes against what he said before becoming president. Once again he says...."I can do anything I want...

Trump was asked if Obama had committed any impeachable offenses. He said Obama could certainly be impeached for his executive action on immigration.
"Well, he certainly did something that was unconstitutional," Trump said. "Now, it depends on Justice (John) Roberts. If he wants to just curry favor in the Beltway like he did with Obamacare, because that's the only reason he did it. Because he knows he was wrong, but it certainly depends on what happens. I mean, I think certainly he could be impeached and certainly they could shut down the government."

uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I saw that too. I thought it was "Brilliant".

Ken,

I hope he doesn't do a "national emergency". If he does anything he should declare some sort of "drug issue" and build a barrier in corridors. Not the whole thing. But again... I hope he doesn't declare anything. I honestly hopes he shuts down the government again.

Because it is showing how one side is giving in "extremely" and the other side isn't. I mean our Conservative leaders are caving in big time. Only one so far that has balls is Crenshaw. He voted against the bill.

But here is a quote I saw today:



> "Gun violence is a national emergency. Climate Change is a national emergency. Income inequality is a national emergency. Access to healthcare is a national emergency. Building a wall on the southern border is not," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., tweeted on Thursday.


Which the next president's inline might do some of this crap. But I find it funny they talk about "access to healthcare"..... wasn't that taken care of with the ACA??? So this one rep right here says in this quote that the ACA is a failure!!! :bop:

Pelosi also came straight out and said stuff about gun control. Which would be against the constitution....but you never know what someone would try to pull.

BTW..... I was wrong saying this would set precedent... there are about 30 of these national emergencies on the books already. Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc. They all have done them. Most dealing with stuff outside of the USA... such as accepting money or giving aid and what not. But still this would be an out reach that shouldn't be needed. OUR LEADERS (all of them) Should come together on some common ground. Yet they can't. This whole episode on all sides is pure BS.... From Congress, President, and media coverage. Yes the media on both sides drumming up hysteria and pushing divides. How many times have you seen articles or pieces about "who won the XYZ deal".... we all should "win" as a nation. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BTW..... this doesn't have to do with border policy... but a side not.

In MN there was a huge push for a thing called CAPX. It is powerlines running thru the state. It was pushed as moving power from the nuclear plant to "outstate". Well now MN is kind of in a scramble or pushing more "green" energy. You are seeing lots of solar farms know. But found out that the CAPX isn't the nuke plant pushing energy to places in the state. It is wind farm energy pushing to Chicago so they can meet their "green energy" type commitment. HMMMMMMMMMM

Two things.... Shady laws pushed by some elected officials that is letting states or cities "skirt" those laws. Shows how a "green new deal" would be handled by big cities. Things to think about when people are screaming climate change stuff. You will start to lose your "untouched" lands. You will see more and more wind farms, solar farms, power lines, etc. Instead of seeing buildings with solar farms on roofs and what not. In my home town there is a guy who owns a bunch one one level apartment complexes. He has outfitted the roofs with solar panels. He IMHO is doing it right. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump......phony crisis and phony facts. This is not a crisis. He couldn't get it close to what he wants with 2 years of Republican majority in government. Take 9 billion from the military budget ?????? Where's the money from Mexico Tiny? :huh: :huh:

Nov. 20, 2014......Trump said....."Republicans must not allow President Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit and because he is unable to negotiate with Congress."

Guess he only believes that if it's not him doing the exact same thing. :down: :down:

See you in court Tiny Trump. :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The Dems were all whining about illegal immigration and how it must be stopped,so they voted to fund a wall. Their crappy choice for President couldn't get it done. Now it's an immoral proposition, and why? Because Trump wants it done. I'm sick and tired of the Dems and their posturing. I don't particularly care for executive decisions by any President, but I'm to the point right now where I say screw the democrats, declare a national emergency and build the wall, all of it, from the gulf all the way to the Pacific Ocean.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I can totally agree....I am sick and tired of Trump and everything he does.As I said above.....who was whining about it in 2014? Trump.....but it doesn't count when he does it? Guess not. Just ask him.

Again.....what goes around, comes around. Are Republicans ready for a Democrat President who will use Executive Orders for Obama Care? Or how about gun control? But then the party of Trump doesn't care. As long as he gets his way.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Again.....what goes around, comes around. Are Republicans ready for a Democrat President who will use Executive Orders for Obama Care? Or how about gun control? But then the party of Trump doesn't care. As long as he gets his way


Agree with you 100%!!

With some of the so called "front runners for 2020".... we will beg for Obama to be back in office.

But on Gun control... they will have to becareful because of the 2nd amendment. Health Care.... well if Obama Care and it repel was struck down.... how can they have a "national emergency".... unless they are admitting that Obama Care is a failure???

The thing that gets me many are saying this is a "made up" crisis. So the fentyal bust that would have killed 57 million people isn't a crisis? The opiods that are flowing in from the southern border isn't a "crisis". Ask the people who have had illegals kill loved ones if it is a "crisis". Those are illegals with a criminal record beyond being in the USA illegally. I know people will say that more drugs come thru ports of entry.... Well a wall will push more people towards the ports so then they can also have more equipment and resources there to help catch smugglers.

Think of it this way... at sporting events there are "gates" and "fences". Yes someone could jump a fence to get in. But most people are now funneled towards the gates. Where they have security... or people "admitting" people into the venue. You need less people watching the fence or wall then you can pool resources towards the "gates".

But again.... this whole political scene now is idiotic. Just look at some of your comment ken with the name calling. That is what political discussion comes down too? Look how the media on any issue tries to analysis who "wins and loses".... Like I mentioned it should be EVERYONE wins because it is OUR COUNTRY. Please don't say "what comes around".... because that card has been played out.... on all sides.

We need elected officials to work together. We shouldn't have a Congress that isn't going to work towards common ground. I know you will state that the Reps didn't do that with Obama.... but Dem's didn't budge on things either. Look at what party always "caves"..... that is the issue. One party is doing the middle ground and the others isn't. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Once again he says...."I can do anything I want..


 I missed that. Was it on tv or a tweet?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I missed that. Was it on tv or a tweet?


I never saw that &#8230; but I am sure some media source will say he said that. Putting words in his mouth. :thumb:

I am waiting to see how Jim Acosta is going to run with this story. Also see how he "flips" or "ignores" when he said it was a made up crisis and some of "angels moms" showed pictures of dead family members. How will Acosta "report" that. I am sure he will leave that out. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.... the second amendment. The controversy about it are the terms...."well regulated militia." We aren't in a militia. So this could be interpreted that way. We would be SOL if the courts see it that way. Of course the Supremes are now most likely leaning to the right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

From Wikipedia:


> The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4]
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision that the right belongs to individuals for self-defense[5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."[8][9] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.[10]


Ken you have to stop listening to liberals with an anti gun agenda. To understand the constitution you will need to read the opinions of those who wrote the constitution. At that time they considered all able bodied men as part of the militia. They also refused to house their guns in an armory like the British had set up. It was an individual right.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You also need to look at the entirety of the amendment.



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Notice how it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

Those constitutional framers were crafty, weren't they.

At any rate I seriously doubt that any President, Trump included, would have much luck trying to alter an original amendment through executive decision.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman, I'm not listening to any Liberals about gun control. Just something I am afraid of when it comes to Trump setting a precedent with his Executive orders causing backlash in the future. It is a really stupid thing to do just because he is a crybaby and couldn't get his own party to get him a wall we don't need. He says the military can't tell him what the money is for.

Well.....guess what? Then why has it been appropriated if they can do w/o it? Maybe that is something that should be looked at during budget time.

This statement from your quote can be interpreted another way.... "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Every gun is dangerous. Especially some of those assault weapons that people have.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Presidents have used many executive orders since ------- was it 1977. Obama made more than any other president. The precident has been long set. Simply because gun grabbing Pelosi is threatening doesn't make it more likely. I wouldn't put it past the left to do it whether Trump uses executive order or not. The left are gun grabbers and I suppose childish get even they would see as an excuse.

So we had another shooting today. His political affiliation will be interesting. So far they have all been liberal, or raised by liberal parents. Liberals shouldn't judge us based on their bad tempers. I know a couple of ladies that ate anti handgun, and if you slightly disagree with them politically I'm sure they would blow my brains out if they had their hands on a gun at the moment. From smiles to red faced and ready to kill in 4.2 seconds.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The president cannot repeal part of the Constitution by executive order. And Congress cannot repeal it by simply passing a new bill. Amending the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and also ratification by three-quarters of the states.

A President, Republican or Democrat cannot do away with the 2nd Amendment with an executive order. All Presidents lately have used executive orders frequently, Obama had 276 of them, I think Clinton actually had more with around 360.

We have 31 emergency declarations still in effect, the oldest invoked by Carter in 1979.

Regardless of what the Dems and CCN tell you, the illegal immigration issue is a national emergency. Wether it is the tons on illegal drugs, human trafficking, or violent criminal gangs and yes, in some cases even infiltration of terrorists. This crap needs to stop.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What I fear more than Russia or China is party loyalty. Republicans openly disagree with one another. Republicans at times vote along with democrats. Republicans compromise, but the democrats stick together no matter how crazy one or two or half of them are. They vote party lines and never compromise. What scares me is democrats are more loyal to their party than their country. I have relatives and classmates that no matter how crazy a democrat is they will defend them. Can't they admit to themselves that like anyone else they actually have flaws? I'm not loyal to Republicans they often make me sick, but democrats make me sick more often. They are all nuts, but our downfall will be democrat loyalty to a demented party.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

^^^^Yup^^^^


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Where's the money from Mexico???Just another lie.

What happened to "The Great Negotiator?"

Where is the "Great Deal Maker?

Just more total BS. uke: uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Where's the money from Mexico???Just another lie.
> 
> What happened to "The Great Negotiator?"
> 
> ...


It sounds that even though you were against this illegal immigration that the democrat party is more important to you and your going to fall into lockstep. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No way.....I am only against Trump's stupid wall. Holding up the budget so he can get his way is infantile. :crybaby:

I am opposed to illegal immigration. Including sanctuary cities. No health care, no free anything from the gov. Employers should be fined big time for hiring them. No automatic citizenship if born here. Faster sending them back where they came from. Everything except the ego trip wall.

Wait till the next president is a Democrat. Trump now has set a precedent for emergency declarations. Again what goes around comes around.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Trump now has set a precedent for emergency declarations.


 That precedent has been set. Actually it's approximately 40 years old if I remember right.

Glad to hear your still against this crazy illegal immigration. Keep in mind at no time has Trump claimed the wall will be the only means of stopping illegal immigration.

When we went to Arizona for the winter a few years ago I noticed the fence in some towns, but it only went about a half mile outside the city limits. It needs to be extended because it's to easy to walk around. There are to many people to close together for a person to keep a visual on everyone. Then there are those isolated areas they don't think people can cross. However like in the Organ Pipe National Monument federal employees put out water stations so no one would die on the desert. The problem is that encouraged even more to use that rout. Then private people who sympathized put out water stations. We camped a few nights just a few miles east of a heavy route. The environmentalists should get upset because the human waste along that route you can smell miles downwind. Also they throw the gallon plastic containers they use to carry water and I was told you can see the line of white in the desert from satellite photos. It's like a river of crap with plastic banks. I hope they have since cleaned that mess up. If I remember correctly that mess was between Ajo and Sells, Arozona.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

It's not a stupid wall, Ken. Your own party of misfits voted to build the wall when Obama was president, it was a brilliant idea to help curb illegal immigration then. What has changed?



> Obama's National Emergency Declarations
> 
> April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
> 
> ...


So if your hero can have all these emergency declarations to help keep OTHER countries secure, why is it wrong that President Trump wants to declare one to help keep THIS country secure? And if the obstructionists in Washington would vote the same as they did when the crappiest President was in office, Trump wouldn't need to declare a National Emergency.

This isn't about a wall, this is about a group of people who are so blinded by hate for a man that they refuse to do the job they were sent to Washington to do.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

huntin1 said:


> This isn't about a wall, this is about a group of people who are so blinded by hate for a man that they refuse to do the job they were sent to Washington to do.


You may be right. And it sounds just like the "Party of No" during the Obama presidency. Blinded by hate and voting no on EVERYTHING Obama wanted. So now Democrats are practicing the same thing and Republicans are outraged????? Welcome to "you did it to us so now it's our turn to return the favor.

This is exactly why far right and far left do not belong in office. Unfortunately right now it doesn't work that way. Which is why I think of myself as a centrist. And I hope someone like our senator Klobachar is the next president. We need to get Trump out of office and replace him with someone in the middle ground. To bad there isn't a Republican with centrist views taking on Trump next year.

We don't need Trump or Warren or Sanders or even Kamala as the next candidate for president. Unfortunately it won't turn out that way. Because people are so blinded they can only see one side and hate the other. :******: :******:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> And I hope someone like our senator Klobachar is the next president


Ken..

She is the best of the bunch so far. But she is still isn't good IMHO. Her stance on gun control isnt a good one for the hunting community. Which she says right now she is for "universal" background checks. Which means anytime you transfer a gun you need to do a check. Which could lead to gun control. Because all stores or FFL's have to do is say... NOPE we are only doing new sales. Which is their right. Smaller FFL's are going the way of the Dodo. And it takes almost an act of god to become a new FFL. So as you can see this is an issue IMHO. Now I am all for the 3 day thing. Which is now a background check is automaticly pushed thru if it isn't done in 3 days. Which means the government cant sit on them. If they pushed that to 5 days. Plus they need to staff more people doing these checks... (yeah I know I just called for expanding government... LOL) but it is what is needed. Plus more case workers at ports of entry. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.....I would have no problem with that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken..

Problem is she isn't for the extending to 5 days on the checks or "hiring" more people. She wants the universal check on all transactions. Which like I stated could end up "back door" gun control. All it would take is big box stores to say "NO" to private transactions or transfers (handing guns down in a family).

Now I haven't heard too much about this last shooting in Aurora. But the guy was a felon and couldn't have a gun. So it will be interesting to hear where the gun came from. If it was purchased by him legally or not. Remember IL has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

From what I have seen today.....it looks like for his wall money Trump will take $32 million from a proposed National Guard Readiness Center in Fargo.

Also $66 million from a helicopter facility at the Minot Air Force Base. Less than $100 million out of 6+ billion.

There aren't a whole lot of military places in ND to take money. Haven't seen if anything is to be taken in Minnesota. Not a whole lot of military complexes in Minnesota. No disaster money up here either.

And the three blind mice over there won't care if their state loses money. They are in lock step with Trump.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Party of No"


 Thats how I remember democrats since 1958. Republicans nearly always compromise, but democrats rarely do, and that's where they are the real party of no. The other thing about democrats - watch and you will see- is that they always accuse others of what they are doing. The democrat national committee colluded with Russians.

Have you heard that the democrats would have made it a felony for you to simply barrow your shotgun to someone, even a father or son. That went nowhere. Now they currently have a bill that would ban magazines over 10 rounds and make it a crime to give it to a family member. Not just permanently, but if you hand them your AR15 at the range and they shoot it. Bam your a criminal. Unless your an illegal alien. Then it's ok. :rollin: "sarcasm".


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Not a student of every day English......you can't borrow something to some one. You lend it to them. Kids used to ask me if they could bring a book back to the library. I would say ....No, but you can take it back. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

There is a new petition out.....sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion. Pay off the national debt. Over 11,000 signatures on it. A second says.....2 for 1 sale.....buy one Dakota and get the second one free. :rollin: :rollin:

Heck your buddy Trump is such pals with Putin, maybe Russia would buy the Dakotas. Wouldn't you love to be a communist? They could set up Gulags over there.Kind of like Siberia over there isn't it? :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

I saw that as well about selling Montana. Are those people idiots..... Montana has oil! Which is like gold and will keep being that way. Or do people want to go back on being so dependent on importing oil?

Also I see he is trying to "rob peter to pay paul" for his wall. You see that he is going to take away money for a high speed rail project in CA. But to be fair... .they have had years to complete this project but it hasn't gone anywhere and they are now changing the route again and wanting more money. The one article I read a few days ago on it stated that they contractors are "milking" the system for the money and not doing a thing. So that is a good play to take away money regaurdless of there he want to use it. It isn't getting used correctly to begin with. :beer:

BTW.... in my "pot" thread nobody picked up on how CA is using more resources to fight illegals/cartels running the illegal pot grows. Yet totally against a wall. But want to spend and divert money and resources to fight illegals doing criminal things. :eyeroll: Also they are still "Sanctuary" cities in that state. COME ON! Again if people are against the wall fine... but how about the sanctuary stuff. I mean you are saying to the cartel "send people here illegally, we wont kick them out!"


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree Chuck.....my guess about selling Montana is that it obviously is a joke to the people who signed the petition. Heck I would just to see how many they get. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Close the border and cut off money to the countries where all these people are coming from. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I agree that is what will be needed.

But there is lots of people who go to and from Mexico to work. Both US going into Mexico and Mexico coming into the US. These are people doing it LEGALLY. So I don't know how that would actually work?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Heck your buddy Trump is such pals with Putin, maybe Russia would buy the Dakotas. Wouldn't you love to be a communist?


 Or I could just move to Minnesota. oke: No kidding, every time I take the camper to Minnesota I feel like I'm in a communist country. The last time I drove the north shore you needed a permit for anything you wanted to do. Then you drive inland five miles to national forest and you feel like you have your freedom back. You guys are racing Kalifornia for the cliff.



> Close the border and cut off money to the countries where all these people are coming from. :thumb:


 :thumb:



> But there is lots of people who go to and from Mexico to work. Both US going into Mexico and Mexico coming into the US. These are people doing it LEGALLY. So I don't know how that would actually work?


 Chuck I think that's what will make it work. The people coming legally need to start putting pressure on their government. When Mexico hurts their ears will open.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Are we ready to have Veggies and fruit costs go through the roof? Fruits have been coming from Chili and now what you see in the grocery stores is coming from Mexico. I know how much comes from working at Hornbachers produce section. Especially berries, grapes and lettuce. Since they are perishable.....can't stock up.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken..

agreed! That is where the USA will get hit big time. Hopefully our elected leaders will get their heads out of a dark place that smells and get something done. I know one side will blame trump. But I think he is doing this to force some action by both parties.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Why not just sell California back to Mexico. We don't want it and It's 1/2 way there already anyway. Though why would Mexico buy what they are probably going to own in 30 or 40 years anyway...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sell states back to Mexico??? I vote we sell Texas and keep California.

Wouldn't as long of a wall then.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump......"our country is full. No more granting asylum." :beer:

Minnesota now trying to give illegals a drivers licenses. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I read that too. Plus wanting to give everyone a DL or state ID. :eyeroll: So if you live part time in FL and in MN... they want you to have a MN ID is the way I read an article. Granted I dont know how you can unless you want to claim two states as home. Which would be a tax nightmare. But I honestly think that is why MN is doing it... for tax purposes.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

And of course with two licenses you will be able to vote in two states, particularly with absentee and early voting being available.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota.... that is what some Reps said in the article. They were afraid of voter fraud.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Say What????????????????

Trump......" We will place illegal immigrants in Sanctuary cities only."

What the heck is he doing????? :down: :down:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Honestly...

I think he is doing this as a ploy to get Dem's to move on immigration reform. Because now Pelosi came out and is kicking and screaming about this. I hope it works to get people to actually do something.

Did you notice how some Dem officials said it isn't needed.... then why are they sanctuary cities then? If they don't want illegals moving to those cities... why would they be sanctuary cities? To me it shows how some of these elected officials are just against anything Trump does.... good or bad. If Trump thought of it... it is wrong. No matter what.

Like it has said before. Trump could find the cure for cancer and give it to people for free. Dem's would come out saying it is wrong. :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What else should I expect from this loony. Vindictiveness and stick it to them attitude. I'm the best and I can do anything I want attitude. Who cares what it does to other people. I am ALWAYS right.:down: :down: :down:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

He is showing the Hypocrisy of many on this issue. If sanctuary cities now don't want "illegals".... then why are they "sanctuary" cities? If before they said we "welcome you with open arms"... but now when you will ship them to the city they are crying foul???

You see with his "BS" he is showing others "BS". He is calling them out on it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I am all for tough immigration laws. But this is pure hatred for Democrats. "I'm going to stick it to the Democrats as much as I possibly can." Next election year will be a mess. nothing but guided missiles going back and forth. We will all be tired of it by election day.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

It's not hard to figure out part of what democrats have been doing with respect to immigration. Take a look at local communities and cities in the heartland. Flyover country as some call us. The political elite flies over but immigrants tend to get dropped off here. Far from their utopian liberal neighborhoods. Cities in Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, North Dakota, etc. are invariably the destination. No use arguing it the proof is in the pudding.

So other than wanting immigration for votes but not wanting them in their neighborhoods what other reason? My contention is that another reason is that liberals have the votes in places like California, New York, etc. They need to gain votes in flyover country. What better way than to welcome illegals(votes) with open arms and transport them to conservative areas in the country. Then wave the dreamers, citizenship for illegal immigrants flag and Whalla!!! They now have the political control they crave and live for. Easy Peasy. Trump just has the political gonads to call them out on it. They don't like that. Therefore they hate him for exposing it. With a passion heretofore unseen.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I am all for tough immigration laws. But this is pure hatred for Democrats. "I'm going to stick it to the Democrats as much as I possibly can." Next election year will be a mess. nothing but guided missiles going back and forth. We will all be tired of it by election day.


And you wonder why? The Democrats keep voting in people like AOC and this piece of excrement.



















The Democratic Party is running socialists and terrorist sympathizers and you are surprised at the backlash?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

And far right Republican excrement continues to grow in white supremacy, KKK, skinhead groups. Fly over country is full. " We don't want those colored people living here."

How much will this cost us to bus ALL these people? Trump is just all talk. Blustering. Hair brained garbage. Typical Trump excrement. No one is buying this BS.Won't happen. oke: oke:

""The Democratic Party is running socialists and terrorist sympathizers and you are surprised at the backlash"
Total BS.....lumping all Democrats together is BULL......I am a Democrat and I'm not that. And most Democrats aren't either.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

"And far right Republican excrement continues to grow in white supremacy, KKK, skinhead groups. Fly over country is full. " We don't want those colored people living here.""
Typical liberal mantra. Nobody here ever said anything about skin color. We are talking about people sneaking into our country ILLEGALLY and, in many cases, living off the taxpaying American citizen! No matter to the color of their skin! uke: :sniper:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

How many white skinned people are sneaking into the country?????sure sounds like people with colored skin to me. I'm all for tough immigration laws. But calling for hauling immigrants to sanctuary cities is complete, BS. Trump spouting stinking garbage twitters.

""The Democratic Party is running socialists and terrorist sympathizers and you are surprised at the backlash"
Total BS.....lumping all Democrats together is BULL......I am a Democrat and I'm not that. And most Democrats aren't either.

What if these cities want these immigrants and call Trumps bluff? Could easily happen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 stated:


> They need to gain votes in flyover country. What better way than to welcome illegals(votes) with open arms and transport them to conservative areas in the country.


Ken stated:


> What if these cities want these immigrants and call Trumps bluff? Could easily happen.


I think if you read norh1's statement and give it thought you will come up with the right answer. What's wrong with placing them in communities that like them? :rollin: However I think those liberal sanctuary people are liars. If they like these people they would be the perfect placement areas. However the truth is they don't like them or red state people. It's dislike of them, hatred for us, and the desire to deceive illegals for votes that Obama and his ilk place them in red states. The hatred shoe doesn't fit Trump it fits democrats.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Yet again the libs pull the race card! NOT about race, all about ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

speckline said:


> Yet again the libs pull the race card! NOT about race, all about ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!


Yet again the far right can't see what is right in front of them. Including the buffoon in the White House.

But that's OK.....the lemmings on the right can just keep following over the cliff. oke:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

The bottom of the cliff has a better ending than what the libtards have planned for this country! :thumb:

See Venezuela for snapsht.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It's a long way down. Hope you enjoy it in 2 years when we have a Democrat for president. :beer: :beer:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Not with the leadership(or lack thereof) of the dumbocraps :withstupid:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

You are forgetting these "sanctuary" cities said... come to us we wont ship you out of the country. You are safe from ICE. But now when Trump says... we will send the people seeking asylum to you while they are waiting on a verdict. They are screaming... NO.

Can you not see the BS those cities are pulling? Can you not see that those cities are run by Dem's? Or is your hatred for Trump that deep that you don't see it.

Trump is calling all of them out on their BS. If those elected officials were not pulling political stunts in those cities. They would say... YES bring them to us. Yet they are not. That is the issue.

I agree that it would cost way too much to ship them to these cities and what not. But I do like how is his showing the world how those elected politicians in those cities and states really are. But yet the left cant see what is right in front of their eyes. They would rather kick and scream. Yes this is the new "target" since the mueller stuff is wearing very very thin. But lets not get together and come up with a solution to the immigration issue. Lets all do lip service (and Trump is in the mix on that!)

edit #2: Here is an article:
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... mmigrants/

Edit:

Tried to paste and copy a quote off of Cher's twitter feed but didn't work.

To summarize: She said that LA cant take care of it's own people so why should they take care of these new people Trump wants to ship to them. She also included many of the people LA isn't taking care of are Vets. So again... LA is a sanctuary city and kicks and screams against anything Trump tries to do. &#8230; Hypocrisy by the Left... and Cher is leans very Left... So it proves the point that Trump is calling them all out on it. Because earlier Cher said that people should welcome dreamers and illegals in with open arms. (Again I am summarizing because it wouldn't let me cut and paste her quote). :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Attached it the two tweets...

Hope it works... :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/0 ... men-video/



> Yet again the libs pull the race card


The above link is a House Rep when they were meeting with a national banking board. Banks are one of the most regulated industries when it comes to discrimination. They are watched like a hawk. Yet Lib's or Dem's are still pull the race card.

Ken.... If I were you or any Dem I would be furious about this type of behavior.

BTW... I think Trumps vid of 9/11 and Omar is totally in the wrong. :bop: He should have never posted it. But for her to say it is his fault for any threats coming her way is wrong. She has done enough on her own with the things she has said. Just her phrase as "some people did something". She needed to get ahead of that and apologize. But she hasn't at all. I also know that quote was a snippet and what not as well. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump......Making illegal immigration worse.....He doesn't want to solve this problem. All of these things will make more people want to come here, not less.....he wants immigration to be a 2020 campaign issue, the same as he did in 2016 at EVERY campaign stop. Maybe we will hear that "Mexico will pay for it." again. After all according to Tiny.....they still owe us. :bop: :bop:

1. Send migrants to sanctuary cities

2. close the border

3. Get rid of immigration judges

4. Cut off aid to Central American countries.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

You could be correct.

I would bet it will be cut off aid will be the slogan.

Just like Bernie is "everything is free".... oke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Why didn't liberals complain when Somalians were shipped to the very center of North America, but do complain about illegals shipped a couple hundred miles. It would appear they prefer illegals to conservative fellow Americans.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Answer: LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!!


----------



## ELVIN (Apr 13, 2019)

Notice how it says the advantage of the general open to keep and remain battle set it up doesn't express the advantage of the state outfitted power to keep and pass on weapons. Those set up journalists were tricky, weren't they.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now this is funny.... IMHO...

1. Trump says he wants to make those seeking asylum stay in mexico. The 9th circuit court (i believe... the one in CA) said it is unlawful to do that.

2. Trump says he will then send Asylum seekers to sanctuary cities

3. court overturns its previous ruling and states Trump can keep asylum seekers in mexico.

:rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sen. Graham introduced a bill today.. .will be interesting how the Dem's react to it.

1. It makes Asylum seeker apply in their home country or at a consulate in Mexico. NOT AT THE BORDER
2. It is asking for more than 500 judges be hired or appointed to run thru the back log of cases.
3. It allows to keep kids in custody for 100 days not 20 days.

I can see them getting up in arms about the last one. But the other two are great idea's and should be wanted to help with immigration. Even if they don't believe there is a "crisis" this will help with the back log of cases and also help it from getting "back logged".

This should really show or shed the light on how Dem's really feel about immigration.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with number 2 definitely.

Not sure about number 1

Definitely disagree with number 3. It has NO CHANCE of getting by the House.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken why would the house vote against #3? These kids are being cared for better than any other time in their lives.

If a Republican and a Democrat died together in a car accident and both went to heaven, but at the Pearly Gates St Peter said "so many people are dying we can't process them fast enough. We have to hold you here for 100 days while your mansion is finished, but you will be better cared for than anything on earth while you wait". The Republican would say "praise the Lord". The Democrat would say "you racist #×/÷ard".


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dems will not vote to separate these families.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Dems will not vote to separate these families.


Democrats need to make up their small minds. It's been only a few years since democrats complained that kids could not be kept with adults because those adults may not actually be their family. They kept quiet until Trump became president, then oh my how terrible to separate "families". What happened those few years to allow democrats to positively id family? By now it should start to become clear to more and more citizens that democrats don't fix anything they just whine and hold up true progress. Democrats are progressive if you consider going back to the stone age progress.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

IMHO #1 is something that is hopeful thinking. Because the word needs to get to people seeking asylum that they have to do it elsewhere first. Right know all they know is that they can do it at the border crossing or cross illegally, get caught, and then seek it. So in theory it will work but it needs time to trickle down to the people seeking asylum. It will stop the "clog" at the border but will take a year or two to see if it works.

But this plan so far is the first good plan I have seen by either side. It doesn't bring up "the wall". It is all about fixing a system. Which the Dem's don't seem to care about. Because they haven't brought up any plan.

It is sad that it wont make it thru the house at all. I am sure they wont even just strike out anything and try to get it passed. They will just vote it down on party lines and they kick and scream when Trump comes back with more WALL talk.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I just read that Trump is coming out with an immigration plan in a speech today.

I honestly hope he goes stupid crazy with it. Like saying 40 trillion for a wall, land mines, kicking everyone out of the country, etc. Because the more off the wall he can make it maybe they will vote for Grahams idea.

But again that is wishful thinking that our elected leaders can use common sense and get on common ground. This isn't a dig at just Dem's it is at all of them.

BTW.... I am liking more and more Rep. Krenshaw&#8230;. He seems like he wants to work with everyone to reach common ground.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But again that is wishful thinking that our elected leaders can use common sense and get on common ground. This isn't a dig at just Dem's it is at all of them.


I'm so sick of the republicans I could barf. The only thing that makes a Republican look good is a Democrat. They truly are the party of perverts and money worshipers.


----------

