Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Big Lie: Protecting Our Borders
If you were told that “Obama says it’s okay to come to the US,” wouldn’t you make the trip? That’s what people in Mexico are told, and they are also learning that they only need to say the right words to be able to stay here: “political asylum.”
Based on a piece produced by KUSI TV in San Diego, it’s clear that the Obama administration has no regard for the American people or for protecting our borders. Daniel Plante, a reporter with the TV station spoke to Chris Harris of the National Border Patrol Council about the current border issues in San Diego.
https://youtu.be/FsTMt1WHHJU
In the video, Harris reminds Plante that Congress approved funds for 2,000 more border patrol agents, but the funds have not been used to hire new agents. The partial walls are not walls, but are fences that provide little security for our border. They are sometimes destroyed or crawled over. In his comments, Harris explained that the border patrol is little more than a welcoming committee: illegal aliens are given food, blankets and medical supplies by the border patrol. They are then driven to the San Ysidro bus stop on our side of the border and dropped off. And they are also provided with more food, blankets, and medicine to take home with them.
To replace fences with walls, according to Harris, will be extremely expensive. Meanwhile, fences without an appropriate infrastructure to support them, will be useless.
The most telling story was about a man who crossed illegally and explained he had a heart condition. Of course, he was provided heart surgery in a US hospital.
Do people think the wall, with the necessary support technology will ever happen?
Published in Immigration
It is amazing, FSC. And I’m sure it’s true. And we just keep going along with their plan.
It is what he is saying. I am not the only one seeing it. If Fred is not saying that, let him explain how this gets paid for under his system. I already pointed out a man of means in Mexico can already legally come to the US for treatment he pays for.
So let’s stop playing games and get on with what @fredcole is doing: He is trying to say the only reason we are not getting paid by this man is because we don’t have open boarders. That is patent BS.
.
I tend to agree with you, Spin. If Reagan couldn’t make it happen, I doubt that either Trump or Hillary will. Oops, forget that. I’m not making political statements here . . .
Again, Spin has a point, although I think part of the problem is that Fred has a big heart (go figure that’s a problem) and hasn’t stepped back, as Knotwise suggested, and considered the larger picture. And the picture includes our whole country, it’s problems, and being true to our laws.
Fred
Are you under the impression that Mexico does not have doctors? Or that the doctors there are substandard? Can you explain why this heart patient guy could not be turned over to the tender mercy of the Mexican government so they can help their own citizen? Are you under the impression that Mexico is some sort of hell where people are tortured to death and not a rich country in its own right that many people from around the world visit yearly?
You see, you confuse me. I know Mexico is not a death sentence. I know it has healthcare that in some cases surpass the US’s. I know there are plenty wonderful places to work and thrive there. I have been there a few times and it is full of wonderful people. So I am trying to figure out why you seem to think that a person has breaking the law to get out of such a place just because they can make a little more money on the US side of the border is acceptable. Really, you act like Mexico is some sort of Dante’s Hell and living there is guaranteed torturous death. What gives?
Susan, I think you are a wonderful person who attaches the best motives to people. I, on the other hand, tend to be more cynical and think Fred is just too invested in his own ideas about easy immigration to deal with the realities and consequences that this position will bring.
Thank you for your kind remark, Lily. I’m not familiar with Fred’s ideas on immigration prior to this OP. I hope we hear back from him.
yep
You can disagree with Fred, that’s fine. You don’t get to say “Fred said, but Fred knows he’s wrong so Fred doesn’t mean.” That’s called “arguing with a lack of good faith.”
I don’t fully agree with Fred’s position on immigration and border control. I think Fred sometimes has a pie in the sky view of his libertarianism. Nonetheless, taking the tack of “who the hell is gonna pay for this” is more an argument against the welfare state than it is against immigration.
To be fair – he was vague. He SAID the man should be sent a bill. It is rational to believe that that bill will go unpaid by this impoverished man. Who else did he think would pay? Somehow the cost will be absorbed by us. There is simply no other way.
Then he accuses us of lacking compassion and goes on to blame us for making the man into a criminal.
But I’m the one with bad faith?
Well, yes. We cannot have easy immigration and a giant welfare state. It will ruin us. And the welfare state has to be fixed first, because it won’t happen if we try to do it the other way.
I suggest that when someone is vague, it’s a good opportunity to ask a question of clarification than draw assumptions. Our assumptions may seem fair and obvious to us, but not always to the other person(s).
Which can be said of the “build a wall and send them all home” crowd.
We had an object lesson on this at our house just the other day. Across the street live Jose Gonzalez (name changed), his wife, and their three kids. The youngest is in my son’s grade and they sort of have a crush on each other but that is neither here nor there. The object lesson went as follows: Let us say that the government, under Mr. Trump, decided that all illegal mexicans have to go back to Mexico. How do we find those Mexicans? How do any of us know that Jose is not an illegal Mexican? Because he has a driver’s license? How? We don’t. And unless he carries some kind of paperwork with him, he has no way to prove that he is an American citizen, born and raised. Now the problem for Jose is that he’s big, covered in tattoos, and speaks with a Mexican accent, if joo know what I mean, mine! So these gang members who look mean and talk mean and have tattoos and speak the Mexican, they got to go, right? Who is to say that Jose isn’t one of those guys? Who’s to say that the big fat white guy who likes to call the police on anyone in the neighborhood who doesn’t do what he thinks they should isn’t going to call ICE and report an “eeleegull”? I mean, when Trump is elected and it’s all about sending them home…a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do, right?
And this is where we’ve gotten with all of this talk. None of it makes any damn sense. And who is going to stick up for Jose and his family if it goes side ways? Me and Fred. That’s who. Me and Fred. Well, not Fred because he lives too far away.
If I say A = 12 and you say A = 6, and I say no it equals 12 and you say “You know it doesn’t equal 12, you know it equals 6” then you are not arguing in good faith. You are saying the guy doesn’t believe what he says he believes. So yes.
To be fair, several people directly asked him who he thought would pay.
If you say A=12, and I can show you that that realistically A can’t equal 12, its not ‘arguing in bad faith’.
Fred says the guy should be sent the bill. Impoverished illegal immigrants do not pay bills for open heart surgery. “A” doesn’t equal 12 in this case and pointing that out is not arguing in bad faith.
A person can also choose not to answer (and given the tone of some of the comments, he might feel that way), and that doesn’t entitle people to make assumptions then, either. He may be back later, or he may back out of the conversation. He does have that choice.
And, people have the right, based on someone’s past actions, to make some assumptions about what is going on.
When someone acts in a certain way, over and over, they burn up good faith.
Point taken, Bryan. Again, I’m not familiar with his thoughts in this area.
The problem is that the system doesn’t conform to reality.
Reality is, that if you enter the US without permission, you are breaking the law. That is reality.
And, as usual, you refuse to address points made by posters, and concentrate on other things.
Please don’t paraphrase me. You’re really, really bad at it.
If it’s so damn great, why do millions of people risk their lives to leave and come here?
.
Rather good, actually. The thing is to pin you down. You are unclear on purpose, then when people react as you planned, you go off in a different direction. This thread is a prime example. In your crusade for totally open borders (a radical stance to say the least), you are using a liberal trope. And when called on it, you say “That is not what I said”.
This is the internet version of “Just Joking”
Cause it sucks to be poor there, and it is better to be poor here.
Care to answer about how the guy in question would have paid for his healthcare if we had open boarders to the US? I notice you just ignored it. I expect you will still ignore it, as you just won’t answer the hard questions on any topic.
Because we give out free stuff. Because your attitude is we should give free stuff to whoever shows up.
If I could have snuck into Mexico to have my wife’s cancer cured and not sell my house , it would have been adios.
Problem was, they would not pay for it. Neither would you. They would throw me in a rat infested jail.
I cannot believe that Fred would not pay for your wife’s treatment. What a heartless soul.