DescentBB

Thanks to Obama. This is what he is encouraging and enabling by destroying border security enforcement.

What sort of 'dream' is he guaranteeing these 'Dreamers' as he calls them?

It looks more like a nightmare - for everyone.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... verwhelmed

Breitbart, the direct route to brainlessness.

slick you consistently use that tactic. It is lame.

Do you mean to imply there is no problem? It sure seems like you are smart enough to know there is so one might conclude you are trying to steer people away from the substance in the message by attacking the messenger.

I don't know, maybe you aren't smart enough to question your Party's rhetoric and you truly believe anything Brietbart publishes is a lie. That would certainly explain why you seem to go out of your way to be so wrong sometimes.

Personally I think you aren't stupid. But that means you are dishonest and actually that's ok because I can't fault you for being stupid since that condition could be beyond your ability to remedy but your dishonesty is all your fault.
So, why do you want to be such a dishonest person? Is the Dem Party handing out favors for defenders of the 'faith' or something? You secretly aspire to be one of the ruling class so you play like one on the internet?

ThunderBunny wrote:This is what he is encouraging and enabling by destroying border security enforcement.

Having done contract work for the border patrol between 2010-2013 I can say with first hand experience that security enforcement is the opposite of destroyed. In fact, the growth of the border patrol along the Mexican border pretty much keep us in business during the economic slowdown and I almost considered taking a job with the border patrol because they were hiring like crazy. So sorry, you are reading lies. The sad thing is, these people are probably happy to have air conditioning & regular meals and be free from rampant violence, even if they are stuck in a holding area. It's an American holding area.

Also, there are an awful lot of people smiling in those pics haha.

callmeslick wrote:Breitbart, the direct route to brainlessness.

Doing another brain dead Alynski response slick? Ridicule the messenger in hopes of diminishing the message? Like Will said, it gets tiresome.

vision fleshed it out with firsthand reality. Bottom line: Breitbart lies, repeats lies and generally feeds the brainless a propaganda stew. Eat up!

callmeslick wrote:vision fleshed it out with firsthand reality. Bottom line: Breitbart lies, repeats lies and generally feeds the brainless a propaganda stew. Eat up!

I could very well say this and probably be correct in saying it:

Bottom line: callmeslick lies, repeats lies and generally feeds the brainless a propaganda stew. Eat up!

Vision and slick....please quote the lies and give us the actual numbers since you claim to have this information.

Will Robinson wrote:Vision and slick....please quote the lies and give us the actual numbers since you claim to have this information.

What do you mean "quote the lies?" The entire "article" (if you can call it that) is just one long quote from Sylvia Longmire, who is an editor at Breitbart. A conservative website literally quoted itself, published it as an article, and somehow this is worthy of some sort of validity review? Are you kidding?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vision and slick....please quote the lies and give us the actual numbers since you claim to have this information.

What do you mean "quote the lies?" The entire "article" (if you can call it that) is just one long quote from Sylvia Longmire, who is an editor at Breitbart. A conservative website literally quoted itself, published it as an article, and somehow this is lworthy of some sort of validity review? Are you kidding?

So the situation she describes is false?

The AP is reporting otherwise.
Apparently the Obama administration disagrees with your assessment.

Now, granted, my citing Obama as verification is dangerous since he is known for lying about many many things but the more I look the more I find confirmation that TB and Brietbart are telling the truth and you and slick are the the ones telling lies. I'm not surprised.

callmeslick wrote:vision fleshed it out with firsthand reality. Bottom line: Breitbart lies, repeats lies and generally feeds the brainless a propaganda stew. Eat up!

No, Will fleshed it out. Both you and vision seemingly are so whacked out all you can do is make unfounded accusations in the hopes the uninformed will believe you.

The way it was in another country and the way it is presently in our country. In both cases, desperate people wanted to leave one area of poverty and repression and go to a better area with more opportunity. The problem is, the repressive government wanted to keep their people in and they couldn't, while the land of opportunity wants to keep them out, and they can't. Walls failed back then and they will fail again.

The U.S. border fence.



The Berlin Wall.

See also: Israel re. Palestine.

Will Robinson wrote:Apparently the Obama administration disagrees with your assessment.

What is my assessment? Are you imagining another conversation with me that did not happen?

In response to TB's "Obama is destroying border security" I said "no, having worked for the Border Patrol it is expanding." The AP article you linked to says the Obama administration "would temporarily house some of the children at two military bases." Sounds like they are on top of it, wouldn't you say? Do you want to spend more on illegals? You know, maybe set them up at the local Marriott or Radisson and give them pool passes? You want less government spending but you want more resources for people who aren't even citizens? Can't have both. Better figure out your position, man.

Vision you are a pathetic liar.
You and slick said the Breitbart piece was all lies. It wasn't. It was accurate.
you got called out on it so now you are scrambling to change the subject.

And if you think what Obama's doing qualifies as "being on top of it" you aren't smart enough to be ashamed of yourself but you should be. Sending out a welcome beacon and then when you get over run by people accepting the invitation you bus them off to other towns and dump them....yea , he is really on top of it

Will Robinson wrote:Vision you are a pathetic liar.
You and slick said the Breitbart piece was all lies. It wasn't. It was accurate.
you got called out on it so now you are scrambling to change the subject.

And if you think what Obama's doing qualifies as "being on top of it" you aren't smart enough to be ashamed of yourself but you should be.

I'm not sure what you are talking about and I suspect you don't either. Thunderbunny says Obama is "destroying border security enforcement." No where in that Breitbart article does it show Obama doing such a thing. It shows the opposite. It shows people are being detained, which means border security is working. According the AP article there is an increase in apprehension. Again, this means the border security is working well! In fact it is doing so well that they are now working beyond their resources. That is why the administration is moving the detainees to new facilities. In other words, we are using the resources we have my re-purposing certain locations (like the military bases) to deal with a surge in apprehensions, and not just throwing tax dollars at it. This is a great management move and should make conservatives happy. Of course it won't because, you know, ★■◆● president.

So what is your position on this Will? You want use to spend money on illegals? Maybe roll out some FEMA shelters for them? Or maybe we should drone down the brown people on the other side of our border so we don't have to deal with them? So let's say there is a refugee crisis at the border. What is your brilliant management move that also doesn't spend money? Let's hear your wisdom!

Vision, 'apprehensions' are not up in the context of 'border security'.
To say they are in that context you imply an effort to stem the tide of incoming illegals.
That is NOT what they are trying to do. That is NOT what they are doing.

They have advertised in the interior of Mexico how to apply for welfare and other assistance once they arrive. They are not advertising reasons to not enter.

They alter the established methods of counting incoming illegals to include 'turnarounds' as apprehensions so they can report an 'increase' in security compared to the Bush administration. I don't know if you and slick know this and are that dishonest to spread the propaganda or that foolish to not recognize when you are being played like a whore by her pimp.

They establish 'sanctuary cities' where they announce the local governments will not arrest or deport you or transfer you to any state or federal authority that would do so.

They outright encourage an increase in illegal immigration and go out of their way to dismiss the 'illegal' part as meaningless.
They are promoting amnesty for all coming soon and have already implemented partial amnesty by announcing that if you have arrived here as a child you will not be sent back under any circumstances.

They do all this with full knowledge of the increases in illegal entry that 'amnesty' creates.

And then they get over run by incoming and they bus them off to other cities and dump them there....and you call that being on top of border security?!?

You are an insulting stooge for trying to pass that off as an honest assesment of the situation. Or you are the biggest idiot yet.

Will Robinson wrote:Vision, 'apprehensions' are not up in the context of 'border security'.
To say they are in that context you imply an effort to stem the tide of incoming illegals.
That is NOT what they are trying to do. That is NOT what they are doing.

How do you know this? Show me in the two articles where it says this.

Will Robinson wrote:They have advertised in the interior of Mexico how to apply for welfare and other assistance once they arrive. They are not advertising reasons to not enter.

Show me where in the article where it says this. You seem to be implying much more than I am! Also, most of the influx comes from Central America, not Mexico. Bro, do you even geography?

Will Robinson wrote:They alter the established methods of counting incoming illegals to include 'turnarounds' as apprehensions so they can report an 'increase' in security compared to the Bush administration. I don't know if you and slick know this and are that dishonest to spread the propaganda or that foolish to not recognize when you are being played like a whore by her pimp.

There is that word again. I bet you have a tattoo of it. Again, show me where in the two articles it says this.

Will Robinson wrote:They establish 'sanctuary cities' where they announce the local governments will not arrest or deport you or transfer you to any state or federal authority that would do so.

Show me where in the two articles it says this.

Will Robinson wrote:They outright encourage an increase in illegal immigration and go out of their way to dismiss the 'illegal' part as meaningless.
They are promoting amnesty for all coming soon and have already implemented partial amnesty by announcing that if you have arrived here as a child you will not be sent back under any circumstances.

They do all this with full knowledge of the increases in illegal entry that 'amnesty' creates.

Show me where in the two articles it says this.

Will Robinson wrote:And then they get over run by incoming and they bus them off to other cities and dump them there....and you call that being on top of border security?!?

Where would you like to put them? You still haven't answered any of my questions or provided a single solution.

Will Robinson wrote:You are an insulting stooge for trying to pass that off as an honest assesment of the situation. Or you are the biggest idiot yet.

These insults! As we can plainly see above, it is you who are inferring a great deal. Not only that, but you have not provided a single solution, nor even a hint of one.

Want to give it a shot?

That outdoor picture looked nice. I wonder if they were having a barbecue.

vision, I'm citing activity/legislation/refusal to enforce law that has been going on for Obama's whole term in office. It doesn't have to appear in the article for it to be a very relevant fact that refutes your silly assertion that Obama is increasing apprehensions and 'on top of border security'.

Anyone with a brain reading this will understand that and see your antics as childish.

And I have made my position on the border quite clear in the past.
I grew up living on it in El Paso. My position is build the fence, patrol the perimeter etc as best you can to reduce illegal activity and open the gates so people can cross in the light of day at a border crossing.
Let them come in after proving their identity...coupled with at least an attempt at background check in cooperation with Mexico's government... and thus remove migrants from the drug cartel's bag of tricks. Of course I want to legalize drugs too but that's a whole new bullet in their head discussion.

Also, there is no reason to give citizenship or voting rights to someone just because they have entered the country (unless you are democrat party hack of course...then you have a reason...). They can earn that with citizenship just like any other legal immigrant.

and just because I cite the Obama administration advertising welfare procedure to potential illegals in the interior of Mexico doesn't mean I don't know the mix of nationalities that come here through Mexico...it just means I only know they did the advertising in Mexico or I would have listed the other locations as well.
and quit whining about being insulted, you love to dish it out so now you get some back.

Will Robinson wrote:It doesn't have to appear in the article for it to be a very relevant fact that refutes your silly assertion that Obama is increasing apprehensions and 'on top of border security'.

It was the AP article that said apprehensions are up, specifically child apprehensions from Central American states. I would suggest that some of the increase is from beefed up security because my job between 2010-2013 was (drum roll) adding security to border patrol stations. I know El Paso. I have been stuck in traffic on Patriot Freeway! I did work in 3 of the stations there over the course of 6 months. (Side note: El Paso is a pretty cool city compared to all the others in Texas, probably because it is so far away from Houston.)

Will Robinson wrote:My position is build the fence, patrol the perimeter etc as best you can to reduce illegal activity and open the gates so people can cross in the light of day at a border crossing. Let them come in after proving their identity...coupled with at least an attempt at background check in cooperation with Mexico's government... and thus remove migrants from the drug cartel's bag of tricks.

This is a good idea. Do you know of anyone who supports it? I would support that candidate.

Will Robinson wrote:vision, I'm citing activity/legislation/refusal to enforce law that has been going on for Obama's whole term in office. It doesn't have to appear in the article for it to be a very relevant fact that refutes your silly assertion that Obama is increasing apprehensions and 'on top of border security'.

no, in most cases, you are citing the idiot-level propaganda that has been spread. Notably, above, about 'sanctuary' cities(no Federal support for same) and the bit about benefit application that was posted in Mexico(turned out that there was no such campaign, merely flyers posted at facilities that service transient legal workers.

My position is build the fence, patrol the perimeter etc as best you can to reduce illegal activity and open the gates so people can cross in the light of day at a border crossing.

thus, killing trade and traffic. It's likely why no fool has suggested doing the same with, say, Canada.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:vision, I'm citing activity/legislation/refusal to enforce law that has been going on for Obama's whole term in office. It doesn't have to appear in the article for it to be a very relevant fact that refutes your silly assertion that Obama is increasing apprehensions and 'on top of border security'.

no, in most cases, you are citing the idiot-level propaganda that has been spread. Notably, above, about 'sanctuary' cities(no Federal support for same) and the bit about benefit application that was posted in Mexico(turned out that there was no such campaign, merely flyers posted at facilities that service transient legal workers.

I think you are completely delusional or else the worst kind of liar. There is a bit more than a flier distributed! There is federal tax revenue being spent on promoting it and some in Congress wrote a law to end it and in an Omnibus spending Bill it was taken out.
The legislation was rewritten to remove the prohibition of providing financial assistance to advertise welfare to illegals and replaced with completely useless language that merely suggests they not do it.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/14/usda- ... oogle.com/

San Francisco is one of the sanctuary Cities. They passed a law that prohibits any city employee, police, etc. from cooperating with federal agents in the locating, arresting, deporting of illegal immigrants.

The loop hole by the way is a smoke screen....'unless the fed agent has a warrant' ...well you go try to get a warrant when you don't know the name or any identifying characteristic of the person you are trying to arrest. When you don't have any information on when or where that unknown person might have been anywhere...etc.

You can't get a "warrant" that compels a police force to call you when they discover an illegal immigrant.
So the point about a warrant is complete bullfeces. And the list of Sanctuary Cities is well published south of the border.

And of course there is no 'federal support' for it! It is a sanctuary FROM federal immigration law! You are really trying to be wrong I think.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:My position is build the fence, patrol the perimeter etc as best you can to reduce illegal activity and open the gates so people can cross in the light of day at a border crossing.

thus, killing trade and traffic. It's likely why no fool has suggested doing the same with, say, Canada.

Please explain this completely bizarre interpretation of what I actually typed. I think you must not have actually read what I wrote at all.


The underlying point I'm making is all of this activity is NOT indicative of an administration trying to reduce incoming illegal immigration.
Quite the opposite and I trust this is apparent to most of the people reading this in spite of you and vision trying so hard to obscure that point with your smoke screen.

The short sighted goals of the liberals harvesting voters at the polling place by increasing the influx and demagoguing the practice as an example of their 'compassion' is not helping this country to grow economically. It may swell the ranks of your party in the short term. May even lead to the destruction of the opposition party. But only a complete fool would find that result comforting.

No Will, of course a fence at the border would block all roads into and out of Mexico…

(duh, don’t all roads already have border checkpoints)

Forget about your honest discourse, I don’t know why people even bother.

Will said he would only allow daylight passage, effectively making a lot of current truck traffic(both ways) impossible.

No, I said " light of day" which is a figure of speech meaning, in the context it was used, not sneaking in...observed...documented...accounted for...not carrying a couple kilos for the cartel...

When reading what I write try to actually consider the perspective and point most likely being raised instead of trying to fit it into a template that confirms your bias.

gee, bias aside, 'light of day' means, well, during the daytime where I come from. I'll accept your flagrant dodge.

No dodge at all, I knew exactly what he meant.

But I have to be honest, for a minute I thought you were implying the Mexicans would get mad at us if we built a fence…but then I said nahhhh….

Anyway for the record, and I’m sure I have said this before, I am personally against any kind of walls or fences at the border.

callmeslick wrote:gee, bias aside, 'light of day' means, well, during the daytime where I come from. I'll accept your flagrant dodge.

Lol! Dodge?!? I think you are projecting a bit there.

Aside from the fact that the expression is quite common with variations that have been in use for decades, perhaps centuries, it matters not at all because it was a relatively trivial point in side bar to a conversation about a topic that you are only too happy to keep the focus off of.
That is Obama, and the leftys in general, are NOT trying to reduce the influx of Latinos.

Their efforts to undermine immigration law for the Latinos and facilitate their coming in without being affected by the law as much as possible has created a bit of a swarm.

It is in the news, the dumping of thousands of children is in the news, the impact of the swarm on our civil services is having some seriously negative effects.

But according to you lefties anyone who reports the situation is a rightwing propagandist and besides that Obama is on top of it anyway....that situation that isn't happening...he is right on top of it...

Will Robinson wrote:It is in the news, the dumping of thousands of children is in the news, the impact of the swarm on our civil services is having some seriously negative effects.

Wait, wait, wait... What is this "dumping?" According to the news, there is a huge influx of children arriving at the border and they are being moved, not "dumped," to alternative facilities where they will presumably get better care since they won't be overcrowded. What would you like to do with the "swarm?" Leave the kids outside the gate on the Mexican border and say "Shooo! Git!"?

Please offer a viable solution.

I think it’s the parents of these children doing the “dumping”.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It is in the news, the dumping of thousands of children is in the news, the impact of the swarm on our civil services is having some seriously negative effects.

Wait, wait, wait... What is this "dumping?" According to the news, there is a huge influx of children arriving at the border and they are being moved, not "dumped," to alternative facilities where they will presumably get better care since they won't be overcrowded. What would you like to do with the "swarm?" Leave the kids outside the gate on the Mexican border and say "Shooo! Git!"?

Please offer a viable solution.

Dumping as in sending them to other states because Texas is running out of manpower and resources to deal with it. Dumping lots of them in Arizona because they have fewer crossing there since they have taken to protecting the border themselves....I'm sure Obama gets a chuckle out of sending Brewer a swarm...

Officials in Central America and Mexico have noticed a recent increase in women and children crossing the border. Father Heyman Vazquez, the director of a migrant shelter in Huixtla in the southern Mexico state of Chiapas, said he and others advise children that it's too dangerous.

Yet Vazquez is seeing more and more youths heading north.

"I remember a little boy of 9 years old and I asked if he was going to go meet someone and he told me 'No, I'm just going hand myself over because I hear they help kids,' " Vazquez said.

from here

Stop asking for them to come would be a big part of the solution! Stop advertising free food and shelter and no prosecution would be good enough to reduce the numbers somewhat.
And at the very least, if you ARE going to tell them to come on in have some kind of plan ahead of time to build your refugee cities!

You are the one who characterized the Obama administration as 'being on top of the situation'.

Scrambling to send these kids bouncing from one temp shelter to another until the swarm eases up (why would it?) with hopes they can set up enough tent cities to hold them all is not being on top of it!
Not in any reasonable assessment anyway.
I understand you are forced to offer the absurd to give cover for the results of some seriously shortsighted policy but a lot of us don't have such a blind allegiance to the Dem party. We have the luxury of examining the situation the light of day.

The adults that were being held, the ones that even under the Obama administrations loose interpretation of the law deserved to be incarcerated, including convicted rapists, murderers, etc, are being set free to make room for the younger ones. People sneaking in with an adult in the mix are being set free on their own recognizance.
'On top of it' huh? Way to set the bar so low no one could possibly even trip on it!

Where the hell do you grow balls big enough to make you think they can cause a situation like this, fail miserably to anticipate the consequences of the very results they sought.... deal with it in such bad way that it makes Bush's Katrina response look top notch and then tell me I can't comment unless I offer a solution for their fuckup?!?

If you want me to fix everything he does wrong send him home and start mailing me his paycheck...then we'll talk.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_2592 ... nd-el-paso

Good thing I speak Spanish. Ya'll are screwed.

Gonna renounce my citizenship, pitch a tent in callmeslick's backyard and demand he give me food, money, healthcare and everything I need to live a decent life as an 'immigrant.'

Hell, I'm probably entitled to half his house. He doesn't need the whole thing for his little ol' self. We 'latinos' are used to living 4 people to a room. Maybe he can learn to do that too.

Will Robinson wrote:Stop asking for them to come would be a big part of the solution! Stop advertising free food and shelter and no prosecution would be good enough to reduce the numbers somewhat.

Do you really think we are advertising American aid on kids shows hoping children will travel hundreds or thousands of miles alone to live in the US? I think maybe you don't quite understand that the US doesn't have to advertise anything. This is a place of boundless resources compared to the countries these people are from. We have things like running water and reliable electricity. If we said "we will shoot you on site" that still wouldn't deter most people since they live with that type of violence daily.

Will Robinson wrote:And at the very least, if you ARE going to tell them to come on in have some kind of plan ahead of time to build your refugee cities!

Where are these refugee tent cities you speak of? Pics or it didn't happen.

Will Robinson wrote:You are the one who characterized the Obama administration as 'being on top of the situation'... I understand you are forced to offer the absurd to give cover ... but a lot of us don't have such a blind allegiance to the Dem party.

Oh lordy, there you go again. Telling a formerly registered republican who never voted for Obama that he has blind allegiance to the democratic party. This is that same ★■◆● you and the others do. If you are not in a complete rage against the ★■◆● president you mush be licking his ass. You're a goddamn moron, I swear.

Will Robinson wrote:The adults that were being held, the ones that even under the Obama administrations loose interpretation of the law deserved to be incarcerated

So you don't want these illegals becoming a strain on our system, but you want them incarcerated, which means we have to shelter them, feed them, AND provide health care? Yeah, makes perfect sense...

I'll give you a couple days to find these "refugee cities." Get back to us when you find them.

I see Obama is providing millions of dollars to lawyers to represent illegal immigrant kids. All well and good but where does the money come from?:

"The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."

So while I don't want to sound cold hearted, having my (and yours) social security money squandered on all the benefits the illegal's get at the expense of my (and yours) social security check is not something I want. Let all those bleeding hearts donate money to a illegal immigrant fund to pay for their care.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Stop asking for them to come would be a big part of the solution! Stop advertising free food and shelter and no prosecution would be good enough to reduce the numbers somewhat.

Do you really think we are advertising American aid on kids shows hoping children will travel hundreds or thousands of miles alone to live in the US? I think maybe you don't quite understand that the US doesn't have to advertise anything. This is a place of boundless resources compared to the countries these people are from. We have things like running water and reliable electricity. If we said "we will shoot you on site" that still wouldn't deter most people since they live with that type of violence daily.

They do advertise instructions on how to apply for welfare when arriving in the US.
If you think that doesn't provide some incentive and comfort for someone contemplating the trip you are a fool.
The Congress initially had a law written to forbid the administration from further advertising funds used to this end but in the last minute back and forth on passing the omnibus spending Bill (a slimy politicians tool used to lump good and bad so all members can claim they had to vote on it to get the good parts) in that Bill the language was changed to a mere suggestion that the administration stop the practice of funding the advertising in foreign countries.

You can choose to deny this also but I think it undermines any credibility you have in the discussion to do so....

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And at the very least, if you ARE going to tell them to come on in have some kind of plan ahead of time to build your refugee cities!

Where are these refugee tent cities you speak of? Pics or it didn't happen.

The complaint was the Obama team is so "on top of the situation" that they forgot to build them thus we have illegals being bussed throughout the country like from Texas to Arizona to spends the nights sleeping in a warehouse with minimal food rations, portable toilets not coming until days after the children arrived, a temporary shower facility provided on the eleventh day....etc. et-frikken-on top of it -cetra

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are the one who characterized the Obama administration as 'being on top of the situation'... I understand you are forced to offer the absurd to give cover ... but a lot of us don't have such a blind allegiance to the Dem party.

Oh lordy, there you go again. Telling a formerly registered republican who never voted for Obama that he has blind allegiance to the democratic party. This is that same **** you and the others do. If you are not in a complete rage against the ★■◆● president you mush be licking his ass. You're a ******* moron, I swear.

Well I did vote for him once but then I saw the light. Too bad you can't do the same. Instead you dodge the point by being belligerent and feigning indignance. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting loudly...you know you want to and it fits your reaction perfectly.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The adults that were being held, the ones that even under the Obama administrations loose interpretation of the law deserved to be incarcerated

So you don't want these illegals becoming a strain on our system, but you want them incarcerated, which means we have to shelter them, feed them, AND provide health care? Yeah, makes perfect sense...

As usual you completely misrepresent what I said to construct your straw man.

I said they were releasing rapists and murderers along with thousands of others that they had determined were criminals in need of incarceration yet they had to set them free to accommodate the swarm of children that you think they are on top of handling

vision wrote:I'll give you a couple days to find these "refugee cities." Get back to us when you find them.

You give them too much credit. They will take weeks to get that far along with their on top of it performance.

Although the overall trend of illegal immigration has dropped in recent years, the authorities have been overwhelmed in recent months by the surge in children trying to cross the border. The federal government is establishing facilities at military bases in Texas and California to help house the children while their cases are being examined. The administration estimates that the influx of immigrant children could cost the federal government $2.28bn this year.
“The children that are arriving are a particularly vulnerable group,” Alejandro Mayorkas, deputy secretary of homeland security, said last week. “They have often survived a hazardous journey to have arrived here.”
Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House domestic policy council, said that some of the influx may have been caused by a false rumour in some countries that children would be allowed to stay in the US.

Gee, I wonder how that kind of rumor could have ever seen the light of day?


On ★■◆●ing top of it my ass!

Get back to me when you find the tent cities full of refugees. And even if there were tent cities, the humane thing to do is help our neighbors.

The humane thing is to follow our immigration laws instead of ignoring them for a preferred racial ethnicity. Allowing the latinos to dash across our boarder simply because there is more opportunity here only sets up the situations we see now. Oh and show me where all of these illegals are escaping persecution and violence. At what point DO you stop them at the boarder and say "Shoo"? When 10 million show up?, 100 million? When?

vision wrote:Get back to me when you find the tent cities full of refugees. And even if there were tent cities, the humane thing to do is help our neighbors.

That must be on the list right under Lure our neighbors children into the backyard supposedly for a party but then make a cheap laborer out of him and exploit him with a carrot on the end of a stick.

Good little donkey, tote that load. Don't be late for the polls.

Seriously vision, is that what you fall back on now in the discussion? 'OK so we are approaching tent city days but it was the right thing to do to create a sudden influx of children coming to cash in on a prize that doesn't exist'?

Incoming illegal immigration has been trending down in recent years because of a slow economy but thanks to the guy on top of things and his looney short sighted party members we have a swarm of families and children on their own trying to get that magic child on the other side of the fence in time for amnesty.
How completely humane

Ok, ★■◆● those kids. They have no right to be here. They should go back to El Salvador where "“Every day here is Black Friday" [1] and Honduras where the murder rate is 12 times the international average. [2] Greedy brown people from south of the border. How dare they take our civil services that constantly get cut by compassionate Republicans!