Crayola64

Celebrities? 75 degree weather in the offseason? I don't think you have been to jacksonville... Ha, this was about to be my comment. I would place buffalo near jacksonville/indy/cinci. It is not even close to minneapolis.

Your views are aligned with no more than less a percent of people.

yea yea yea, go yell at a muslim cloud

you are an uninformed and angry man! Thankfully harmless

I'm more upset about some of these burger preferences I have read than anything else discussed in this thread

I don’t think we are disagreeing on this. My point was that if you took aid to illegal immigrants out of the equation, I’d be shocked if that money went to aid the homeless.

Fully agreed. This whole debate about immigration in this country would be taking place in a different league if our immigration system wasn’t a joke. I don’t know about majorities. I just know enough people coming for good reasons that choose (or are sent) that path is significant enough for me. I think we just disagree on its net effect on immigration. Agreed, different views for sure. Having known illegal immigrants that came here as children, and are now working professionals, it’s tough to see what resources or issues they exacerbated. Some do, some don’t I suppose. I’m not sure if the current homeless in this country would have been helped if it wasn’t for the illegal immigrants.

Iv never objected to the constitutionality of any national emergency, nor had any opinions on the constitutionality of any of them. Including this one. I mean its totally irrelevant to my point, but glad to answer your question. Any other random questions? Want to know how man cats I have? Two.

Fair, but in practical senses, few have the resources or time to seek asylum legally. Our country’s acceptance of asylum seekers is far below what it needs to be imo. I mean, the wall is inherently tied to immigration...whether or not that is its purpose. Even if it has nothing to do with immigration, it clearly has an impact on it. and my point was, in regards to sex trafficking, even if it precludes it from occurring here, would the victims be free? Or are they still going to be victims elsewhere? At minimum, I think every single person potentially facing violence and sexual assault is entitled to live here. It only takes a short trip to El Salvador or Guatemala to be concinced a lot of good people are facing extreme poverty and are victims of crimes. In all honesty, my views are much higher broader than that.

Thats fair lol

Agreed, but worries that it is unconstitutional seem to be more than orange man bad. Seems like a fair argument to make I fully get your position on this, and it’s just really complicated. Even if a wall helps in some respects, it could hurt on a logicial level. There are plenty of people here illegally that would almost assuredly been a victim of a crime, whether it’s violent or sexual, if they didn’t get the ***** out of Central America. I have spoken to people seeking asylum where their family members back home have since been murdered, raped, or recruited (by force) to gangs. So that’s an example of someone coming here illegally that avoided that. And I get your point about some people here illegally are sex trafficking victims. So we have examples of people suffering because of illegal immigration (though perhaps they would still face that if there weren’t able to cross the border?), and examples of people avoiding suffering because illegal immigration. Edit: my only point is good and bad comes through the border. It’s tough to see the net effect tbh. My opinions always been that it’s worth it to help the good that come over the border. And with respect to human trafficking, even with a perfect wall that stops the US from being a consumer of sex trafficking victims, it’s tough to say what that has on the impact of sex trafficking on the whole.

Do you only think with us verse them mind? I didn’t mention Obama. I didn’t mention if I thought it was constitutional (I have no idea and don’t care that much). I just asked if you could see the argument against it. You responding by talking about Obama says it all.

Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which is in congrss’s realm, might be. im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least (I don’t even know the likelihood of this working) also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it.

Thanks, I am going to stop asking questions now lol.

Well what the ***** is TDS!!!! earlier this thread I think I saw GEOUTUS. This thread is going over my head, I’ll see my way out lol.