United We Stand - uwsboard.com

RiverguyVT wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

^^this^^
13347438947563 nails it

Yet border security has improved in the last decade. That's quite a low bar for nailing it. Unless what you really mean is that you agree!

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

At least 1337... got the " I am soooo much smarter than you" post early in this thread... we should all defer to TH2.... the sucker is brilliant!!!

cwtcr hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

At least 1337... got the " I am soooo much smarter than you" post early in this thread... we should all defer to TH2.... the sucker is brilliant!!!

Facts do exist. I'm deeply sorry if it bothers you that I provide factual information to refute subjective arguments.

Yet border security has improved in the last decade. That's quite a low bar for nailing it. Unless what you really mean is that you agree!

Over the last decade, a US President armed Mexican drug lords with weapons used against border agents.

TheH2 wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

At least 1337... got the " I am soooo much smarter than you" post early in this thread... we should all defer to TH2.... the sucker is brilliant!!!

Facts do exist. I'm deeply sorry if it bothers you that I provide factual information to refute subjective arguments.

Dude seriously, you are smarter than anyone else, us dumbasses bow to your brilliance.... all hail you!

cwtcr hokie wrote:
Dude seriously, you are smarter than anyone else, us dumbasses bow to your brilliance.... all hail you!

As you wish. Lack of substance by you in another thread is telling. Keep believing record numbers of cops are being killed.......

TheH2 wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:
Dude seriously, you are smarter than anyone else, us dumbasses bow to your brilliance.... all hail you!

As you wish. Lack of substance by you in another thread is telling. Keep believing record numbers of cops are being killed.......

all hail TH2, thanks for all your brilliance

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

Rant? Really? You need to rethink that hasty conclusion a little bit.The Obama era stats are skewed because of how they treated/counted those caught and turned away at the border, leading one to believe more were deported than in prior administrations.

You want me to prove something that has had no comparison done. I can't do that. But rational thought and observation makes it pretty clear where the biggest impact falls (I'm sure you'll disagree because you love to argue nebulous things). But you can't honestly believe that gun violence has more of a negative impact on society than illegal immigrants? Gun violence has almost no financial impact. It's intuitive. Take off your liberal blinders and think a little bit. You can do it.

TheH2 wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

At least 1337... got the " I am soooo much smarter than you" post early in this thread... we should all defer to TH2.... the sucker is brilliant!!!

Facts do exist. I'm deeply sorry if it bothers you that I provide factual information to refute subjective arguments.

LOL! Hilarious.

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Ah, so that's what this little semantics gymnastics is really all about. Got it.

Again, gun violence is minimal and is less of a detriment to the US than illegal immigration.

"You have absolutely no proof ..." that gun violence is less of a determent to the US than illegal immigration.

133743Hokie wrote:The US has ineffective and incomplete border control, to the point that illegal immigration has exceeded 20 million people. It needs to be enhanced and improved, to be brought up to the standards of the rest of the modern world.

The 20 million isn't an accurate reflection of what our border control is like now. Border control has been beefed up a lot over the last decade.

What is the standard of the rest of the modern world? How does the US differ?

Are you saying the cost to society of gun violence is greater than that of illegal immigrants?

How are we quantifying this. I could say yes, you could say no. It's pointless.

133743Hokie wrote: Border control is not better than it was 10 years ago. That's just nonsense. The only thing that helped was the economic depression 10 years ago. That slowed the flow because there weren't jobs. Now thatnthe economy is ramped back up theinflux is already ticking up.

Your opinion is subjective and well, nonsense.
from 2013 - which shows significant improvement and last I checked was withing the last decade: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2654a60812
Improvements within the decade:
http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-report ... benchmarks

133743Hokie wrote:As to other countries, they have barriers. They have fences. They have heavily guarded boundaries. They also prosecute. They don't have sanctuary cities. They don't pratice catch and release. They have strict laws with harsh penalties. It is a serious criminal offense.

Again, all subjective. Given how wrong your last point was, this isn't even worth it.

133743Hokie wrote:The US gives you Dreamer status and DACA. They let you bring extended family, even if you aren't here legally. The allow you to work. They allow you to get a drivers license. They allow you to use stolen identities. They allow you to use social services, hospitals, schools, etc. But you know all of this. You're just in an argumentative mood again.

We're not the only country that has undocumented workers. That's just silly. I agree, more could be done. For example, employers could be targeted.

I'm not in an argumentative mood, but you clearly were, given your rant that never addresses the main point about cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, I also prefer to argue over facts not subjective opinions that aren't accurate.

Rant? Really? You need to rethink that hasty conclusion a little bit.The Obama era stats are skewed because of how they treated/counted those caught and turned away at the border, leading one to believe more were deported than in prior administrations.

You want me to prove something that has had no comparison done. I can't do that. But rational thought and observation makes it pretty clear where the biggest impact falls (I'm sure you'll disagree because you love to argue nebulous things). But you can't honestly believe that gun violence has more of a negative impact on society than illegal immigrants? Gun violence has almost no financial impact. It's intuitive. Take off your liberal blinders and think a little bit. You can do it.

While I agree that the impact of illegal aliens on our country is greater than that of gun violence, there is definitely a cost to gun violence. There are lots of studies, I'm guessing a lot of them highly biased (see article), but one John Hopkins study took the emergency room costs of gun shot victims to be $2.8B per year. The overall impact to society is larger I'm sure.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas- ... mic-costs/

https://qz.com/1093144/us-gun-violence- ... y-reveals/

133743Hokie wrote: Rant? Really? You need to rethink that hasty conclusion a little bit.The Obama era stats are skewed because of how they treated/counted those caught and turned away at the border, leading one to believe more were deported than in prior administrations.

So, your opinion is that video surveillance and a physical borders don't improve border security?

In particular, the 2007 bill required the construction of 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 ground surveillance towers, and four UAVs. As of 2012, CBP had 651 miles of fencing, 300 video surveillance systems installed, and nine UAVs in operation.

Yet you still want to build a wall? You are either proving my point (you don't care about the effectiveness of a wall and surveillance), or you didn't realize how much was being spent on technology, and other means to secure our border over the last decade.

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Rant? Really? You need to rethink that hasty conclusion a little bit.The Obama era stats are skewed because of how they treated/counted those caught and turned away at the border, leading one to believe more were deported than in prior administrations.

So, your opinion is that video surveillance and a physical borders don't improve border security?

In particular, the 2007 bill required the construction of 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 ground surveillance towers, and four UAVs. As of 2012, CBP had 651 miles of fencing, 300 video surveillance systems installed, and nine UAVs in operation.

Yet you still want to build a wall? You are either proving my point (you don't care about the effectiveness of a wall and surveillance), or you didn't realize how much was being spent on technology, and other means to secure our border over the last decade.

You misspelled recession

TheH2 wrote:

133743Hokie wrote: Rant? Really? You need to rethink that hasty conclusion a little bit.The Obama era stats are skewed because of how they treated/counted those caught and turned away at the border, leading one to believe more were deported than in prior administrations.

So, your opinion is that video surveillance and a physical borders don't improve border security?

In particular, the 2007 bill required the construction of 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 ground surveillance towers, and four UAVs. As of 2012, CBP had 651 miles of fencing, 300 video surveillance systems installed, and nine UAVs in operation.

Yet you still want to build a wall? You are either proving my point (you don't care about the effectiveness of a wall and surveillance), or you didn't realize how much was being spent on technology, and other means to secure our border over the last decade.

I'm well aware of the small amount of border fencing done. The 350 miles of fencing was single layer pedestrian fencing, pickets and/or wire mesh, that is easy to scale or cut thru. The 300 miles of vehicle barriers were just that, vehicle barriers, to limit drug and smuggling vehicles from crossing in wide open areas. People could just walk right past/around these vehicle barriers. I'm not sure how either of these relate to the proposal to build a solid, tall barrier.

Video surveillance, drones, etc. improve border security, as do more border patrol agents, but won't be nearly as effective as a solid, tall wall.

You either don't understand the effectiveness of a solid, continuous barrier or you just don't care whether we do all we can to secure the southern border. $25B over many years is chump change in the big picture.

Looks like we’ll need to get a refund from Mexico on this section of wall LOL.

“He’s a builder”.

HooFighter wrote:Looks like we’ll need to get a refund from Mexico on this section of wall LOL.

“He’s a builder”.

Inadequate temporary bracing during the construction. So often it's left to the contractor who ends up providing an empirical solution vs. an analytical one.

133743Hokie wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Looks like we’ll need to get a refund from Mexico on this section of wall LOL.

“He’s a builder”.

Inadequate temporary bracing during the construction. So often it's left to the contractor who ends up providing an empirical solution vs. an analytical one.

If its posted by Hoof, you can bet its fake news.

==============================================

Viral Video Claiming Hurricane Blew Down Border Wall Was Fake News
Ildefonso Ortiz and Brandon Darby
27 Jul 2020174

News outlets, pundits, politicians, and other social media blue checkmarks pushed a viral video with claims that Hurricane Hanna had knocked down part of a border wall in Texas. The claim was debunked by U.S. authorities and the Mexican public official who first published the video has deleted it from her account.

The fake news began on Monday when Yadith Valdez, a former journalist and the current spokeswoman for the Nuevo Leon Attorney General’s Office tweeted a video that showed sections of a border wall under construction collapsing from strong winds. In her now-deleted tweet, Valdez claimed the collapse was caused by Hurricane Hanna, which struck the Rio Grande Valley over the weekend. Valdez’s video gained traction in Mexico where news outlets took her claims as factual and published stories without consulting with U.S. or Mexican border officials.

After the video became viral, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a statement saying they were not aware of any wall panels falling down in the Rio Grande Valley. The agency claimed the video appears to be from June in New Mexico when strong winds knocked down unanchored wall panels.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid retweeted a message from Trump critic Rex Champan, who parroted Valdez’s video with a remark that Hurricane Hanna had blown over “Trump’s mighty border wall.”

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2020/0 ... fake-news/

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Looks like we’ll need to get a refund from Mexico on this section of wall LOL.

“He’s a builder”.

Inadequate temporary bracing during the construction. So often it's left to the contractor who ends up providing an empirical solution vs. an analytical one.

If its posted by Hoof, you can bet its fake news.

==============================================

Viral Video Claiming Hurricane Blew Down Border Wall Was Fake News
Ildefonso Ortiz and Brandon Darby
27 Jul 2020174

News outlets, pundits, politicians, and other social media blue checkmarks pushed a viral video with claims that Hurricane Hanna had knocked down part of a border wall in Texas. The claim was debunked by U.S. authorities and the Mexican public official who first published the video has deleted it from her account.

The fake news began on Monday when Yadith Valdez, a former journalist and the current spokeswoman for the Nuevo Leon Attorney General’s Office tweeted a video that showed sections of a border wall under construction collapsing from strong winds. In her now-deleted tweet, Valdez claimed the collapse was caused by Hurricane Hanna, which struck the Rio Grande Valley over the weekend. Valdez’s video gained traction in Mexico where news outlets took her claims as factual and published stories without consulting with U.S. or Mexican border officials.

After the video became viral, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a statement saying they were not aware of any wall panels falling down in the Rio Grande Valley. The agency claimed the video appears to be from June in New Mexico when strong winds knocked down unanchored wall panels.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid retweeted a message from Trump critic Rex Champan, who parroted Valdez’s video with a remark that Hurricane Hanna had blown over “Trump’s mighty border wall.”

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2020/0 ... fake-news/

Yup. A gullible useful idiot.

HooFighter wrote:Looks like we’ll need to get a refund from Mexico on this section of wall LOL.

“He’s a builder”.

I hear they peed on it to make it fall