View Single Post
Old 01-08-2019, 07:52 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
If he would just stick to facts and common sense, he'd win the debate. This is not a debate that a fair minded, articulate person can lose.

1,000 - 3,000 people a day cross the border illegally. These people are uninvited and un-vetted, it's in our interests to reduce this number any way we reasonably can. A wall will not ever reduce that number to zero, but it will reduce the number, anybody who says otherwise is mistaken or a liar.

64% of illegals receive some kind of welfare; there's a huge economic benefit to preventing them from coming here

the small percentage of illegals who will continue to commit certain crimes here are, for some Godforsaken reason, protected from deportation by sanctuary cities and states, meaning illegals who intend to commit crime will seek out these places, meaning citizens who live there are more at risk. If you don't believe that, he can show the gravestone of the CA cop, a legal immigrant, murdered by an illegal with two DUI convictions, who local cops were prohibited of notifying ICE about, because of sanctuary laws. That's the downside of sanctuary laws, we need to see that before we decide that sanctuary policy is good.

Choosing not to crack down on illegals is a slap in the face to people all over the world who are waiting in miserable places to come here legally.

Not that long ago, many of the most vocal opponents to Trump's wall, voted for a bill that included funding for a wall. So it would seem that their current opposition isn't principled, but rather political.

We all close our doors at night, in the hopes of keeping people out who we don't want in. Prisons have walls as part of their security. Barriers work. They aren't perfect, they won't guarantee that we'll all live forever. But they work.

Finally, he should commit on national television, that he is willing to give the democrats what they want on DACA, if they fund his wall. That he'll promise to sign such a compromise, and all they need to do, is agree to something they previously agreed to. That's putting your adversaries in a no-win situation.

That's how he'd win this. Chances are, what he'll actually do, is something very different, and a lot uglier.
Jim in CT is offline