Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

California tells Trump that lawsuit over border wall is 'imminent'

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Ah yes the rofl emoji. The debate tactic of the 12 year old is mockery when getting emotional. 

 

 

Only a liberal would keep banging on about a murderous drug kingpin rapist and child abuser over the requests of homeland and CBP. Pretty fitting considering the context of this conversation. 

 

By the way, all trump wanted was the 5.7b that was needed to give CBP & DHS the resources they requested. But oh no, Dems just HAD to insult the “bipartisan” committee and try to stick it to Trump. 

The DEA's 2018 report specifically says that with the exception of marijuana, the vast majority of illegal drugs come mexico.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again. As anybody who watched the El Chapo trial knows, no mention was made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border. It all came in via legal points of entry.

 

Excellent point! No mention is made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border because such traffickers are rarely caught.

 

If you were a drug smuggler, which would you rather do; risk detection by transporting drugs through legal points of entry with all the customs checks that are in place, or carry your drugs across unwalled and unmanned sections of the US border?

 

There are pros and cons of course. Crossing an unmanned, or unwalled border, with probably no roads, is physically challenging, perhaps requiring a lot of hiking, or at least a rough ride on a 4WD. But the success rate is probably higher.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent point! No mention is made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border because such traffickers are rarely caught.

 

If you were a drug smuggler, which would you rather do; risk detection by transporting drugs through legal points of entry with all the customs checks that are in place, or carry your drugs across unwalled and unmanned sections of the US border?

 

There are pros and cons of course. Crossing an unmanned, or unwalled border, with probably no roads, is physically challenging, perhaps requiring a lot of hiking, or at least a rough ride on a 4WD. But the success rate is probably higher.
 

The DEA whose business it is to know, disagrees with you. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall. Lots of evidence about tunnels, though. And transport via trucks and train crossing at legal entry points.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Ah yes the rofl emoji. The debate tactic of the 12 year old is mockery when getting emotional. 

Ah yes, another deflection. Again (and without any emoji that so upsets you):

Do you honestly believe there will be a great reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The DEA whose business it is to know, disagrees with you. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall. Lots of evidence about tunnels, though. And transport via trucks and train crossing at legal entry points.

 

But but but El Chapo! 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thainesss said:

 

But but but El Chapo! 

 

 

"but but but is valid" when used against a deflection. I am referring to what was Mexico's largest drug cartel by far. It is entirely relevant. Your use of "but but but" is the deflection.

And i noticed you disregarded the evidence offered by the DEA.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Do you honestly believe there will be a great reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast?

 

A wall built coast to coast? Absolutely. It would cause a great reduction in illegal immigration too, with the added benefit of hamstringing Democrats and their ploy to import voters, and freeing up manpower and resources to monitor other areas that cartels and coyotes will try and work around. 

 

But I don’t believe a wall is going to be built coast to coast, unfortunately, so I’ll settle for whatever Trump can get pushed through, and by any means necessary. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall.

And as I will point out again, no mention of it means no knowledge of it, or perhaps a reluctance to admit it for political reasons.

Isn't it obvious. If there is no wall, or customs personnel (or soldiers), then everyone has free access.

 

Do you have a fence around your own property, or do you just allow anyone to walk into you garden and take whatever they fancy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VincentRJ said:

And as I will point out again, no mention of it means no knowledge of it, or perhaps a reluctance to admit it for political reasons.

Isn't it obvious. If there is no wall, or customs personnel (or soldiers), then everyone has free access.

 

Do you have a fence around your own property, or do you just allow anyone to walk into you garden and take whatever they fancy?

It was as easy as you say, why has there been a huge reduction in illegal immigration? Why are would be illegal immigrants paying coyotes thousands of dollars to get them across the border? E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to understand why the idea of building a barrier where it is effective and not spending billions of dollars to build a wall where it is not effective is an unreasonable position?  

 

I get that it is symbolic of your support for Trump and the wall is symbolic for him but doesn't rationality play a role in your policy ideas?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"but but but is valid" when used against a deflection. I am referring to what was Mexico's largest drug cartel by far. It is entirely relevant. Your use of "but but but" is the deflection.

And i noticed you disregarded the evidence offered by the DEA.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

 

You’re confused about what a deflection is. A deflection is what you’re doing by trying to condense the entire border emergency down into “what El Chapo did” so you can hang your straw man on it. 

 

Drugs are smuggled across the border. Fact. 

 

Humans are trafficked across the border. Fact. 

 

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are apprehended trying to cross the border illegally every year. Fact. 

 

Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars are spent every year on the emergency at the southern border. Fact. 

 

You can’t polish this turd with childish deflections, straw man arguments, and do-nothing defeatist attitudes. You want to listen to Democrat politicians with an agenda over CBP & Homeland? Go ahead but it speaks to your bias and agenda more than your willingness to solve this problem. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

A wall built coast to coast? Absolutely. It would cause a great reduction in illegal immigration too, with the added benefit of hamstringing Democrats and their ploy to import voters, and freeing up manpower and resources to monitor other areas that cartels and coyotes will try and work around. 

 

But I don’t believe a wall is going to be built coast to coast, unfortunately, so I’ll settle for whatever Trump can get pushed through, and by any means necessary. 

Well then, I guess Ann Coulter was correct.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...