Discussion»Questions»Politics» Since MOST of the people illegally entering the US are Central Americans - NOT Mexicans, wouldn't it be cheaper to build a wall down there?
And where's your data to back the assertion that "most" are from Central America? I'd like to see some hard numbers on that, including percentages or actual counts.
Even if those numbers are to be believed (it is Pew, after all) they still put the number of Mexicans coming across the border at just a tad under 50%. So building the wall makes sense to block ALL the illegals, not just 1/2 of them.
Generally speaking all the info, research and consensus is out there.. it's just that most people either don't want to see, or can't be bothered, or some just erm don't have enquiring minds.. but there's usually plenty out there.
Generally speaking if you present something as unmitigated truth you should back that position with several unbiased sources of data. It's not the reader's obligation to accept potential organic fertilizer as "fact" or to do the research to impeach the claim.
And in this case the statement was presented to make it look like Mexican illegals were a small part of the problem when even the "research" presented shows that Mexican illegals are almost half the problem. I think you need to do some unbiased research.
Ahh i take it that you weren't enamoured of my response then? That's fine Salt and.. however, I would ask you to please take a step back here because if you look I did not, at any point say that anything was an unmitigated truth.. I truly don't see those words in my statement so with the greatest respect I don't need to do any research because my comment was a general one regarding research and that anyone who is interested can research, as it's generally out there. I hope you are able to see that and I am sure you didn't mean to use the word *you* when you talked about the need for research.
Your comment was part of a "thread" which implies "continuity" to previous comments within that thread. Perhaps you can research that concept to see how you indeed, said what what you think you didn't say. Or perhaps we're just seeing another example of "two nations divided by a common language"?
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at January 25, 2017 3:57 PM MST
Not sure.. but the thing is.. when you reply to a specific person then logically that person would assume the comments were directed at them.. otherwise you would have replied to someone else.. and could have.. but you replied to me.. and so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I made the assumption they were directed at me.. and answered accordingly..
And you said you should research to me.. and I didn't need to as my comment was of a general nature.. context rather than specifics.. I see you are saying again that I should research.. personally I don't think that's very kind of you, I feel it is insulting and that you are trying to belittle me.. Fortunately it didn't quite work out that way but it doesn't really make what you have tried to do right.
However, to deal with the specifics.. you say i should research.. you said that twice now and both were distinctly aimed specifically at ME - in this latter case you say I should research the concept of "continuity to previous comments within that thread" - I wonder.. do you really think that would yield results? Useful ones? and can you explain how the mitigating factor that on this list one *chooses* to reply to a set person works in that context?
If you had, at any time meant the comments to the other poster then shouldn't you have chosen to hit reply to HIM rather than me? especially since it wasn't *I* who had the problem with whether it was mexicans vs whoever else..
But anyhow don't let it trouble you.. just pointing out the logic here
One bad thing is that a lot of terrorists are coming into the country from Mexico because it's so easy to cross there. They are the ones that need to be stopped more than any others that live South of our border. Taliban, remnants of Al Qaeda and ISIS have been coming into the country through there. So I'm hoping this so called wall will keep a suitcase nuke or biological weapons from getting across. We have so many Hispanics here now that it isn't going to really matter. Seems to me when you call someone for work to be done on your house or yard? It's Hispanics doing all the work. I have no problem with that.
The Canadians are already building a wall to stop all those "celebrities" who pledged that they would move to Canada if Trump won the election. (Why not south to Mexico, I wonder?) It's going to be funded by a tax on elective plastic surgery procedures performed in LA county California and New York city areas . . .
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at January 25, 2017 7:40 AM MST
Well, you didn't refute my point.. You just went into some weird diatribe about celebrity's and plastic surgery and Canada.. Made no sense to me.. So, since you didn't argue, I assumed you agreed..
And you know how the word assume breaks down. In this case you can drop the last two letters to make it accurate in this case.
So you're not going to move to Canada since Trump's win after all. Weren't you one of the ones saying that you would do that if he won the election? And sorry that the humor in my statement is beyond you intellectual grasp. I'll try to dumb it down for your benefit in the future.
Well on that basis, yes... that and the fact you would need a much smaller wall... oh and perhaps them being less well developed, might mean you could get really cheap/slave labour to build the wall and that would make it even cheaper...
It is a strange concept though isn't it when you think of walls in history.. the china wall.. Hadrian's wall.. both build centuries ago... the Berlin wall was dismantled and that proved a good thing... so you have to wonder...
Indubitably! I am not sure if I'd want to keep Mat Damon out :P and it's a very, very cool thing -the wall of China.. it's just that it belongs to a very different time...
I lived and worked in your fair country for a while.
And here's an amusing story. I used to visit a local liquor store for cigarettes and booze. On one occasion, the chap behind the counter asked if I wanted to buy a state lottery ticket. I declined, the rules stated quite clearly that only US Citizens could win. I was OK with that.
I told the guy that and that I wouldn't therefore be buying.
"B*lls**t" was his answer.
"My cousin just won, and he's an illegal too!" (I wasn't illegal, but I didn't bother to tell him.)
"The fastest way to American Citizenship, win the lottery!"
He was right too. At that time, it was easier (and looked better to the promoters) to see a huge payout to a deserving case than to argue about citizenship, winners were "encouraged" (and probably helped) to become "legal".
(Incidentally, there were TWO big wins with tickets bought at that liquor store in the next year. Alas, I never bought one.)
Salt and Red Pepper 