the Last Picnic

*FACT: $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

*FACT: $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

*FACT: The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

*FACT: During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist

Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

*FACT: The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

I feel badly about the wetlands park but for the safety and security of America and Americans, we need this wall

*FACT. The last supper was actually held in a swamp on the Mexican border.

*FACT. Jesus was actually a shifty-eyed raccoon who sometimes went by the name Rocky.

*FACT. Madonna was actually some sort of amorphous swamp creature that vaguely resembled a teddy bear.

*FACT. The 12 Disciples were actually a group of misc. desert rodents, swamp animals, and lounge lizards.

*FACT. The Holy Grail was actually a discarded empty Jarritos bottle hastily discarded by some passing migrant Mexican hot-footing it across the border..

i can't stand how those Mexican animals keep sneaking across the border to take the jobs of good American animals.

Are you coming on to me Dixie Deer?

Well, you can just forget it.

large numbers of illegals enter our borders through regular border crossings either by being smuggled across in trucks or cars or via temp work visas etc. but of course, NOBODY knows exactly how many enter by which means but most reliable estimates suggest that of the millions of illegals that we currently host, a substantial number of them have entered the country by walking across the vast unprotected stretches of open border.

One of the most important functions of any government is to clearly define and protect its borders from intrusion and invasion. Our government is currently failing to do this and that must change for the sake of our nation's security, in terms of our health, our physical security, and our economy. Immigration is highly important to us as a nation and indeed, it is the very basis of our existence but it must be controlled and orderly, not random and chaotic.

Yes it is true that our current economy is influencing illegal immigration but that is no reason to relax security as it is a temporary situation and, in fact, there are signs that Mexico's economic collapse may be imminent which would send illegals across our borders in droves.

We need to improve security and vigilance at our border crossings, we need to improve the ways in which we monitor recipients of visas, and YES, we need the wall.

since, as has been said, "history is written by the victors" and since this bit of turf is now (or more correctly, currently) the United States of America, in a sense, Native Americans are the "legal" aliens or perhaps, the guests in "our" country. Nobody ever said life was supposed to be fair. HA!

Hot-Rod? When is the last time you did any major surveillance of the border. Last I remember, Albuquerque is 4 hours from the closest border point.

The crossing statistics fail to include those immigrants who come and go daily, meaning they come work menial jobs in the U.S. and go back to Mexico at the end of the day. Those "millions" take it with a grain of salt.

Oh yeah, and those 9-11 terrorists...flew in on valid visas, in airplanes! They weren't smuggled in a car trunk, coming to work as construction laborers or kitchen help.

It is our duty as human citizens, not just U.S. citizens to work on behalf of justice for our fellow humans and animals.

Two contentious terms for New Mexico which I have always appreciated.

Of course, nobody here ever considered themselves to be Mexicans, even when they were part of Mexico. And Acoma Pueblo has been continuously occupied by its original occupants for 10,000 years.

Borders are arbitrary. History isn't.

Fact: The wall is not being built for a 20+ mile stretch that borders one of the Hunt brothers property. He was able to convience his buddy dubya that it was not needed on his property and that it would also ruin his view.

helping the poor and disadvantaged of the world than any other country but we still need to define and protect our own borders for the sake of our own citizens.

I have no personal problem with letting the Hunt brothers protect their own 20 miles of border in any way they wish.

In terms of "view", I like this one.

No more Statue of Liberty - I am not a fan of green.

For the best example of a boundary wall, look at the Great Wall of China. Built by an autocratic dictator at the expense of unknown thousands (maybe millions) of human lives, it never worked. Neither did the Berlin Wall. Nor did Hadrian's Wall.

As for the young woman firing the AK-47 in the video, she needs some practice. The chick can't seem to hit anything even using the most reliable fully automatic firearm in the world. If you seriously think that a wall posted with armed guards around America is the answer, what the hell kind of country is that?

First, I'm surprised that a self-proclaimed Libertarian is so adamant about government controls on such a personal choice as where to live and work. What business is it of any government's where one chooses to reside and the reasons for so choosing?

As for a proposal to control immigration, I don't have one. I guess I don't think people should be required to "qualify" to move from place to place. I think people should be allowed to go wherever they want whenever they want. If they are sick, I think they should be given medical care. If they are proven to be criminal, I think they should be prosecuted. If they want to work, they should be able to work. If they don't want to work, it will prove mighty difficult for them to acquire food, clothing, and shelter.

In other words, I think poor people should have the same privileges that rich people enjoy. I don't want to live in an armed compound that screens potential residents for desirability. I'm nutty like that. I don't think the Founding Fathers of this country did, either. They were nutty like that.

as to exactly what a country or a government is but from anyone's perspective, Libertarian or not, one of the most important functions of any government is to clearly define, protect and defend the borders that it governs from invasion or intrusion for the safety and security of its own citizens.

To make that point a little more clear to you, let's bring the concept to a more personal level.

I don't know anything about the personal lives of either one of you, I don't know if you have partners, families, children, jobs, cars, or what you possess but I would assume that each of you, at the very least, has a computer and a place to plug it in, an apartment or a home. When you leave your home, do you lock your door? Why? Why do you even have a door? Why? Suppose some disadvantaged person needs or wants the food in your refrigerator or your TV or your computer? Why can't he just come in and take it? If you have a car, why not leave the key in the ignition and a full tank of gas in case somebody needs to go someplace? Perhaps you own a bicycle. Why not leave it on the sidewalk without a lock for the same reason?

If you truly believe that the United States should leave its "door" wide open for any and all to enter and help themselves, let's start with YOU. I dare you. I challenge you and while your at it, why not publish your address and a list of your possessions right here since the whole world already knows where the United States is and what it has in its "refrigerator" and in its "living room".

Well?

I think the confusion is yours, Hotrod. I can't find it anywhere, this pledge to define and defend the borders of the country. What our political office holders and military personnel do swear to protect and defend is the Constitution of the United States of America. By doing that, they protect and defend its citizens.

That being said, you've once again wandered into fallacy. You seem to assume that America is being invaded by a hostile force intent on stripping us of our wealth. Upon what evidence is that assumption based? Furthermore, just because I own a computer doesn't mean I would deny anyone else the ability to own one, too. As a matter of fact, I help support the system that allows anyone who doesn't own a computer free access to one through our public libraries. I support a system that provides food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and money to people who find themselves without (though not nearly enough or often enough). I am willing and able to support it even more than I am asked to now. So, in that very real sense, my doors are open.

To follow your penchant for simplistic analogy, what if I sealed up my house and refused entry to all? My refrigerator would quickly stop running without electricity as would my computer with its internet access. Why would I need an automobile or a bicycle? If I used them, I would have to unseal my property. I suppose I could try to raise my own food, but my diet would suffer in variety and nutritional value. How would I receive mail or news of the outside world? What if I shuttered my windows and ignored all pleas for cooperation or help from outside? What would my neighbors think of my paranoia and fearful hostility?

See the problem with oversimplification and false analogy (two other kinds of fallacy)? My country is not my house and the problems inherent with both are not the same. And opening the doors to one is not the same as opening the doors to the other. I can do one without doing the other. My home and possessions are private property; my country is public property. There is a difference.

I return to my first point. If our governing officials would confine themselves to protecting and defending the Constitution, the rest will take care of itself. If it doesn't, then we can call the United States a failed 233-year old experiment. If we abandon the ideals expressed through that document for expediency's sake then, again, the experiment will have failed. I'd like to think that we as Americans are not ready to abandon those ideals or walk away from the greatest political experiment in human history. The world changes, we must change with it, and one of the truly beautiful things about the Constitution is that it allows for change without the abandonment of those ideals.

So, I decline to publish my address and/or the contents of my refrigerator and still remain confident that the doors to my country will remain open and should open even wider to all those seeking freedom.

You'd best count the stars on that flag you're waving. I guess I understand why you chose to use the number 13 and even the number 48, but 51? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

This most recent post's fallacy is called the Straw Man whereby you've taken a portion of my argument, distorted it to a ridiculous extreme, and then argue against that extreme as if it were my original argument. Honestly, Hotrod, you should buy a textbook or visit a website where such things are explained ([link] is the first one that pops up after a Google search). Your "talking points" might be a little more rational after a little homework. And "HAHAHAHAHAHA ROFL!" seems rather disrespectful and unwarranted. Oh, and juvenile, too.

As far as facts go, I can go to Mexico, France, or Sweden anytime I want without being "invited." I can even eat there if I get hungry. If I get sick, I can go to a hospital. Personally, I've even worked in a foreign country. And Swedes and French people and Mexicans don't have to wait for an "invitation" to visit the United States.

As for your notion that the United States is the private property of its citizens, those portions of this country deemed public are actually in trust for the people of the United States under the stewardship of whatever local, state, or federal agency carries jurisdiction. By belonging to everyone they are owned by no one and Americans, French people, Swedes, or Mexicans can go see the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone Park or Bandelier any time they wish.

I think what you consider "obvious" may not be so at all. Borders are funny things. They're sometimes blurry or imprecise, often ignored, most times arbitrary, change frequently, and are of little real use to anyone other than nationalists and import/exporters.

And I remain confident that I can both love and honor the Constitution and the "invitation" extended by the Statue of Liberty without being obligated to let you into my refrigerator. If you're really hungry, though, you can have last night's lamb and zucchini.

As for DixieDeer's last post, I'm as baffled as anyone else. Matthew 25 is the Parable of the Ten Virgins. The Book of Matthew ends at Chap. 28 so I have no idea what 31-46 might contain.

Anyway, the longer this goes on, the sadder and more tired I become. I want to talk about something else. Nick Brown is way more fun to banter with.

France, or Sweden as a visitor without being invited as you will receive an automatic TRAVEL VISA on entry (it will be stamped into your passport). If you try to MOVE there without going through proper immigration channels, you will quickly find out just how UN-welcome you are. My argument stands and speaking of standing, you have not a leg on which to so yes, you may as well give in.

And, yes, I give in to your endless, fallacious silliness.

and hotrod is wrong about many, many things...

before dixiedeer's head exploded in a multi-colored psychedelic light show of sight and sound and before robertmcat took us on an extended, meandering, rambling journey of verbose triviality, the original question, I believe, was all about the construction of a wall along the US/Mexico border. It is an incontrovertible FACT of life that virtually all major countries of the world wisely guard their borders zealously and are extremely restrictive of whom they will allow to immigrate to within those borders. There is no reason for the United States to do otherwise and therefore, we need the wall as well as any other security measures which we deem necessary to defend ourselves against ILLEGAL immigration.

If any of you geniuses can propose an effective and viable alternative to the wall, let's hear it. Otherwise, your public verbal masturbation here is neither attractive, constructive, or useful.

It's just not true that Hotrod is always right. It is true that Hotrod is a bad listener and, apparently, spends that time instead thinking of what he will spew next, thinking of ways to mock and belittle those who disagree with him, and just plain making things up. Discourse is "written or spoken communication or debate," and it is true that Hotrod is not interested in that. Instead, Hotrod just bulls his way forward with walls of fallacious verbage daring one-and-all to call him out and ignoring them when they do.

It is not a fact that that "virtually all major countries of the world wisely guard their borders zealously...." One of Hotrod's many failings at discourse is his tendency to present "facts" without support or evidence. The word "virtually" points to that lack. The proofs of his arguments do not exist. It is a fact that all the borders of the world are extremely porous and penetrated consistently and constantly despite the best efforts of any who "zealously" guard them.

It is a fact that Hotrod changes his arguments in midstream when it appears that he is wrong. For instance, in this thread alone, he's said he's for a wall, against a wall, and now returns to being for a wall. Rather than defend and prove his arguments, he changes them constantly to suit his immediate needs. This is called sophistry.

It is a fact that when he's faced with a reasonable argument that seems to disprove what he asserts, Hotrod retreats to name-calling and attempts to humiliate those any who dare to disagree with his poorly reasoned assertions.

It is a fact that there is no reasoning with Hotrod because reason itself does not figure into most of his arguments. Hotrod wants to "win" and will say anything to do so. The main weapon in his arsenal appears to be simple tenacity, his refusal to just stop and listen to what other people are saying, but instead he just plows ahead with a new batch of unproven facts and unreasoned assertions. This is called close-mindedness.

Read the rest of Hotrod's posts on this and other topics. His intellectual house of cards is fragile and this emperor has no clothes. Instead, he gestures wildly and widely to distract his readers from his nakedness.

Rule number one is Maren is always hot!

Raccoons are well on their way to evolving into some kind of monkey. Here in NY, they have begun to form small corporations and have developed several raccoon-oriented businesses such as the We'll Wash It For You stores that they've built next to a lot of fast food places. For a very reasonable price, raccoons will dip your burger and fries into a fast-moving stream and then hand them back to you. They still can't drive worth shit, though, and raccoon-on-raccoon vehicular homicide is a growing problem that needs to be addressed.

But their graffiti is really hard to understand. It's only about 18 inches off the ground and pretty messy. Would you call that Wild(erness) Style?

It's getting so tedious...For a wall, against a wall, for a wall again until something better comes along...Disingenuously misusing language and acting offended when called out for it...Acting rude and boorish because someone else acted rude and boorish to you. It just goes 'round and 'round and 'round.

Proving a negative is difficult if not impossible, but I'll try. The countries that "zealously" guard their borders tend to be places like Cuba, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Vietnam. And it would appear that the bulk of their efforts are to keep people in rather than keeping people out. The countries that don't "zealously" guard their borders tend to be places like the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Brazil, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. While those countries do keep a careful watch on their points of entry and a cursory eye on their borders as a whole, the most effort seems to be concentrated on keeping contraband and criminals out.

Apologies to the Statue of Liberty; I should know that sarcasm doesn't work well in print and without tone of voice. If, however, we abandon the ideals of freedom set forth by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if we renege on the offer made by the Statue of Liberty to the wretched refuse of the world, and especially if we do so out of fear and xenophobia, then the U.S. is truly a failed experiment. The last administration pushed us well along the way to doing just that; I can only hope the new administration will undo some of that damage. Otherwise, we should just change the country's name to Airstrip One and admit that Orwell was right about our future when he wrote 1984.

If I was ever on a hook, it wasn't yours. And raccoon graffiti is fucking cool (albeit hard to read).

I love watching anything leaping anything in a single bound. Around where I live, the deer have learned to crawl under fences as well. Drives people crazy.

Also, that was my confusion regarding chapters and verses in Matthew. Thanks for the clarification.

And you have certainly hit the nail with your head. The reason why people are immigrating illegally is because it is DIFFICULT to do it legally just exactly as it is and as it should be to immigrate into every single one of the countries that robertmcat has mentioned in a previous post, namely, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Brazil, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. When it comes to immigration, nobody wants wide open borders but we, and these other countries, do NOT want to say to the world that "we don't want you". We and all other developed countries want to send the message that "We DO want SOME of you but we want to know some things about you first such as who you are, what your goals are, and what you may be able to contribute to our country". This is not unreasonable and this is how it has been for a very long time. The Polish, Irish, Eastern European, and other immigrants who entered our country through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century, our grandparents and our great grandparents, were carefully screened and many were sent back because of illness or other reasons. Harsh? Perhaps but reality sometimes is. Yes, the wall is clumsy and wide open borders are too chaotic and totally unacceptable so, unless somebody can come up with a less clumsy and a better way to protect our borders from illegal infiltration, we need the wall.

Could somebody please check dixiedeer's green card? Oh...... Sorry...... Forget I said that.

most of what you say however, the fact remains that the United States is currently host to an estimated 12,000,000 (12 million) illegal immigrants and possibly as many as 20 million. A very large number and, to many of us, an unacceptable number. The cost of supporting that number of illegals is staggering and at a time when we can scant afford it so, if not the wall, what? Do we ignore the situation, keep fingers crossed, and hope for the best? Would that be your strategy? Suppose Mexico's economy should collapse (it is currently at risk of doing just that) and we have 40 million illegal immigrants or 60 million? At what point do we take some action? How many is too many? Do we continue to simply take in more and more until our own economy topples over for the sake of saving some deer? What about United States citizens and legal immigrants, do they matter?

Would that be your strategy?

Well, you won't like it, because (I think?) we disagree on how difficult legal immigration should be. I recommend we set policies such that legal immigration is easier/cheaper than illegal immigration.

Well, you can bet the ranch that they are NOT Mexico's finest, most up-standing citizenry. They are the dregs. Sure, there will be many who are poor but honest and hard working people but you will also get a great many who are drug dealers, gang members, murderers, rapists, and many who have good reason to leave Mexico to escape their own criminal past, Mexico's most wanted if you will.

I don't know that. Got some stats to back that up? (And I don't just mean horror-story anecdotes, or someone will just throw some other anecdotes at you.)

He was (playing?)a supporting redneck on a "Reno 911" episode...remember the one where Garcia and Junior travel down to help build a section of "border defense"?

The racist/xenophobic aspects of this argument are always well understood, though seldom voiced. And to fail to understand the transitory nature of borders, and the concomitant refusal by those who live and work on either side of such arbitrary and imaginary lines to acknowledge them (except by force), is to demonstrate a profound ignorance of both borders and people.

Does the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the boundaries it establishes,thus justify Norteno wall building as a defense against invading Anglo's, who seem to have just run wild ever since we let "just a few" settle here?

Why build walls when bridges would work better?