Hold please

Do you realize that the U.S. is a target of every single diplomatic crank in the world? Everyone is just waiting to show how the U.S. screws up. How do you think shooting a Mexican National with no Due Process would go over? No, we don't just shoot people in this country. Maybe in East Germany they did, but as rotten as much of the International press wants to make us out to be, we're still not East GermanyIt doesn't matter what the person's INTENTIONS are - it only matters what the border patrol DOES. Those Border Patrol members have no idea what a person's thinking when they cross the border at a non-regulated checkpointGrrr...I 'm not talking about ARMING MEXICO. I'm stating another discrepancy between the Berlin Wall and the proposed wall on the Southern border. Opening fire on your own citizens does not create an international incident. But firing on another nation's citizens (in their own country, I might add) does. If you were to implement the wall as you suggest, the only way it would work is if Mexican soldiers patrolled the Mexico side and U.S. Soldiers patrolled the U.S. side. I just don't see that happeningIt's not me who used Berlin, it was you. You're the one who offered your own experience as a guard on the Wall to show how easy it would be for the U.S. to implement the same plan. I simply was pointing out the differencesHow is it cheaper than granting some manner of amensty in which the illegals here are made taxpaying citizens? And while it may be enticing, it forces those who come here for the sake of their children to become citizensWho said anything about the U.S. fixing Mexico? I'm talking about fixing the way companies break the law here. We need to create a punishment severe enough to deter companies from hiring illegals, yet keep the environment here attractive enough that they just don't up and move SouthRight, 'cause that's been working. Mexico has no impetus to fix their Nation, because to the people in power, nothing's broken. And as for your "example "? No. This isn't how things are done. Besides, then by your example, we should do away with Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Scholarships, Student Loans (hell, all loans), Credit, Food Stamps, Charitable Donations, Education and any other programs in which one person or group help those to improve. "Starve or learn to fish on your own," right? (4 min ago | post #3948)

Exactly. (34 min ago | post #3947)

Ah, now we see to the heart of the issue: "Marriage is one man and one woman as God intended," and "...leave the holy institution of marriage alone." Let's look at the facts about marriage in terms of a union between two people: 1. It has existed long before the Bible, so to say it is as "God intended" is not accurate. Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Celts, Vikings, etc. all practiced marriage in some fashion. So, technically, it's not the domain of the modern Church. 2. Marriage has been abused for centuries. Far from being considered "holy", it's been used to acquire land, settle disputes, settle treaties, and make women "honest" and prevent children from being born out of wedlock. All with the full blessing of the Church. So stop with the histrionics. 3. As a society, we do not consider marriage a sacrament. Given the divorce rate (around 50%), at least half of the nation doesn't consider marriage holy enough to not get a divorce. The fact is that many people only consider it holy when it serves their own purposes (like you). Everyone here knows that when you call others "queer" or "perverted " you're simply throwing stones to hide your own hands. (Monday | post #238)

This sentence is not a fact, but speculation, with no evidence to suggest that this is the ultimate result of "postmodernis m" as the author has defined it2+2 does always equal four, but Gravity is relativeOr does is simply fly in the face with what the author wants us to believe? The facts are that, many times, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, and one must look at the situation. If it were true that there is "absolute truth" then we would have no need for courts or juriesBecause, when shown the logic of the argument, they realize that, with few exceptions, there is no "absolute truthThis is nothing more than a clever play on words. The fact is that the educated person would actually respond, "There is only one absolute truth: there are no absolute truths." It's what's known as recursionWe have limited knowledge now, but as time goes on we will gain more and more. But one thing that we do know, and that we've known for centuries, is that there is no moral "absolute truthNow we get to the heart of this article. This is one of the many mis-applications of logic that Biblical scholars use to attempt to "prove" the existence of God. They turn the argument around and say, "Well, you can't prove God DOESN'T exist, ergo, he must exist." This is backwards thinking. One doesn't have to prove something doesn't exist, that is outside the realm of logic. I don't have to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. It is accepted that he doesn't. No one has seen him, spoken to him or shaken his hand. But if I claimed that ol' Saint Nick does exist, I would need to show proof. And the reality is, this argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It's sleight of hand to put the non-believer on the defensive. One can make the statement that God doesn't exist because there is nothing to suggest that he does. It is up to the Believer to produce certifiable evidence of the existence of God. It is the Believer's burden to bear, not the skeptic's. (Monday | post #496)

In some things, yes. But not in everything. And certainly not in terms of "right" and "wrong". We as Humans will need to simply agree and codify those "truthsLet's get the actual definitions in there: From Merriam-Webster: truth n. 1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions 3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard 4 capitalized Christian Science : god From Dictionary.com: truth n. 1. the true or actual state of a matter 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like 4. the state or character of being true. 5. actuality or actual existence. 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness. 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life. 9. agreement with a standard or original. 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment. 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancyIf there is no such things as situational ethics, how do we have laws like justifiable homicide or manslaughterWhat the author fails to mention is the one "golden rule" of this view, which is, "Do as you will as long as it doesn't interfere with another person's ability to do as they will." (continued) (Monday | post #495)

Facts, by definition, cannot be skewed or made up. If they are either, they are not facts, but interpretations (or out-and-out lies). Facts are irrefutable. Now, sometimes the data can change, which changes the facts for a certain time period, but the facts of the time do not change. Fact - in 1800, the population of the US was 5,304,716 Fact - in 2000, the population of the US was 281,421,906 So, the facts have changed in terms of the US population, but it cannot change for its respective years. (Monday | post #493)

How about we do away with Food Stamps and Welfare? And you can only go to school as long as you perform. A student can get expelled. Free Medical care? Well, we're not there yet. (Monday | post #3929)

You're right, we haven't. So imagine what would happen when wages go up? So your solution is for the government to control price fixing? What's to stop the companies from simply moving overseas and avoid such government action? Once again, I'm not for illegal immigrants in the workforce, but we as a nation have dug ourselves into a hole and we need a plan to get out of it. It's not just about punishing illegals and companies who hire them, it's about the whole program. It's about accepting that domestically-made products cost more and we're going to have to pay the prices. It's about finding ways to keep the companies engaging in fair practices and from breaking laws (personally, I believe that's what the media is for) while at the same time keeping their businesses here. (Monday | post #3927)

Wow, just gonna cling to that little bit of bigotry towards Chicago, huhThis isn't the late 70sBut what we're trying to tell you is that it wouldn't work. You cannot get rid of enough of them to stem the flow of those who are coming in. It's the same reason we repealed the 18th amendment. The police simply couldn't make enough of a dent in illegal brewing to make the law justified. Same thing with drugsYeah, "The American Government took your stuff this time, so be more careful next time." It's not going to be a deterrent, but more of a challengeOnce again, you put too much faith in our Government. Even if this plan of yours would work, that $3.8 billion wouldn't necessarily go to capital improvements. Some of it would be earmarked for other programs, and much of it would simply be removed from the budget. Just because you save a government entity money doesn't mean that they get to keep the excessWhat if it's not? Can you really not foresee how this program could failChrist, what is with you and meatpacking? Regardless, who is "the man from Washington D.C."? (Monday | post #3926)

I know. I'm not worried about them. This plan is not a way to fix the illegal immigration problem. But it's an answer to the main question of this thread - Should illegal immigrants get tuition breaks? No, illegal immigrants should not. But, if they really want to become citizens for the benefit of their children, then I have a plan for that. (Monday | post #3925)

But you missed the point. It's not about who's helping who do what, it was about the point of building the Wall to begin with. The BW was to keep people out. Those who were escaping were the citizens of E. Germany, those helping them escape were not. See two belowNo, I get what's being said. But read next to see how this is truly apples an orangesI know YOU didn't say arm Mexico, I DID. The fact is that, if someone is escaping from East Germany and someone not from East Germany is helping them, an East German soldier has the right to shoot at them. East Germany can do what they want with their own citizens, right or wrong. But in this case, the roles are reversed. And I'm afraid that shooting a Mexican National for just passing through is going to cause an International incident. Do you see? It's not about regulations, it's about politicsAgain, it's not about investment, it's about feasibility. 96 miles, while quite a distance, is a lot easier to guard than 2,500. The effort to guard this wall would be incredible. And I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but rather that to compare the Berlin Wall to a Souther Border Wall is not accurateBut what's more important is that we change our National Infrastructure to remove the impetus to come here illegally at all. It's give a man a fish, teach a man to fish. A wall is simply giving a fish. (Monday | post #3924)

Another person who doesn't read before posting. As I told the above poster, step 1 is that they become citizens. The program would have an expedited method of making someone a citizen. So Mom, Dad, bro, sis et. al. would all BECOME citizens. After that, they would simply get the GI Bill. And the idea is, if you show that you risked your a$$ getting here because you truly want a better life for your children (i.e., by signing up for the tuition program) then we will forgive your trespass and make you a tax-paying citizen. (Monday | post #3923)

Did you read the proposed idea at all? I stated that if you wanted to receive any tuition assistance, step 1 was to become citizens. My program would have an expedited method of making everyone in the immediate family a citizen. The only way to even QUALIFY for this program, is to become a citizen under the terms of the program. So, technically, they WOULD BE legal citizens. (Monday | post #3922)