We Can’t Kill Our Way’ Out of War Against ISIS

Skeptical wrote:
If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

That is the reason they came here illegally, they cannot get in legally due to quotas amongst other things.

If you make immigration hard to accomplish the legal way, you'll bolster the illegal numbers.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

That is the reason they came here illegally, they cannot get in legally due to quotas amongst other things.  

If you make immigration hard to accomplish the legal way, you'll bolster the illegal numbers.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Why even have borders, or common culture, or a national currency?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

That is the reason they came here illegally, they cannot get in legally due to quotas amongst other things.  

If you make immigration hard to accomplish the legal way, you'll bolster the illegal numbers.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Just face it those kids got here because that MT suit HMWAIC in the White House wanted them here come hell or high water. To heck with upholding the laws.

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

That is the reason they came here illegally, they cannot get in legally due to quotas amongst other things.  

If you make immigration hard to accomplish the legal way, you'll bolster the illegal numbers.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Just face it those kids got here because that MT suit HMWAIC in the White House wanted them here come hell or high water.  To heck with upholding the laws.

He's got to grow the Democrat voting base some how.

Darth Cheney wrote:
Why even have borders, or common culture, or a national currency?

Why make it unnaturally hard to immigrate to an amazing country?

Skeptical wrote:
Just face it those kids got here because that MT suit HMWAIC in the White House wanted them here come hell or high water. To heck with upholding the laws.

I'm pretty sure Obama didn't make the laws in the 1960s.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:
Why even have borders, or common culture, or a national currency?

Why make it unnaturally hard to immigrate to an amazing country?

Skeptical wrote:
Just face it those kids got here because that MT suit HMWAIC in the White House wanted them here come hell or high water.  To heck with upholding the laws.

I'm pretty sure Obama didn't make the laws in the 1960s.

Matters not, what matters is he did not follow or enforce the laws.

Skeptical wrote:
Matters not, what matters is he did not follow or enforce the laws.

I'll wait for you to show that he didn't follow the laws.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Matters not, what matters is he did not follow or enforce the laws.

I'll wait for you to show that he didn't follow the laws.

You already proved that by admitting the kids were not processed/screened at any controlled processing/screening entry point!

Skeptical wrote:
You already proved that by admitting the kids were not processed/screened at any controlled processing/screening entry point!

Ok, not trying to be mean. Is English your first language?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
You already proved that by admitting the kids were not processed/screened at any controlled processing/screening entry point!

Ok, not trying to be mean. Is English your first language?

Why the personal attack because you are wrong?

You must have forgotten this exchange

Re: We Can’t Kill Our Way’ Out of War Against ISIS
Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:55 pm

Skeptical wrote:

Tell us again what controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states

Caitlyn Pitlover wrote: There wasn't one.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
You don't need to explain anything other than tell what controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids got their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states to back up your claim "Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was when Ellis Island was used as a general processing hub in the early 1900s."

Due to stricter immigration policies, especially against Mexico, (passed in the 1960s) that what has helped cause the illegal immigration problems.

When you make it harder for someone to legally immigrate to the states because of a bill passed nearly 50 yrs ago and wonder why it hasn't made it a dent in the illegals perhaps its time to look the bill(s) that may be causing the headaches. That is part of the reason why several presidents have granted amnesty to the masses, those bills need to be changed or removed but no one wants to do it, (IE Congress).

FYI Congress passed an immigration bill in 1984 (hardly 50 years ago) which Reagan signed granting amnesty to some 3M immigrants. Of course that didn't work but at least it wasn't done by executive fiat.

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: I've never been to war.

The closest I got to a "war zone" was approximately 800 miles (as the crow flies)

Does the South Side of Chicago count? ;

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: I've never been to war.

The closest I got to a "war zone" was approximately 800 miles (as the crow flies)

Does the South Side of Chicago count? ;

Only if you were walking on the sidewalk all alone after 6 PM on a Saturday evening!

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: I've never been to war.

The closest I got to a "war zone" was approximately 800 miles (as the crow flies)

Does the South Side of Chicago count? ;

Only if you were walking on the sidewalk all alone after 6 PM on a Saturday evening!

Been there done that.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: I've never been to war.

The closest I got to a "war zone" was approximately 800 miles (as the crow flies)

Does the South Side of Chicago count? ;

Only if you were walking on the sidewalk all alone after 6 PM on a Saturday evening!

Been there done that.

You just may qualify for hazardous pedestrian recognition

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

That is the reason they came here illegally, they cannot get in legally due to quotas amongst other things.  

If you make immigration hard to accomplish the legal way, you'll bolster the illegal numbers.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Just face it those kids got here because that MT suit HMWAIC in the White House wanted them here come hell or high water.  To heck with upholding the laws.

Jesus would be proud of your love for children!

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
So much for your claim, "Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was when Ellis Island was used as a general processing hub in the early 1900s. " when 52,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the border and later sent on to various states.

Whether Mexico has a better immunization rate than the US is not at issue.  It is the illegal entry and failure to abide by our laws.

We need proof all these kids had valid shots/vaccinations to protect them against all the diseases specified by US law.

What do you mean? Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was during Ellis Island processing.

I don't see how you can say it isn't we have curbed the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into the country each year.

Perhaps I'm confusing things but it'd be great if you clear it up a bit for me.

If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

Its interesting how teabaggers pretend to think that life is precious when it comes to abortion, but sick brown kids are nothing more than a burden. How convenient!

Skeptical wrote:If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

If my memory and Fox News reporting are correct, they were seeking out border agents and turning themselves in the instant they crossed the border. They were immediately taken into custody and screened at that time.

So you're right when you said they didn't get screened at "a legal border entry point" but you're wrong when you say they weren't screened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley/

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
So much for your claim, "Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was when Ellis Island was used as a general processing hub in the early 1900s. " when 52,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the border and later sent on to various states.

Whether Mexico has a better immunization rate than the US is not at issue.  It is the illegal entry and failure to abide by our laws.

We need proof all these kids had valid shots/vaccinations to protect them against all the diseases specified by US law.

What do you mean? Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was during Ellis Island processing.

I don't see how you can say it isn't we have curbed the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into the country each year.

Perhaps I'm confusing things but it'd be great if you clear it up a bit for me.

If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

Its interesting how teabaggers pretend to think that life is precious when it comes to abortion, but sick brown kids are nothing more than a burden. How convenient!

Sorry...you can't change history with your revisionism. Democrats have championed abortion for decades. You know what color babies are aborted by a huge majority?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
So much for your claim, "Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was when Ellis Island was used as a general processing hub in the early 1900s. " when 52,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the border and later sent on to various states.

Whether Mexico has a better immunization rate than the US is not at issue.  It is the illegal entry and failure to abide by our laws.

We need proof all these kids had valid shots/vaccinations to protect them against all the diseases specified by US law.

What do you mean? Our immigration program is a lot stricter than it was during Ellis Island processing.

I don't see how you can say it isn't we have curbed the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into the country each year.

Perhaps I'm confusing things but it'd be great if you clear it up a bit for me.

If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

Its interesting how teabaggers pretend to think that life is precious when it comes to abortion, but sick brown kids are nothing more than a burden. How convenient!

Sorry...you can't change history with your revisionism.  Democrats have championed abortion for decades. You know what color babies are aborted by a huge majority?

According to Skeptical, we should have just turned all those sick kids away. But all life is precious (as long as they're the right color)!

Paquette wrote:

Skeptical wrote:If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

If my memory and Fox News reporting are correct, they were seeking out border agents and turning themselves in the instant they crossed the border. They were immediately taken into custody and screened at that time.

So you're right when you said they didn't get screened at "a legal border entry point" but you're wrong when you say they weren't screened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley/

What was your reason you sought out and used the only post I made with the phrase, "not being screened"?

You must have an ulterior motive since it is obvious you did not read all the exhanges with Caitlyn or willfully ignored all the rest that specifically wanted to have Caitlyn provide the answer to,

"Tell us again what controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states"

What was your reason?  Was it so you could do as you did above and say, " but you're wrong when you say they weren't screened."


I am surprised you would use FOX as a source.  I thought FOX was held in contempt by liberals and referred to as FAUX.

"I am totally would use"?

According to Liberal and other supporters of the MT suit HMWAIC  this country should not only support unrestricted massive illegal immigration (including those who may carry dangerous contagious diseases) but welcome them with open arms.  

According to Liberal and other supporters of the MT suit HMWAIC after welcoming unrestricted massive illegal immigrants with open arms this country should also give them housing, food, federal income tax returns, and other things at taxpayer expense.

According to Liberal and other supporters of the MT suit HMWAIC after doing the above for illegal immigrants this country should even allow them to vote.

Skeptical wrote:What was your reason you sought out and used the only post I made with the phrase, "not being screened"?

You must have an ulterior motive since it is obvious you did not read all the exhanges with Caitlyn or willfully ignored all the rest that speifically wanted to have Caitlyn provide the answer to,

"Tell us again what controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states"

What was your reason?  Was it so you could do as you did above and say, " but you're wrong when you say they weren't screened."


I am surprised you would use FOX as a source.  I thought FOX was held in contempt by liberals and referred to as FAUX.

That seems more than just a little paranoid. I just pointed out that this particular wave of illegals were processed and screened immediately upon arrival. Why would this fact bother you so much?

Would you feel better if you weren't aware of this fact?

Skeptical wrote:What was your reason you sought out and used the only post I made with the phrase, "not being screened"?

How many times do you have to say something before I'm allowed to reply?

Besides, unless you use some something like the idiotic "exact quote" defense, you'll find that you repeated this argument several times. It's kinda your shtick, you latch onto one point and rehash it it over and over and over.

Skeptical wrote:It is obvious you are unable to identify the specific controlled border entry processing site/s all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states?

Skeptical wrote:You already proved that by admitting the kids were not processed/screened at any controlled processing/screening entry point!

Skeptical wrote:What controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states?

Skeptical wrote:If it is so strict how did 50K kids get in without being screened as you already said they didn't get screened at a legal border entry point?

Paquette wrote:
How many times do you have to say something before I'm allowed to reply?

Besides, unless you use some something like the idiotic "exact quote" defense, you'll find that you repeated this argument several times. It's kinda your shtick, you latch onto one point and rehash it it over and over and over.

Well Caitlyn how many times were you not given a chance to reply to the question,

Tell us again what controlled border entry processing site did all those illegal kids get their strict screening before being dispersed out to several states.

Again Caitlyn, if you or another poster accuses me of comment "X", dammit it is up to you or that other poster to provide that exact comment "X" .