Barrier = wall = fence right?

[300miles]

I fully expected this conversation to come up eventually when the reality sunk in about how ridiculous a wall across the border would be.

So what you're suddenly saying is Trump's Wall isn't really a Wall at All, it's a Fence, maybe, or possibly something else, maybe any sort of technology that might try stop someone from crossing the border. In other words what Trump is proposing is no different than what all the presidents before him have also done.

What's up next for the Trump crowd? "Well when he said "Muslims", he really mean middle eastern people that are already on the US watchlist, or maybe the ones guilty of crimes, I dunno"


Please. Spare us the word games and just admit Trump is full of BS.

[WNYresident]

I'm just saying a fence is no different than a wall for the intended purpose it's needed. Your the one saying a fence isn't a wall.

You lost the debate the point you said "a fence is not a wall."


Illegal migration, illegal entry or illegally crossing the border needs to stop. Word it anyway you want.

Hillary herself is on video stating she wants to increase the number of refugees we take in and support.

Follow the money. Look at the City of Buffalo and the small groups of people who are profiting off of importing refugees.



http://cis.org/religious-agencies-an...e-resettlement

This Memorandum briefly reports on the financial stake certain religious agencies have in U.S. refugee resettlement. It shows that refugee resettlement has become dependent on U.S. taxpayers and is a disruption to American communities, with nongovernmental agencies profiting from it.

The United States admitted 56,424 refugees in FY 2011, down from the prior year's 73,311 admissions,1 but still far higher than the rest of the world's developed nations combined.2 And the main reason for last year's drop was the steep decline in admissions of Iraqi refugees after two such refugees were arrested for plotting to send weapons and money to al Qaeda in Iraq.3 That total does not include other categories of humanitarian admissions that offer the same financial benefits to the religious agencies as refugees, such as asylees and Cuban-Haitian entrants, each with more than 20,000 admissions.

It is to the United States' credit that our nation has, from her founding, provided a safe haven for the unjustly persecuted. However, even well-meaning efforts require accountability and should be balanced against other important, competing priorities. Without appropriate balance and oversight, helping refugees shifts from being a worthy humanitarian gesture in truly exceptional cases to an avenue for government largesse, enriching private bureaucracies while feeding public cynicism.

Love Thy Neighbor?
One of the evils stemming from the apparent love of taxpayer money relates to the adverse effects resettlement agencies cause for the American cities where refugees are settled. A 2010 report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concluded that resettlement organizations essentially force refugees on U.S. towns and cities, without consent or even notice. Table 3 shows the U.S. metropolitan areas receiving the largest numbers of refugees. Table 4 ranks metro areas by the share of new immigration that is the result of refugee resettlement — i.e., those cities most affected by federal refugee policies.

Conclusion
Refugee resettlement has become quite remunerative for the voluntary agencies that now receive government payment for this line of business. Some 11 private refugee bureaus received about $37 million in government funding in FY 2011 alone.

http://cis.org/religious-agencies-an...e-resettlement




Go read up on the flow of money.

[WNYresident]

This article is older but to the point.

http://cis.org/GovernmentFundingRefugeeResettlement

Show Me the Money: How Government Funding Has Corrupted Refugee Resettlement

By Don Barnett April 1999

Over Veterans' Day last year 1,200 private charity staffers, lawyers, and lobbyists as well as federal, state, and local government officials converged on the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., for the largest annual conference ever held by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In contrast to the media horde which was to descend on the Mayflower when Monica Lewinsky arrived two months later, not one reporter was there to cover the event. This lack of media curiosity is puzzling given the heightened visibility of refugees in the world today and the impact of the refugee resettlement program on immigration to the United States.

[WNYresident]

And the idea of having any area in the USA considered a sanctuary city needs to immediately stop.

I can't believe this concept even took hold in the USA.

[4248]

Hillarys answer to Illegal Immigrants and Refugees:
$12 - $15 Billion tax dollars to give them FREE OBAMACARE
$1.2 - $1.3 Billion tax dollars to give FREE OBAMACARE for up to 200,000 Refugees
$130 Billion tax dollars to create a new Washington Immigration Agency to help the Immigrants adjust to American life more "Comfortable" - this will include housing - free education - free food - free buisness start up money and more.

A wall would be cheaper !

[HipKat]

Except if you have an Obama phone which by the way according to GAO is 500 million in fraud.

Let's put this to rest right now, OK?

There is no "Obamaphone". The Lifeline Benefit Program was enacted in during the Reagan administration. 1984 to provide emergency communications to the poor. It was expanded during the Bush II administration to include cell phones. It is not directly funded by taxpayers. It is paid for through a fee paid by telecommunications providers.

The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
Lifeline discounts are not available only to "welfare recipients" — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
Medicaid;
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
National School Lunch Program's Free Lunch Program;
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
State assistance programs (if applicable).

The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

[Save Us]

Let's put this to rest right now, OK?

There is no "Obamaphone". The Lifeline Benefit Program was enacted in during the Reagan administration. 1984 to provide emergency communications to the poor. It was expanded during the Bush II administration to include cell phones. It is not directly funded by taxpayers. It is paid for through a fee paid by telecommunications providers.

The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
Lifeline discounts are not available only to "welfare recipients" — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
Medicaid;
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
National School Lunch Program's Free Lunch Program;
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
State assistance programs (if applicable).

The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

And I thought the news stories on Drudge Report were credible. Oh well.

I may have may have mis named it but recently there was an article that reported that 'program' was wrought with fraud.

Thank you for providing your information.

[WNYresident]

I cannot understand why there is so much debate about a nation's right to have controlled borders? Seriously WTH is wrong with having a barrier to illegal immigration. How would the liberal idiots feel if there back yards in black rock, the west side, etc etc. were trespassed, property vandalized, drugs being transported in large numbers with impunity? Oh yeah then there would be a problem

A bunch of namby pamby hypocrites. These people disgust me. They even block half way houses etc. in their neighborhoods. The demise of this country will come from a liberal hand.

Because we have people like Hillary Clinton who want to get elected. They will pander to a group of people to win the election. There is a difference between pandering to a group of people versus telling people why you are running for office.

Let us look up the definition of pander.

Google is our friend. Maybe a friend that is manipulating search results.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander

"to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
"to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable"