Border Crossings

Trump's Threat to 'Close the Border' with Mexico Is His Most Insane Trade Idea Yet

Closing the border would be a "profit-making operation," says Trump. That's not how any of this works.



Even by his "Trade Is Bad" standards, President Donald Trump's threat to shut America's border with Mexico is a doozy.

"I'll just close the border," Trump said during a brief press conference Friday afternoon at Mar-o-Lago. "And with a deficit like we have with Mexico and have had for many years, closing the border will be a profit-making operation."

Where to begin with that?

Even if the United States were a single large corporation—a bad analogy for many reasons, but one Trump seems to be grasping towards—closing the border would not be a "profit-making" move, any more than a business would be making a profit by deciding not to buy or sell anything. That's actually a fine way to guarantee that you don't make a profit.

Reading between the lines a bit, a Trump supporter might argue that closing the border with Mexico would reduce America's trade deficit with its southern neighbor. That's probably true, since no trade would indeed mean no trade deficit. But cutting losses is not the same as making a profit—or, in this analogy, eliminating the trade deficit is not the same as creating a trade surplus. A Wharton School grad like Trump should probably know that.

And that whole analogy is flawed, because the U.S. is not a single corporation and the president is not our CEO. Cutting off trade between the U.S. and Mexico would have enormous negative consequences for businesses on both sides of the border, because cross-border trade is the result of countless individual decisions dictated by market signals. It's not the United States that trades with Mexico and vice versa; individuals and businesses on both sides of the border trade with one another, seeking mutually beneficial deals.

"First, you'd see prices rise in­cred­ibly fast," Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Arizona-based Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, tells The Washington Post. "We would see layoffs within a day or two."

The scale of trade across the Mexican border is staggering. More than 1,000 trucks cross the border every day at the Calexico East crossing in southern California, the Post notes. Annually, trade between the two countries totals more than $600 billion, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

During an address to mayors of cities on both sides of the border last year, San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg noted that more than $1 million worth of commerce takes place along the southern border every minute.

Slamming the border shut would recklessly and unnecessarily disrupt markets large and small. It would wreck international supply chains. And might actually increase illegal immigration. One big reason illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen in the two decades since the North American Free Trade Agreement is the growth in Mexican-based manufacturing. What's going to happen when Trump's border shutdown triggers job losses in those plants?

Trump's comment is yet another indication that the president does not understand how trade works, despite that fact that he's made trade policy one of his administration's signature issues. Trump has falsely claimed that other countries pay for tariffs when in fact they are taxes that U.S. importers pay. He has confused the federal budget deficit with America's foreign trade deficit—and he has claimed that tariffs will reduce both deficits, though the opposite has occurred on his watch. And he often describes trade arrangements as win-or-lose, us-or-them, zero-sum operations controlled by national governments. In fact, trade between nations is beneficial in the aggregate for both sides. It's the result of millions of individual decisions made by people and businesses.

If there's a silver lining here, it's that Trump may not actually mean what he said. To quote National Review's Kevin Williamson, Trump's version of America First nationalism is "3 percent policy and 97 percent aesthetics, rhetoric, and affectation, a kind of identity politics of the Right."

Talking smack at Mexico, at the people who come to the United States from Mexico, and at the American businesses that do business with businesses in Mexico is an essential part of Trumpian nationalism. Threatening to close the border is probably more akin to Trump's campaign promise that Mexico would pay for the border wall than a proposal the White House seriously plans to push.

And yet the White House doubled down on Trump's nonsense on Sunday. Kellyanne Conway, Trump's White House counselor, told Fox News that the president's threat "certainly isn't a bluff."

If so, Trump is about to embark on the most insane and counterproductive trade policy yet.

NEXT: Big Pretrial Justice Reforms Included in New York's Budget

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes the trade across the border is huge. That is why the threat of closing it is likely the only thing that will get Mexico to stop the invasion of migrants its allowing across its territory.

    1. Everyone on the goddamn planet, including those dumb Mexicans, knows he’s bluffing.

      When someone says he’s the best at doing something (like negotiating), you might consider that he is actually the worst.

      1. He’s been surprisingly effective thus far.

        Just sayin’.

        1. Lol, at what?

          1. Winning the Presidency, putting Judges on the Supreme Court and making the Left freak out.

            1. Well I guess this is the special ed class of presidencies, so participation trophies all around.

              1. Winning the Presidency isn’t a participation trophy. That’s for the loser.

                1. LiborCon, would you be referring to the most qualified presidential candidate ever?

              2. Tony, you’re an idiot. I wouldn’t be poking at anyone else’s intellectual deficiencies if I were you. And I am very thankful I’m not you.

            2. Nothing here about negotiating. At that he has been a bit of a failure. He failed to negotiate nuclear reduction with the North Koreans. He negotiated a trade deal with Mexico that is the same as the one it replaced. He losing a trade war with China (note the trade deficit is up and our farmers cannot sell there produce). The Wisconsin Foxconn deal is still going but nowhere near what he promised. There is no indication that President Trump can negotiate anything.

              1. “There is no indication that President Trump can negotiate anything.”

                He managed to negotiate the transfer of the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

                1. He moved it. There was no negotiation in this. Again President Trump has yet to show he can negotiate anything.

              2. Yeah but Trump does have the N. Koreans ‘negotiating’, instead of firing missiles over other countries and provoking anywhere they can. That is a tangible and drastic improvement in this particular foreign relation.

                Trump deserves a pat on his massive head for that, and he spent no $ or bombs to do it. His art of the no-deal deal ain’t too bad here. Maybe we should read his fucking stupid book after all?

                So you are completely wrong, Trump is great at negotiating and negotiating and negotiating, he just might not be amazing at closing. Also Foxconn and China have several issues unrelated to Trump. Too early to say.

                But I’ll take this over the last 4 administrations’ style and efforts.

                1. “But I’ll take this over the last 4 administrations’ style and efforts.”

                  Don’t you find his cynical demonizing of Mexicans contemptible?

                  1. Wouldn’t be my first style choice. But I think Mexicans can take it.

                    They are a proud and hearty people, who can even survive the harsh desert landscape while traversing our southern border on foot.

                    1. In other words, Trump’s demagoguery is okay because it’s not demagoguery against HIM, only those OTHER PEOPLE.

                  2. Sometimes people can be right for the wrong reasons. When government is involved, you take what you can get.

                    Our immigration policies are detrimental to our freedom due to most immigrants voting for authoritarian policies.

                    They are also detrimental to our poor, as downward wage pressure keeps the welfare state relevant. Our immigration policies coupled with our welfare system equals gigantic indirect subsidies for thousands of businesses paid for by our tax payers.

              3. “He negotiated a trade deal with Mexico that is the same as the one it replaced.”

                Not really; It’s basically the same as far as trade with Mexico is concerned, but makes it harder for countries outside NAFTA to “launder” their exports to the US through Mexico, which had been a problem before.

              4. We are not losing the trade war with China. They are. The trade deficit is up because we are buying more, not because they are buying less. The rest of your analysis is also crap but I don’t feel like picking it apart. Maybe Ken, John, or LC will straighten you out.

        2. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
          Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

          Click here ==>>

      2. The only reason it may be “a bluff” is because the entire regulatory state, every leftist shit heel in government, the judicial branch, etc etc etc has used dubious tactics to thwart his every move, even when most of them were clearly legal. That’s not to mention the back stabbing from RINOs. Trump has actually TRIED to get almost everything he’s said done.

    2. The orc hordes are storming the walls! Time to summon the army of our dead ancestors! Only they can save us from these evil changes! Why can’t things just stay the same? Change bad!

      1. Good thing you are not racist or anything. They are people not orcs. That doesn’t mean they have a right to cross the border but they are people none the less.

        1. I think orcs was his characterization (accurate or not) of how anti-immigration people see the immigrants trying to enter, not how he does.

          1. Chipper morning eunuch’s words are there for all to see

            1. “Chipper morning eunuch’s words are there for all to see”

              We can all see them. As for understanding them, some of us are having problems.

          2. Personally, I don’t see them as orcs. I just see them as humans I mostly think the US would be better off without.

          3. It’s not my fault that most of the illegal immigrants from Latin America are the shittiest people from Latin America.

            I’m part Mexican… But the fact is we’re receiving what is essentially the equivalent of 100% trailer park trash from that part of the world, at least through the illegal channel. I have ZERO problem with Mexican doctors, engineers, etc moving here… But we don’t need another 12 million illegal dish washers man. Our labor force participation rate is already the lowest it’s been since women properly entered the fucking work force, especially for low education natives! We don’t need to flood that segment of the labor force any more.

      2. Chip, the orcs, and the undead are both in the same faction. Get it straight.

    3. And the rest of us – fuck us, right?

      1. C’mon you know the rules. Only the collective matters. Individuals don’t matter. Because Murica Fuck Yeah.

        1. “I hate America”

        2. What about if some certain actions will in fact ultimately be bad for all individuals who HAPPEN to be current citizens of the USA? Such as would be the case with endless third world peasant immigration? Then it IS bad for the individual innit?

    4. This is not nearly enough. If you give safe passage to invaders, you are an active accomplice in the invasion. We should mobilize the military.

      1. Well, good thing it’s not an invasion, then.

        1. Oh, come on. It’s not a military invasion, but it certainly IS an invasion. And rapidly escalating, too.

        2. Sooooo if 12 million Germans had walked into Poland WITHOUT their Mausers, that would have been totes cool?

          Asking for a friend…

          1. Why can’t they have their Mausers? Don’t all human beings enjoy the right to bear arms? Don’t all countries have to respect the rights of foreigners the same as citizens? It violates their Natural Rights to assume they have hostile intentions just because they are exercising their rights to travel and to bear arms.

            1. Oh gee whiz, I forgot about that! I guess 12 million Germans entering Poland WITH their Mausers would have been fine too… I feel so ashamed of myself for being so repressive, authoritarian, and backwards thinking and not welcoming the Nazi overlords with open arms!

      2. “We should mobilize the military.”

        Good luck with that. I heard those Mexicans have laser beans.

    5. Couldn’t Trump just close the border to individuals, all immigrants and asylum seekers, and let the business and trucks roll?

      1. It’s a lot easier if Mexico helps stop them from sneaking in. They won’t do that without incentive. So duress is required.

  2. If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that Trump may not actually mean what he said. To quote National Review’s Kevin Williamson, Trump’s version of America First nationalism is “3 percent policy and 97 percent aesthetics, rhetoric, and affectation, a kind of identity politics of the Right.”

    I dare anyone to try and wade through that Williasmson article. It is just a meandering confused mess. More than being a lout and a hack, Williamson is just a bad writer.

    1. Kevin Williamson of National Review NR wrote of white working class communities:
      “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

  3. On the other hand…the Mexican government could absolutely do a lot more to stop illegal border crossing, and absolutely could stop facilitating Central American migrants headed for the US. Getting tough with them about that in some way is a good idea, even if “closing the border” might not be the best way.

    1. What incentive does Mexico have to a) take on the refugees themselves and b) help Trump with a fake problem?

      1. It’s much better for Mexico to dump their refugee and unemployment problems on us?unless we can come up with a way to make that cost them something. That was my point.

        1. If the refugees want to come here, why should Mexico stand in their way?

          1. Ideally, they would make arrangements for the refugees to stay in Mexico in observance of international standards to which they are signatory, and they would try to keep them from sneaking into the US out of respect for our border and the relationship between our countries. Since they’re not doing those things, finding a way to punish them for that failure might get them to be more responsible.

            1. A limited military attack might be a good start.

              1. Military strikes against the gangs engaging in human trafficking might be a way to start.

                1. This won’t punish the Mexican government. No, the targets should be government facilities.

                  1. I’m not so sure the gangs and the government are that distinct from each other at this point.

                    1. So, it’s time for war against Mexico. That is what you are arguing, isn’t it?

                    2. War indeed. Every time I go to Mexico, I get diarrhea for a week.
                      Friends and allies don’t give you diarrhea for a week.

                      Under the banner of friendship and hospitality, they tempt us with delicious tacos and frijoles, and then shit in, and poison, the very water needed to wash down their spicy treats.

                      1st thing we do after the carpet bombings, is liberate their barbaric water treatment death camps.

                    3. Well Pedo Jeffy, it sure isn’t time to let a bunch of goddamn Central American child rapists in here. You know, what you wan to do.

            2. Come on cuck Jeff, if we just let them endlessly come here we might as well just finish off what we started in the Mexican American war right? Just annex the shit hole and get it all over with! Might as well go all the way to Panama for good measure!

              1. Pedo,Jeffy just wants all the violent sexual predators here.

          2. Because they are giving these migrants safe passage right through Mexico to get to America instead of rounding them up and deporting them back their own countries. They should be stopping them entering Mexico in the first place.
            Also, stop calling them refugees. over 95% of these migrants who are claiming refugee status are rejected. They are economic migrants and are not the responsibility of America to feed, clothe and house. If they are not happy with the situation in their own country they should be marching on their own capital to demand change, not trekking hundreds of miles across a foreign country to get to another foreign country to expect hand outs

      2. Er, the current lack of incentive would be exactly why we would have to, in Mr. Depner’s words, get “tough with them about that in some way”.

        If you’re asking what sort of pressures could be applied, well, just a little brainstorming suggests:

        1) Expelling Mexican diplomats.
        2) Imposing all sort of technical obstacles on remittances to Mexico.
        3) Cutting off water before it reaches the Mexican parts of the Colorado and Rio Grande.
        4) Deliberately slowing down border checkpoint clearance, closing entry lanes, and otherwise inconveniencing border commerce.
        5) Launching criminal investigations into prominent Mexicans.
        6) Imposing economic sanctions on prominent Mexicans.
        7) Grant democracy-promotion funds to AMLO opponents.
        8) Strangle/shut down flights to Mexico to reduce tourism income.
        9) Various uses of force, from irritating and deniable to full-out invasion.

        I’m sure I could come up with more if I cared enough to think hard. Trump is in a much stronger position to inconvenience Mexico than they are to inconvenience Trump; the only thing really limiting how hard he could squeeze them is domestic politics.

        1. See, this guy gets it. Expelling diplomats is usually the first step along the path to war. If you really think illegal immigration is morally no different than a military invasion, then that is what all who support this should be advocating.

          1. Of course it’s different from a military invasion, lacking uniforms and assault rifles. Just not different enough to not be an invasion.

          2. I’m for getting pretty damn hard with them. Because this problem must be dealt with. We can let their diplomats stay, because they would be begging us to do whatever we want inside of a week after we really put the screws to them in 100 ways we could.

            This is the thing cucks like you don’t get… If we had people who actually wanted to get shit done running this country, and other nations realized our threats were not bluffs, we COULD get damn near anything we wanted done with the snap of our fingers. It is all the cucks like you who prevent us from being able to make reasonable demands on foreign nations, because they think the cucks will stop us from following through on the threats. Our economic power alone gives us the ability to demand something simple like this of Mexico, because we could put them in a depression TOMORROW if we actually wanted to. It would be a head shot from a .44 magnum, and for us it could barely be a scraped knee.

            But you cucks ruin our own negotiating position with your cowardice and bleeding heart bullshit.

          3. No ot isnt Pedo Jeffy. You really are a cool,etc moron. Given how irritating you are, how do you remain unmurdered?

          4. I would seriously doubt expelling diplomats would mean anything to Mexico. Cut off trade and affect their economy and I’ll guarantee they will respond.

      3. They might want to trade with the US.

        Mexico buses the invaders across their country to our border. We should retaliate.

        1. Start dumping Somali and Syrian refugees illegally in Mexico? I think this would be a winner!

          1. No, they would just flee to the US.

            1. Not if we build the wall.

        2. By shipping extreme liberals and conservatives to Mexico?

      4. What incentive does Mexico have to a) take on the refugees themselves

        You say this like you don’t believe that immigrants are an inherent and unfettered good? Do they not have a dearth of Guatemalan food trucks in Mexico? Maybe, since they don’t have an H1B program, Mexico should be teaching all the immigrants to code! They could jump start the sputtering rural Mexican economy and drive out all the affluent drug cartels by building a little Valle del Silicio.

        Almost like the only reason you would want them to come to the US and work on the cheap is if you were really racist and into the whole idea of race-based servitude.

  4. Where does Trump get the authority to close the border in the absence of something like an invasion? Trade, immigration, and visits to the US are authorized by law. Where does he get the authority to put a stop to such activities?

    1. “Something like an invasion” IS occurring.

      1. There’s a difference between refugees and invaders. I’ll let you read up and try to figure it out.

        1. Consult with your local Native American tribes about how that difference can be academic. Oh, you don’t have any?

          1. So what you are saying is that we have no legitimate claim to defend this land, because it was taken from Native Americans?

            1. No. As always, if you don’t see it written in my posts, then it’s not what I’m saying.

            2. We stole this land from the Indians… The question is do we want to be dumb enough to let it be stolen from us too?

              I’m part native… My native side got its ass handed to it by my white ancestors, mostly through immigration mind you, there were actually very few direct deaths if you tally up all north American wars with the Indians. We mostly just immigrated our war to dominance.

              The difference now is that America has the POWER to prevent this fate befalling us… The Indians were too weak to do it, they tried valiantly and failed. So do we want to BECOME the Indians when we have the strength to stop it? I don’t.

          2. There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager about this.

          3. Mexican and Central American immigrants do not outnumber Americans my orders of magnitude, do not possess vastly superior technology, and do not carry fatal diseases to which Americans have no immunity. The current situation is therefore not comparable to that faced by Native Americans when Europeans began to arrive. In any case, the President’s war powers appear to be limited to “invasion” in the usual sense and not to gradual “invasion” by immigration.

            1. Mexican and Central American immigrants do not outnumber Americans my orders of magnitude, do not possess vastly superior technology, and do not carry fatal diseases to which Americans have no immunity.

              European settlers were vastly outnumbered by Native North Americans until quite late in the colonization process; European weapons were not much advanced beyond what the Indians had early in the conquest; and there certainly are dangerous contagious diseases in poorer countries sending us immigrants; but none of that is relevant to my point that invasion leading to great undesirable change or even conquest need not be accomplished by regular armed forces.

              the President’s war powers appear to be limited to “invasion” in the usual sense and not to gradual “invasion” by immigration.

              You might be right about that, but it was you who said “SOMETHING LIKE an invasion”, not “invasion”.

              1. Sorry, but gradual change over generations isn’t conquest. It’s just how the world is.

                If you think that the change happening isn’t good, then talk about that. But trying to make it out as equivalent to invasion or conquest so that the President can use the military to do whatever he wants on the border is ridiculous.

                1. Sorry, but “gradual change over generations” is not what would happen if we did not try to control our borders and limit immigration. With the doors wide open, we would face fast, drastic change.

                  1. Basically the doors are wide open now: Congress deliberately choked off resources necessary to handle the flow of illegals, so most illegals even if they’re caught end up being immediately released again.

                  2. Sorry, but “gradual change over generations” is not what would happen if we did not try to control our borders and limit immigration.

                    Additionally, if our policies were developed, applied, or reflected ‘gradual change over generations’ you might have a leg to stand on with regard to gradual change. Instead, we have recently enacted legislation based on the trans-generational dynamics of just two generations codified as law.

                2. Illegal immigration is in principle invasion.
                  Of course, principles matter very little to reflexively progressive libertarians when national integrity is concerned.

                  1. Illegal immigration is in principle invasion.

                    So what is your argument against shooting the invaders? Isn’t that what is supposed to be done with invaders?

                    What is your argument against, at the least, rounding them up and putting them into indefinite military detention?

                    1. There are better options, such as erecting physical barriers and enforcing immigration law.

                    2. So you are willing to tolerate enemy combatants wandering around the country? If there were 10 million Nazi spies wandering around America during WW2, would you be so nonchalant about it?

                    3. Ugh. There is such a thing as varying degrees of threat Jeff.

                      12 million illegals is a pretty big and bullshit problem. And in time the repercussions could be massive. They already have been. The entire western portion of the country has gone commie largely because of illegals and their legal anchor babies voting patterns. I had to leave my home state because of the commie-fication caused by this shit.

                      As far as shooting them… Not QUITE there yet. Unless they get violent while resisting deportation, in which case it’s totally fine to cap their asses.

                    4. There is such a thing as varying degrees of threat Jeff.

                      He doesn’t get that at all. He has the moral reasoning ability of a 12-year-old?everything is black or white, yes or no, is or isn’t. There’s no “varying degrees” of anything in any of his arguments.

                      When I was in seventh grade, our Social Studies teacher introduced us to the Lifeboat Problem. I guess they don’t do that anymore. Or Jeffy was just absent that day.

                    5. Just truck them back to Mexico

              2. European weapons were not much advanced beyond what the Indians had early in the conquest;

                The weapons were more advanced but that’s not the deciding factor. If you showed up in the 1600s with a machine gun you wouldn’t be king unless you brought tons of ammo, a gunsmith shop, and a fairly modern knowledge of battles and tactics. You might win a battle or two and may even get yourself some regional fame or acumen, but your ability to hold land while acquiring new land would be dependent on your ability to field weapons assymetrically in multiple places at once.

                The Natives routinely traded away land and goods as well as plundered and stole for equivalent weapons. The issue wasn’t that they didn’t have the weapons as much as the fact that they didn’t start out with the ability to field and maintain them in any capacity and never, as a people, developed it.

            2. “and do not carry fatal diseases to which Americans have no immunity”

              You’re really not paying attention, are you? There are a multitude of diseases which WERE wiped out here now making a comeback due to illegals, and ‘sanctuary cities’ in particular. There was a reason that immigrants used to pass through Ellis Island when arriving from Europe.

      2. “Something like an invasion” IS occurring.

        In the minds of bigoted, uneducated, gullible yahoos, sure.

        Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced by better Americans, that is.

        1. Shut up faggot. I’m a part beaner who wants EVERY illegal deported, ESPECIALLY the Dreamers.

          So piss off.

      3. If there is no moral distinction between peaceful migration and military invasion, then why not make immigration a military matter? “Invaders” have to surrender with hands up or risk being shot on sight. Isn’t that how invasions are supposed to work?

        1. “Migration” without permission is not peaceful.

          1. How do you define peaceful? Hopping a fence and sneaking through the desert seems plenty peaceful to me.

            1. No, hopping a fence and sneaking in contempt of our border and our laws is a hostile act. The peaceful way to enter the country is to obtain the appropriate visa and enter at a port of entry, as hundreds of thousands of Mexicans do every year.

              1. So, shoot the invaders?
                If there was someone on my property whom I thought was an invader intent on harming me, I would be justified in shooting that invader, wouldn’t I? Castle doctrine and all that?
                So why wouldn’t the same rules apply to illegal immigrants, by your standard?

                1. You think you have a cudgel here, chemjeff, but you don’t.
                  Yes, shooting them is justified. That doesn’t make it preferable.
                  That we do not shoot people who cross the border illegally is a sign of tolerance, and it’s being exploited.

                  1. “That we do not shoot people who cross the border illegally is a sign of tolerance, and it’s being exploited.”

                    Damn. Going full force of the truth nozzle huh?

                    It’s almost like there are also immigration laws to try and make the process fair, instead of some kinda unorganized smash and grab. Imagine that.

                  2. Why are you being tolerant towards INVADERS??? Are you serious??? Aren’t they no different than enemy combatants out of uniform, i.e., spies and saboteurs?

                    The truth is, you don’t really view them as INVADERS, you are just more than happy to use the rhetoric of the demagogue in order to rile people up with fear and anxiety against the other.

                    1. Fuck it. We should just start shooting them all.

                      In truth it will be better for everybody in the long run. Just a few months of drone strikes along the border, maybe some robo 50 cal posts here and there… Then they’ll be too terrified to try to cross, which will ultimately SAVE lives since a lot of people die in their illegal attempts every year anyway.

                      Are you happy now Jeff?

                      You know what the funny thing is? I’m not even fucking kidding. I would order that shit RIGHT NOW.

                    2. The part that blows my mind is libertarians nakedly siding with people whom they know don’t give two shits about property rights or nonagression on any level against people who are explicit about drawing lines, respecting property, and doing so with the explicit aim of avoiding aggression.

            2. Hopping a fence and sneaking through the desert seems plenty peaceful to me.

              So, cool with the numbers of immigrants peacefully dying of exposure in the desert then, right? Is the fence yours/theirs to hop? Without knowing more about any given fence, it would seem that it was put up to possibly keep people out. At the very least, not put up for the non-onwers to take the liberty of hopping it. How about hopping a fence and sneaking through the desert with a weapon?

              At what point in this process of hopping a fence with a weapon do we start calling a violation of property rights and potential aggression a spade? Because, traditionally, people drew lines in the sand to define this sort of thing but one side has made it pretty clear that they give precisely zero fucks to any lines drawn anywhere in any sand in this regard.

              1. “The part that blows my mind is libertarians nakedly siding with people whom they know don’t give two shits about property rights or nonagression on any level against people who are explicit about drawing lines, respecting property, and doing so with the explicit aim of avoiding aggression.”

                THIS. SO MUCH THIS.

                And also, I don’t get how many people refuse to accept that EVEN IF it is morally correct to have open borders… The real world facts on the ground show that it has been horrible for liberty in the USA. Because of the welfare state poor immigrants ALWAYS must be subsidized by higher income natives. The immigrants also all vote left. Etc.

                Even if one accepts it as a moral right, which I think is a reasonable reading of libertarian dogma (but not the only correct outcome either IMO), there are some times and places where taking the moral high ground just isn’t worth the cost. Destroying the freest nation on earth IS NOT worth it for such a paltry principle as international freedom of movement. The leftists push for this shit because they know it serves their ends! If immigrants didn’t vote for them, lord knows they’d be against it on pragmatic grounds.

          2. Whose permission? The landowners of the land they are crossing? Cause they are the only ones with any say in it.

            1. For a moment, try to forget that you’re stupid about international borders vs private property.

              Property owners along the border have been asking the Feds to help with illegal immigration crossing the border and thru their property.

              The first impromptu ‘visitor’, mass latrine you find on your property is all fun and games, but after months and years of literal shit and trash piling up on your land, it wears kinda thin. There’s no moral justification for the forced quartering of illegal immigrant turds.

            2. I’d shoot the FUCK out of illegal immigrants on my land if I owned property in Texas or Arizona. It’d be SWEET. Especially since I believe they have some awesome stand your ground laws around those parts and you’d probably be legally in the clear!

        2. Pedo Jeffy, you ask the same vacuous questions in every thread. Maybe focus less on child porn. And more on the answers you’re given.

          Sick fucking moron.

    2. ” in the absence of something like an invasion”

      10 million invaders not enough of an invasion for you?

      Is there any number that you would consider an invasion?

  5. quoting NR again eh? you should feel higher on the totem pole

    1. Poles are problematic. Holes before poles, brah.

      1. I’m actually rather fond of Poles holes… Polish chicks are hot!

        1. I wouldn’t mind putting a pole into the hole of some hot Poles.

  6. Those who declare illegal immigration to be an “INVASION” need to put their money where their mouth is.

    If there is no moral distinction between illegal immigration and military invasion, then they should be advocating for immigration to be placed in the hands of the military.

    Illegal immigrants crossing the border should be subject to being shot on sight if they don’t surrender immediately with hands up and white flag raised.

    Illegal immigrants in the country should be treated as enemy combatants out of uniform, and sent to military prisons such as Gitmo. Since the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to enemy combatants out of uniform, the military should have the authority to hold them in prison “until hostilities cease”. Which is, I suppose, when illegal immigration reaches zero.

    Countries that send illegal immigrants should be regarded as in a de facto state of war with the US, and the proper response would then be for Congress to formally declare war on Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

    Employers who hire illegal immigrants, or individuals who otherwise assist illegal immigrants in any other way, should be regarded as traitors and shot.

    Or maybe those who use the “invasion” rhetoric are cynically riling up passions against the other, just like every demagogue does. They don’t really believe that illegal immigration is a literal invasion, but they are more than happy to reap the rewards of stoking fear and paranoia among the public in order to acquire power for their agenda.

    1. Some of us are civilized and wish to get the problem under control before such drastic measures are necessary.

      1. But such measures are necessary RIGHT NOW by your own standards, aren’t they?

        There are 10 million enemy combatants out of uniform wandering around our cities! What is your argument against rounding them up and stuffing them into indefinite detention in a military prison a la Gitmo?

        1. That you keep repeating this line really only serves to highlight your inability or unwillingness to engage in honest discussion.

        2. Pedo Jeffy, go fuck yourself. You build the worst strawmen. You are a moron and all your ideas are similarly moronic. Your attempts at sarcasm and parody are sophist at best.

          You have nothing to say, and you’re saying it too loud.

    2. What’s your address, chemjeff?
      Put your money where your mouth is.

      1. Why, so you can have me shot?

        You would declare anyone helping an illegal immigrant to be a traitor aiding and abetting an enemy invasion, no?

        1. I believe he is suggested that he sends hordes of people to your house. And according to you, what they do while they’re in there is up to them.

          You’ll of course come back with “private property rights” and we’ll be back to zero

          1. Sure, he wants me to help illegal immigrants, because he wants me shot for being a traitor for aiding and abetting an enemy invasion. Is that your position as well?

            1. No, chemjeff, that’s an idiotic, immature, and emotionally unstable interpretation by you. You’re psychotic.

              And note that you can’t make a point about ‘invasion’ or ‘invaders’ without adding qualifications such as ‘military’ or ‘enemy’
              An invasion or invader need not even be hostile, but you can’t comprehend anything outside your own fantasies.

              1. What is this nonsense. An “invasion” is hostile by definition. And of course they’re the enemy. Do friends invade friends?

                1. Exactly. They want to use the scary word of INVASION in order to whip up fear. But they don’t mean what they say. They are happy to use tactics of demagoguery if it means achieving power.

                  It is the ugly and demeaning politics of demagoguery. And for a while that type of politics had been dead in the US. But then along comes Trump to resurrect it.

    3. Racebatierjeff goes concern trolling, telling us how we must think.

      Anything but actually face the arguments we actually have, and the policies we actually favor.

      Arrest the invaders. Send them back to their countries. Prevent them from entering the US in the first place. No catch and release.
      Make anyone found illegally in the US forever ineligible for entry in the US, let alone residency or citizenship.
      Send a bill to their countries for the public services they consume.
      Close the border against Mexico as long as they aid and abet the invasion of the US.
      Prosecute Americans who violate US immigration law by aiding and abetting the invaders, starting with government officials executing sanctuary policies for the invaders.

      Stop obeying deep state mandates that cripple our immigration laws. Enforce our immigration laws. Punish violators, whether the invaders themselves, or the collaborators with the invaders, foreign or domestic. If a nation state is aiding and abetting the invasion, retaliate.

      1. This guy gets it! Still not going far enough, but a good start.

      2. Me: “If you mean what you say, you would regard illegal immigration as an act of war!”

        buybuy: “LOL we don’t believe that at all! What we really mean is, treat illegal immigration as if it is an act of war!”

      3. I find it amusing that his tiny, dull, pederast mind believes it can tell us much of anything. The only thing he appears to have worked out is that he is totes ok with illegal pedos violently fucking little American children.

    4. I’m down with most of that.

    5. As I said above Jeff, you’re being a facetious retard by ignoring the idea that there are DEGREES of problems.

      Punching somebody in the face is bad… Shooting them in the dick with a 12 gauge is worse. It’s not that complicated.

      Illegal immigration at this scale IS a slow motion invasion. The fact that we’re such a massive country is the only reason it hasn’t 100% changed our entire nations, but it HAS done severe harm to it in many ways. Shifting the politics of 1/3 of the geographic area of the country hard to the left for instance.

      Imagine if 12 million Americans moved to, I dunno, Honduras. Would THAT not be an invasion? Given that we’d instantly alter EVERYTHING about the country by our peaceful movement? Should the Hondurans not have the right to say “Fuck you gringos, this is our land, stay the fuck out!”

      I think they DO have that right Jeff. Because it IS their land. If things got bad I’d even support their right to shoot people trying to come in if they felt they had to. I ALSO reserve that right for the USA should it get to that point.

    6. We don’t normally shoot trespassers, we throw them out. That’s what should be done. Take them back to Mexico.

      1. Pedo Jeffy is a bit of an extremist. He is for letting all illegals in, even sex predators who rape children. He said it’s more important to let them in then be concerned over them raping our kids.

  7. George W. was probably the first president that tickled the line between normal and mentally retarded. It used to bother me a lot.

    Now, it is clear that Trump falls solidly below that line. It makes me sad, and much less proud to be an American than I used to be.

    1. Compelling argument

    2. George W. was probably the first president that tickled the line between normal and mentally retarded.

      W wasn’t the first normal POTUS, sorry to inform you. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and Reagan were normal. None of the others were.

    3. It’s funny to hear a drooling progtard impugn the intelligence of his betters. Such simple, dull creatures.

  8. Comedy gold! Never a dull moment. This dumpster fire just keep going, and there are plenty of Trumpites on this board thinking this is genius! Lol.

  9. The situation at the border with families of asylum seekers is getting out of control, and if Trump weren’t using his bully pulpit to make the Mexican government do their part, and prepare the American people for what’s sure to come with the next wave of caravans, then he wouldn’t be doing his job.

    I’ve often made fun of people for referring to illegal immigration as an invasion or conquest, but the reason why is about to change. I used to make fun of them for their hyperbole, but I’m about to merely start criticizing them–for crying wolf in the past. If and when illegal immigration by way of asylum really does become something like an invasion, over the coming months–assisted or ignored by the Mexican government–all the times we cried wolf in the past . . . will make people ignore the real problems now.

    This time there may really be a wolf. It’s time to secure the fucking border already–regardless of how we feel about legal immigration. If we can’t have legal immigration without a secure border, then those of you who oppose securing the border are the biggest obstacles to legal immigration.

    1. Gee what a surprise. In the end you’re a water-carrier for Team Red.

      1. The team that is trying to preserve a sovereign nation? Not everyone wants to get cucked on a macro level.

        But we all know you’d argue about liberty while standing in the bread line

        1. Wait, is there someone trying to destroy the sovereignty of the US?

          1. You, among others.

            America haters gonna hate.

            1. The only people who hate America around here are people like you who want to turn it into an open-air prison by building walls and erecting a police state.

              1. Says who moron?

                The only reason we have a problem like this is because regular maintenance on the problem has been ignored.

                It’s like how if you just paint a house, fix a leak here and there, maintain the roof, etc a house doesn’t need THAT much work at any given moment… But if you ignore everything for 30 years, it’s a BITCH to get it up to snuff.

                We’ve ignored maintenance work on immigration for decades, so YEAH, we will need to bust ass to fix the problem… But after that there is no need for a police state. That’s just raging leftist hysteria from idiots like you.

                1. Vek, Pedo Jeffy is one stupid kid. Same bullshit every border or immigration article.

                  1. Oh, I know. And on every other stupid issue too. He’s basically a moron in 90% of cases.

                    With him and others like him I don’t post responses FOR HIM. I post them for potentially sane lurkers who may be reading who might be persuaded by reason or common sense.

          2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

      2. “Gee what a surprise. In the end you’re a water-carrier for Team Red.”

        There’s this thing called an ad hominem fallacy. If it’s all you got, it means you’re either wrong or right for the wrong reasons.

        1. GOD. I just want to slap that idiot sometimes. He can’t ever actually make a decent, reasoned, logical argument. He always plays bullshit games, playing with word definitions, or intentionally ignoring what somebody clearly means by a statement.

          So annoying.

    2. ” If and when illegal immigration by way of asylum really does become something like an invasion”

      Conservatively, there are 10 million invaders already in the country.

      If 10 million isn’t enough to cross your invasion threshold, what is the number that would?

      1. And at the very least four times that many abettors i.e. traitors supporting the invasion by hiring them and giving them sanctuary.them

        1. buybuy’s gonna need a lot of gallows to fulfill his patriotic fantasies.

          1. Who needs a gallows? Modest fines for hiring illegals will get the job done. Keep in mind I say that as a business owner. I’ve never hired an illegal immigrant though, soooo I don’t have to worry about being fined thankfully.

            1. Are you out of your mind!? Modest fines for acts of treason? We’re being invaded, and you want to give parking tickets to those who facilitate the invasion?

              1. I’m guessing you are one of those guys who is like 5’4″ and 147 pounds soaking wet and takes karate lessons. That is the only explanation for you being such a scared bitch.

              2. I’m guessing you are one of those guys who is like 5’4″ and 147 pounds soaking wet and takes karate lessons. That is the only explanation for you being such a scared bitch.

            2. Vek, I think Pedro Jeffy through out a few sock puppets to rag on you. If not, they are similarly stupid.

            3. LOL

              Not 5’4″, and unfortunately I DO weigh over 147 pounds nowadays… Oh how I long for my sheik and wispy thin days of my 20s!

              It doesn’t have anything to do with fear. I’m part Mexican myself retard!

              It has to do with the fact that we’re letting in tons of shitty people. They’re not even decent people by Mexican standards. Mexico has TONS of awesome middle class people. The ones that come here illegally are essentially the equivalent of their trailer trash and ghetto trash people.

              Ever spent time in a trailer park? They’re not all bad people… But they’re not great people either. And statistically, they have a lot of problems middle class + people don’t. Hence we’re importing a problematic group. Why do you think Hispanics are responsible for more than double their share of the population in murders every year? Because we’re not even getting the GOOD Mexicans.

              So fuck ’em I say.

        2. Freedom of association means I should be to hire whomever I please.

          I’m not the government. There isn’t any reason why I should be compelled to go around enforcing the federal government’s laws for them. If they fail to secure the border, that’s their fault. No reason why I shouldn’t be free to hire whomever I want to mow my lawn, watch my kids, or pick my vegetables. The only thing I owe you is respect for your rights. If you think you have a right to decide who I can or can’t hire, you’re wrong.

          1. blah blah blah … These so called libertarian ideals sound good in an Ayn Rand novel, but we are under invasion!!! If you finance the invasion of your own country, you’re a traitor.

            1. You fucking pussy. There is no invasion. It was far worse when I lived on the border ten years ago. And even then it was not an invasion. A problem? Yes, but more of an annoyance than an emergency. When did Americans become such bed wetting cowards? Everything is an emergency now: “Oh No!!! Sex traffickers!! Oh No!! Immigrants coming across the border!!” You guys realize this shit has been going on for two hundred years right? Why is it all the sudden an invasion? You sound just like the proggies who shit their pants every time there is a school shooting and call it a national emergency and say they need to ban guns. Your’e not fucking different.

              1. Good to see you lived on the entire border and that you know exactly what is going on everywhere all the time.

                Stupid asshole. Try reading something other than Media Matters and you might learn something.

              2. The truth is Baron it WAS an emergency in the 90s and 2000s… The thing was the Pols in DC WANTED IT. Commies want the new grievance group, and big business wanted the cheap labor. Nobody cared about the cost to normal tax payers, people whose neighborhoods went to shit, the destruction of freedom brought by bad voting habits of their anchor babies, etc.

                It SHOULD have been dealt with back then. But just because it wasn’t, doesn’t mean we don’t need to get tough on it now faggot.

                I grew up in California. I’m part beaner myself! The scale of illegal immigration is OUT OF CONTROL. It RUINED my home state to the point where almost my entire family on both sides has bailed out of self preservation. How the fuck do you put a price on that kind of shit? On ruining the nicest part of our entire nation, what was our Crown Jewel, California?

                Fuck off that it isn’t an emergency, or even an invasion. FYI According to DNA tests in England, the Anglo-Saxons only contributed about 30% to the DNA of modern English people… In another ~2 decades the illegal Hispanics will have hit that mark. And I’m pretty sure people still call the Anglo-Saxon invasion AN INVASION.

      2. Couldn’t we just make them non-invaders and “win” the “war” instantly by saying they are now Americans? I mean, that seems the easiest and cheapest way to win. Basically we had “legal invasion” for most of our history anyway. The only difference between then and now was a piece of paper in some books somewhere in DC. Did that change who the people were? or why they were coming? Here in the north, a lot of people came from Canada without any inspection and just stayed. We just eventually decided they were Americans. Why can’t we do the same now?

        the only legitimate complaint I can see is the welfare argument, but then we should be trying to curb welfare not immigration. A dollar going to an American is just as bad as a dollar going to an immigrant. In fact, in this sense, illegals are actually preferable because they pay into the system and recoup far less.

  10. Trump’s idea of closing the border is not a trade idea but an idea to force congress to get off their A** and do the work that they are paid to do. If a business person had workers like congress he would have to fire them or go out of business. As it is neither the democrats nor republicans wants to “solve” the immigration because it is used to rally the base and is to good to give up. But the need of the nation should come before the party which it does not. The party (both parties) comes before the well being of of the nation.
    Trump hopefully will be able to reverse this bad habit of the political parties!

    1. “Trump hopefully will be able to reverse this bad habit of the political parties!”

      He’ll need more than hope and a bluff to reverse such entrenched positions. Trump getting applause at his rallies each time he mentions the wall or berates Mexicans is probably as close to changing policies as he’ll get.

  11. Anybody should be allowed to come in, no questions asked.
    America’s not even a real thing anyway, Americans are hateful.
    How dare anybody object to my attempt to pose as morally superior!

    1. Anybody should be allowed to come in, no questions asked.

      More or less, yes.

      America’s not even a real thing anyway, Americans are hateful.

      No, America is a real thing. America is a place where the government respects individual liberty. At least that is the place that I want it to be. America can best fulfill its promise by respecting individual liberty. That means ending drug prohibition, ending gun prohibition, ending sex prohibition, and ending labor prohibition.

      1. Oh! Oh! But if anyone is allowed to come to America, then America will cease to be what it is today, and will become something different!

        Yes, that is right. America is going to change. It is going to change one way or another. It is going to change whether the immigration policy is restrictive, or whether it is permissive. The only question is, HOW is it going to change? I prefer to see America change according to the free choices of free people, NOT according to the diktats of some central planning bureau trying to manipulate society to be this supposedly perfect mix.

        The free choices of free people may not produce results that are, in the aggregate, ones that a person might approve of. To the prudes, the free choices of people to download pornography is a negative. To the prohibitionists, the free choices of people to drink beer is a negative. Same deal with the immigration prudes.
        They need to just deal with it and stop trying to control people’s lives. If I want to “import” Jose onto my property to mow my lawn, all you need to do is STFU and deal with it. Period.

        1. “America is going to change.”
          “Fuck you Americans. When you’re invaded by statists, you’ll take it and like it!”

          Another “Libertarian Moment” from racebaiterjeff.

          1. Do you have some version of America that stands still forever? Even if there was zero immigration whatsoever, America would still change due to births and deaths alone.

            And why is it even desirable to have a static unchanging America?

            1. Pedro Jeffy, we aren’t going to let those child rapists in. No matter how much your sick ass wants them here. Fucking pedo loving piece of shit.

        2. “Yes, that is right. America is going to change. It is going to change one way or another. It is going to change whether the immigration policy is restrictive, or whether it is permissive. The only question is, HOW is it going to change?”

          Here’s the rub: Anybody with half a brain realizes that certain types of change, that will predictably be brought by certain types of immigration, are going to be UNDESIRABLE by 90% of the fucking population!

          It’s not like we’re pissing off 5% of whiners… Everybody in this country DOES NOT want to see America turn into a 3rd world toilet. But that is THE ONLY outcome of TRUE open borders. Mind you, the current level of illegal immigration isn’t likely to make us full on Somalia… But the TRUE open borders you want would.

          Maybe not Somalia, but certainly it would drag us down to being Peru, or India, etc. And NOBODY wants that.

          So why do you wonder why no sane people, on the right OR even the left want TRUE open borders? It’s a suicidal proposition. Whereas allowing in even endless SKILLED workers WOULD make the country better in many respects.

          3rd world toilet, or richer than we are now… Hard choice?

          1. shut up cuck. we know what you really fear. You are afraid of your white women preferring immigrant dick.

            1. Post your address, eunuch

            2. Wiener boy is a little punk bitch. I’ll bet he would be sweet as pie if he met you in person, begging not to be beaten down.

            3. LOL

              As I have noted elsewhere, I’m part beaner myself. Albeit, mostly German, but I do still tan rather fiercely.

              It’s mainly just that unfettered immigration is letting in a bunch of useless savages that we DO NOT NEED.

              I’m way above average in the dick department, charming, fairly good looking, and make multiple times the average income… I ain’t worried about getting tail.

              I’m just worried about our entire country turning into a 3rd world toilet. If we were letting in nothing but Mexican doctors I wouldn’t be complaining. You fucking retarded faggot. The fact that you don’t have the sense to worry about destroying the greatest nation on earth via letting in nothing but sub par peasants from the third world shows how stupid you are. It’s purely suicidal.

      2. “America is a place where the government respects individual liberty.”

        Not if the people attacking the first, second, and fifth amendments keep importing poor people and promising free stuff.

        But please, continue to ignore the reality of the human condition. lucky for you there’s some sanity in the electorate, for now.

        1. continue to ignore the reality of the human condition.

          What is this reality that I am supposedly ignoring?

          1. That people are greedy and people have nothing want something? Are you really this dense?

            People will take handouts, people have survival instinct. I don’t want a race to see which party will offer more free shit in exchange for votes

        2. keep importing poor people

          Do you think there is anything problematic in referring to poor migrants as if they were mere cargo?

          1. Do you think there is anything “problematic” about actually trafficking poor migrants as if they were mere cargo, or do you only care about how people talk about it?

            1. Yeah actually I do. The best way to put the smugglers out of business is to get rid of the black market economy in which they thrive. Same deal with drug prohibition and sex prohibition – if you want to get rid of the drug lords and the pimps, take away their source of income by legalizing the behavior that they profit off of.

              Or, we could try it your way, when the prohibition ratchet is tightened, thereby making smuggling even more lucrative.

              1. People are people… But people are also just widgets, when one is talking about them by the millions and tens of millions. So YEAH, they’re cargo. So am I. So are you.

              2. The best way to put the smugglers out of business is to get rid of the black market economy in which they thrive.

                That would be the fastest and easiest way. You see it as the BEST way only because you are either too stupid to understand the destruction that would cause to our way of life, or you are in favor of or indifferent to it.

                1. Damn straight. This is a christian nation. A christian nation DOES NOT sanction sin, so we can do something easier or faster or better. There are other ways to deal with invaders, and those who aid and abet them.

                  1. the same arguments were made about the irish in the 19th century. WASPs feared they would get a Catholic elected who served the Papacy. It was bullshit cowardice then and it’s bullshit cowardice now. You will never protect american legal traditions by keeping people out. Your best bet is to convince them of the superiority of freedom and recruit them. It can work, and it must. Restriction is a certain failure. Your army will get smaller and smaller. Youth in America are a dead end. The progressives have won them. The only way for freedom to fight back is with immigrants who haven’t yet been fed a lifetime diet of public school and hollywood propaganda. I’ve lived in both NYC and South Texas. I would take an illegal in South Texas as a voter any day over a New Yorker. The war between the ideology of freedom and enslavement has gone global, putting up a wall to protect from the outside will only prolong the inevitable. Especially when the greatest threats to liberty are American citizens themselves.

                    1. Post your address, eunuch.

                      You’re not a coward, right?

                    2. Nardz, he is very much a coward. And a little bitch too.

                    3. This isn’t the 19th century. We need policies that make sense in the current situation. Unrestricted immigration in today’s world would be national suicide. If you can’t see the differences between today and the “Know Nothing” era or the late 1800s, you’re an idiot.

                    4. We had no welfare with previous immigration surges. We had no minimum wages. Our Federal government is already way past broke and many of the states worse off. This is likely the straw that breaks the camels back.

                    5. Yup. Not to mention the fact that immigrant voters back then DID also support left wing bullshit more than native born Americans, with FDRs win the first go around supposedly being entirely because of fresh off the boat and 1st generation born here voters!

                      Even if we can fix them in 3 or 4 generations, why not limit their influence now?

                      As for Barons statement about NYC vs Texas Mexican… Statistically, it’s BS. 2/3rds-3/4s + of white people nationally support all the basic founding principles of the USA… NYC is filled with a small MINORITY of native born white Americans. Immigrant groups are majority against everything America is all about.

                      Why didn’t you use a WHITE south Texan as your counter point? Or even a fucking white guy from Kansas City? Because it would illustrate how your point holds no water?

                      Stats don’t lie, and immigrants DO NOT majority support freedom, but native born whites do. We can work on the native born blacks and Asians, but flooding the country with big government lovers will help nothing.

      3. “America is a place”

        This is your fundamental mistake.

        America is not a place with people. It is a people with a place.

        1. Fine. Then by your standard, America died long ago when the generation of the Founding Fathers died.

          1. Actually, their progeny kept the place going for awhile.

            And with the steady stream of immigrants they took in, they managed to convert them to being Americans. Granted, some of them did do some harm by voting in FDR and other shit politicians… Just as they’re doing today… But there are limits to how hard and fast this stuff can happen.

            Personally, I think we can “fix” the Hispanics in the USA if we stop the endless flow of more of them coming. But there is a point beyond which they will no longer be able to be converted, because they’ll be too numerous. They’ll end up converting us. And THAT won’t be a good thing.

            1. converting anyone to your POV would not be a good thing. I would rather take the illegals.

              1. Cool.

                Post your address, eunuch, and you may have the illegals

              2. I would rather take the illegals.

                If you prefer their way of life, then why don’t you move to Honduras or Somalia or some other shithole where you can feel at home?

            2. Wow. What madness. Statements like that really show this is just some weird culture war, I’m brainwashed and must prefer all foreigners/foreign views over my own countries history/traditions Stockholm syndrome shit with people like him or something.

  12. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.


  13. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.


  14. He OUGHT to shut the damn border down to refugees. I’d fine with letting tomatoes from Mexico come over in trucks though. Mexico has been abetting the illegal immigrant flow from central America lately though, and the kibosh needs to be put on that shit.

    They used to be HARD CORE at their southern border, but then they realize if they just rushed them along through Mexico straight to the US most would not remain in Mexico and bother them, but come to the states instead!

    1. They are allies of the invaders. They’re the enemy.

  15. If enforcing existing immigration laws means I have to pay 20 cents more for a head of lettuce, that’s a price I am willing to pay.

    1. Hell, i’d pay double the price to stop the invasion. That’s what patriots do.

      1. Put a tariff on Mexican imports to build the wall and send the criminal immigrants home.

  16. We keep hearing about how much trade is done both ways. I wonder when anyone is going to publish the split. By this I mean how much America export compared to how much it imports. I will bet that Mexico exports way more to America than the other way.
    Mexico is allowing these migrants to travel hundreds of miles across it’s country before reaching America’s southern border. They have ample opportunity to round these migrants up and deport them long before they get close to the border. Instead, they literally allow them free passage through their county. Trump is absolutely right. Mexico is complicit in allowing the invasion by these migrants into America. It will not be until Mexico is affected financially in a big way that they will do their job in stopping these migrants free passage. For instance, Mexico could arrest anyone arrest anyone who aids and assists these migrants. Without assistance, these migrants would take months to cross the country and would likely not even start the journey if the knew the journey will take so long and they would likely never make it without food and water or transport. We all know that NGOs are helping these migrants. Many of these NGOs are American based and should be kicked out of Mexico if they are found to be operating in such a way against the interests of Mexico’s biggest trading partner. This lack of inaction by Mexico is going to cost them and it is about time.

  17. if Trump thinks the Mexican Government can stop drugs at the border by just saying stop it… He should be able to stop drugs at the border by just telling people in the US to stop buying drugs, you know… Just Say No….
    Oh ya, we tried that….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.