Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Question to Rand Paul: how would you determine the border is secure, since an unsecured border is defined by the fact that you DON'T know people crossed it?   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 99
    More: Interesting, Rand Paul, Senate, legalization, borders  
•       •       •

1156 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2013 at 1:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 12:53:48 PM  
See, this is why we need to build a second border. Just put it a few hundred yards away from the first border. We leave the first border as-is and secure the second border. Then, we'll know from all the people we catch there how unsecure the first border is. Boom, problem solved.
 
2013-06-19 01:12:30 PM  

Pocket Ninja: See, this is why we need to build a second border. Just put it a few hundred yards away from the first border. We leave the first border as-is and secure the second border. Then, we'll know from all the people we catch there how unsecure the first border is. Boom, problem solved.


and then when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
 
2013-06-19 01:21:46 PM  
Listening to Rush and Hannity talk about "how the PATRIOT Act is useless because we refuse to enforce border security" is the biggest joke ever. How people can just sit there and think this is legit commentary is laughable at best.
 
2013-06-19 01:22:21 PM  
graffiti on the other side of the wall.

/Si te gusta las putas rojas con las tetas musicales, llamar a mi hermana
 
2013-06-19 01:24:05 PM  
"Trust But Verify".

Verify by voting? And what the hell does "secure" even mean?  No illegal immigrants ever?

Also I'm sure all senators will be voting based solely on the provided facts and in no way shape or form on a partisan basis.

I didn't watch the video but the still image looks like Rand's been tootin' the special oregano.
 
2013-06-19 01:24:17 PM  
Further proof that Randians (headed by Rand) are just pussies afraid of being raped and murdered by brown people for being soulless, heartless plutocrats.
 
2013-06-19 01:24:38 PM  
the border is secure when there's a tall fence for illegals to go under. Duh!
 
2013-06-19 01:25:03 PM  
We just need to include eleventy billion dollars in the bill to pay contractors (preferably from my state and the other holdouts) then we are all good. Border is secure, no what I mean...
 
2013-06-19 01:28:01 PM  
Two words: mine fields
 
2013-06-19 01:29:21 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Two words: mine fields


For what dirt?
 
2013-06-19 01:32:46 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Two words: mine fields


Your fields are what, mein Fuhrer... I mean, Mr President?
 
2013-06-19 01:33:32 PM  

coeyagi: Further proof that Randians (headed by Rand) are just pussies afraid of being raped and murdered by brown people for being soulless, heartless plutocrats.


But....but.....Rand said he was in love with the Latino culture.  He even said it with enough foresight of thinking about the Seinfeld episode where he wonders if he's racist for liking Asian women.
 
2013-06-19 01:35:13 PM  

monoski: We just need to include eleventy billion dollars in the bill to pay contractors (preferably from my state and the other holdouts) then we are all good. Border is secure, no what I mean...


And those contractors will, in turn, subcontract the work. Those subcontractors will, in turn, subcontract portions of their work, all in a quest to find affordable laborers who will work long shifts in the Arizona desert.

End result? Undocumented workers will be hired to build the fence.
 
2013-06-19 01:35:37 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Listening to Rush and Hannity talk about "how the PATRIOT Act is useless because we refuse to enforce border security" is the biggest joke ever. How people can just sit there and think this is legit commentary is laughable at best.


They've been pushing that for a couple years, know a few right wing radio listeners who bring that up.  See, Al Queda and The Muslims are sending in thousands of terrorists every year to be trained how to pretend to be Mexicans and sneak over the border.
 
2013-06-19 01:37:27 PM  

clkeagle: monoski: We just need to include eleventy billion dollars in the bill to pay contractors (preferably from my state and the other holdouts) then we are all good. Border is secure, no what I mean...

And those contractors will, in turn, subcontract the work. Those subcontractors will, in turn, subcontract portions of their work, all in a quest to find affordable laborers who will work long shifts in the Arizona desert.

End result? Undocumented workers will be hired to build the fence.


And as shown on Penn and Teller's Bullshiat said fence will cause about a 10 second delay before they can get through it!
 
2013-06-19 01:38:07 PM  
A 'secured border' is like winning the war on terror. An intentionally ambiguous goal that you can declare that the other side failed to accomplish when they are in power and claim that you have succeeded when you are in power. It is meaningless.
 
2013-06-19 01:38:17 PM  
Question for whoever asked that...

Are you a moron? As a general once said "That is a stupid question".

Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border. In fact, one of the stupid arguments that the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made for years is just that... Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'

The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.
 
2013-06-19 01:38:23 PM  
It's very easy to have a secure, cheap, border.

Land mines.
 
2013-06-19 01:39:29 PM  

Skarekrough: But....but.....Rand said he was in love with the Latino culture. He even said it with enough foresight of thinking about the Seinfeld episode where he wonders if he's racist for liking Asian women.


And by loving Latino culture, he really meant "Taco Bell."

Man, fark Taco Bell.  One nice thing about Texas, so many good taco places.  Maybe get some trompo (pastor) tacos for dinner.
 
2013-06-19 01:40:46 PM  
You could do a whole lot to secure the border by implementing a national ID card, which would make it easy-peezy to verify your eligibility to work in the US.  Combine with serious fines and even jail time for people who hire illegal immigrants, and you'd reduce border crossings to a trickle. Make it much, much easier to catch those who do, since they'd be so far fewer in number.

Of course, that would mean tossing some good American farmers and meat packing plant managers and hotel managers and restaurant owners in jail. As well as letting the big bad ol' government issue you something akin to a driver's license, which would be a mark of the beast or something.

So it'll never happen.
 
2013-06-19 01:42:06 PM  
How is letting congress periodically vote on whether the border is getting more secure "verifying?" Sounds like a yearly excuse for intransigent Republican obstructionists to grandstand while hurting the country a la the debt ceiling debacles. I'd like a secure border as well but feel the best way to go about getting it is acknowledging root causes. They need money and we seem to want them for certain classes of jobs. Legalize, regulate and tax it and then you can focus on the gangs and other bad actors trying to cross illegally.

/if I were a border security fanatic I'd hope for a Islamic terrorist attack that took advantage of its insecurity
 
2013-06-19 01:43:19 PM  
I keep seeing this kind of thing:

Rand- "The bill in the Senate has no chance in the House."

A bill is supposed to originate in the House, then go to the Senate. If the Senate passes it, it goes to the President and the President either signs or vetoes the bill.

That's my general understanding of how bills are supposed to work. So why do I keep seeing people (especially Republican House members) talking about wanting the Senate to originate bills or talking about these things working essentially backward?
 
2013-06-19 01:43:24 PM  
So we have more security that we write into the substance of the bill. But then what we have, is at the end of year one, an investigator general looks into border security. We look at census data to see how many illegal aliens or immigrants are said to be in the country.

I'm very curious how census data next year is going to be informative when the census is taken every 10 years, isn't due for another 6 years, and even when you get that data in 2020 it will be "polluted" by at least 4 years of pre-security.
 
2013-06-19 01:44:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Two words: mine fields

Your fields are what, mein Fuhrer... I mean, Mr President?


You think you're making a joke.  There was actually a jackass on an immigration thread last weekend who suggested copying the Nazi's as a Final Solution to illegal immigration.
 
2013-06-19 01:46:01 PM  
We will know the border is secure when everyone is white again!
 
2013-06-19 01:47:07 PM  

clkeagle: Undocumented workers will be hired to build the fence.


Then just make sure they're all working on the outside of the fence, problem solved!

/s
 
2013-06-19 01:47:21 PM  

FarkedOver: We will know the border is secure when everyone is white again!


Uh, no.  That would be called genocide.

Oh.  I get it now.  Nevermind.
 
2013-06-19 01:47:22 PM  
Once again the repubs have put forward a measure that provides them the appearance of changing their policies without actually having to do it. The borders will never be fully secure, therefore the path to citizenship need never be granted. But it looks like we're doing the right thing so you you'll vote for us now, right? Right?
 
2013-06-19 01:48:17 PM  

Karac: Dwight_Yeast: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Two words: mine fields

Your fields are what, mein Fuhrer... I mean, Mr President?

You think you're making a joke.  There was actually a jackass on an immigration thread last weekend who suggested copying the Nazi's as a Final Solution to illegal immigration.


cdn.static.ovimg.com

That's spelled Fine Ol' Solution.
 
2013-06-19 01:48:51 PM  

randomjsa: Question for whoever asked that...

Are you a moron? As a general once said "That is a stupid question".

Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border. In fact, one of the stupid arguments that the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made for years is just that... Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'

The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.


The point is that the term 'secure border' is never actually defined.  How many miles of fence?  What kind of fence?  How many illegals can sneak into the country each year but still be 'secure'?  It's a completely ambiguous legal term which should have place in the law.
 
2013-06-19 01:49:54 PM  

JohnnyC: A bill is supposed to originate in the House


If it deals with raising revenue.
 
2013-06-19 01:50:07 PM  

randomjsa: Question for whoever asked that...

Are you a moron? As a general once said "That is a stupid question".

Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border. In fact, one of the stupid arguments that the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made for years is just that... Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'

The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.


I know you probably won't come back, but it actually is a reasonable question, because Sen. Paul is proposing that Congress determines whether the border is secure every year. So laying out what "secure" means or how secure the border should be is kind of important, because otherwise it's just another ploy to give Congress yet another yearly bullshiat argument that goes absolutely nowhere and gets nothing done. Unfortunately his answer boils down to "We get to argue pointlessly for months and get nothing done." I get that he doesn't trust the current administration (or even possibly future admins), but I don't particularly trust Congress, either. If he were to suggest a third party investigative group gets the final say, maybe it would be reasonable. But letting Congress vote on whether the border is secure or not is asking for another slapfight that comes down across party lines. It's stupid.
 
2013-06-19 01:50:43 PM  
Please Democrats, let them do they "Congress must vote every year for the path to citizenship to begin" part in the bill. Republicans are really this stupid that they want to have to piss off either Hispanics or their constituents each year?

It's a wedge issue for every year and the Republicans are trying to make it happen. The Democrats should be supportive in their efforts to screw themselves.
 
2013-06-19 01:51:25 PM  

Pocket Ninja: See, this is why we need to build a second border. Just put it a few hundred yards away from the first border. We leave the first border as-is and secure the second border. Then, we'll know from all the people we catch there how unsecure the first border is. Boom, problem solved.


Face it, treasonist.  You hate America, and you want to see it smaller.  By putting a border inside the border, you make a smaller target for the terror to hit.  And, everyone knows, terror likes smaller targets.  They get more attention and scare people with their accuracy.

Why do you love terror?
 
2013-06-19 01:51:59 PM  

JohnnyC: I keep seeing this kind of thing:

Rand- "The bill in the Senate has no chance in the House."

A bill is supposed to originate in the House, then go to the Senate. If the Senate passes it, it goes to the President and the President either signs or vetoes the bill.

That's my general understanding of how bills are supposed to work. So why do I keep seeing people (especially Republican House members) talking about wanting the Senate to originate bills or talking about these things working essentially backward?


Only "bills that raise revenue" (basically the budget and tax bills) must originate in the House.
 
2013-06-19 01:52:27 PM  
Trust But Verify

Ahh, yes, the famous Saint Reagan quote that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

If you trust somebody, you trust them, you take their word for it, you don't go and follow-up to verify it on your own.
 
2013-06-19 01:52:34 PM  

randomjsa: Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border.


So then you are saying the Republicans who are asking for this are lying or stupid because it can never happen?

And you are against then building a wall too, because according to you it wouldn't secure our border.

Wow this is about the smartest thing you have said. (I doubt you understood though what you implied)
 
2013-06-19 01:53:14 PM  

randomjsa: The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.


OK, so at what point do we say that the border is "as secure as possible", diminishing returns being what they are? (Similar to "at what point do we call the War on Drugs/Poverty/Terror won or lost?" Or, for that matter, Iraq.)

The point of not allowing elected officials to weasel out of policy positions using vague generalities and nonspecific "goals" is to prevent them from being weaselly. So RAND should put up - what he thinks are the specific benchmarks to hit - or shut up and let the Legislature do what the Legislature do.
 
2013-06-19 01:54:42 PM  

jigger: JohnnyC: A bill is supposed to originate in the House

If it deals with raising revenue.


qorkfiend: Only "bills that raise revenue" (basically the budget and tax bills) must originate in the House.


Ahh... I thought it was "all bills". Thanks for the info.
 
2013-06-19 01:55:13 PM  

randomjsa: Question for whoever asked that...

Are you a moron? As a general once said "That is a stupid question".

Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border. In fact, one of the stupid arguments that the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made for years is just that... Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'

The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.


Just like the pro-abortion crowd?

Get out of here, dummy (pointless request: this is your one post in this thread, like a coward).  You are so bad at concealing yourself as an imbecile, it begs the question "how do you even manage the task of respiration?".
 
2013-06-19 01:55:49 PM  

duenor: It's very easy to have a secure, cheap, border.

Land mines.


Remotely operated gun towers where we rent out time at the guns.  For only $25 an hour plus amo fee plus resuply fee you can try to play a real live version of CODBOPS.  We could make money at this.

I would be all over this if they made it more of a tower defense game though.
 
2013-06-19 01:55:50 PM  
Why would a "libertarian" be against free flow of immigration? Wouldn't it be best for markets to decide which country has the better system.

It's amusing how they feel there should be zero restriction on business leaving one country for another but for labor to make the same choices they are magically against it. Why, because they are not for free markets, the are for unregulated businesses, labor on the other hand they have no problem with being regulated.

You can't really be for a "Free market" unless you believe labor gets a choice to take any job including the benefits of the jobs in the other country.
 
2013-06-19 01:57:05 PM  

randomjsa: Nobody and I mean nobody thinks that you're ever going to completely secure that border. In fact, one of the stupid arguments that the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made for years is just that... Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'


I know, right?  It's just like that with gun control!  I mean, you're never going to get rid of all the violence so why even bother trying to control the guns?
 
2013-06-19 01:57:14 PM  

randomjsa: Except that they follow that up with the utterly illogical conclusion of "Well since you can't completely secure it then you might as well not try. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put everything I own in the front yard with a sign that says 'Don't Steal This' because there's no point in locking my doors since my belongings will never be completely secure'

The point is to take reasonable steps to make the border as secure as possible now quit asking dishonest and stupid questions you think people can't answer.


I've seen this argument before, but for some sort of hand held death machines. So you're saying that is bad argument?

/ps: i like my hand held death machines. got nothing to hide. don't care if it is on a list.
 
2013-06-19 01:58:07 PM  
I'd be interested to have an actual discussion with proponents of "secure the border first." I get that a secure border means "no illegal crossing," but it's not so simple as just that:

* "Absolutely none" is probably not attainable. Given that, what's an acceptable level of illegal border crossings?
* How exactly do we do this? Giant-ass fence? How much is that gonna cost, and how can we ensure it'll be effective? Not even the Berlin wall was 100% effective, and human ingenuity isn't limited to the northern side of the border.
* Can law enforcement shoot to kill if they witness apparent illegal crossings? If not, why not, and what else do you recommend?
* We need a shiat-ton of cheap labor. If the border's 100% secure, how do we ensure we have enough of the cheap manual labor we need to sustain the economy?
* Are we securing the border first and then dealing with people in the country illegally, or is deporting millions of people part of securing the border?
* etc...

But I realize it's mostly just soundbites and talking points underpinned by basic racism.
 
2013-06-19 01:58:50 PM  

Corvus: Why would a "libertarian" be against free flow of immigration? Wouldn't it be best for markets to decide which country has the better system.

It's amusing how they feel there should be zero restriction on business leaving one country for another but for labor to make the same choices they are magically against it. Why, because they are not for free markets, the are for unregulated businesses, labor on the other hand they have no problem with being regulated.

You can't really be for a "Free market" unless you believe labor gets a choice to take any job including the benefits of the jobs in the other country.


Well that's the whole rub, you see.  Libertarians want to get all the usable skills they need for their Galt paradise or some shiat, and fark everyone else.
 
2013-06-19 01:58:51 PM  

Corvus: Why would a "libertarian" be against free flow of immigration?


A libertarian wouldn't.
 
2013-06-19 01:59:38 PM  

Jake Havechek: Trust But Verify

Ahh, yes, the famous Saint Reagan quote that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

If you trust somebody, you trust them, you take their word for it, you don't go and follow-up to verify it on your own.


Well, there you go again...
 
2013-06-19 02:02:15 PM  

Witty_Retort: I've seen this argument before, but for some sort of hand held death machines. So you're saying that is bad argument?


This is my This Town Needs Guns cover band name.
 
2013-06-19 02:03:12 PM  
Really the only viable solution is annex northern Mexico, grant citizenship to the people living in the area, and introduce those cholos to the rule of law.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report