Except that the end result would be a huge flood of them fleeing to the US resulting in US bearing the whole cost and much more.
Shut the door hard.
I’m all for a 10 year holiday from all illigration of any sort. We need a reset.
And while we’re at it we need to treat being an illegal alien as we do other criminal activities. The assets gained while being an illegal alien should be subject for forfeiture. Crimes committed by illegal aliens should incur harsher penalties.
Oh, and require proof of legal residency for all remittances.
We should send a bill to the country of their origin and deduct it form the aid they receive from us.
Well… you started out at 10 million dollars: Er… here is a check for $1.96. 
From “The Wabbit Who Came to Supper”
Dear Sir:
Your uncle Louie has kicked the bucket.
You thereby inherit three million dollars.
Inheritance Tax: $2,000,000
Defense Tax: $52,011.35
State Tax: $18,795.92
County Tax: $5,748.20
Special Tax: $4,334.04
Property Tax: $6,421.16
Balance: $9,754.31
Attorney Fee: $9,756.29
Which leave you owing us $1.98
Please Remit.
Respectively, Arthur Shyster
1 Like
TWR, what you write seems true enough but it amounts to a people- if not nations themselves- holding us hostage. And therefore all inaction seems to me like appeasement.
Appeasement has a bad track record for ensuring the security of a country from attack by another. Yes… attack. Different weapons, different soldiers, different type of damage, but an attack on us nonetheless.
1 Like
Not a bad idea but until we “build the wall” there’s no door to shut. I did the math one time several years ago and we’d need to expand the border patrol by something like 150,000 agents to even begin to get serious about securing the border absent real physical barriers.
Now imagine all of the infrastructure, vehicles etc required to support that number of BPA’s.
The trouble is that the only real control we have over the offending nations is our foreign aid dollars.
Columbia for example would simply collapse as a nation state and become an absolute Narco State without our dollars.
Most of central America would collapse as well into economic chaos which would drive a flood of legitimate refugees and asylees north like no one has ever imagined.
We are treaty bound to accept legit refugees and asylees so that would make the problem exponentially worse for us.
Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe!
Two thoughts:
We need to cut off the logistics of this horse hockey.
If we back up these caravans into Mexico, they will put a stop to this right quick.
The last caravan has pretty well bankrupted both Tijuana and the state.
The problem is we don’t have the resources to put forth the same effort all along the border.
There is always logical rationale for appeasement. I cannot say that it never works. We probably never hear about those cases where it works. But we know that it does not always work and in those cases, the longer appeasement continues the bloodier and more expensive the result.
1 Like
We’re not talking about appeasing anyone here.
That is exactly what you are advocating. It amounts to this: Appease these countries by sending money or they will unleash a greater hell upon us.
No it isn’t. This is money we send them to help keep said govt’s in power. All of them are struggling.
You say tomato. I say appeasement.
Appeasement would be a payoff to prevent them from acting on a threat or becoming hostile to the US. This isn’t that.
: the act or action of appeasing someone or something… one tribe may go in for the appeasement of local ghosts …— W. D. Howellsespecially : a policy of appeasing an enemy or potential aggressor by making concessionsAlthough appeasement may work in individual cases, terrorist groups with global ambitions cannot be appeased by territorial concessions.— Walter LaqueurThe Munich analogy—recalling the Allies’ appeasement of Germany over its demands on Czechoslovakia in 1938—has been cited again and again, and this is understandable.— Fredric Smoler
How’s that policy working? We now have entire caravans of people coming this way. It is a failed policy. “Oh”, you say, “it will get worse if we stop”. So we appease the composite nation and its people. But to no effect. It is perpetuation of a failed state just as perpetual welfare will perpetuate the failures of an individual.
Libs use the same logic. “If you stop the welfare, the poor will be a worse drain on our system, driven to crime, unable to maintain a healthy life they will overcrowd our hospitals.”
It is the same argument that is used to counter the claim that we need to force these people to get a job.
1 Like
Literally by definition it isn’t appeasement so please quit using the term.
If it weren’t for our 5th Column we’d have the resources.