Arizona, a rogue state at war

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The moat and airstrikes obviously are, but the fence and troops are not. Those things would work in reducing the flow of illegals. You are oblivious

Then I guess we're both oblivious, because you can't seem to get this through your head:

"it doesn't make any sense to focus all our attention at the border while turning a blind eye to employers in the interior. That's like trying to fill a bucket with teaspoons of water without first plugging the hole at the bottom."

The illegal immigration problem has two fronts, and both must be dealt with simultaneously.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Then I guess we're both oblivious, because you can't seem to get this through your head:

"it doesn't make any sense to focus all our attention at the border while turning a blind eye to employers in the interior. That's like trying to fill a bucket with teaspoons of water without first plugging the hole at the bottom."

The illegal immigration problem has two fronts, and both must be dealt with simultaneously.

What gave you the impression that I dont agree that something needs to be done to employers? In fact, I know I've posted before that they need to be fined to high-heaven if caught employing them.

I'll go dig up the thread now if you want, or you can post some of my statements where I imply that I cant get that through my head.

Which do you want to do?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
This opening line:

Don't be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People's Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it's the next logical step for the rogue state.

discredited the entire article. Arizona is now North Korea? Jesus, these morons are as bad as the "Obama is Hitler" people.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Hard to take an article serious when this is how it starts off.

Yes, the next logical step from enforcing federal immigration law is to acquire nuclear weapons.

/boggle

It's hyperbole, to be sure, but given how enraged people are about this, I wouldn't be surprised if AZ asked for nukes, and that AZ residents would support it.

By the bye, very little surprises me these days... about many issues.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
What gave you the impression that I dont agree that something needs to be done to employers? In fact, I know I've posted before that they need to be fined to high-heaven if caught employing them.

I'll go dig up the thread now if you want, or you can post some of my statements where I imply that I cant get that through my head.

Which do you want to do?

What gave you the impression that I don't agree troops and moats would reduce the inflow of illegals?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
It's hyperbole, to be sure, but given how enraged people are about this, I wouldn't be surprised if AZ asked for nukes, and that AZ residents would support it.

By the bye, very little surprises me these days... about many issues.

First off, I'm sure Arizona already has nukes. Secondly, no one in their right mind would think nuclear weapons would deter illegal immigration. What are you going to say...."DONT COME OVER HERE OR I WILL NUKE THE PLACE YOU ARE COMING FROM"?

Its worthless shock journalism, and by saying "you wouldn't be surprised" if it actually happened, you are intellectually discrediting yourself and any legitimate point you might try to make.

Nice job.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
What gave you the impression that I don't agree troops and moats would reduce the inflow of illegals?

By agreeing with an article that said that stuff wouldnt work and they would find their way over anyway.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
First off, I'm sure Arizona already has nukes.

Does it?

Secondly, no one in their right mind would think nuclear weapons would deter illegal immigration. What are you going to say...."DONT COME OVER HERE OR I WILL NUKE THE PLACE YOU ARE COMING FROM"?

Few people are in their right minds on this issue.

Its worthless shock journalism, and by saying "you wouldn't be surprised" if it actually happened, you are intellectually discrediting yourself and any legitimate point you might try to make.

Nice job.

Well, I guess we'll always have Paris.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
By agreeing with an article that said that stuff wouldnt work and they would find their way over anyway.

The article never said that stuff wouldn't work, only that it wouldn't completely fix the problem.. which happens to be true. It's also true that people would find their way over here anyway unless we also make it so they won't have a job here when they come.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,401
10,711
136
The moat and airstrikes obviously are, but the fence and troops are not. Those things would work in reducing the flow of illegals. You are oblivious

Not just that. Sealing the border is a requirement before the illegals already here will even begin to be accepted as anything more than invaders who need to be forcibly removed.

Only when we can be assured this invasion has ended will we find it in our hearts to live and let live with those already here. It would be a long and difficult process, but after a few generations we can achieve normalization. That'll never happen if this flood continues.

As things stand with an open border we're heading the way of Yugoslavia.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
The article never said that stuff wouldn't work

Yes it did

"desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life."

Sure as hell says it those things wont work.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Yes it did

"desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life."

Sure as hell says it those things wont work.

They won't work to completely fix the problem, only to reduce one part of the problem. Only if you're looking at this issue with a border-only point of view would you infer from that as you just did.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Soon as I read the very first line I understood.
Writer has already fixed himself into a category and since I am too smart to debate with such people, I can let it all go without getting angry.

And you guys, you should have seen this was an obvious troll post.
Dont respond, it just fuels the stupid fire.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Ah, so you agree it would reduce it.

Never have I said it wouldn't.


Yes. When someone says, as the author of the piece did, that troops, moats, etc. won't work and that people will always find a way to a better future they're judging it against a complete fix, not saying that what won't work is a complete failure. It's not a complete failure, it's just not a complete solution either.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Yea...just gonna put this out there for ya zsdersw.....when you're on a board with a pretty large liberal population and you can't get one of them to chime in and agree with you....its probably time to slink back to the shadows.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Yea...just gonna put this out there for ya zsdersw.....when you're on a board with a pretty large liberal population and you can't get one of them to chime in and agree with you....its probably time to slink back to the shadows.

Slink back to the shadows? Why? Agreement with me is neither required nor sought.