Posts by Alexander Ortiz3

Chloe Roberts2 said:If kids want to walk to church because they’re big on religious studies, fine by me. But I really think believers should stick to spreading their faith behind closed doors instead of trying to push it onto secular ground that's meant for children of all faiths.

And frankly, the Supreme Court just washed its hands of those Vatican treaties like Pontius Pilate.

Believers have every right to express their faith publicly, and the government is supposed to guarantee that right. Just read the Constitution.
Why is it suddenly "harder" for a kid to walk in the opposite direction than it is for someone else to just sit through a free period?
I’ll say it again: I recognize there are issues with how these free periods are handled, but I put the blame squarely on the Department of Education for failing to set clear regulations.

Jason Ortiz5 said:I really want to tackle this one specific cliché people keep throwing around—this idea that because a majority supposedly voted for religious education in the past, it should stay. But here’s the thing: religious ed wasn't brought into schools through any kind of democratic process or by the will of the people. It was pushed through via pure political trickery and sold out for a Judas kiss. It's unconstitutional (no matter how much our esteemed Supreme Court tries to pretend otherwise), so there shouldn't even be a need for a referendum to scrap it. If we actually lived in a real rule-of-law nation, religious ed would have been kicked back to the churches long ago through a simple legal procedure.

Religious studies were integrated into the school system because of international treaties. Look, I’m generally all for referendums and letting the people have their say, but that just isn't an option for this particular issue.
The reality is that most parents opt into religious instruction for their kids, which I assume is an indirect way of showing where they stand on the matter.
Any citizen can file for judicial review, which the Supreme Court is legally obligated to resolve; they don't have the option to just ignore it. If you think you actually have a shot at changing things, stop waiting and start drafting that petition immediately.

Michelle Nelson4 said:What library are we even talking about!? The one that’s only open half the time because the librarian is constantly off somewhere? Every time you actually need the facility for a mentorship program, she’s away at some seminar or whatnot. In just two months, my kid managed to try visiting that library exactly three times.
The solution is right in front of us, and honestly, people have suggested it a thousand times already: REVERSE SHIFT SCHEDULES

It’s actually quite telling how much some people fight against this idea—the idea that kids should be able to walk over to school (even if they aren't staying for after-school care) to access something so vital to their education. Personally, I don't mind driving my child four times a week to sports practice, even though I wouldn't call athletics "essential for saving one's soul from eternal damnation," which is how certain religious education classes seem to frame things for believers. If they truly believed in that, they'd be rushing to those classes regardless of where they were held.

Look, from a practical standpoint, it doesn't affect me directly, other than the fact that my child isn't heading to the library right now instead of sitting in some office, and the third graders aren't getting to go and have a blast. But in two or three years, when more than half of them stop going and there's no organized after-school supervision available—well, then the school is going to face a "tiny" little problem with crowds of unsupervised kids hanging around the entrance. And I’m thinking about that first incident that triggers a visit from the local inspectors; let's see whose rights carry more weight: the churches fighting for preferential placement of religious studies in the middle of the school day, or our children's right to safety within the mandatory school system.

Reverse scheduling wouldn't work for those attending religion classes. Why would they want to make an extra trip from home to the school when the alternative is for the kids who *don't* attend religion class to spend their free hour inside the building?
So, it's a completely selfish opinion that only looks out for their own interests without caring if it makes life harder for everyone else.

Nicole James said:Is that really how it works, though? I mean, just how many votes would a political party have to pull in an election to be granted the right to teach mandatory political science classes in our elementary and high schools?

Are you seriously trying to compare religious freedoms with political ones? 😁

Michelle Nelson4 said:And there it is, the classic "majority rules" argument.
But what actually happens when more than half the kids in a class decide they aren't taking religion class?
Absolutely nothing.
You just end up with a small minority sitting there in a classroom while the rest of the class is essentially running wild in the halls.
The real issue isn't about numbers; it’s about how unnatural it feels to have this one elective squeezed right into the middle of a standard schedule of mandatory subjects. It doesn't fit the flow like everything else does.
Honestly, if I had the choice, I wouldn't even pick ethics. Who actually wants to pile extra work onto their kid? I’d much rather see a schedule without these awkward gaps where nobody is responsible for supervision. Let them pick those kinds of electives once they get to middle school or high school.

Of course, other parents don't want their kids stuck in different shifts or having to stay late for religion classes either.
The library should be the solution for that free period, where they can be supervised by a librarian.
I'd love to see some actual data on how many classrooms in the US have a majority of students opting out of religious studies.
P.S. What kind of argument is supposed to fix this, and how? The majority decides and the minority has rights—that’s literally how democracy works.

Regardless of all the noise being made about this, I’m just trying to point out the core issue here: kids who don't opt into religious studies end up with a free period on their schedule.
They also have one fewer subject to worry about—and honestly, it’s a pretty easy one to manage.
The most logical fix would be to introduce an ethics course for them, similar to how it's handled in American high schools. That way, everyone's schedule stays balanced, and instead of adding more stress, you're giving them a lighter subject that actually helps boost their GPA.
If implementing an ethics class in elementary schools proves too complicated, a second alternative would be to organize supervised library time for any student with a free period. They could use that hour to read, catch up on homework, or study for their next class under the guidance of a librarian. With a little bit of cooperation, this should be easily solvable at any school... especially since the government was just bragging about how every single school in the country now has a fully equipped library and computer labs, right?

It’s perfectly understandable that parents are worried about what their children are doing during those unsupervised hours, but the fact that most kids choose religious studies voluntarily—while a small minority also chooses it voluntarily—means that specific subject isn't the cause of this logistical mess.
The Department of Education really should have resolved this free period issue by now in a way that doesn't create extra hurdles for the majority of students attending religious classes.

nimblelynx7 said:Playing dumb is a great tactic.
It isn't about following trends; it’s about the desire for their kids not to stand out from the crowd. We’ve already seen plenty of "broad-minded Christian tolerance" toward people with different views on this thread alone.

I heard someone claim here that tons of parents would actually prefer not to send their kids to religious education classes, but they feel forced to because they want them to fit in. If that's the case, why don't all those "many" parents just band together and opt out? Then the ones actually attending would be the ones standing out. Or is the real issue that most parents actually *do* want their children to attend?

Another thing—why shouldn't kids be allowed to be different? Who decided everyone has to be exactly the same? By that logic, an African American parent wouldn't even be able to send their child to school because they'd stand out from the crowd. That reasoning is a total disaster, but it's what follows directly from your post. In some of our American schools, you have both Catholic and Protestant religious studies, and in others, like in a town like Springfield, for example, you might see Catholic and Islamic classes held. Nobody has an issue with that.

I'm not sure what kind of intolerance you're talking about, or if you were aiming that at me?
When you crunch the numbers at the end of the day, there are really only two options: either the state provides ethics classes during the religious education period, or it's just a free period.
This whole idea about parents being "forced" to enroll their kids in religious studies doesn't hold water. I mean, weren't they "forced" to check the box identifying as religious on the census? And what would have happened to them if they hadn't?

When I say 90%, I’m talking about the rough percentage of school-aged kids enrolled in religious education classes. It tends to be slightly higher during elementary school and dips a bit during high school, but there isn't really any massive deviation from that figure.
Now, how many of those students and their families actually practice their faith on a daily basis is an entirely different conversation. You see all sorts of examples—kids from non-religious households finding their way toward faith, and others moving in the opposite direction.
Personally, I am strongly against forcing anyone to attend religious classes; that would be terrible. At the same time, I don't believe anyone should be discouraged or blocked from attending if they want to.
Choosing to opt out of religious studies just to follow a fad is honestly ridiculous. I don't even know what to say about parents who just chase after fleeting trends... though I doubt there are many like that. Who would actually send their child to listen to something they consider "bad" just because it's trendy?
The only downside I see here is that the government hasn't organized ethics classes in elementary schools the way they have in high schools, which leads to these issues with unsupervised free periods.
Furthermore, I’ve never heard the vast majority of people who choose religious education calling for it to be made mandatory for everyone. On the flip side, you constantly hear complaints from the minority who don't want it, often leading to calls to ban religious education for everyone, including those who actually want it. As for those parents who care more about neighborhood gossip than their own child's well-being, it's probably best not to even engage with them.
Looking at parental guidance, many parents don't bother teaching their children how to read or do basic math, yet they still send them to school to learn those things.
The bottom line is this: religious education is strictly voluntary. There are no negative consequences for those who choose not to participate. Trying to get into the specific reasons why someone chooses one faith over another—or none at all—is a complicated rabbit hole.
The only real issue is the gap in the schedule during those free periods, and the responsibility lies solely with the state to organize something for them. No one else can step in to handle that, and it's certainly not up to the Church to manage public school schedules.

P.S. According to official data from the 2011 Census, over 90% of Americans identify with various religious denominations, while atheists and agnostics make up less than 10%. Various religious organizations can organize these classes in accordance with parental interests.

I have to admit, I didn't quite follow your point about the "excessive Mass." I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The truth is, nobody can force you to send your child to any religious service. If you do choose to send them, then you have to accept the rules of the religious community you selected for your child. Otherwise, find another one. We live in a free country.
If a parent views a religious rite as senseless or unnecessary, I truly wonder why they would expose their own children to something they hold such a negative opinion about.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here... or if there was supposed to be more to this thought... Alexander Ortiz3 says:
Man, religious education classes are just way too expensive...
It isn't just about covering the costs for the religious education instructors; you also have to factor in the extra staff needed to supervise, entertain, or tutor the kids while they're busy with their lessons...
Wouldn't it make more sense if priests and nuns handled the spreading of the faith entirely for free? You know, out of pure altruism and a genuine desire to pass on their beliefs... just acting from the heart to share the word...
Ever since when did the number of those believers start growing like this? From what I can tell, it’s mostly just a bunch of young people... I don't think anyone is even over forty... 🥳)?

If the Roman Catholic Church is footing the bill for religious instructors, then public schools should be allowed to hire as many of them as they need to ensure there’s always someone available to lead a session during the first, last, or even a mid-day period...
In my opinion, there shouldn't be a single soul on the payroll at that underfunded Department of Education...
I see people jumping on all sorts of threads lately, complaining about how schools are supposedly broke when it comes to basic necessities—stuff like toilet paper or even the paper needed for exams and handouts—yet somehow they always manage to find the budget to promote religious teachings...
It really is a fascinating country we live in... 🤔

It isn’t even about whether there's enough money to cover the basics—I'm not talking about being unable to afford toilet paper or everyday essentials. The real issue lies in how that money is actually being spent. But honestly, that's a whole different conversation...
Personally, I am always in favor of holding a referendum on just about any issue—even something like religious education in schools. I believe we should let the people decide what they want through a majority vote (though, if I recall correctly, certain international treaties might make that tricky to pull off legally, but we can get into those technicalities later)...
We’re currently seeing a situation where the vast majority of parents are opting for religious education for their children—we're talking 90% or even higher in many cases. This trend isn't just limited to elementary schools; it's happening in high schools too, even when they offer ethics classes as an alternative...
That’s the essence of democracy, plain and simple—the majority calls the shots. However, that doesn't mean we can just steamroll the minority or strip them of their fundamental rights...
What really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of how we handle ethics and religious studies in our schools. We ought to be organizing a curriculum that provides a comprehensive overview for any student who isn't enrolled in formal religious education. It should offer a broad, well-rounded understanding of various faith-based organizations, while also giving equal weight to perspectives like atheism and agnosticism...
The idea that schools should just "step aside" regarding any given subject and leave education entirely up to the home is, frankly, quite misguided when you consider the fundamental role schools play in our society. Sure, there are certainly private language institutes out there that offer a more polished experience than what you might find in a standard public school district, but that isn't a reason to scrap foreign language programs altogether—just like we wouldn't cut math or science from the curriculum for the same reason.
Relationships with religious organizations are governed by various specific legal agreements. For instance, our relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is dictated by an intergovernmental treaty established between the United States and Vatican City back in the 1990s. Under the framework of the Vienna Conventions—to which the U.S. is a signatory—these types of international treaties aren't something one side can just unilaterally scrap or alter on a whim. They require mutual consent from both parties to change. Theoretically, a treaty could be terminated if one side commits a severe breach of its terms, much like how we saw the complications surrounding the maritime boundary arbitration agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Even when there are accusations of serious violations, the other party often refuses to recognize the withdrawal just to avoid further legal entanglement, but I won't get too deep into that particular rabbit hole...
Back in 2000, when the opposition and the Democratic Party finally seized power, they hit a major roadblock with the existing treaty involving Vatican City. Since there was absolutely no realistic way to tear that agreement up, they decided to pivot and try a different tactic entirely. They started offering every single religious organization in the country a contract modeled exactly after the one already in place with the Vatican. It was a clever bit of maneuvering: by giving everyone the same deal, they effectively stripped the Roman Catholic Church of its "special" status, since suddenly every faith group was just as "privileged" as the next under these identical agreements.
Today, the Islamic Community is practically patting itself on the back, claiming they’ve managed to secure a unique relationship with the U.S. government that sets a precedent for all of Europe. They’re even trying to hold America up as the gold standard for other Western nations that have much larger Muslim populations...
The bottom line is that here in the States, all religious organizations were granted similar rights under the same basic framework. Any one of those agreements—whether it involves Protestant denominations, the Islamic community, or Jewish groups—can be terminated without any legal headache because none of them are based on international treaties. You can walk away from those arrangements whenever you choose. The only exception to this rule is the status of the Roman Catholic Church, simply because their standing is specifically governed by an international treaty with Vatican City.
When it comes to religious education, there are two main ways people look at this.
The first approach is to insist on the rights of every minority—not just religious ones, but non-religious atheistic minorities too—arguing that an ethics course must be organized alongside religious studies at any cost. They claim no one should face discrimination due to a lack of funding, and that the government must meet these demands. After all, if there’s enough money for the government to buy a brand-new fleet of vehicles for various departments, agencies, and fancy new smartphones...
The second approach is simply to grumble against religious education, condemning the majority who choose to attend by choice, and demanding that the majority adapt to the minority. In the process, individual children will still end up wandering the hallways, but who really cares about those kids when there's a chance to throw shade at believers and the Church?
Terminating an intergovernmental agreement without the consent of both parties isn't an option, even if the majority were in favor of it. Historically, leaders have found a solution by granting equal agreements (and thus equal rights) to all religious communities. In our system, every religious group has the right to organize religious education in schools under the exact same conditions, provided they have students of that faith. All that's left is for the atheists to have their own parallel curriculum organized alongside religious studies, and the state shouldn't make any more excuses regarding that.

To briefly touch upon the actual content of religious instruction: the Constitution guarantees the freedom and protection of public religious practice for all religious communities under Article 30 (it is explicitly stated in that article so that no one mistakenly thinks faith is strictly a private matter). As long as the content of that instruction does not directly violate any other laws, the state cannot interfere with the curriculum of religious education. Essentially, America is a secular country, which means the separation of church and state, but anyone is free to publicly manifest their faith, and the state protects that right. Religious education in schools is regulated by intergovernmental and other treaties; without such treaties, religious education wouldn't even be possible in a public school. However, a religious community remains autonomous in its teaching, and according to the principle of secularism, the state does not meddle in that teaching unless it violates the law. The treaty provides for religious education in schools, but it does not grant the state the power to regulate the specific content, provided it stays within legal bounds.
For children who do not attend religious education, there are two options: either a parallel ethics course or a free period.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, it isn't really about the number of kids involved; it's about the specific situation they're stuck in. Just imagine you've got two kids, and one wants to take religious studies while the other doesn't. For that first child, we could easily arrange for them to attend during the first period, the last period, an after-school session, or even at a different campus where the curriculum fits better. But if we force them into a class right in the middle of the school day, there’s nobody left to watch the second child. They’d basically be left to fend for themselves. Is it really alright to let one kid wander through hallways or hang out in the courtyard in whatever weather happens to be hitting us, just so someone else can take an elective that could easily be scheduled at a different time or place? In my eyes, absolutely not. Both children are equally important, and you shouldn't provide space and supervision for one while essentially abandoning the other. Adding more kids to the equation doesn't change the fundamental issue; whether it's one extra student or twenty-five, we still have that one child being left behind. So, I have to ask: what is your magic number where it becomes acceptable for a minority to be discriminated against and denied proper care just to serve the majority? Because if you ask me, there isn't one. That number is zero.

Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Lisa Patel4 said:Thanks. I’m interested to see what everyone else here thinks about this.

Southern Europe has the worse geography, I guess. There are over 300 million Muslims in the Mediterranean Basin within reach of Europe.

There’s a solution here. We need a naval blockade of Africa and to isolate Turkey completely. Maybe we should just militarize the borders between Greece and Turkey too.

The thing is, Greece isn't going to do all that for free. They’ll be demanding debt forgiveness and massive funding just to support the lifestyle of Greek civil servants living on fifteen or sixteen salaries, and they'll want all Greeks employed in those roles.
Well, you decide which is more cost-effective: a fence guarded by Greeks, a fence on the American border, or just letting millions of Africans and Arabs pour into America whenever and however they please.

Peter Reed70 said:So I'm scrolling through some local news in St. Louis and just read that the protest against that refugee camp totally flopped—apparently only about a hundred people showed up.

Back in Washington, D.C., at that "Welcome Refugees" rally, there were literally twelve people there. Twelve. It was organized by that same woman who ran that veteran protest over on Savile Avenue.
Yet, every single news camera and major newspaper portrayed that "welcome" rally as a massive success.
So, if the one in the smaller city was considered a failure, what does that tell you about this one? I'll let you be the judge of that.

We are being fed a completely flawed logic here. Honestly, it’s hardly surprising when you see how hard the media works to spread misinformation.
Any lock can be picked. Does that mean we should just rip all the locks off our houses and apartments? Every single day, someone breaks into a home or a car gets stolen. So why bother with locks and security at all if a car is going to get swiped every day regardless?
Besides, why shouldn't everything just be left open? Maybe some poor soul, some children, or a mother needs something, and they can just help themselves—because let's be human, people are people. After all, tomorrow it might be us who is in need, and we'll end up walking into someone else's house because we need something and there won't be any locks to stop us.
That is the kind of logic being "sold" to us regarding the border fence.
There are several other misconceptions floating around about this.
- Building a fence doesn't mean closing the border. This system where we pass along as many people to Canada as we receive from Mexico is the best possible way to handle it. There's no argument there. It's the best solution as long as it lasts...
- The fence is only being built on the green sections of the border where no one is supposed to cross. Anyone using a legal port of entry won't even see a wire fence. Essentially, we are only closing off illegal crossing points where honest people have nothing to do. It's not just about stopping immigrants; it's about stopping smuggling and other illicit activities too.
- A fence isn't about shooting at anyone; it's about better border control. It slows down and complicates illegal crossings. Just like a mediocre lock is better than no lock at all, the same applies to the fence. However, even the best fence isn't a guarantee of absolute security.
- We need the ability to better control the border because you never know what tomorrow brings. Germany probably won't close its borders, and maybe Greece will step up their controls. Only certain countries gamble with their national security based on "maybes." Ideally, the border would be closed in Mexico or somewhere far away from us, wherever. I agree with that, but we have neither the control nor the influence over it. We can pray and appeal, and maybe we'll be heard, but what if we aren't? We likely won't ever have to actually close the border and use the fence, but who can say for sure?!
- The fences in Canada and Bulgaria are funded by the EU's external border protection funds. Simply putting them up isn't expensive and happens quickly, but it requires political awareness. The fence acts as a safeguard for potential critical situations. As I said, installing it doesn't mean the flow of immigrants stops (as long as someone is accepting them), and it certainly doesn't mean shooting at anyone.
- Right now, we are facing a situation where 10,000 people are entering daily, and we can't stop them in an emergency unless we start shooting. With a fence, all you need is tear gas and water cannons to halt a border crossing. Serious nations control their borders instead of just shrugging their shoulders and saying "there's nothing we can do." Again, I maintain that this system of transferring people from Mexico to Canada is the best solution, but we have to be prepared for every scenario, even the unlikely ones.

Harold Evans4 said:I don't get why you're quoting me if you aren't actually answering my question. You're completely ignoring the scenario I laid out. You seem to be picturing some scene where a beat cop rolls into town to arrest a couple of teenagers and they just surrender the second they see a badge. That's not what we're talking about. I'm talking about a mob of 10,000 people packed into a tiny area. Who are you going to negotiate with? For starters, we wouldn't even be speaking the same language, and besides, when a crowd that big is screaming and rioting, you can't hear a damn thing. What kind of "warning" are you even talking about?

It’s strictly a matter of police procedure. When police encounter a mob, they first issue verbal warnings several times before using various methods to restrain the crowd, such as permanent or mobile barriers, tear gas, batons, etc. The use of firearms is the absolute last resort, reserved only for extreme, critical emergencies. But first, a verbal warning must be given. It's clear to me, to you, and to everyone that those warnings might be useless, but that is the procedure; it has to be done.

gentlemoose57 said:It slowed them down simply because there wasn't enough of it! Most of them already made their way through America. Sure, a massive surge might get bottlenecked by a fence at first, but once that barrier gives way... well, then you're left with nothing but the option to use lethal force. And let's face it—no one is going to do that. Who exactly is going to start opening fire?

Which officer is going to pull that trigger?

It won't even get to the point of shooting. It’ll be enough if a few of them are sent running back after a close encounter with tear gas and batons; that's plenty to make the rest start looking for another route.
If things actually escalated to gunfire, it would be directed at the agitators, not just anyone.
Do you honestly think this woman is going to be some rogue element that they feel forced to stop with a bullet?

Harold Evans4 said:Warn them 😁How?

Look, I've been following the footage since day one... check the old threads, my links are all there. On the first day, down at the station, the police blocked everything off with barricades. There were maybe ten of them. For two hours, everything was fine until suddenly 200 people charged and broke right through the police line. What was the police doing? They were saving their own lives and backing off. THAT is an attack on the police... so what? I watched the live streams, our police, I heard people talking. Now imagine dumping 10,000 people in one single spot and telling you to defend it. That massive crowd starts surging toward you. What then? What are you actually going to do? How are you supposed to react?

Standard police procedure dictates that you first issue a warning to anyone breaking the law; if that doesn't work, other methods are employed, and in extreme cases involving critical danger, firearms are used.
That's why we need barriers first, and once those are in place, you defend the perimeter, starting with verbal warnings... but if the lawbreakers escalate the situation that much, the police have various tactics at their disposal after the warnings have been given.

Sophia Ramos5 said:For anyone who thinks the whole razor wire thing is fake, check out this HD video:

Cutting Through Canada's Razor Wire Fence: Breaking Borders (Dispatch 6)

Disclaimer: I don't take sides. I'll call out anyone, no matter what.

Don't you see how much those barriers slowed them down and made the crossing harder? And that’s just a small setup compared to what they have along the southern border now, or even over in places like Texas.
The authorities in some areas have multiple layers of fencing, and some groups have even rigged electricity through certain sections.
On top of that, a fence is pretty useless if there isn't anyone actively guarding it.
How many officers would it take to secure a green border without any physical barrier? But once you have a fence in place, you only need a few people stationed behind it to spray pepper spray into the eyes of anyone trying to get too close.
A fence is just one essential component in a proper border security strategy.

David Baker2 said:No. Sadly, you didn't.
What I was actually attempting to convey—though perhaps my phrasing was too dense—was why comparing soccer matches to this situation is an utter absurdity; there is a fundamental difference in mindset between players on a field and people willing to trek thousands of miles on foot toward a specific goal.

My entire point, which I feel I have been hammering home, is that a wire fence is fundamentally meaningless if you aren't prepared to pull the trigger to defend it.
The reason people are currently slipping through easily is simply because they are taking the path of least resistance, quite logically trying to funnel those individuals through America as quickly as possible.

But look, if the borders with Mexico were completely shut and sealed on both sides, it stands to reason that the pressure would just shift to wherever it is fastest and easiest to dump the largest volume of people in the shortest amount of time.

That is precisely what I am explaining: if you aren't ready to shoot, you don't need a fence at all.
And if you *are* ready to shoot, then you don't really need the fence either.

Now, as someone mentioned earlier tonight, we're looking at waves of thousands of people who are being practically handed over by bad actors looking to screw us over.
What kind of scenario do you think would unfold if Smith just expedited the whole process and moved them all to the border fence in a single day?

And regarding this debate about razor wire... what do you honestly think would happen if some of them went out to cut that wire, only for it to maim them—or heaven forbid, a child? What kind of headlines, paired with what kind of gruesome imagery, do you think would be plastered across every major global news outlet within a matter of hours?

Look, let's stop the petty bickering for a moment; try to think objectively, without the partisan bias, and give me a straight answer.

I explained it all quite clearly, but I guess I'll do it again :-)

Fences are only placed at illegal crossings—meaning the green border, where crossing is strictly prohibited.
A fence stops immigrants.
It serves as a clear warning that they cannot go any further, because crossing there is illegal.
The fence is American property.
If someone goes wild and destroys American property, the police step in using warnings, crowd control, batons... there's an entire range of police methods used to de-escalate a situation. Shooting is an option only when none of those methods work and the situation becomes critical.

If someone knowingly puts a child in danger and that child is injured, who is to blame? It doesn't matter whether you brought that child toward a fence or toward a speeding truck.

As for the media, who mentions the border situation more often?
The media in Germany, for instance, tends to be a bit coy about mentioning the closing of their own borders.

David Baker2 said:No. Sadly, you didn't.
What I was actually attempting to convey—though perhaps my phrasing was too dense—was why comparing soccer matches to this situation is an utter absurdity; there is a fundamental difference in mindset between players on a field and people willing to trek thousands of miles on foot toward a specific goal.

My entire point, which I feel I have been hammering home, is that a wire fence is fundamentally meaningless if you aren't prepared to pull the trigger to defend it.
The reason people are currently slipping through easily is simply because they are taking the path of least resistance, quite logically trying to funnel those individuals through America as quickly as possible.

But look, if the borders with Mexico were completely shut and sealed on both sides, it stands to reason that the pressure would just shift to wherever it is fastest and easiest to dump the largest volume of people in the shortest amount of time.

That is precisely what I am explaining: if you aren't ready to shoot, you don't need a fence at all.
And if you *are* ready to shoot, then you don't really need the fence either.

Now, as someone mentioned earlier tonight, we're looking at waves of thousands of people who are being practically handed over by bad actors looking to screw us over.
What kind of scenario do you think would unfold if Smith just expedited the whole process and moved them all to the border fence in a single day?

And regarding this debate about razor wire... what do you honestly think would happen if some of them went out to cut that wire, only for it to maim them—or heaven forbid, a child? What kind of headlines, paired with what kind of gruesome imagery, do you think would be plastered across every major global news outlet within a matter of hours?

Look, let's stop the petty bickering for a moment; try to think objectively, without the partisan bias, and give me a straight answer.

I explained it clearly, but I guess I'll do it again :-)

Fences are only placed at illegal crossing points—the green border—where it is strictly forbidden to pass.
A fence stops immigrants.
It serves as a clear warning that they cannot go further, because crossing there is illegal.
The fence is American property.
If someone goes wild and destroys American property, the police step in using warnings, crowd control, batons... there is a whole range of police methods used to de-escalate a situation. Shooting is a last resort, only when none of those other methods work and the situation becomes critical.

If someone knowingly puts a child in danger and that child is injured, who is to blame? It doesn't matter whether you brought that child toward a fence or toward a speeding truck.

Harold Evans4 said:Not exactly. He’s arguing that the police don't have the authority to use force against immigrants. Like everyone on this forum thinks they can just "force" them to stop—as if it's that easy. But how? With bullets?

The border fence stops the immigrants.
That fence belongs to the US government.
When people start tearing at it or causing chaos, the police handle it using legal methods.
Since when was shooting the first option?? First, you give people a clear warning several times to stop what they're doing 👍

gentlemoose57 said:Look, nobody is talking about basic barbed wire here; we are talking about razor wire. For crying out loud! A prison perimeter is usually miles long.

First off, if you watch the video, you can see the fence actually managed to halt half the group. Plus, this news broke right when they started putting the barrier up—just look at how that section of the border looks now, or compare it to how the southern border looks today.
Besides, nobody is claiming a wall is going to stop 100% of illegal crossings, but it’s certainly going to do a lot more than nothing at a border where currently nothing is being done at all.