It takes money away that's desperately needed to fund social programs and help with rebuilding decaying bridges and roads (infrastructure).
It means that is their opinion. Not fact.
It means that they actually see the benefits of limiting illegal immigration but since Trump is all for it, and they are anti-Trump, they have to come up with some nonsensical response, especially one that will fit on a bumper sticker -- "The Wall is Immoral!" Libprogs are all about bumper sticker politics.
It just means that they want to replace white people with non white people so they can become more powerful. The liberals and many neocons have made it clear that they want to replace white people no matter how much they try to make it sound so nice with words like "diversity" or "multiculturalism". Diversity is just another word for anti white racism. White people won't vote democrat ,because democrats have ignored the wants and needs of white people for the past sixty years. Liberals love to blame all of the problems of the country on white people ,and then complain about white people voting for what is in the best interest of white people which is not voting for liberals.
"The Wall" has partly been set by Trump as a kind of ideological trap for liberals. Anyone opposing it can be demonised as being soft on illegal immigration. However, the biggest threat to America from a population point of view isn't illegal immigration, it's legal immigration and things like the H-1B visas that are handed out like candy.
Trump is a very visual person, which is why he likes a huge wall as the cornerstone of his immigration policy. Arguably tightening up visa rules will have a far greater effect though - for example does the US really need to bring in over 100,000 Indian citizens each year to do very basic entry-level computer jobs? Are these really jobs that Americans can't do?
However, Sanjay flying in from Delhi to be a keyboard jockey, strolling through the airport clutching his passport and visa, doesn't conjure up quite the same strong imagery as Juan swimming across the Rio Grande in the dead of night and running from law enforcement like a bandit. Even though there are far more of Sanjay than there are of Juan.
these are the same kind of idiots that want to pamper psychos that hack up and rape little kids in a hotel and treat them nice instead of execute them .. theyre bleeding heart morons ..
They don't know what immoral is.
they have no idea what they're talking about. Just making headlines.
They mean they want to let in illiterate people who are dependent on the government to expand the Dems power base
It means that those people have a different definition of "morality" than the rest of us. The USA already has generous Immigration Laws, but because previous Administrations refused to enforce those laws, people think laws should continue to go unenforced. If we are a nation of laws, it is immoral to not enforce them.
Few "people" say that. But politicians who utter such things are careful to leave them vague enough for interpretation. Now when pressed by migrant rights groups Pelosi can claim this was a sop to the migrants. When speaking to citizen first groups she can claim she meant that money should go to domestic programs. It's called 'chaff' in political advisory circles and it's meant to obfuscate.
If illegal aliens typically voted Republican then the DNC would want a wall all the way around the USA (not just on the southern border) and demand retinal scan identity verification to vote or work.
It means it is against their moral compass...not everyone else's.
They mean that it should be legal for the immigrants to come and that the wall is like a wall to keep slaves from escaping: it may be to stop something illegal, but the illegal thing is right and the law is wrong.