How to fund building a wall to protect our borders?
This forum discussion is to find solution to our current immigration crisis. The wall is one component but not the only method.
The topic of funding this wall is in the news. What is the best way to build the wall?
President Trump has said Mexico should pay for it.
Practically speaking, who should fund it, how much, and how best to pay for it?
Here are a few ideas some have come up with...
1. Gofundme campaign.
2. Congress appropriation - $5 billion.
3. Wall Bond - just as in the past, a war bond to help with WWII.
4. Tax on money transfer from US to Mexico.
5. A Millionaire tax.
6. Use part of our defense budget to build the wall.
My personal preference is to have Congress pay for it with our tax dollar. It would be a better use of my tax dollar than some of the money wasting schemes...which doesn’t work. At minimum, at the end of the day, we have a physical wall to show for it.
My logic is - a wall is not just a physical barrier but a symbol. It shows we are serious about tackling this issue.
I also believe all politicians, when running for Congress must sign a pledge. It is like a contract or oath. Either they support a wall or they don’t. They cannot just say they support it when running and after the election go back on their word.
We had too much of this deception.
We need a legal contract.
If a member of Congress ran on building a wall, and he later vote against it or against funding it, they should be made to resign.
We need accountablility in all levels of our government.Deleted
Deleted
How am I being ridiculous? These people coming over the border are vermin - murderers and rapists. We need to protect innocent Americans from them.
A wall isn't going to stop anything. What I am proposing will definitely stop illegal immigration.I think you may be on to something here. What this situation needs is not government bureaucracy but the entrepreneurial spirit! I say open it up to non-NRA members as well as NRA members, but give the NRA members a bit of a discount. Have them purchase a shooting pass by the day with a five day maximum...they can only come once every five days. Then we open up sponsorship of the event to gun manufacturers as well as ammo makers and all the gun and ammo as well as hunting magazines and other gun related products. Who needs Congress? This will get enough money to fund the wall within weeks. I think this would definitely have an effect on illegal boarder crossings. It is a win win situation.
There you go again...distorting what Trump said. Go back and read the transcript of what he actually said. He said “some” are criminals and drug smuglers and rapists... he was talking about the people doing the human trafficking...and the criminal elements mixed in the group...
Why do you insist on believing and selective portions of what he said?
Why don’t you just read the whole speech and understand what he is actually trying to say? And stop believing the biased media which twist everything into the worst...Here is exact part of Trump’s speech -
“Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
That is about the sickest thing I've ever read. Unfortunately, with ignorant statements like this being indicative of the divide a liberal believes exists in the discourse we can expect no reasonable compromise will happen. Not until the liberal mind that creates such drivel actually learns some respect for diverse ideas.
Even though it was undoubtedly sarcasm it is so far removed from any reality at all that the statement is worthless...outside of inciting anger and disgust. If that was the reason it was posted, it succeeded.
I reported it. I think others should too. There are maybe a total of 5 people in these politics forums who aren't an embarrassment to this website and affiliate networks.
I get the impression that some are obtuse enough to make such statements because they believe them. It's difficult to take anything else they say seriously, when they have such a disgusting disregard for others. Only a vicious person could imagine such a scenario and imagine other humans would act that way.
Checkout this story...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-d … ApXN9tAWzY
Congress should yank 25 billion from the military budget for next year, and build the freakin' wall.
All we have to do is enforce the existing law and fine the businesses that keep hiring them.
it will raise a hugely amount of money and build an amazing wall.Or we can do what President Obama did...
Remember, he found $150 billion to give to the Iranians to sign the nuclear deal.
He used his pen and excutive order...
No one in Congress said a peep.
Now Trump is asking $5 billion for a wall for border security and they say it is too expensive and we don’t need it and they want to shut down DC.
I say fine, lets keep it shut. Let the American people see what these people actually do that is so important they they just keep spending our tax money...While we are on the subject, I want an audit on every member of Congress. I want them to account for their time working and legislating...
When I was working, I had a 40 hour work week. That is how I was paid.
Apparently, they spend very little time working and 90% of the time fund raising for the next election.
Also, these CR is a joke. Why don’t they have a budget like the rest of America? They need to spend what they have and that is all. These constant raising of the debt ceiling is make us poor. We need better fiscal management from our government.Really jackclee, that is your response? He "found" $150 billion?
Surely, (yes, I know your name isn't Shirley), you do know that $150 billion was frozen Iranian money. There was no "finding" involved. The whole political world knew that Iranium money was there.
So how is it that to you Pres. Obama "found" that money to bribe the Iranians to sign the deal?
Geesh, you would think that with all the claims you make, you would think before offering that response.
GAThere was 400 million in cash that was flown there on a private jet...and hostages released soon after...
Where did the cash come from?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics … index.htmlWait, before I check out that CNN link about $400 million, let's settle this $150 Billion claim.
If it was known Iranian money, what do you mean Pres. Obama "found" $150 Billion to give to the them?
Considering the context of the conversation: finding funding, it sure seemed that you were implying the money could be found in other budgetary areas.
Was that a mis-impression on my part? What did you mean -- in the context of the conversation -- when you said Pres. Obama "found" that money?
GA
The premise of this thread is based on the assumption that there is currently a crisis in illegal border crossings.
Apprehensions for illegal border crossings nationwide have seen a downward trend for multiple decades, from 1.7 million in 2000, to a low of around 311 thousand in 2017.
For those who like pictures, I've created this chart showing illegal border crossings from 1925 - 2017(1).
The red line shows the current levels relative to previous years. Current Illegal border crossings are lower than at any time between 1949 - 1955, and at any time during all of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s (so far).
The "crisis" is in the backlog of asylum seekers currently waiting for their applications to be processed (697,777 as of 3/31/2018)(2), not the number of people crossing into the country illegally.
(1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(2) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … ovdeliveryYou are wrong... the crisis is ongoing...
Any person crossing our borders adds to our nation’s distress and has been going on for 30 years.
We loose on jobs, wages, benefits, infrastructure, healthcare, schools...and welfare benefits and housing subsidies...
We also loose in crime, people like Kate Steinle and many others have lost their lives due to crimes commited by illegsls.
We loose on the drug front and human trafficking and a host of other criminal behaviors.
We also loose on terrorists crossing out borders.
A chart that shows it going down slightly does not remove the crisis building for 30 years. That is not to mention the DACA and anchor babies and chain migration problems...Just to be fair and clear, I am not saying it is all bad. There are some that came here are hard workers and added to our economy and picked our fruits and vegetables and took care of our lawns and make the beds in hotels and wash the dishes in restaurants...
They pay taxes and social security under false documents...
They are doing the hard work. However, these work can be done by Americans just like in the old days...America was build by people who are hard working and self reliant. It is just in recent years, the social safety net has change the balance.
I as one citizen, would rather pay more for my vegetables and fruits and other services so that all are getting a fair wage and without exploitation of the undocumented workers.Whatever you feel about the issue of illegal immigration, it is a fact that there are fewer illegal border crossings now, than at any time in the last 50 years(1).
In contrast, the number of immigration cases being closed by the courts per year has lagged below the number of new cases being opened each year(2), so the backlog of open cases continues to grow significantly(3).
In other words, the issue is not that the border is being swamped by the number of people crossing illegally. The issue is that the volume of people claiming asylum (which is perfectly legal) has gone up, and the immigration system has not only failed to keep up, it's actually gotten slower(3).
That's a process issue, not a border security issue. The number of people crossing the border illegally could be zero, but that still wouldn't eliminate the current capacity gap.
I understand that calling for a more efficient administrative process is not as exciting as calling for a big wall, or a steel fence (with spikes!) but the facts suggest making the asylum process more efficient, along with a general overhaul of the immigration system itself, would be of greater benefit.
(1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(2) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … ovdelivery (New Cases & Total Case Completions)
(3)ibid (Total Pending Cases)
(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Budget.pdf (p. 14, Management Measures)Don, That may be true but it does not solve our overall problem in the long term. Just because the flow is slowed does not mean it is not a systemic problem.
It makes no sense...so if no one is breaking into your home, you can leave the door unlocked?
What kind of logic is that?
The border and wall is a state of mind as well as a physical barrier.
If people south of our borders know that we are serious about enforcing our immigration laws, they will try and come here legally. That is exactly what we want. By not enforcing our borders, and with wink and nod, we are encouraging more people to jump the line. Don’t you get it?
It is human nature. It is not a race issue. It is a sovereignty issue.Here, Milton Friedman makes the case beautifully -
https://openborders.info/friedman-immig … are-state/
You can have open borders or a welfare state, but you cannot have both.Except we don't have open borders. Not even remotely.
Here's a little experiment: fly to Mexico. While there, set your passport on fire. Then see how hard it is for you to get back into the U.S.That is just it. You are making my point. Our system is so broken and lop sided that a legal person without papers had a harder time than an illegal or undocumented.
It is a similar case when a citizen of a state has to pay out of state tuition to attend a state college while an undocumented immigrant pays in-state tuition. Who came up with this policy?This assumption that illegal and undocumented people have it easy is a complete myth. It's not easy to get into this country and it's not easy to stay here.
And I haven't heard of any undocumented immigrants getting in-state tuition. I've heard of children of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years sometimes getting it, but not always.
Again, the solution to this problem is easier than building a wall. Any business who hires undocumented workers is put out of business. Easy.Crank, I am coining a new phrase, taken a lesson from the climate change debate. I am calling you an “open borders denier.” You claim we don’t have open borders but then you offer no solution to the problems at hand.
I never said crossing our borders was easy...
It is just open in the sense, we are breaking our back looking the other way.
Our politicians all play this game including the GOP.
They say they are for border security, pass legislation to build a wall, but then refuse to fund it...sounds familiar?
Our problem keeps getting larger to the point they say, you cannot deport 12 milliion people therefore we can’t do anything...
So lets just keep doing what we’ve been doing...
Next year it will be 13 million and even harder to deport...
No...we don’t have open borders, we just have people coming here for assylum and over stay their visa and having babies.I'm not sure you can read. I offered a very simple solution.
Any business that hires an illegal is put out of business.
On a fundamental level, I'm not opposed to building a wall. Just seems like a waste of money, but our government wastes money on lots of stuff, so if push comes to shove, I won't hitch my wagon to that argument.The problem is deeper than cracking down on illegal hiring. We have e-verify system but it is so easy to undermine. It it works, we would not be here discussing this...
The wall is the final straw.
Business who hire illegals can always use the defense, I didn’t know, they have papers..., they passed e-verify...whatever.
The solution is to prevent them from coming in the first place, not after the barn door is wide open. Stopping business from hiring is never the solution. They will get around it legally or otherwise...Much like the wall, is there some harm in trying to punish businesses for hiring illegals? You won't be eating strawberries anymore, but I guess we'll all have to suffer.
You make these entirely unsubstantiated claims, based on nothing more than your paranoia, that are untrue. The e-Verify system is easy to undermine? Really? Maybe that's something we should look into.
How about we enforce our existing laws? Sound familiar?Stop with these talking points.
That is what politicians are good for.
I am for solutions.
I am not interested in gathering statistics anymore. The time to act is now.
You might not see a crisis but many of us do.
It is like the Titanic before it hits the iceberg.
The problem has been growing steadily for 30 years ever since Reagan’s amnesty which was suppose to solve this once and for all.
They lied.
So when will you realize this will affect your children and their children?
Our country will be no more if this is allowed to continue.What you fail to understand is we’ve been down this road before...many times. We are at the end game. We’ve tried everything else and they have not worked.., this wall is the final answer. If we don’t get it, we might as well pack it in and go home. Kiss America good bye. We cannot have a million undocumented here year after year. Now to the tune of as high as 40 million. Again, no one knows the exact number. They always quote 12 million but I’ve heard this for at least 10 years...
It cannot be that in 10 years, there were no new numbers...
Why don’t we even have an accurate count?
You have to ask they know everything about us including google and Amazon and Facebook and yet, the federal government cannot tell us how many are here illegally.
"And I haven't heard of any undocumented immigrants getting in-state tuition."
"I've heard of children of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years sometimes getting it"
Make up your mind - either an illegal alien can get in state tuition or they can't. You can't have it both ways, unless you refer ONLY to children of illegal aliens that were born here, but I don't think so.I can have it both ways because I think people decide they don't want to punish the children of undocumented people who have lived here their whole lives. Nobody wants to be that cruel. I suppose you could deport the parents at that point though.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not for deportation and I am for a systematic way to make DACA legal, not thru an executive order like Obama which just mucks up the process.
Here is the path...
We can do things in parallel after the wall is build.
That is the crisis, you stop the leak first.
We can improve our legal immigration process,
We can pass laws to make DACA permanent.
We can have guest worker program to address the migrant farmers and other seasonal workers.
We can better track visa over stays...
There are many things that can be implemented to solve our problem and they don’t need to be done in a comprehensive way.
Without the wall, the symbol, we are serious, then none of the other matters. We will continue kicking the can down the road when there is no more road...
Crank, Check out this...
https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/in-stat … l-analysis
How is it that you don't know about this? could it be the news sources you rely on don't want to report it?Interesting link. I particularly found the first section, giving "reasons" to provide secondary education to illegal aliens illuminating. It seems that the rationale is that with a better education they will provide better work results (and taxes) to the states giving that education.
Left out of the equation, of course, is that with or without that education it is illegal for them to work at all; the state must become another "sanctuary" state, ignoring the laws of the country, for it to have any chance of being true. A false assumption that those illegals gaining subsidized education will remain in the state that trained them is ridiculous and foolish on the face of it as well.
So it seems just more far left rhetoric without any basis in truth or reality.
We have both according to Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic party. She wants no wall, but wants benefits for all. She wants compassion and yet she is all for abortion on demand. She wants higher taxes while making millions for her self and her husband...she want to help the homeless and not surprising there are more homeless in her home city...
The irony is so obvious.Way to go off topic and conflate a bunch of different issues.
They are all interelated...
Our economy, our education, our medical healthcare, our drug problems and even our politics is related to undocumented immigration. If this was a trickle as Don suggested, we would not be having this discussion. It has been going on for 30 years? If not now when?For those who are so compassionate about inviting illegals into our country...
Here are the hard facts-
They depress wages,
They tax our infrastucture...school, roads, hospitals, social services, prisons...
They are part of the illegsl drug trade and human trafficking...
They are part of the huge problem of identity theft.
They are causing us to loose our national identity, our language...
Our way of life and our Constitution.
Our elections are being distorted by this influx...
So as you can see, every issue, economic, social and political are tied to our current immigration crisis.
Your analogy is misleading. It implies the border is unprotected, which is not the case.
The DHS has an ongoing mission to protect the borders, and resourcing for that mission continues regardless of what's happening with the wall. E.g. in 2017 the DHS received:
"$292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence along the Southwest border.
$79 million for border technology
$16 million for an additional multi-role enforcement aircraft
$32 million for six additional light enforcement helicopters
$44 million for continued deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers
$19 million for the small unmanned aerial system program"(1)
For the Fiscal Year 2018, the DHS received:
"$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall
along the Rio Grande Valley, 14 miles of new border wall system that will
replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector.
$975.8 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements to provide a layered defense at the border . . ."(2)
That's not to say border security can't be improved. Of course it can. But again, a wall cannot eliminate the capacity-gap between the volume of cases the system can handle and the volume being presented.
That disparity is not a product of illegal border crossings, it's the product of an inefficient, antiquated system, and it's detrimental in terms of cost and the integrity of the system.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf
It's interesting that you claim illegal border crossings are far below what they were, and provide a link showing that apprehensions of illegal aliens is down, as if you're trying to insinuate that because we caught fewer people meant that fewer people were crossing illegally.
This is followed by statistics purportedly showing that amnesty cases are growing by leaps and bounds, but somehow you neglected to put the two together. If a person sneaks across the border and, having been coached intensively by the UN or even US citizens with their heads on wrong, claim asylum they are not apprehended, but still crossed the border illegally.
Personally, it strikes me that if these idiots are going to abuse the system and the good will of the United States, then it should be simply shut down and those asylum seekers can go to Europe for their freebies. We might want to even provide some cross Atlantic transportation for them, just as the UN has provided transportation to our border.Besides, you don’t need any statistics to tell you our immigration is out of control...just go to any large cities in America...NY, LA, San Francisco, and small cities across the Coasts...
Open your eyes and see how many immigrants are working here...many are undocumented and many do not even speak English...
Don wants to believe it is a small leak problem when your eyes can tell you it is a huge hole.I'm using the same standard the government agency responsible for border protection uses to measure illegal border crossings:
"In FY17, CBP recorded the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration on record, as measured by apprehensions along the border and inadmissible encounters at U.S. ports of entry"(my emphasis)(1).
Also, I've seen no evidence to suggest apprehensions are so low because the CBP is bad at catching people. That would be unreasonable to assume, and does a disservice to the hard-working men and women of the CBP protecting the border 24/7.
If by "amnesty cases" you mean asylum cases, again the number of asylum cases is not a product of illegal border crossings. They are a product of people claiming asylum, which is perfectly legal. Stopping illegal entry will not eliminate the gap between asylum cases closed, and asylum cases presented.
That's a problem because the longer cases are left open, the more money it potentially costs the government. Having a large number of cases pending also affects the integrity of the system in various ways.
I'm not saying there is no benefit to improving border security. There is. I'm just saying the facts indicate resources would be better spent improving the asylum process and overhauling the immigration system in general, than on a fence.
On what grounds do you call an entire group of people "idiots"? Which part of wanting to live somewhere that's objectively safer and more prosperous seems idiotic to you? Disappointing. I think you're better than that wilderness.
(1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … fy2017.pdf
Dear All participants...
I can see how this topic has struck a nurve.
I wanted this forum dicussion about funding the wall...and it has turned somewhat south into a debate about whether a wall is necessary...
I tought the wall ideas was a sound response to our current crisis and funding it was the debate...apparently, I was wrong in that assumption. There are many of you who don’t want the wall or are just against anything this President proposes...
Here is something you might checkout for Trump’s attitude about illegal immigration.
It is the same going back to 1996...by Bill Clinton.
https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flashb … ation-lawsA wall is not the answer, Jack. Spending billions on a failed project is not being fiscally conservative.....or it once wasn't.
Randy, what is your solution to keep our country from being overwhelmed from illegal immigrants? Can we give them your address?
Randy, While you are at it, maybe you can invite them to stay with you and provide them free education and healthcare and a drivers license...and learn to speak spanish...
In 2016 more people became immigrants without authorization as a result of entering the country legally and overstaying their visa (544,676), than as a result of crossing the border illegally (274,000).
How does a wall address that?
https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4052772I think you mean in 2016 they became "illegal Immigrants." Saying they became immigrants indicates they are here legally, and that is not the case. I think the wall would be a deterrent to the thousands of people who would like to illegally cross into our country. Individuals overstaying their visa is a separate issue.
Use whatever term you want. "Immigrant without authorization" is as accurate as "illegal immigrant" though.
The point is, if 274,000 people crossing the border illegally is a crisis, then half a million people overstaying without authorization should be even more of a crisis.
Yet I see no effort to address that issue.
Likewise, there is currently a backlog of over half a million asylum claims which the antiquated immigration system is failing to cope with. These claims are perfectly legal, but the longer they take to process, the more money it costs the government, and if they're not processed within 180 days the claimant can get authorization to work.
Again I don't see much effort to address that issue.
Instead, the current administration has created a narrative that the biggest issue of illegal immigration is the border, and the best solution is spending (at least) $21 billion on a wall. None of the available evidence supports the narrative that it's the most important.
It makes for a good story though. Unfortunately for some people (as can be seen in this thread) the story has replaced reality.Don, I love it.
"Use whatever term you want. "Immigrant without authorization" is as accurate as "illegal immigrant" though."
And a car thief is a vehicle driver without authorization, a burglar is an unauthorized home items collector, a mugger is an unauthorized monetary collector. The connotation and denotation of words, I've listened to lectures for hours long on the subject.
No matter what words you try to use, they've broken the law, they're illegal. Just like a car thief, burglar and mugger are criminals.
I would suggest if you want to see the numbers of people here illegally who have overstayed their visas drop end sanctuary cities and states. Turn these people here illegally over to be deported. Obey the law. Democrats in these cities and states are the problem. They care more about the rights of people who are here illegally than the American citizens they represent.
My, how the Democrat party has changed.
"In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ke/528678/Again, use whatever term you want.
I'm more interested in the fact that 274,000 people in the country illegally due to crossing the border resulted in an urgent call for action. Yet half a million people in the country illegally due to overstaying their visa in 2016 apparently requires no such response.
And in case you think 2016 was unique. In 2015 the figure was 416,500(1). In 2017 it was 421,325(2)
To say nothing of the backlog of over half a million asylum claims waiting to be processed because an inefficient immigration system can't cope.
I understand calling for a wall to stop "the foreign invasion!" is more exciting than calling for improvements to administrative systems and process ("better process diagrams, now!") but public policy really should be based on reality.
All the facts I have seen indicate the border is not the main issue. It's part of the issue, but not the main issue. That's just a narrative being pushed, probably because it's popular with lots of people for whom it reinforces an existing worldview.
That's very likely not the best way to make decisions about how to run the country.
[edit: apparently people with passports don't smuggle drugs or have diseases, and are not terrorists (or perhaps in this version of reality terrorist's passports are stamped "Terrorist"), so we don't have to worry so much about any of that, like we do "the invasion!" of disease-ridden, drug-mule, terrorists crossing the southwest border. Thanks for setting me straight on that Jack].
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.7)
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.iv)A civil engineer who has worked on many government projects reports there is already about 350 to 400 miles of fence/metal barrier along the border with Mexico. And about that much vehicle obstruction barrier that won’t stop people. The cost of the fence in place came to a little more than $7 billion. The vehicle barriers would need to be removed to build any new structure. All of this is in fairly easy to access terrain. There is about 400 miles of difficult access border area and another 800 miles of very difficult to access border area. He said a rough estimate of the cost of a fence/metal barrier the length of the border not already covered would be about $48 billion. And if you want concrete just for the new barrier area, multiple by about 35 times to 1.7 trillion.
In terms of planning then, the five billion isn't really a figure that's even realistic based upon what Trump supporters are hoping to achieve, which is pretty much what most of us against starting the wall are aware of."In terms of planning then, the five billion isn't really a figure that's even realistic"
It may not be, but it's a whole lot closer to the truth than 850,000,000 per mile (1.7T divided by 2,000 miles). A 6 lane interstate freeway costs only about 7 million per mile (rural areas) - 850 million for a mile of wall is completely unrealistic. Not even government projects are that far removed from reality.
http://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/I think Jack began this thread in a sincere effort to kick around ideas about how to resolve our illegal immigrant problem, and invited both sides to brainstorm. Why does everyone have to get either so upset or angry? Or worse, off topic?
I don't want a wall, and don't think a lot of people do. But I also believe we have enough people who need our resources in our own country, and that we should shut down ALL immigration for a period, maybe 5 years?
I think we have useful drones, can update or immigration policy, and hire more people to patrol the borders, or use them more wisely. We have a ridiculous amount of lawyers who graduate every year. Why not make a deal where they go to a border state, help clear away some of the backlog of seeing who overstayed Visas, and also who does fit the parameters for asylum? Then maybe in return, the Gov't. could pay a year or two of their college bills.
Canada doesn't let people in if they don't have a college degree. We need to wise up. We have hungry children and dirt poor people in America, and charity begins at home. I'm a Democrat, and many like me don't believe in either open borders or abolishing ICE (though it could be streamlined and a bit more humane).
I believe that Trump was offered two deals earlier on, before he ran up the deficit so much. All he had to do was let the DACA people stay, and leave people alone who were already in the country for 10-20 years. He should have jumped on that.As I recall, without checking, Trump offered a DACA deal, very simply that DACA kids could stay as citizens...in return for money for the wall and recognition that the DACA kids could not include all their many relatives into their amnesty.
It was turned down by Democrats. And I highly disagree that people should be allowed to stay because they've violated the law for 20 years; this has been done multiple times in the past and the only thing it produces is more people as repeated amnesty programs simply encourage more of the same.If the people who overstayed their visas for many years and were not criminals, and had jobs, do you still think they should still be kicked out? They wouldn't have anyplace to go after 10-20 yrs. I was discussing people who became productive once they were here. Plus a force of legal people who could work to weed out the law breakers.
I thought those who were here for a long time were included in one of the first or second deals, but didn't look it up either. It would be a herculean task to find all the people who have been here for a long time. I agree anyone who engaged in criminal activity should go.
Jean Bakula, have you ever had a friend or family member go through the immigration process? If the only requirement to coming from another country is avoiding deportation for decades makes you a citizen, why would anyone go through the immigration process? I've helped friends and relatives come here, stay legally and become citizens. Why can't we get any respect? Why are our efforts to obey the laws of this country treated as if it is nothing? It takes time, you have to have a job, a sponsor, you can't get into trouble with the law, you have to have a skill and get a job. So, what is the point of paying the money and going through the process legally if you can just waltz into the United States and be here? Making illegal aliens legal is a huge insult to those of us who do what is necessary to make certain our friends and family follow the immigration laws. It really makes me angry what is tolerated by those who break the laws of this country and how those who obey them are treated with so much disrespect.
I have yet to hear an immigrant a citizen of America born in a different country, support amnesty for illegal aliens.
Yes, I have. My husband worked for a small, family company who hired many Muslim immigrants in the 1970s. We both helped many of them take the steps to become citizens, and a lot of them went on to own their own businesses, or did well in the company that took a chance on them, paid them well, and enabled them to stay here, find housing and become citizens.
I'm not sure what point you are making. Since there are so many millions of illegal citizens from the southern border now, I was suggesting that it's a waste of time to track them down if they have already been here for years, and have not broken any other laws,
Sanctuary cities started over 45 yrs. ago. Let's move on. We can make new laws.
My point is, every person who is here illegally is an insult to someone who went through the process legally. What's the point in obeying the law when others can just come across the boarder and live here? I come from a more personal immigration experience. I've posted bonds and found jobs for relatives and provided them places to live. You have to pay money and apply with filling out forms, provide documentation and commit to becoming a citizen. I have no sympathy for someone who just comes here illegally. Unless they go through the process legally, they don't deserve to be citizens. I would love to see a law enacted that sanctuary cities can get their federal funding cut. They shouldn't get to decide what laws they obey.
I struggle with this at times. While you likely know, I'm against a giant expansive boondoggle of a wall, I understand the need for border security.
I don't think many Americans can be as 100% sure that all of our ancestors arrived here legally. For example, we know it was often cheaper for Irish to take a boat to Canada and walk across the Northern Border.
However, I can certainly understand your sentiment here Mike. The more recent immigration experience does make a perspective difference. I did have a great-grandfather who came here legally, but that's still a big difference IMO. Also, don't we have to turn down the spigot at some point?
I do, however, sympathize with people wanting a better life and maybe having no idea how to get it other than crossing illegally. I also know that we lock up illegal immigrant criminals, deport them after that time so that they can come back to commit more crimes. At the same time, the valedictorian of our local high school I believe was a Dreamer. I'd rather have many of these immigrants as my neighbors than the generational Americans hustling for their drug money on our city streets. Of course, they all have their different stories as well. Some of them are just lazy takers...period.
Okay. Nothing enlightening here I'm sure. I just wanted to express how muddy the matter really is for many of us. Our life events so often shape our thought patterns, and I think it's good to understand this so we may keep an open mind.You speak the truth but you need to keep a clear head. No one is blaming the people trying to come here for a better life for themselves and their family. If I was in there shoes, I would probably do the same. That is no reason for our government to continue this insane, self destruction of our country and our sovereignty. Years ago, it was a different America. We did not have the social benefits that exist today.
The key to remember is the wisdom of Milton Friedman, the Nobel winning economist.
He basically said, you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state but you can’t have both.
That is where we are today in 2019.
Do you want the social safety net to continue or do you want illegal immigrants coming here? We have to make that choice. I think for most Americans, we want to live in a compassionate society where all citizens are taken care of. That is why we have welfare, and food stamps and assisted housing and medicaid and disability benefits for those of us less fortunate. However, it is not an open invitation for all.I didn't state anyone is "blaming" them. I stated I sympathize with some of their plights. I already agreed that we cannot allow open borders. I do think illegal crossings are down, but I know there's still progress to be made.
I don't think we disagree as to what the end goal needs to be Jack. I do think that sometimes treating, and speaking about migrants, in inhumane ways hurts our cause. There's been too much BS flying and it's not going to get a wall.
Also, the government shutdown continues much longer, and those tax checks are delayed, the economic affects will be disastrous. This is perhaps the biggest safety net we have for families and businesses! Counterproductive. That guy should go ahead and declare his emergency, open the government so the courts can overturn the declaration. That way he saves face with his adoring supporters.I disagree. This issue has been around and growing worse for nearly 30 years. Politicians on both side of the aisle have been kicking the can down the road until we are at the end of the road.
If the wall is not taken serious now, it will never be.
Trump, coming as an outsider, is the only chance of getting this done.
If not now, when? Never will we be given another opportunity like this. In fact, the GOP leadership is the one to blame. They had both houses of congress last two years, after promising to fund the wall, they did nothing.
Now we are at an impasse again, just the way they wanted it. They don’t want the wall either for different reasons than the Democrats but equally mistaken.My suggestion to President Trump is to have a national referendum.
Let the voters decide what to do.
It seems politicians and elected officials do not want to solve this problem.
Let him layout the case for a wall, and the consequences of either way wall or no wall and make sure the American people know what they are getting.
If they vote for no wall, I am OK with the will of the people. We have a democracy so let it be so.
I just don’t want to wake up one day, in a few more years and find a totally different country, and people regretting what took place.
The excuse of “we didn’t know” won’t fly...
They must weigh in on the future of our country.I'm not sure that a referendum is the way to go. Given the huge percentage of politicians that do not want immigration control, and will do nothing to promote it, the information given to the public will be nearly 100% negative. The same can be said from business; it will be nearly 100% negative. In matter of fact, nearly all the big money sources providing information to the public will do so in their own interests, which means "Do no mess with our illegal aliens!". Couple that with far left interests that put Americans at the bottom of the priority list (as in sanctuary areas), and you have a vast pool of negative information, all controlled by money or ideology and almost none of it based on fact or honesty.
That is where the President comes in, with his bully pulpit..
Reagan gave many speeches to the American people bypassing Congress and the media spin. Trump is very good at that. He can do the same and appeal to the public and ask for their support and to contact their Congressmen,..But Jack, most of the public doesn't like him...
Hi Mike,
I do understand that from your point of view, someone who did it all the right way and followed the rules, it is insulting to see others skate through all that work and process to be in this country illegally.
The point I was making was that at least in NJ, people have been coming into the state legally and illegally for, I said 45 yrs. (that's when it became heavy).How at this point can we kick out people who although they came illegally, didn't commit crimes once here, who worked? It would be impossible to track them down. I know many who did become citizens.
I have sympathy for both sides, and all I can think of is to close the border to everyone illegal indefinitely. Or to everyone, we have enough problems of our own to solve.
I am not for open borders, or abolishing ICE. I still think we have enough personnel and drones to contain the problems of illegals without a wall. I also think Nancy Pelosi's calling the wall "immoral" was a poor choice of words.
But I also saw a Presidential ad for Trump 2020 a few hours ago, saying 4 thousand people who were criminals just crossed the southern border in the last weeks. The lies and scare tactics have to stop too. These people aren't carrying terrible diseases which have been eradicated, and aren't all victims of AIDS. Trump has to stop lying.
He could have got the money if he didn't run up the deficit so much in the first place. He painted himself in a corner. And now he says the government shutdown could be for "years." That's crazy, and I doubt he even knows who are being affected by this and how it hurts them. He said it was on him, and it is."How at this point can we kick out people who although they came illegally, didn't commit crimes once here, who worked?"
Didn't commit crimes once here? You mean they got legal SS numbers, without stealing an identity, and paid income taxes. They never drove a car without a license or insurance? They did not violate the law every single day they were here? They never worked a job illegally, when one must be a citizen (or have permission) to work here?
Not a single person that crossed the border illegally to work here has been free of crime.
"I still think we have enough personnel and drones to contain the problems of illegals without a wall."
Given that we have some 10-20 million people that entered the country illegally, what are you basing this opinion on? Seems to me to be obvious that we DON'T have the personnel, drones or the will, to control the border.
"The lies and scare tactics have to stop too. "
Trump was likely correct. Consider that a great many corssing the border illegally are not doing so for the first time. They are already criminals - it is not necessary to have been caught for running drugs or murder; crossing the border illegally, working without documentation, etc. are all crimes.
Nor do I think he could have got the money. There are too many politicians wanting illegal border crossings to be sincere about any desire to control the border. And, of course, the Democratic half of the country will deny any and all suggestions by Trump whether good, bad or indifferent.All Jack says about how Guiliani cleaned up New York City is true. I just don't like the way it got Disneyized.
I know people who arrived here illegally 45 yrs. ago, but had relatives to live with, went to work, and eventually became citizens (so far Mike agrees). If they didn't become citizens, they went back to their countries because they made money here, more than they had opportunity to make where they were from (mostly Bangladesh).
I guess my point is that hiring more people to track down criminals is more sensible than spending money for a wall, which people will find a way to get over or under. We have loads of people who need to be retrained for jobs anyway. Also, how do you propose to find people who have been living in the U.S. for 45-50 yrs. now to throw them out? If they never committed a crime in all that time, the original entering of our country is a misdemeanor. Many of American citizens have more checkered pasts than that. You have to just move on, forgive it, and change the laws.
Trump is a known racist, liar, and womanizer, reasons people from the Northeast loathe him. We know what he is. He never pays his workers, his bills, and Daddy gave him a lot more than one million to get started. American banks won't lend him money, that's why all his loans are from China and Russia. His casinos all failed after people's homes were seized to build them, and now Atlantic City is a ghost town. He hated Jeb Bush because when he was Governor of FL, he didn't allow Trump to put casinos there. Everything is about an old grudge. He is a case of arrested development. I know his lies have already totaled in the thousands, and he has damaged our country a lot. As far as I understand, all he did so far is lower taxes on the rich. And his "I can relate" to people who are now working without being paid is absurd. Some woman once blithely told me about how the Trumps adored people of color, when I KNOW people he turned away from properties.
Sarah Sanders was interviewed by Chris Wallace today, after Trump said 4,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border who had committed crimes, in a small time frame. Statistics showed that 6 people on no fly lists got into the country in the last 6 months, and it was through airports, not at the Mexican border. She's almost as big a liar as he is.
What's so bad about hiring more people for ICE, to better check no fly lists, watch the border, and to change the immigration laws? We need jobs,Trump hasn't created any or brought back more companies. We don't need a wall.Wow, Jean, take a breath. There is so much here I don’t know where to start.
To begin with Trump may be many things but he is no racist.
We do not have a racist president.
The wall is absolutely necessary. It is not the only thing we can do, but it is the most important.
Trump has improved our economy by lowering taxes, bringing cash parked oversea back home, added 317k jobs in just the last month...and renegotiated better trade deals and reduced regilations...
No one is going after illegals that are here 40 years...
Once the wall is built, we can have an honest debate about the people who are here already and DACA and what to do to make them legal so they don’t have to live in the shadows...
Does that make sense to you?
We can only address these other issues, when the hole is plugged. Otherwise, we will just get more coming year after year.
But I also saw a Presidential ad for Trump 2020 a few hours ago, saying 4 thousand people who were criminals just crossed the southern border in the last weeks. The lies and scare tactics have to stop too. These people aren't carrying terrible diseases which have been eradicated, and aren't all victims of AIDS. Trump has to stop lying."
What information do you have that shows this? You certainly didn't get it from the Department of Homeland Security which are providing the information for President Donald Trump. During a meeting Pelosi tells DHS Secretary she "disagrees with her facts" and the response was "These aren't my facts...these are the facts."
Simply because reality doesn't fit with your imagination doesn't make it not true. It means you can't accept reality.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39991/pe … oseph-curl
Do you know there is no longer a requirement to go back to your country of origin to apply for US Citizenship? You could be here illegally and begin the process over the internet. Why not do this? I spoke with a man from Costa Rica who told me he didn't want to be bothered with the immigration process. Huh? So, that is the attitude we are dealing with in many cases.
I'm tired of people feeling badly for those who break the law and ignoring communities like mine who go to great lengths to obey the laws.
That is a false assumption. Those we believe in the wall includes 77 other nations which built walls that worked.
The immigration issue is many faceted. One part is the VISA over stay, one part is border crossing and one other part is human smuggling on containers...
The VISA over stay, though high in numbers are not as dire because, we have their names and papers, passport...we know who they are and we know they pass physicsl tests so they are jot bringing diseases.
The border issue is the most pressing.
Not only because of sheer numbers and costs and possible disease and drugs and terrorists...but because they do not have any documentation.
They are uninvited guests.Your xenophobia is just astoundingly saddening.
I think you are confusing xenophobia with those who believe in the rule of law.
Dear All,
Thanks for your lively participation in this forum topic. I think we have beaten it to death...
Those that are against the wall will never be convinced that it is for all our collective benefit.
That is fine by me.
They have not offered any other solutions. That is what is most disturbing.
They don’t want a wall and does not see it as a threat...
It is like the proverbial frog in a pot of water being boiled.
It will end when it is too late.
I have given my opinion and will say no more on this topic.
There are many new topics to explore for a brand new year.
Happy New Year everyone!I think somebody else asked this, but maybe one of the pro-wall people can answer it.
Remember, Republicans had control of all three legislative branches. If they wanted a wall, why didn't they just pass a bill before this previous election?
Is the answer: so they could turn it into a political football? Because that seems like what's going on. Not saying they're wrong to target Democrats for not addressing this issue, but if they wanted a wall, they could have passed a bill. It appears that Republicans are more interested in playing political games with this issue than with solving it.Do you honestly see Trump as having control of the Republican party? Even now, and it is lots closer to unity now that it was a year and a half ago. Republican politicians hate the man almost as much as Democrats do; they only go along with him out of partisanship, nothing else.
I think its bad idea to isolate yourself from world
I don't think immigration reform is an attempt to isolate anyone from anything.
Who is isolatiing our selves?
We have over 1 million legal immigrants that come to our country every year from every part of the world.
We just don’t want anyone to feel they can just walk over and with no consequences. Is this an unreasonable request?
How would you like it if some stranger just come to your house and open your door and move in?People can freely walk around my property as I don't have a wall built around my property lines. Would I inquire if someone was on my property, sure. Would I call the police on them if they were passing through and not harming anyone? Definitely not.
Barack Obama has a wall and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerberg all have walls...just because you don’t doesn’t mean it is not needed or whether it works...
A wall you say at the Obama's home? Sure does look like fencing to me, or what we like to call stuff that's been previously included in bills to help border security.
And comparing the residences of some famous people who get personal threats made against them and pipe bombs mailed to them by the radical right thanks in part of some angry rhetoric made by an irresponsible Russian puppet residing in the White House, really isn't an equivalency you can accurately make.
This is a direct quote from the President on January 30, 2019:
"We have a tremendous amount of money right now to build a wall. We're building the wall."
So what's everyone's problem?Congress and Nancy Pelosi....does not want a wall and they hold the purse string.
The country is running a trillion dollar deficit under Trump and he has the gall to say we have a tremendous amount of money. Another example of his disconnect to facts and reality.
Did you say anything about Obama adding 10 trillion in 8 years to the debt?
Now you say Trump is doing the same...
The point being, every politician lie. You can focus on the lie or the deeds.
Obama was a failure because of his deeds, he was a great orator. Trump speaks simply but got the job done,Perhaps this will add a little perspective to national debt and Presidents: https://www.thebalance.com/national-deb … ma-3306293
It seems a well-thought out piece that ends with: " When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion..."
It's interesting that none of the three methods of figuring deficit additions, none of them show $10 trillion over Obama's 8 years.
No modern-day US politician lie like Trump, but we've had this discussion before.This article is biased and borders on fake news.
The first method is accurate and it is how all past Presidents was judged including Reagan.
The FACT is Obama doubled the national cumulative debt in his 8 years of reign. Remember, he also passed huge tax increases at the same time.
So, the real news is Obama, raised record revenues and at the same time
Spent even more to add to the debt...and his famous legacy would be the 900 million infrastructure bill that was suppose to go to shovel ready projects which never materialized. He even joked about it...
His second fiscal disaster was investing loans to Solyndra, the solar company and green initiatives which cost the tax payer $500 million. Solyndra declared bankruptcy during his term.
You heard of the saying...figures don’t lie, but liars figure...No, that article is perspective that can be applied to any Presidency. It even reveals "slight of hand" performed by all Presidents to make their debt numbers look better. Unfortunately, things are not often as simple as people want them to be. That's what's highlighted here.
"The CBO found that Obama's largest contribution to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012." Hmm..CBO fake newsI wrote a manual on statistics. It's the best thing ever..hugely great stuff.
It's under review by the IRS thus it can't be released. It works for Trump right?
Doesn't matter, both Mueller and the House Intel committee have access to Donnie's tax returns.
Here is one more FACT -
Obama was generous with our tax money but privately, he only donated 1% of his income.
Here is the story -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fa … e32ac91cf3
Well, yes, I did. I have an issue with any government that spends more than it takes in in revenue. What kind of successful business model runs that way?
Obama's first term is where a majority of that increase was allocated. Why? Because he inherited an economy on the verge of collapse. The deficit averaged 1.09 trillion dollars per year, with some failed ventures in there that wasted taxpayer money, but grew consumer confidence.
In his second term, with the economy stabilized, his deficits were less than half of his first term at 543 billion dollars. The reality is that we can thank fiscal conservatives (mostly from the GOP) for reigning in the budget and forcing spending cuts.
Trump, elected with a stabilized economy like Obama had in his second term, which is what we should be comparing if we're being truthful about comparing deficits between the two, averages 881 billion dollars per year. This with a healthy economy. Why? Because he increased spending while cutting tax revenue. Why does a Republican ever think this works? It fails over and over again.
So my point, which you failed to counter with any pertinent facts and just tried a whataboutism, was can you prove that with a deficit of a trillion dollars this year, we have plenty of money? As Trump just claimed in his break from actual fiscal reality.
Should have thought about this when he had a Republican controlled Congress.
But they didn’t want a wall either..they couldn't repeal ACA either...
Assuming the $5 billion is a realistic number, it would cost less than $16 for every man, women and child of our nation.
Why I am against private funding efforts? Because it divide us as a nation.
It is similar to funding a prison. Should we use crowdfunding for our prisons? You would say that’s ridiculous...
There are some items we need to do unified as a country. Law enforcement is one of them. Border secipurity is one of them. Armed military for self defense.
lol, but jackclee, you don't seem to understand that the vast majority of we the people living here in the USA are AGAINST building a useless pile of 2,000 mile concrete which would have been a big mindless waste of tax payer money anyway:
So, if Bozo who must soon be indicted if we still have valid laws, and the last remaining group of his followers are interested in wasting 50 billion dollars on this archaic, prehistoric pile of rubble then they can have a "Wall-A Thon" and when they raise enough money, and once one of the greatest federal government land grabs in history is completed, which might take decades and the settlement of scores of laws suits, the president whomever that might be in the year 2047, can finally begin construction, unless of course he or she decides to use the funds for something a bit more useful and much more important like healthcare for all:
Maybe snowflakey republicans who are frightened to death of immigrants and their own shadows should read this: Landowners are FURIOUS with Bozo Trump's plans to "GRAB" their private property for a useless wall:
"Don’t Mess With Texas Landowners on Border Wall, Lawmakers Warn"
https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/ap … order-wallWe already have half the nation paying for the needs of the country while the other half provides nothing. Shall we then proceed down that road and crowdfund new highways, a new airplane for the air force and a mission to mars? The country can only fill it's needs through donations when enough people decide it is a good thing?
Shall we fund the Trillions our welfare system goes through via voluntary donations as well? That'll go over like a lead balloon!As usual, wilderness has conflated critical necessities that every country needs to survive like our military, highways, airports and financial assistance for Americans who need it, with a big useless 2,000 mile pile of unnecessary, highly porous concrete:
If Bozo Trump wants a useless porous barrier, he can get the money from the filthy rich who he just gave trillions to, lol from Mexico as he promised, or force what's left of his cult followers chip in and pay for it: But even if that happened, many of them will never see it built because the law suits filed by private property owners in Texas and other border states are mounting against Bozo Trump and his intent to confiscate their private land for the great delusional wall in his head:You know, Jake, just because you think the wall is useless, based on your TDS and hatred of anything connected to our WONDROUS president, does not make it so.
Reasoning people look around the world at dozens of other countries building border walls and wonder why they are doing it if there is no return. They look at the massive effort it takes to breach such a wall and wonder how penniless women and children will get through. And they rightly conclude that it is useful, whether they like the ANGEL on the white house throne or not.
But of course they use their brain rather than their hatred to make conclusions with.lol: wilderness, I'll take "TDS" over "TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder" any day and just remember, prior to Bozo Trump stumbling into our oval office as the illegitimate, dumbest, most psychologically bankrupt, possibly the most corrupt and un-patriotic politician in our nations history, we were the GREATEST nation on Earth and we became great WITHOUT wasting our tax-payer money on a big, archaic, useless pile of concrete wall which would have never worked, and that's a fact:
250 years without a wall is proof enough that we endure and prosper with significant help from hard working migrants which your ancestors once were wherever they came from:
The American people are "ALL in" for building a big concrete wall around the Trumps, in the form of say Alcatraz or Sing Sing, and then maybe, just maybe we can begin to Save, Salvage and Restore this nation back to its previous state of GREATNESS:
It's unreal that snowflakey republicans are crying profusely about a few immigrants coming here to work, immigrants who will never harm them in a million years yet just the other day on national television, Bozo Trump essentially gloated and cheered in bloated ecstasy when he found out a judge in Texas rendered a preliminary ruling which if not overturned by the appellate court, could strip millions of Americans of their vitally important health insurance and healthcare: The dark soulless weirdo was actually happy to hear the news:
So, who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? Immigrants coming to the USA to work, or what appears on the public surface to be a pathetic Russian controlled oval office resident SABOTAGING you and your family's HEALTH ??
I think the answer is quite clear:"250 years without a wall is proof enough that we endure and prosper with significant help from hard working migrants "
Of course. And equally of course, we had tens of thousands of people crossing the border at will every year, people that came into the country to use the freebies we give out today. 250 years we absolutely had free hospitals, free schools and free food to give out, just like we do today. 250 years ago we had car insurance to be paid, too, and the newcomers used all of it while paying the taxes and insurance that didn't exist then any more than all the other costs we associate with the country today.
Do you have any idea of how foolish it sounds to say that because it worked in far different conditions 250 years ago it will work today just the same?"So, who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? Immigrants coming to the USA to work, or what appears on the public surface to be a pathetic Russian controlled oval office resident SABOTAGING you and your family's HEALTH ??"
There's this dense facade of unreality settling in over America, and the thinking that you're promoting with these kinds of posts is typical of it. Most Americans see only the illegal immigration issue,which in itself is significant to America if only because of the financial costs. There are other costs for a lightly protected border, and that includes terrorists crossing our borders.
You can TYPE all the cap letters you wish, suggest all kinds of absurdity that you like, but none of it changes these facts: 1) Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed. 2) America's borders need to be far, far better secured to protect Americans from those who want to come in to blow stuff up.lol, conservatives should cut way down on their Sean Hammity and Rush Limbo entertainment, two of the biggest snowflakey weirdos afraid of their own shadows:
First of all, terrorists don't hop on a plane, fly thousands of miles to Honduras, join a caravan of women and children and then walk thousands of miles to the border only to be met by border agents: Terrorists simply FLY into an airport located in the USA:
Second: When was the last time you had to protect yourself from an undocumented immigrant ?? Probably NEVER:
And when was the last time you had to protect yourself and family from CONservative republicans in congress trying to take away your healthcare or retirement benefits or food stamps or other critically important programs designed to help you maintain a life of dignity ?? Americans must mobilize constantly to fight these dregs all the time in this age of Bozo Trump:
So who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? It sure ain't Undocumented Immigrants and facts prove that point:"First of all, terrorists don't hop on a plane, fly thousands of miles to Honduras, join a caravan of women and children and then walk thousands of miles to the border only to be met by border agents: Terrorists simply FLY into an airport located in the USA:"
Of course they don't, but I don't rule out them walking (or driving) thousands of miles in order to go past border security agents. For that matter, they might also float into the country. On the second point, that of terrorists simply flying into a US airport, we've done probably most of what we can do to address it.
To allow folks to come into the country without us knowing who they are and what they're bringing with them is dangerous. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: when Americans lose a city because of someone blowing something up, maybe that's when the dense facade of unreality will finally lift.Why on Earth would they exert themselves when they can simply hop on a plane to get here? And by the way, most horrific acts of terrorism are committed by American Citizens so why not focus on that which is the real impending threat while securing our border the smart, cost effective way instead of a 2,000 mile long pile of useless concrete ??
Throughout history we've heard ALL the HATE Speech about ALL the different ethnic groups coming here to destroy our way of life but it turned out to be BS, hogwash, cow manure:
Remember when the Irish were persecuted on the streets as they tried to enter the USA ?? It was the very same hostile, retarded treatment that Bozo Trump is subjecting today's immigrants to: UNACCEPTABLE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4_4p15iGlU"Why on Earth would they exert themselves when they can simply hop on a plane to get here?"
Because their chances of getting caught getting on a plane are really good. Their Chances of getting across one of our borders undetected are really good.
"And by the way, most horrific acts of terrorism are committed by American Citizens so why not focus on that which is the real impending threat while securing our border the smart, cost effective way instead of a 2,000 mile long pile of useless concrete ??"
Why not focus on both? Why one to the exclusion of the other? But in fact, both parties have been leaving our borders poorly protected,and neither party takes border security seriously enough.
Few are talking about a 2,000 mile wall - Trump knows that's not practical, and has acknowledged that walling is needed in many places, but not all. I'm all for using smart technology to help secure our borders, and I'm in favor of beefed up physical security also. Let's see what the far left comes up with in terms of serious border security.....my bet is they'll come up with almost nothing.
To show you the depths of how Trump the Svengali has so badly hoodwinked these right wingers, there is a very hidden reason Trump wants that wall some west of the NY/NJ Metro area likely are not aware of.
Back in 2011, Trump LOST his contract with Mexico to manufacture his Trump Menswear overpriced collection. As he always does, the Grifter in Chief tried to get Mexico to drop the costs for this deal. This was at the same time he was about to get a FinCEN US Treasury fine for money laundering. FinCEN was closing in and uncovered the fact he was using the Taj Mahal Casino to launder Russian money through Deutschebank in NY City. This bank got a massive fine first of $325 million only because FinCEN was on its 2nd warning to Trump to stop the money laundering.
So, they fined the bank with the idea, that would leave Trump without any bank to continue to launder Russia money. Trump's reputation for not paying what he owed forced all banks except this particular one to stop lending him any money or doing further business with Trump.
Then, in 2014, after a 3rd warning, Trump got fined for money laundering. In order to pay off that fine, he closed both NJ hotels and casinos and put them up for sale. But not before he refused to pay wages he owed his employees and money he owed to contractors.
The guy is a 100% certifiable spiteful, skank. To stop Mexico from trading with the US, he is now demanding a wall no one but him wants.
Trump always has some childish pretext for his power trips.
The people coming over the wall are largely the same as the people already here, they idea they are any more likely to commit crimes against people or property has been studied and not supported.
How about instead of building a wall, we just round them up and send them to Canada? Canada welcomes refugees and they need more people and rhey have very generous benefits...
After all, isn’t that what Mexico is doing sending people to us with the caravan?For the very same reason the government doesn't round up you and your family and send you to Canada that's why: And who are you or anybody else to persecute other human beings ??
People like you with all the very same paranoid and fake fears persecuted the Irish, Germans, Asians, Polish and just about every other ethnic group in the past, just like Bozo Trump is today trying to persecute our fellow South Americans: Perhaps because they are much more attractive than he is, stronger than he is and have something he has none of, character:It was a joke...that was what Mexico did...
Sorry jackclee, but I'm not a mind reader as some around here claim to be and it sure didn't sound like you were JOKING: Your people, wildernesses people, my people and everyone elses ancestors around here were forced to endure the very same insane persecution as immigrants are going through today, no real change in evil intention, just the date and time has ticked forward to a new century and that's just abominable and certainly unholy according to my bible:
Wait until the Good Lord gets a hold of Tiny Hands Trump and his dwindling masses, his wrath will be a sight to see for sure:
"Persecute"? You mean as in "deny access to my home"?
I guess I'm just like you in that regard.
So what else is new. For 30 plus years, we heard every politician say the right things and even pass some bills...including, Bush, Clinton and McConnell and Schumer.... The problem is they never meant it.
It was for the poor masses to consume.
It took a Trump, with the guts to take on all parties and shut this government down to save our nation from a pending disaster.
It may be exactly what you want, and do not consider losing our country a disaster, but be clear. Not building the wall has comsequences. I just want people to understand these consequences and not be lied to by politicians who has a different agenda and answers to people with money pulling the strings.Trump actually has nothing to do with the government shutting down. That fight is between the house and the senate.
I'm glad you accept this is Trump's shutdown. Based on trump's own statements, it would be difficult for any sensible person to think otherwise:
"Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through military, through anything you want to call it, I will shut down the government . . . I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame [the Democrats] for it"(1)
(1) https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi … story.htmlThat is the main reason he was elected- to secure our borders and stop the invasion.
You are right, Trump has "shut this government down". Something to keep in mind in the coming days and weeks.
But the facts don't support your predictions of "losing our country" because of illegal immigration.
I have seen lots of over-dramatic, fearful rhetoric like this being offered as a justification for the wall. Very few facts.
Presumably some analysis has been done on the projected impact of the wall on yearly illegal border crossings (currently at a 50 year low). Likewise, I assume analysis is available that shows the projected financial benefits of the wall relative to the (supposed) $21 billion investment.
I assume that analysis is what convinced you the wall is such a good idea. Where can I find it?I don’t need a study to tell me we have a problem... I don’t know where you live but I live in the suburb of NYC and I travel to florida and california and Arizona extensively. I can tell you first hand we have a huge problem in our cities and in the fast food market...and landscaping and hotel services...
And in the court system.
In a nearby town of Ossining NY, if you attend one of the court sessions, you will find a permanent paid translator on their staff conducting business on every court case, whether the defended is Hispanic or not...
Thst is just one example.
Another example, in the city of Peekskill, there is a shop that make transfers of money to other countries... I was told by the clerk, pnly Spanish speaking customers allowed...
This is our country and we are losing it and it is so blind that some refuse to look.lol, I live in a border state and interact with undocumented immigrants on a daily basis and I can assure you first hand there is absolutely no problem except the one Bozo Trump is imagining in his little mind: A golf course with Bozo's name on it even HIRED undocumented workers which is just comical in and of itself:
The retarded old guy in our oval office rants, raves and cries all day long on his twitter machine about immigrants while his company HIRES THEM !!!! Unreal Hypocrisy:
"Trump's New Jersey golf club employs undocumented immigrants, women say"
Don W is correct, there's plenty of Hollywood style drama around here produced by snowflakey republicans afraid of their own shadows but lacking in fact based evidence:Jake, is exactly the person I am talking about. He fails to recognized how our country is being hurt by illegal immigrants. His job and his kid’s jobs are jeopardized and he doesn’t even know it. He does not have the intellect or the honesty to connect the dots. How illegal immigrants are taking jobs and depressing wages, The only saving factor is probably he is on welfare or on a pension and being subsidized by our government one way or another. He is one of those who refuse to do work at minimum wages... The truth is, he is a willing co conspirator to the death of our nation as we know it.
Your just plain wrong jackclee, if you live here in the USA I don't know where your people came from originally but you can be sure they were persecuted when they arrived here just like immigrants of today are: WHY did you leave your country ?? Probably for the very same reasons immigrants of today are leaving theirs:
And let's just get one thing straight here, Immigrants are doing the jobs nobody else wants because people of color are all I see doing these labor intensive, back breaking jobs, like car washing, kitchen work, cleaning hotel rooms lawn mowing, picking agricultural products etc and they do the jobs at a deep discount, jobs that will never pay a higher wage because nobody will pay $50 for a car wash or $50 for a ham sandwich at the local eatery or $500 for a hotel room or even $20 for a basket of strawberries:
I rarely see a light skinned person doing these jobs for obvious reasons, they don't want them period so except on that rare occasion, immigrants are NOT taking high value jobs from anybody and even if they did, they still support the USA with the money they earn by paying sales taxes, property taxes, they buy gas and patronize businesses which is where most of their wages end up: So this ridiculously delusional notion in Bozo Trump's little mind that immigrants just take and don't give back to the community is just dead wrong:This is just false. The main difference is I came here legally. I waited on line 4.4 years.
There are plenty of jobs Americans will do. If it cost a bit more, I am happy to pay for them.
Other nations have guest workers...why can’t we?
Why fo you wish to exploit these people for their cheap labor?We don't know for sure if you are here legally or not or how your ancestors arrived here and what status they came under and no, you're wrong, there are many critically important jobs like agriculture, hotel work etc that Americans refuse to do and that's why immigrants fill them:
That's fine, if you're willing to pay $20 for a basket of strawberries that's your prerogative, but most of us are NOT willing to pay that amount for many differing reasons:
Even a property with Trump's name on it reportedly hired UNDOCUMENTED Workers which makes his crazy mantra about immigrants even that much more hilarious:Jake, you should take my word for it. You are being disingenuous and that is why I choose not to engage you.
You are dishonest and assume the worst and are nasty in your comments against our President.
The only reason you are not being reported is the fact I believe in the Freedom of speech but even I have limits and the law as well.
When I state that I came here legally and waited 4.5 years, you should believe it or else there is no furthur discussion after that. Comprende... isJake, you should take my word for it. You are being disingenuous and that is why I choose not to engage you.
You are dishonest and assume the worst and are nasty in your comments against our President.
The only reason you are not being reported is the fact I believe in the Freedom of speech but even I have limits and the law as well.
When I state that I came here legally and waited 4.5 years, you should believe it or else there is no furthur discussion after that. Comprende...Sorry jackclee, but I don't believe a word any of the last remaining Trump followers say without hardcore tangible evidence which you have presented none of:
No need to produce evidence because it doe not matter to people afflicted with TDS.
I don’t really care of what you believe.
I just want a solution to this problem hence I started this forum.
You can do as you please, being a free country, and say what you please, but don’t try to waste my time. I have better thing to do.
Stop trolling, you have better things to do as well...?
I didn't ask if you need a study to tell you there is a problem. I asked where I can find the analysis that shows the wall is the best solution.
$21 billion dollars (at a conservative estimate) is a lot of money.
What % reduction in illegal crossings is the wall projected to achieve? What does that mean in terms of a dollar amount? How likely is it that the cost will be more than the estimated $21 billion? What would that do to any projected benefits and return on investment?
Do you know the answers to any of these questions? If so, what's your source? If not, how do you know this is the best solution, and the best value for money? What's that based on?The wall is built in 77 nations by last count. If it does not work, why would other nations do so? At great costs?
The 21 billion is small change compare to what our government spend and waste and...scam...
The point is we have tried all other suggestions by GOP and Democrats...and none has stopped the tide.
If not a wall, I ask you, what do you suggest that is better and cheaper and works?If 50% of illegals are made up of those who overstayed their VISA, how does a wall solve that problem?
Any reduction of the number is better than the status quo.
The VISA over stay is a problem but not as serious since we already know who they are...they have papers and documents..
The problem with people crossing the borders is we don’t know who they are, they are called undocumented. They may also carry deseases...they may have criminal history, they may be terrorists...
comprende?All of that fear mongering hate speech also applies to Americans living in the USA so I don't get your point: Most terrorists are home grown caucasians and most criminals are Americans with docs and diseases know no borders so it's the same old tired talking points:
76 countries also have extreme child labor(1). That doesn't mean child labor is a good solution to manufacturing issues. It just means 76 countries are willing to tolerate child labor.
And if you believe public policy should mirror what other countries do, can I assume you want to immediately implement the Paris Agreement, as that was signed by 194 other countries(1). Likewise, 51 countries have universal healthcare(3). Can I assume you think that should be implemented immediately too, purely on the grounds that many other countries have?
It comes down to this Jack. You wouldn't agree to buy a car without knowing the price, or its top speed, or what mileage you could expect, or what type of transmission it is, just because a salesman told you to buy. You're not that foolish. And if they suggested something bad will happen if you don't buy it, you'd walk away.
Yet you're expecting people to support shutting down the government to get funding for a wall that's going to cost $21 billion and you have no clue, not even have an estimate, of the benefit this proposed wall is going provide, only your belief that it will stop "the invasion".
That's just irrational Jack.
(1) https://www.maplecroft.com/about/news/c … _2012.html
(2)https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetai … mp;lang=en
(3) https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou … -care.htmlpwned, Jack. Nice job, Don.
Btw, has anyone else been thinking that a physical wall seems like an awfully archaic solution? With all our advances in technology, why can't we do something less expensive and more advanced?
I mean, my garage door knows when I've crossed under it.It is not a technology issue. Knowing when someone crosses a border is only one part. How to stop them is another. With our laws, once they are here, they have rights that are granted by our Constitution. As you well know, if they give birth here, the child is automatically a citizen. For the adults, we have to give then a hearing, they are assigned it for months later due to the backlog and they never show up. Now how do you catch them??? This has been the problem all along.
The wall, prevents anyone from crossing over by 99%. This over time will discourage others from trying and that is why it will work.Someone offer Elon Musk $2 billion to deliver a solution that doesn't involve a wall.
If Elon Musk can come up with an alternative that works as well as a wall, I am all in. His past ventures have not been as successful...as the Tunnel?, hyperloop, and solar power wall. The Tesla electric car is still an unknown...not sure it will survive in the long haul, without government subsidies. His one winner is SpaceX which is heavily subsidized by uncle Sam...
If he can secure our borders without a fence, I will eat my hat.That wasn't a serious suggestion. Should have made that clearer.
Well damn! I thought you were onto something with that Musk idea.
Don't ell me your alphabet Xs weren't serious too. I will be crushed. It sounded rational to me.
GAMusk has enough problems, and he's showing the strain. This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Then how will I get to Mars?
The alphabet Xs were genuine. Perhaps I'll propose it as a new government template. All requests for additional funding would be required to include that type of information as a minimum. I'm trying to think of a suitably bureaucratic abbreviation for it. Maybe B16-W411.
15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure
https://www.heritage.org/homeland-secur … n-exposure
Any thoughts on this? The conservative leaning Heritage Foundation seems to think a massive border wall would be a waste of money. I think this shows how much the wall is just a rallying point for Trump fans as opposed to a real effort to control illegal immigration by Trump.Well that is all well and good but which politician or political party supports this and will fund it and be dilligent?
None.
This problem has been going on for 30 years.
It benefits the rich and powerful to have a permanent under class.
It also creates a divide among the two parties which is used as a rallying cry.
The wall is the only answer in my book that have not been tried.
It may not work but we won’t know will we? It seems some are so dead set against it? Why? It is not about the money. They will print any amount of money for all kinds of crazy schemes but a wall, no.no.no...My advice to President Trump is to get the Democrats and Republican leadership in a room, give them whatever they want in exchange to fund and build the wall...DACA..., Increase minimum wage to $15, increasing infrastructure to fix the highways and airports...jobs,
Give them whatever they want...on paper.
When the wall is built, he can stop the others anytime. It seems our laws have no meaning. Let them cry foul...
After all, they’ve been doing this all along...
It happened with the wall in past years and it happened with ACA...and many other legislation which seems to not worth the paper they were printed on. Any judge can just change the meaning of a word and make laws that does not exist. By the same token, Trump can sign a bill and then not follow up on it...
It seems to be how Washington works these days.Jack lee, if the Dems agree to make a compromise on the WALL, GOP concessions will have to comprise more than just 'anything on paper'.
Trump and the Republicans can expect to get NOTHING without MEANINGFUL concessions. We on the left will not settle for anything that he can "just take back" at his convenience.
He and his clowns are be being blamed for the shutdown, how long can they afford to take the heat?
Trump better get serious, with a Democratic house waiting for him in January, none of this is going to get any easier.His supported welcome the shut down. It is to demonstrate resolve on this issue. It happened many times before during the Reagan Administration. Reagan was a great President for All Americans and time has proven he was right on so many issues...the media learned nothing from history...it will repeat.
But, Jack, I don't care what his supporters think, they are just as daft in their heads as he is in his. Much of the REST of the country have neither been as approving or forgiving.
We still disagree about the concept of Reagan's relative "greatness". But that is for another forum. I will say that I prefer Reagan over Trump and that is not saying much.
I still am not hearing as much about penalizing employers who hire illegals, why do you think that this is not as seriously considered as a remedy?Is this another case of "it's all right for Democrats to do it, but not Republicans"? Because, you know, their cause is just and right while all Republicans are "daft" and insane?
"Because, you know, their cause is just and right while all Republicans are "daft" and insane?"
Relative to the policies the GOP propose and their political stance in the Era of Trump, YES.
This is my opinion, solely, you are free to refer to it " as far Left rhetoric without any basis in reality", if you so desire.We're all entitled to our opinions. Even when they consist solely of "I'm always right, you're always wrong because you are insane". Doesn't do much to promote rational discussion, though.
Because we have tried it with eVerify and it had not worked. It is easy to bypass these laws...once the person is here, they can do all sort of ways to by pass any laws regarding work verification. It is easy to buy a fake ID. The employer is covered because they can always plead ignorance. Use your head, which is a better way?
1. Stop them before they enter our borders?
Or
2. Let them in and try and stop them from working?
The answer should be obvious to a fifth grader let alone an adult or a Congressmen or women...
Welcome back to the discussion forum...you have been absent for a while.
Have a happy new year credence2.Thanks for welcoming me back.
I am going go deep with you Jack, I don't buy the difficulty of employers not being able to effectively vet new hires, in this day and age of computers and electronic gadgetry.
This amounts to "red meat" as part of culture wars that focuses issues on race, "blood and soil" sorts of concepts. This feeds into the basic psychology of many Trump supporters, racial resentment, what better way to feed the right winged beast than to chase down all those brown non-Anglo-Saxon invaders? This is no different than Right Wing oriented similar movements in Europe. Building a wall is as like stopping flies with a chain link fence. Remove the supply and the demand will disappear for the most part as well.
But Trump as well as his constituency would not get to the heart of the matter, because the principle of economic exploitation is part and parcel of a being a Republican in this day and age. Thereby it it easier to sell the chain link fence idea over using technology as a more effective vetting tool?
Happy New Year to you for 2019, as the struggles continue......"I don't buy the difficulty of employers not being able to effectively vet new hires, in this day and age of computers and electronic gadgetry."
You don't buy it...but what do you actually know about it? Is every legal citizen listed? Do employers, cities, states and the feds make the effort to include everyone? What is done to ensure no one on the list is illegal? How available is the system to employers? How quickly is verication, if it is present at all, available? How many false positives or negatives does it produce per 1000 requests?
What information I've seen is that the system has quite a ways to go before it is a workable solution to illegal workers holding jobs, even if it is used, and more than a few states have refused to supply data, let alone use it.
There is also the tiny problem that there are no teeth - no real punishment - in the law for those that hire illegals. Without that it is no more than another useless bit of political rhetoric.What do I know about it? As much or as little as you do. Unless, of course, you work in a profession that deal directly with the topic, as a resident expert?
IRS and the financial banking industry does not let a penny get by without their notice, yet in this matter we have this "donut hole" that defies resolution. If there is a compelling enough reason, things get done. I saw how fast changes were made in security areas of concern after 9-11. But we don't want to rustle the feathers of the Capitalist class and their Mexican gardeners, Trump included, now do we?
Maybe, we need to work faster toward a workable system instead of building walls? So, the States have to get on board, a good use of Federal Power.
Seems like SSAN is pretty universal, if I were an employer I would accept the presence of a SSAN card coordinated with info like DOB or place of birth. Any database that employers use to verify could include this information as a check on any number. It certainly seem like everyone has superfluous amount of information on any one of us, anyway.While I fully agree in principle - the technology is there - in practice it does not seem that we are able to use it. Or that we refuse to use it, which is more likely.
Can you see LA, or SanFrancisco, politico's accepting and requiring a system that denies illegal aliens the ability to work? The same "leaders" in Denver? Will they cooperate in forwarding data and keeping the database current and usable? Or will they aid illegals in getting around it, even to providing fake documentation and inserting false information into that database?
We already require, in theory, that employers verify the right to work, it's just that we don't follow through and refuse to maintain an easy to use, accurate system. We also refuse to punish those that don't use it with meaningful punishments.
So we must design and implement that database, maintain it and institute strong punishments for those that don't. And liberal cities and states all over the country are very much in denial that they will do any such thing, with the result that nothing gets done or will ever be done.
So...a different approach is necessary. The simple, effective one is denied by the liberals - something else is required, something that does not require cooperation by those that want and demand an open border. A wall, for instance. We have the tech, we have the knowledge and ability to institute a workable system...we just also have a strong, liberal constituency that can, will and does do anything and everything they can to make it unworkable. When we have liberal states hiring known illegals, when we have liberal politicians actively aiding and abetting illegals to violate the law, no such system stands a chance.I did a little research on this topic before responding, but usually when somebody comes up with immigration reform, it is just as often opposed by business people (Republicans, I presume) as liberals.
Businesses like the cheap labor. Liberals like the votes. Everyone likes lower prices.
It seems like a problem with a simple solution, but there are a lot of people with motivation to keep things status quo.
Let's face it, increasing immigration, both legal and illegal, generally favors liberal and Democratic politicians. Latinos tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Thus, Democrats resist immigration reform and Republicans support it.
Is it that simple?No, it's not that simple, for a great many businesses want that cheap labor as well. And more than a few people have been brainwashed into thinking it's cheaper to hire illegals at slave wages and then support them and the American without a job from the tax base. We've even got people that actually believe that the vast majority of illegals only do work that Americans refuse to do at any wage.
But politically I do think the majority of the blame lies on the Democrats here. Republicans aren't always keen on reform, but the Democrats seem to actively fight anything that would slow it. And certainly I haven't heard of a single "sanctuary city" that voted Democratic or of a single Republican civil servant actively aiding illegal aliens to avoid the law.Not sure I agree. Before this issue was such a sticking point for Republicans, their business leaders opposed immigration reform all the time. Somebody would propose immigration reform and then the business leaders would call a meeting with the President and it would all go away.
Credence, as stated many times in discussion forums, the illegal immigration problem is not about race. It was never about race until the detractors bring that up as a first or last resort when they can’t win in the arena of ideas. All Americans belong to one race or another at one time. It was the various immigrant groups like the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Puerto Rican and many other groups that build America, including blacks who came here as slaves in the early history of our nation.
Now in the 2018, we are no longer a growing nation like before. We have citizens that are not able to be fully employed. We have a robust welfare state. As stated by Milton Friedman, Novel economist, we can have an open border or we can have a welfare state but we can’t have both. They are not compatible.
Since you brought up race, I will tell you how race does play a role here. The fact that so many illegals are here, driving down wages, are causing people on the bottom of the economy to be worst off, and that includes many of the blacks in our community. So by supporting illegal immigration, you are supporting a policy of anti Blacks who are citizens...
Many Dems and Repubicans got behind the Gang of Eight Bill, and it contained most of these steps. I think this type of thing is one reason why Pelosi said we must talk about reasonable immigration legislation during the infamous Trump taking credit for the shutdown meeting.
America must make decisions based on the best information available as opposed to what's the only answer in people's "books." Trump appeals to the emotions, but there's absolutely no reason to think just a wall will work.
Did you read the article where it spoke about the best places for fences? Once again, there is no real discussion here about what works. In no way have we already tried a comprehensive effort such as laid out with those 15 steps."...Pelosi said we must talk about reasonable immigration legislation..."
Unfortunately the Democratic idea of "reasonable" immigration legislation is yet another useless round of amnesty followed by more legislation designed to encourage illegal border crossings even if followed. Nothing at all to actually clean up the mess they've made OR put a significant dent in the growth of the problem.
"Trump appeals to the emotions, but there's absolutely no reason to think just a wall will work."
Come, come. Trump isn't the one with emotional appeals; that goes to the liberals forever crying that illegal aliens in our country "Just want a better life" and that they are "just women and kids, working jobs that Americans won't take so we can afford vegetables for our table!".
"Did you read the article where it spoke about the best places for fences? Once again, there is no real discussion here about what works."
You are certainly correct here: the Democratic statement was "NO wall, not a single foot of it". No regard for discussion, no intention to find working answers, no discussion of the best place for a wall and where it would produce the best bang for the buck. Just "NO wall, NO way!".No wall, no way? I'm not sure about that. The Secure Fence Act was enacted by Congress in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Dems controlled both the House and the Senate. Maybe the fencing is already there where it really needs to be.
I agree with the Heritage Foundation's assessment on fencing. So, I don't know that we disagree there wilderness. Yes, Democrats have there emotional appeals as well and that's why the need for solid decision making that results from real information and compromise.
Hard Sun, Not exactly....
"In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem. But the cost makes it important to use fencing only in areas with a low "melting point." The melting point is the time it takes for an individual to cross the border and "melt" into a landscape unnoticed. In urban border communities, spending money on physical barriers makes sense because individuals can easily cross the border and sneak quickly into the urban landscape (for example, one can hide in a building or steal a car and drive away). But in other areas, like the middle of the desert, the barren landscape makes it easy for Border Patrol agents to detect border crossers."Not exactly what?
This is stating fences in strategic areas make sense, which is exactly what we've been doing. I quoted the same exact paragraph in another thread about border security.
I'm just not sure what your point is.Perhaps the point is that Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?
As it stands right now Democrats will not even discuss a wall, not anywhere on the border. They aren't interested in any sort of compromise at all - they are only interested in blocking anything Trump does regardless of the result.Yeah, IDK as that point has nothing to do with what I was referring to.
I am glad most of you are engaged with this discussion and looking for solutions and asking the right questions.
We need a solution and kicking the can down the road is not an option anymore. In another few years, it will be too late.
I can make that prediction because we can see what happened in German and France and the UK right now. That is our future and if we don't have the will to do what is necessary, so be it.
I just want people to understand what we are faced with.
Don't come crying in 5 or 10 years and say I didn't know this is the result of open borders...
It is as clear as night and day.
I am retired and have no personal gain or loss. I am just looking out for my kids and their kids...
They will have to live in a totally different America as we know it.I disagree that kicking the can is not an option - a great many people have decided that we are the caretakers (and the moral guide) for the world and that is exactly the option that most fits with that declaration.
I predict that the America of 50 years from now (my grandkids grown up and with their own grandchildren) will be a far different place. Quite likely a place of misery and hardship as we continue to feel a moral imperative to support the world and disgust at any improvement in our own social/economic standing. Building our own future is no longer acceptable, for as soon as we do we must give it away to those that don't build their own. On top of that our own culture will be consumed by other cultures as we run down the culture that built the greatest nation on earth while elevating that of third world countries that cannot build a decent future for themselves.
I love how you guys just repost Trump's horrible talking points. You've already parroted Pelosi out there as your scapegoat. You do know that the bill passed the house, where Pelosi sits, and failed in the Senate. You know that she doesn't become speaker until January 3rd, if elected?
Jump on that misogyny bandwagon buddy!You mean the bill to fund the wall passed Pelosi? Not that I've seen. Last I saw was her talking to Trump with another Democrat and they were very plain that not a dime would be funded.
Of course you didn't see it, your blind hatred of whoever your fuhrer tells you to hate diminishes any capacity for rational thought. This week, he's telling you to hate Pelosi. Last week, it was brown people from Mexico. The week before that, the Muslims. And you and guys like Jack are eating it up.
I'm open to read/listen to Pelosi proclaiming that she supports any money at all for the wall. Can you please provide text/video of her saying that? Or that the house approved funding the wall, with Pelosi voting "Yes"?
Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of the wall. It's not her job to jump on board with your's and Trump's xenophobia. It's her job to represent her constituents. The bill passed in her branch of government, end of story. Laying the blame for its failure on her is straight up misogyny, period. Own it if you're going to be a woman hater.
??? I don't think you followed the thread.
Here: I'll recap:"
Wilderness: "Perhaps the point is that Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?"
Valeant: "You do know that the bill passed the house, where Pelosi sits, and failed in the Senate."
Wilderness: "You mean the bill to fund the wall passed Pelosi? Not that I've seen. Last I saw was her talking to Trump with another Democrat and they were very plain that not a dime would be funded."
Valeant: "Of course you didn't see it, your blind hatred of whoever your fuhrer tells you to hate diminishes any capacity for rational thought." (Complete and total variance from earlier discussion - has zero to do with Pelosi supporting a wall at all. Just a jab at Trump and anyone you think might possibly approve of anything at all he has said or done.
Wilderness: "I'm open to read/listen to Pelosi proclaiming that she supports any money at all for the wall. Can you please provide text/video of her saying that?" (Still on the original track of Pelosi supporting a wall, trying to make sense of your complaint of lack of rational though after you changed the topic to something totally irrelevant)
Valeant: "It's not her job to jump on board with your's and Trump's xenophobia." (Still refusing to show where Pelosi or the House supported a wall, instead going off with wild
claims of what 60% of the people want. Refusal to discuss the bill passed, or what it actually said. Some crap about misogyny and xenophobia, but haven't a clue what that's about. Just childish name calling as a diversion from the topic as far as I can see.)
So...want to try again? Back to the original claim that Pelosi, or the House, supports building of a wall and passed a bill to fund it?Ok, since you don't have basic internet search skills, I'll even link to your favorite propaganda site: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- … order-wall
Passed in the House, failed in the Senate, where Pelosi does not govern. You even bringing up her name is clearly misogynistic, and buying into lies like ten terror suspects are apprehended at the border (that's all borders and includes airports) just makes you and Jack obvious Xenophobes."Perhaps the point is that Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?"
Your link didn't specify, but did hint strongly that Pelosi voted against it. Which was the "point" originally made.
But it's laughable that somehow disliking a person for their political agenda means misogynistic. Here, let me give a definition:
mi·sog·y·nis·tic
[məˌsäjəˈnistik]
ADJECTIVE
strongly prejudiced against women.
You're going to have a really hard time connecting gender to anything I said, but have at it if you wish to try.
Likewise, disliking illegal border crossings has nothing to do with xenophobia:
xen·o·pho·bi·a
[ˌzenəˈfōbēə, ˌzēnəˈfōbēə]
NOUN
dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries
Similarly, nothing I've said has anything to do with that. Only with criminal activities. But again, have at proving it if you think it can possibly prove your name calling to have a hint of truth in it.You prove your misogyny every time you write something. Why is it 'Pelosi and her buddies'? Why not just say the members of the Senate were unable to come to an agreement for wall funding? The fact you target a woman with your tirades only emphasizes my point. Maybe you should take a long, hard look in the mirror about what you're writing.
The fact that you and Jack come on here and only complain about illegal southern border crossings as the entirety of the illegal immigration issue says all we need to know about you guys. Wait, let me go find the posts where you and Jack complain about the illegal immigrants overstaying visas. Nope, no luck finding any of those. Plenty of disdain for that one description of illegal immigrant however. Says more about the complainer than the totality of the issue, that's for sure. Again, take a good long, hard look in the mirror about who you've hitched your wagon to.
There is no hatred...I am Asian and a first generation legal immigrant.
I grew up in NYC, the most diverse population in the nation. I attended a public university and was on a team full of people from all races and religious beliefs...and ethnic backgrounds. we got along beautifully.
This border issue is not about hatred of anyone. It is about self preservation of our country and our sovereignty.
I have said on numerous occasions, I don’t blame people wanting to come here. If I was in their shoes, I would probably do the same if the host country allows it...
You people who try to make this into a race or something else do so at your own detriment. Our country will be less of a country if the border is not secure. You can spin it anyway you want like the dishonest media.
It changes nothing. The writing is on the wall..."This border issue is not about hatred of anyone."
I disagree, at least where the wall is concerned. It's all about hatred of President Trump and a refusal to allow anything he presents, good or bad, right or wrong.
". . . Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?"(my emphasis)
"The Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have proposed no more than $1.6 billion, as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill. The money would not go for the wall but for fencing upgrades and other border security"(1)(my bold)
Also, for the Fiscal Year 2018, the DHS received:
"$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction,
28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley
and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector"(2) (my bold)
(1) http://time.com/5481566/white-house-bor … -shutdown/
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf
I'm fine with detail like this. In fact would it too much to ask for a proposal like:
"Based on historical data, we believe constructing barriers of type x, at locations a, b and c will deliver an x% reduction in illegal crossings at those locations. This translates into $x over x number of years. The locations have been prioritised using criteria d, e, and f. Based on projects of similar scope and type, there is x% margin of error in the estimated project cost. An increase of x% over the estimated costs would change the projected benefit to $x over x number of years.
But instead we have.
"Let's spend $21 billion building a wall thousands of miles long! No, we don't know what it will achieve, but . . . invasion!"
It's idiotic.No one is saying building a wall thousands miles long and without consideration of the terrains. It is estimated the bulk of the crossing is along the texas border. Let’s start there and see how it goes? Shall we?
Why speculate when we can construct it in pieces and see the progress of results? It seems to me those who are against the wall is not because it is too expensive or too long. People like Pelosi use the argument the wall is immoral...that is what gets me riled up. Why protecting our borders is immoral? Or unChristian? She is the one politicizing this to no end. Taking a vacation to Hawaii while the country is shut down.
She is no leader and has not shown leadership in many years. The fact that she will be Speaker in January says a lot about where we are as a nation. Shame on us for electing leaders that are clueless.Just another post that proves you don't know a damned thing about what Democrats stand for. For a guy who claims to be highly educated, you sure do post some asinine things. What's immoral is using the deaths of children as a reason to fund a wall. What's immoral is holding the salaries of 800,000 government workers hostage during the holidays to get wall funding. What's immoral is using false data points like ten terror suspects are apprehended at the border each day (it's ten at all border and airport points in the nation). Saying it's immoral because Democrats want to protect the ability of immigrants to break our laws is just fabricating the truth, and that post you just made makes you a liar.
Democrats do want border security. To prove that fact here are some actual data points - undocumented immigrants went down by a million under Obama, criminals were targeted for deportation, and funds for border security were improved. Significant results while keeping America's morality.But it's okay for Obama and the Dem party to do the exact same thing when they wanted funding for over priced Obamacare that nobody wanted.
Another false equivalency by the uneducated right.
This time: The House and the Senate had a bipartisan C.A.R. set to go with up to 1.6 billion in border security until Limbaugh and Coulter shamed Trump on television that led him to call a meeting of his House loyalists who then changed the bill to include his wall funding, knowing it wouldn't pass the Senate during Christmas Break.
Then: The Affordable Care Act had already been passed and the GOP-led Senate tried to strip the funding as a way to undermine the start of the law during the month of October.
Two completely different things unless someone passed a law that said America needs to build a specific kind of wall along the southern border and the Democrats are refusing to fund that specifically.Lets try this again; Democrats shut down the government to get funding for Obamacare, Republicans shut down the government to get funding for border security. Pretty simple.
Either way, the same taxes were still collected by our benevolent government. Enjoy watching them squabble over how to spend your money.
That is false. Under Obama, they changed the way they count deportation. The number went up but actual illegal entry went up.
The shut down is temporary and all federal employee will be paid including back pay for the weeks they were out. It happened numerous times under both parties...
Do tell me what does Democrats stand for? Correct my misconception.
If you have a better solution than a wall, please enlighten us with your brilliance...They? Who is your 'they'? If I know you, it is some deep state conspiracy. Because the 'they' I researched wrote a report detailing information comparing the data from as far back as 1970 and comparing it to 2000, 2010, and then 2016 when Obama completed his term.
Yes, the shutdown is temporary. Completely unnecessary since Trump didn't have the votes, won't have the votes in either the House or the Senate on January 3rd, and a majority of Americans think the wall is a bad idea. So it's a useless endeavor that hurts the American economy during a cherished holiday season.It only hurt people who are citizens, who have no say in our government because of lying politicians...who say they are for border security and when the time came to vote, they are AWOL...just this week, a police pfficer was killed by an illegal alien. Why?
We don't have to speculate about what happens when we ". . . see what happens". In July this year, the US Government Accountability Office published a report called:
"Southwest Border Security - CBP Is Evaluating Designs and Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key Information"(3)
The title of one section is called: "DHS Selected Initial Locations for Barriers before Identifying Priorities across the Southwest Border or Assessing Costs"(4)
Another section is called: "DHS Did Not Analyze Cost When Prioritizing Border Segments"(5)
This report is from the government's own accountability office, and includes observations like:
"DHS plans to spend billions of dollars developing and deploying new barriers along the southwest border. However, by proceeding without key information on cost, acquisition baselines, and the contributions of previous barrier and technology deployments, DHS faces an increased risk that the Border Wall System Program will cost more than projected, take longer than planned, or not fully perform as expected"(6)
and
"Without assessing costs when prioritizing locations for future barriers, CBP does not have complete information to determine whether it is using its limited resources in the most cost effective manner and does not have important cost information that would help it develop future budget requests"(7)
So at this juncture, we know:
The accountability office had to tell the DHS it should work out the best places to build barriers and the cost, before building any barriers; Illegal border crossings (by the government's own measure) are at a 40-50 year low, but the volume of people legally claiming asylum is at an all-time high, indicating it's the latter overwhelming the antiquated, inefficient immigration system, causing misery and costing millions in the process.
We also know a big wall won't directly address the above issues, and there is no information from the government (that I have found) detailing the benefits of spending billions on a wall. No cost-benefit analysis, no projected payback period. Nothing.
On the plus side, you say it will stop "the invasion", and lots of other countries have big walls too.
Looking at it rationally, the facts suggest proceeding with the wall is a bad idea. So we could ". . . see how it goes?" Or we could just make sensible decisions about immigration based on facts.
I think the latter is a better option.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
(3) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf
(4) ibid (p.21)
(5) ibid (p.23)
(6) ibid (p.33)
(7) ibid"Looking at it rationally, the facts suggest proceeding with the wall is a bad idea. So we could ". . . see how it goes?" Or we could just make sensible decisions about immigration based on facts."
Good idea to look more closely at the costs of placing more walls in strategic places - I agree. Now let's see if the Democratic Party suggests this, a more thorough study of placement and actual cost before approving border wall money. My bet is they won't, therefore revealing that they don't give a rats butt about securing our borders.
Taking a closer look at the costs and possible/anticipated benefits of more walling would be very helpful - I agree. However, it's also possible to be mired in analysis and over-analysis for years. Rather than do that, look at one success story along the US/Mexico border: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … d=5323928.
A huge reduction in illegal crossing attempts in that sector! Yes, illegals have moved to other sectors where they're far less likely to be apprehended (they probably have only a 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 chance of being caught), but that's the point: the wall is effective.
Walling will tend to move the problem elsewhere, but with more places along our border with protection similar to what's near San Diego, we can prioritize the soft spots with the necessary manpower and equipment to minimize the chances of a successful crossing. This can and should be done.'The wall is effective.'
Except if you read your own article, it's fencing. They even call it fencing. You know, like the thing that was included in the budget Trump refused to sign.
We Democrats agree, fencing helps, that's why we like that our politicians are putting money in the budget for it. And if it reduces crossings by 95%, why are we going to spend ridiculous amounts more for a wall that we don't actually need.
Thank you for making our case for us.
This piece seems to reflect that the Dems voted for a bill that was very close to what the conservative Heritage Foundation says we need as far as fencing along the Southern Border goes. Money for a wall!
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … wall-2006/
Are Democrats sincere about border control? I doubt it. Is Trump? If he were, it wouldn't be about just $5 billion for a wall. We would be looking at real measures that get real results. I just don't think Trump can read well enough to do such things.
As far as Dems going against anything Trump wants..well you all know Trump is scum...who wants to negotiate with, or give a man like that anything he wants? His attitude is part of what makes him a horrible negotiator and why he can't get things done even when his own party controls both the House and Senate.Interesting article, and interesting that Democrats voted for a fence...because it was less effective than other proposed ideas. That simple fact says quite a bit, don't you think?
What else should Trump go for? Everything else has been tried and cannot pass through Congress. Anything that stands a chance of real control is voted down.
And finally comes the real kicker - Trump is a horrible person so it's reasonable and acceptable that other horrible people will refuse to accept anything he mentions, good or bad, cheap or expensive, effective or not. A GREAT way to solve problems, right?The less effective part is opinion, contrary to the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organization opinions.
A horrible person equals a horrible negotiator. So, you're saying being a horrible person who lies almost continuously is how to get things done? Maybe if you want to go back to the stone ages.
I did say Democrats are not likely too serous about border defense, but you just refuse to acknowledge that and go in for the attack as I stated something that you deem counter to the exalted ruler. I guess, that seems to be the only motivation.
Wilderness, you're taking reasonable attempts at discussion and turning them into nonsense talking points once again. There are a multitude of border control measures that could be passed if we had an adult in the Oval Office. Politics means dealing with people. If you're not good at dealing with people, then you're not going to be a good politician. This simple fact seems lost on the Trump worshipers.
Ground penetrating radar is pretty cool. Also, drones are effective at finding and killing people so why not finding and stopping them from entering the country? We may need some better computer scientists to keep the criminals from hacking them, but DHS could never afford that with a $5.1 billion boondoggle tied up in the courts. I'm not sure we need Musk on this one.
https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technol … nel-visionAssume drones alert to people trying to cross, what can border patrol do to stop them?
We have over a 1000 miles of border.
Use your head. No technology can do the job of a physical barrier.
Once people crosses over, even if they are caught, it is too late. They have won the right to a hearing and ...
That is our problem. It is real and not imagined. We are our worst enemy. We can’t see the forest thru the trees.
It bothers me that so many intelligent people cannot see this.
Jonathan Gruber was right. The stupidity of the American voter is what makes it possible for passing the ACA and similarly for not having a sound immigration policy that protects us.The stupidity of SOME American voters who believe a wall will solve the immigration problem enabled this POTUS to cause the present shutdown, Jack.
No one has proven one way or another a wall will not work. In fact, where it has been tried and built in San Diego, it has reduced the inflow...
The problem is people refuse to even try because they know in their heart that it will work and that is the problem...they don’t want a solution. They like it the way it is.
That is why there will be no compromise on this issue. There is no room to compromise. On one hand is open borders and on the other is border security. There is no such thing as half a fence.Walls have been built for thousands of years with mixed results, Jack. Remember the Great Wall of China and France's failed Maginot Line? Both were failures despite being very expensive to build and maintain. In the latter case the Germans simply went around the barriers. DOH!
Jack you're making an emotional argument, not a factual or rational one. Knowing the effectiveness of border protection, and how that's measured is vital. Evidently Congress thinks so too because it made those measures a legal requirement in 2017.
The National Defense Authorization Act 2017 says:
"—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall develop metrics, informed by situational awareness, to measure the effectiveness of security between ports of entry"(my emphasis)(1).
I'm pleased to say the DHS has complied with the law and published the measures it uses to determine the effectiveness of border protection.
I know how much you love facts and figures, so here some headlines:
Unlawful border crosser apprehension rate(2).
The DHS have moved away from using the absolute number of apprehensions as a proxy of illegal immigration between ports of entry(3).
Apprehensions are now incorporated into a rate which includes attempted unlawful entries in addition to apprehensions. According to the report, the metric describes ". . . the difficulty of illegally crossing the border successfully"(4). So higher is better:
"Since FY 2003, the model-based apprehension rate has climbed from less than 35 percent to nearly 65 percent in FY 2016. "(5).
Another model used for this metric also indicates an upward trend (63 - 79). So evidently it's harder to cross the border illegally now than it has been at any time since 2003. We could have guessed that, but now we don't have to because we have the figures.
Detected unlawful entries describes ". . . the numbers of migrants detected crossing or attempting to cross the border unlawfully"(6). Lower is better:
" . . . detected unlawful entries (the sum of apprehensions, turn backs, and got aways) fell from 2.0 million to 624 thousand during this period, a 69 percent decrease"(7). Here's what that looks like:
Estimated undetected unlawful entries describes ". . . the numbers of migrants who completely evade detection and successfully enter the United States unlawfully"(8). Lower is better:
". . . estimated undetected unlawful entries fell from approximately 851,000 to nearly 62,000 during this period, a 93 percent decrease"(9)
Turn backs are "An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an illegal entry into the United States, return to the country from which they entered, not resulting in an apprehension or got away"(10). Lower is better:
"The number of turn backs has decreased by more than 57 percent since FY 2007. This decrease is consistent with numerous other between-[Point of Entry] metrics than (sic) suggest a decrease in flow over the past 10 years"(11).
Got aways "An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an illegal entry, are not turned back . . ."(12)
and
Total Successful Unlawful Entries "An estimate of the total number of subjects who cross the border unlawfully and who enter the United States without being apprehended"(13).
For both, lower is better:
There's lots more, which you can see for yourself, including:
Unlawful Border Crossing Effectiveness Rate
Probability of Detection Rate
At-the-Border Deterrence
Border Crossing Costs (smuggling fees as a reflection of how difficult it is to cross illegally)
etc.
In summary, the evidence does not support the narrative of a "crisis" in illegal border crossings. If anything, the data shows the CBP have done a pretty good job over the last decade of reducing attempted crossings, increasing detection, interdictions and deterrence, without Trump's wall.
What will the proposed wall add? Where is the analysis that shows the impact the wall would have on these metrics?
All you've offered by way of benefits is: it will stop "the invasion", other countries have big walls too, and people know "in their heart" it will work.
Evidently my heart is not as attuned to the universe as yours Jack, because I need facts and figures. And so does the DHS it seems:
"Comprehensive and rigorous performance management data provide DHS leadership with the foundation to support responsible evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation and investments and for operational and mission management"(my emphasis)(14)
Do you honestly believe the requested allocation of funds for this wall represents responsible evidence-based decision-making? I know what your heart says. Maybe it's time to engage your brain on this issue too.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ … ubl328.pdf (Section 1092, subsection (C)
(2)(3)(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.9)
(5)(6)(7) ibid (p.13)
(8) ibid (p.15)
(9)(10) ibid (p.16)
(11)(12)(13) ibid (p.17)
(14) ibid (p.2)
Just offering up a few solutions that people seem to be asking for here. Also, these are solutions suggested by conservative think tanks.
The matter of a massive border wall expanding the border is clearly a disaster. Real border security would take a combination of many things.
Use your head? Why so rude? I try to speak others on the Internet the same way I would speak to them in person. If you spoke to many people that way in person, you may have some problems. Just saying, take it easy.
US Border Patrol Doesn't Want a Wall—They Want Drones and Sensors
https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-do … 1773661854
That does seem to be one bit of tech that could prove very useful.
The biggest problem, seems to me, is that "stopping them from entering" bit. Once we find a tunnel what do we do with it? Fitting a burrowing bomb in each drone doesn't sound like something we want, which means the drone won't stop anything at all.
And if we merely close the entrance after making sure it is empty we haven't provided much incentive NOT to simply dig another tunnel. Seems that a better method is to simply collapse the tunnel somewhere in it's length, as far towards Mexico as we can, without concerning ourselves with whether it is empty or not. Do that a few times and there is suddenly an enormous incentive not to dig any more.Yeah, OK. That seems reasonable...collapse the tunnels after ensuring no one in them of course. We need more discussion of real border control like this.
Drones are used to detect where people come in, then you send border patrol to capture them. Check this Out:
US Border Patrol Doesn't Want a Wall—They Want Drones and Sensors
https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-do … 1773661854
Trump is bringing a problem to the forefront with his wall, but this fanaticism associated with "The wall" and holding out for billions of dollars is only setting us back on immigration issues.A large part of the problem is that there is no real repercussions to border crossers that get caught. They're simply collected and sent home, after feeding them, providing any health care needed, etc.
Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then? Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels.
I fully support drones and sensors, but to make them useful border patrol must catch the crime in action, and when they're an hour or more away that can be tough. A wall can slow down the crossing to the point that a patrol can be there while they can still be of some value.
Disagree about the wall setting us back on the issues. It has been decades since any real effort was made to address this issue, outside of repeated amnesty programs that only exacerbate it. Nothing else of any real value has been done, and there is exactly zero reason to think it will be done now...without some massive political pressure. Such as the President demanding money to build a wall.A wall is only going to be as effective as the manpower that can monitor it. There's these things called explosives that they make that will render a wall pretty meaningless if not manned.
You are correct, although armed drones COULD be used.
Which is why reasoning adults see monitoring and manning as a basic part of any wall. Others use that simple necessity as a method of denying anything coming from the White House, but it isn't a particularly useful or smart tactic.So, by that logic, why do you lock your house? There are exposives and many other means to get into your house illegally? The same applies to our borders.
Actually, the comparison would be, why don't I build a fifteen foot wall all around my property to keep people from walking around my yard. It's because I don't live my life in a daily irrational fear that someone hoping for a better life is going to trample my grass.
The wall is a metaphor for border security. You are arguing from a point of absurdity. There are places where a wall is absolutely the answer, else where, a fence, or another place border patrol, or drones, or whatever else that works... it is as if you have a gate in your house, or a fence around your pool, a lock on your door, and security cameras and all means depending what is needed. I live in a relatively safe neighborhood so I don’t need much security... no one is trying to break in. If I live in the south bronx of NYC, i would have a dog, bars on my windows, a double duty front lock...
This obsession with Trump and his wall is just insane. He just want border security whatever means that works...
How hard is that for you to understand?
The funding of $5 billion is chunk change...we spend much more on many other wasteful ideas...like the bridge to nowhere...It's hard to understand when your boy keeps moving the goalposts, Jack. First it was a big beautiful concrete wall and now it's down to steel slats or a fence. And Mexico was going to pay for it.....
There is no goal post...there is just one goal, secure our border anyway possible.
Here is a sample wall Zuckerberg built around his property...along with many other celebrities and politicians...who are against the wall...such hypocrisy...
Are you seriously comparing Zuckerberg's wall with a border barricade, Jack? Why don't you show a tennis court fence and use that as a comparison?
About as hard to understand as your own group repeatedly denying the value of any wall at all, don't you think?
At least "your boy" is willing to compromise - your side is adamant that it not happen at all.What would please you, Dan? Having migrants construct the fence in 105 degree heat before deporting them on the other side of the barrier?
1.6 billion seems like an appropriate compromise already. Sorry if Individual-1's greed cannot be satisfied as the country's finances head towards a trillion dollar deficit of his and his own party's making.
Sorry if many of us don't want to spend 5 billion on a metaphor so you can sleep easier at night thinking people south of us aren't still crossing the border.
I can understand wanting border security, it's a bipartisan issue. The phrase is chump change, and when our country is heading for a trillion dollar deficit this year under his leadership, every billion matters.
But I also believe in measured progress to see if we can achieve the same result at a lesser cost to the American taxpayer, a cost he promised us we wouldn't need to incur over and over again during his campaign. So use the 1.3-1.6 billion wisely and measure the results and if they are positive, use the money for next year wisely again. Eventually, we should all reach the same goal, which is to lower the amount of people here illegally.Just curious what your thought about the national debt under President Obama doubling from 10 Trillion to 20 trillion in his 8 years?
Now, you are worried about spending 5 billion? Where were you when we were spending trillions on infrastructure under obama with shovel ready jobs? That was never built...I didn't think that was good either, but at least under Obama, the yearly deficits decreased after having to grossly spend to correct the horrible economy he inherited. He was improving the situation.
I'd even agree with many fiscal conservatives that the government is too big. I would cut back on spending across the board if I was in charge and make the military more accountable to the money they waste. But I digress.
So far, Trump has increased the yearly deficit and continues to want to increase spending while decreasing the amount of revenue the government is bringing in through taxes. That's the same recipe Kansas tried before nearly going bankrupt. How many times does the trickle down playbook need to fail before conservatives wise up to the fact that it's a terrible policy?
It's not only smart, but prudent, to add improvements and then measure their effectiveness in increments while our country is so deep in debt.
Problem is that we've had decades to produce that "measured progress" and the only thing we've done is repeatedly granted amnesty to those lawbreakers that avoided the law long enough to get it.
When "eventually" translates into decades with no real results, it isn't good enough.
And I'm not sure at all that immigration control is a bi-partisan issue. I'm not even convinced that congress as a whole wants it, whether conservative or liberal. It helps make the richer richer while buying votes at the same time...all paid for by the little people of the country. You and I, our families, friends and neighbors.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to force some action from Congress. He did it with DACA, he did it with incarceration of illegals. He did it with travel bans from terrorist countries. He's done it again by refusing to admit the caravan.
And the only response from our politicians was to file court cases in liberal courts to stop it, and I'd lay long odds that if it goes on for a few more months we'll see court cases to admit the caravan people. That is not a promising congressional response to immigration control.Again, like Jack earlier with regards to the national debt, he refused to acknowledge that improvements are being made. The amount of people illegally crossing the border has been declining since 2010, Obama deported one million more people than Bush, and border funding has continued to rise to further quell the issue.
You see a crisis, I see an issue we were making headway on through yearly advances in fencing, technology, policy, and resource allocation.
As long as we're one of the most attractive places to live, people are going to try and come here and will find ways in. There will be no way to stop the issue completely without stomping on the freedoms we value. And as long as international law required countries to hear asylum cases, we will need to incur the costs of people trying to exploit that option to gain entry. That's just a fact.
We've always been a melting pot of cultures and some of us don't see that as a bad thing. Whenever I hear someone say we need to preserve our heritage, I cringe. Our heritage is a meshing of different cultures.I see a trend wherein illegal crossing fell during a major recession, then picked right back up when the economy improved. I see a trend with decreasing crossings when there was active discouragement to those that were caught...followed by demands that such behavior is unacceptable. I see a nation unwilling to put real effort into controlling their borders. I see a nation unwilling to enforce their own immigration laws, and I see people actively aiding in subverting those laws. I see whole states openly providing support to criminals that have no right to be here at all. I see a nation spending billions every year to support people with no right to be here, while denying that it costs anything at all.
No, it's not a "fact" that we are forced to follow international law (while others countries do not) and spend massive amounts digging through idiotic claims from people coached by the UN in how to get around our laws and intentions. It is a choice, and one we need to reverse.
But it IS a fact that as long as we are a desirable destination we will continue to have an illegal entry problem. It's not necessary to "stomp on our freedoms" to put a very serious dent in that desirability, though - making the entry very difficult while making it difficult to impossible to find work or other support once here will do that. Don't allow illegals to work. End the "entitlements" we give them. Shut down the "anchor baby" concept. Provide punishment AND deportation rather than just a ride home. End the sanctuary city/state concept and prosecute those that aid illegal aliens in their stay here. Institute a (primarily) merit based immigration program.
None of those things "stomp on our freedoms", with the possible exception of not allowing employers to hire illegal workers at illegal pay scales, and that is, and has been, in place for some time.Do you see what is happening in Europe as writing on the wall for us?
They have allowed many refugees and immigrants to flood their cities...
Look at Germany and France and the UK and do you want that for us?
The left sees global warming as an existential threat but welcome the illegal immigrants that will be the death of the West...in decades. Meanwhile, climate change is hundreds of years in the making and will not cause the effects they projected.Jack, the ice caps are melting at a rate greater than expected by the leading scientists. Where do you believe all the excess water will go to? Anyone who cannot tell the climate is changing very quickly is in extreme denial.
You are being brain washed by climate extremists...
The ice is melting in some regions but growing in other regions...
The net effect is negligible...
The rise in global sea level is approx. 3mm per year...for the past 30 years...
The same goes with the drought effect people’s been talking about in CA but the problem is there is record rainfall in the Northeast...
The climate is always changing...
That is why they changes the terminology from global warming to climate change...because it has not been warming for 17 years...
In fact, some scientists are predicting a cooling of the planet due to the sun, a natural cause...please don’t talk about things you have no clues. Anyone can quote the news headlines but I actually did some homework and attend lectures by scientists...
The simple answer is they just don’t know. They are guessing...What lectures from which scientists, Jack? If they are like your usual sources of "facts" then I'm not surprised at your lack of knowledge on the subject of climate change or global warming.
I attend Colloquiums at the Lamont Doghterty Earth Observatory, a campus of Columbia University...
Here is link to their schedule-
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-even … m-schedule
I also have an on going debate on climate change with Doc_snow, anothet hubber.
Here is our hubs...
“hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They”
If you scoll down to the bottom, you will read some examples of my experiences with climate scientists at this lecture...I attend Colloquiums at the Lamont Doghterty Earth Observatory, a campus of Columbia University...
Here is link to their schedule-
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-even … m-schedule
I also have an on going debate on climate change with Doc_snow, another hubber.
Here is our hubs...
“hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They”
If you scoll down to the bottom, you will read some examples of my experiences with climate scientists at this lecture...Randy, I hate to digress from the main topic but here is another source if you want to get to the truth about Climate change.
Here is link -
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
I have been following climate change for 30 years...
I do see the results of massive immigration of different cultures into Europe as an indication of what will happen to us. We were the first to have it happen, but our size made it possible to survive. Europe is not so fortunate and having problems...the same problems that we will see in the future as the numbers continue to grow. And that future is not that far away - while I may not live to see great change in our culture, my grandchildren most certainly will.
Anyone who has Jack's view on climate change is somebody I wouldn't trust to give me any factual information on anything ever.
Pretty much every climate scientist on earth agrees about what is going on.
The icebergs melting is a small part of it. Look into the bleaching of coral reefs due to ocean warming. Something like 30% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead and it's expected to be entirely dead within a decade. All due to ocean temperature rise. Unprecedented.30% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead, but a great deal of it (likely well over half) is due to the crown of thorns starfish. Not to ocean temperature rise.
"One study found that between 1985 and 2012, the reef lost an average of 50 percent of its coral cover. Starfish predation was responsible for almost half that decline, along with tropical cyclones and bleaching."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/worl … -reef.html
It is this kind of thing - blaming global warming when it fact there are multiple causes and warming is not the greatest - that causes skepticism over global warming.A search for the most recent catastrophe in 2016 and 2017 would have revealed warm waters were responsible for killing half the corals in the reef. The cause was clear, man-made climate change.
It's this kind of thing - making points from outdated information - that really cause skepticism in conservatives abilities to use science.
Coral bleaching isn't just on the Great Barrier reef, but ocean-wide, and it's pretty well accepted that it's warming of the ocean.
http://time.com/coral/
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/08 … rier-reef/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace … faff875f9f
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … 6-heatwave
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga … te-change/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc … ed/558302/I don't think there is much doubt that warming oceans are harming reef systems.
But it has not caused 30% or the Great Barrier Reef in Australia to die, as was claimed. If you're trying to validate the concept of global warming that probably wasn't the best example to use, particularly as the REST of the story was left out. It doesn't do much to convince readers, especially if they've watched any of the PBS specials on reef OR the crown of thorns.
Climate change has allowed the crown-of-thorns starfish to thrive and increase its damage.
The crown-of-thorns starfish itself has had no measurable effect on the warming of the oceans.
When the temperature of the oceans rise, all sorts of things happen. The question is causality. What is causing the crown-of-thorns starfish to thrive more now than in the past? What is preventing the reefs from recovering?
This strikes me as Jim Inhofe logic which states "if I find a snowball somewhere it proves it's cold somewhere and therefore there's no global warming."
Bette sit down Valeant, I agree with one of your facts, albeit with the deletion of an unnecessary sentence.
"As long as we're one of the most attractive places to live, people are going to try and come here and will find ways in. There will be no way to stop the issue completely without stomping on the freedoms we value...
[Forget that international thing, it isn't needed to support your point]
... we will need to incur the costs of people trying to exploit that option to gain entry. That's just a fact."
Ain't reality great!
GAGlad my bandwagon is growing. But I'm still in awe over Don's post. I feel like Luke and he's Yoda with all the plentiful data to support the fallacy of an 'immigration crisis.' That one certainly backs up the point I was making that things were moving in the right direction, even though Jack and Dan are certain that we're about to be overrun by brown people any minute.
If this is not a crisis what would you consider a crisis?
The insanity of TDS.
If Trump would cure Cancer tomorrow, you would be against it.
Every politician since Reagan said they want a wall and border security...
Until Trump actually want to build it..
and now they don’t want it...The insanity is following a man under 17 different investigations and one who has already been implicated as Individual-1 in a felony conviction. The odds of a functional illiterate like Trump curing cancer are about the same as you understanding the science behind climate change. And I'd love for you to prove to us that every politician said they want a wall. That's a straight up lie.
Hold on a minute Valeant, that agreement was an inch, not the mile you took to put me on your bandwagon.
I do believe we have a crisis at our southern border, but not because of the magnitude of the volume of illegal immigrants.
Don's post was an illuminating one, as far as framing the facts of the numbers. As were previous posts here about the numbers regarding visa over-stays.
I do see the "crisis" of our southern border to be an invasion. Not because of an overwhelming horde, but because I see it as an assault on our sovereignty. And I am speaking primarily of the caravan-type efforts supported by U.N. organizations and activists.
People sneaking in over the border, or over-staying their visas are intentionally breaking our laws - and I think they know it, but large groups, like activist-supported "caravans," trying to force entry are not only intentionally breaking our laws, they are ignoring them, essentially demanding that we accommodate them, rather than them accommodating our laws.
I think that is the crisis. And a I don't think a massive border-long wall will fix it. We have to make it clear that our laws must be respected.
I also think we can do that without losing our humanity or national ethos.
Just line up the buses. They came in from Mexico, let them wait in Mexico while their applications are processed. Mexico might not like it, but they knowingly let them cross their country to get to us, and it will break all kinds of international laws and agreements, but ... where are your priorities?
GAI agree with the law concept. We have to be a country of laws. If asylum seekers are from Mexico, detaining them here until their case is heard makes sense. If asylum seekers are from south of Mexico, I agree that there is no harm in letting them remain in Mexico until their cases are being heard. Agree that that might make Mexico rethink letting them cross their country.
We spend far more than that "chump change" in supporting illegals and Americans out of a job due to illegals taking it at sub-par wages, not to speak of the cost of court appearances and deportation.
At least the cost of constructing the wall will end; the costs of illegals in the country never will unless we close the border.The maintenance of any barrier constructed will continue for as long as it's there, Dan. You should know this as it's going on as we speak. Try again..
Perhaps you don't do it because you don't already have hundreds of thousands of people doing just that every year. If you did, you would have that "irrational fear" yourself that the people that are already trampling your grass, killing your livestock and stealing your property will continue to do so.
"Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then? Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels."
Huh, well, I guess you could say not incumbent. But, what if there were a hundred children in there. Unintended causalities are only unintended if all efforts are made to not make them casualties. Otherwise, that looks a lot like mass murder and/or terrorism.
My understanding is that not all illegal immigrants get immigration bond. Either way, I'm talking about a holistic approach that works. According to the Heritage Foundation, there are a slew of things that work better than a wall. I'm with the conservatives, and the studies, on this one.
You say you disagree about the wall setting us back on the issues, but you proceed to agree with the basics of my statement. I stated Trump's talk of the wall helped bring the issue to the forefront again, but his insistence on throwing billions of dollars into a boondoggle that will make a few people rich is not good.
The basics are that issues are never as simple as people want them to be. Chanting "build the wall" and "lock her up" were great rallying cries for the masses, but they make zero real world sense. Education and progress will win in the end."Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then?"
You are advocating murder. I thought you were an advocate of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Here, you are advocating killing people in tunnels, presumably because they are criminals (correct me if I am wrong).
What if a tunnel contains human traffickers transporting women or children against their will? Just kill ''em, huh?
Wow.Trump's rhetoric aims to dehumanize Mexicans and Muslims in a similar way that was seen in WWII. Is anyone surprised that his supporters are advocating for killing them?
Are you assuming that only Mexicans and Muslims are digging tunnels or entering illegally?
Sounds pretty discriminatory to me. Are you sure that it isn't you that is degrading nationalities and religious beliefs?Is that the best deflection you have for advocating for the murder of immigrants for trying to illegally enter the country? That I may have overlooked the French who might be tunneling to the United States?
You tried to deflect it with your personal hatred of Trump and the evils he does in your mind. Did I do wrong in following in your footsteps and deflecting once more? Is it only you that can do that?
I don't see the first suggestion from you as how to stop the carnage and deaths from illegal crossings. Anything that stands a chance of working and of discouraging future crossings.
Do you not care about those people dying? Do you not care about the rapes and violence they undergo in their misbegotten efforts? Do you not care about the thousands sold into sexual slavery? Is it more important to degrade your president than to save lives?
The topic was how to close the border, and that includes saving the lives and misery of those that cross illegally. So far you've suggested that Trump is dehumanizing two subgroups of people and so do his supporters. That's the best suggestion you have to stop the carnage? Or do you just not care as long as you can defame your president?Trying to delve deeper into my thought process to divert away from the lack of humanity you now have towards immigrants. I can tell you one thing I won't suggest, and that's to kill families trying to cross the border. We can be better than that suggestion.
And yes, I believe the rhetoric from Individual-1 is leading to people like you dehumanizing foreigners. Your party's xenophobia is now getting scary when you openly advocate for killing immigrants.
And it's not hate, it's resistance because I refuse to acknowledge a proven criminal as the leader of the country. I don't think giving a man five billion dollars for a project when he is under 17 different investigations, including one for illegally misusing funds earmarked for charity is a prudent move." I don't think giving a man five billion dollars for a project when he is under 17 different investigations, including one for illegally misusing funds earmarked for charity is a prudent move."
This is so funny if it weren't for so many people thinking it is prudent. It reminds of old Mr. Obvious routines that played on a popular radio station in these parts.
Most of us do care about illegal immigration, but it's this type of rhetoric that crosses the line that is normally reserved for Muslim fanatics...at least in this century.
You straight said we should blow them up wilderness. You can't squirm out of that one by claiming you care more than others.
You just can't have it both ways. Stick to your guns since that's the way you feel. You made it clear that you care nothing about their lives, and now it just looks like you don't want to own it.
Yup, another false equivalency.
'Although sections of concrete wall are most often pictured in the media, these account for only 3 percent of the barrier, primarily in residential areas and along highways where Palestinian snipers had targeted Israeli citizens.
The remaining 97 percent consists of a double chain link fence flanking a dirt patrol road. Enhanced with electronic sensors that alert the Israel Defense Forces to movement along the fence, its object is less to stop infiltrators than to deter, detect and track them.'
So, again, it's more fence like what is currently in that pesky budget Trump won't sign. But let us know when Mexico starts putting snipers on the border and we'll consider a wall.So you agree that a barrier between the two is what is keeping Israelis safe. Thanks for proving my point.
The data does back up your point, even though the 1,000 figure was grossly exaggerated. The decline in violence has dropped significantly.
What would be more applicable to this conversation was how the Israeli fencing affected immigration between the two countries. If you had that data, it would help make the case your side is trying to make.Entrance is the point isn't it? Regardless of intent, it is entrance that needs solved, not the fake "immigration" and subsequent rape of resources. After all, does it matter whether the goal is delivery of a bomb or taking resources when it all hinges on illegal entrance to accomplish either one?
Entrance is one factor, I'll concede that. Where the sides differ is:
a.) How much we're willing to spend when the country is already $779 billion in the hole under this elected official
b.) What has actually been proven to be effective and cost-efficient methods to achieve those goals
c.) If the country can trust him to use that money appropriately given his history of misusing funds and profiteering
Again, entrance is only one factor. Overstaying is just as much of an issue that we could tackle. Not sure why there aren't resources going to that front when at least 40% are here because of that reason.Entrance is one factor, I'll concede that. Where the sides differ is:
a.) How much we're willing to spend when the country is already $779 billion in the hole under this elected official
b.) What has actually been proven to be effective and cost-efficient methods to achieve those goals
c.) If the country can trust him to use that money appropriately given his history of misusing funds and profiteering.
Again, entrance is only one factor. Overstaying is just as much of an issue that we could tackle. Not sure why there aren't resources going to that front when at least 40% are here because of that reason.a) That's because you and others refuse to face what illegal aliens are actually costing us each and every year. The 5B that Trump wants to start the wall isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what we're already paying as a result of illegal border crossings, even if it's only 60% of the illegals in the country.
b) Given that we don't seem to have the political will to use other methods, I'm not convinced that there are any more effective. Certainly, once the wall is built, there are none as cost efficient AND that we are willing to use.
c) As far as I, or you or anyone else, knows the President has not taken a single dime from the country without every right, both ethical and legal. Until he has this statement is completely irrelevant.
Absolutely overstaying is nearly as big an issue. And we have the tech and knowledge to virtually end it...if we had the willpower and political power to do so. We don't. We can't even agree on what to do with DACA kids and to me, at least, that one is completely self evident.a.) In the same manner that you and others refuse to face what undocumented immigrants and their citizen children contribute to the economy.
b.) We currently do use other methods, specifically the fencing around the San Diego area. As noted earlier, it has had a marked effect and is what has been budgeted for in certain higher risk areas going forward.
c.) We will have to disagree on this one as him journeying to his own clubs and charging the government to use club resources for his protection is one example of him using his position for profit. I also noted you had no rebuttal for the confirmation that he illegally misused funds earmarked for his charity on his campaign. Between that and his campaign finance felony, he's twice proven he cannot be trusted with money when it comes to the government.a) for which they are compensated. And still require large amounts in addition.
b) Certainly some areas will not require a wall. And some will. That goes without saying, seems to me.
c) As you point out he has never taken a dime from the countries resources outside of his security forces - that's what I said. As we have never charged any president for their security, there is absolutely no reason to think this one should pay his own way for the first time ever. We could, for instance, purchase 100 or so golf carts and transport them to the golf course, but it's far cheaper to rent them. You should be thanking him, not condemning him for saving the country money.
a.) For which they contribute to the tax revenue and the amounts are highly debatable.
b.) Why not start with the fencing and do some studies to measure some cause and effect before wasting monies on something we might not even need?
c.) I'm not talking about charging him for his security, I'm talking about him charging his security to guard him. By going to his own properties, and then charging his security forces, he is reaping the benefit directly. That is something expressly forbidden under the Constitution's emoluments clause and is another example of him breaking the law regarding money. And don't even get me started on his DC hotel.Point b is where the biggest problem with $5.1 billion for a wall lies. We should just let a known pathological liar take control of that money to take something as complicated as border security and just build a wall. The cash and time spent in the courts would likely double that of actually building any wall.
If you don't want to spend money in the courts then don't throw up ridiculous, unwarranted and unneeded court cases.
You're right - we've gotten to the point where court cases have become a valid method of forcing political decisions, simply because of the cost that naysayers will impose on the country. Something that is not only more than a little unethical but really stupid as well, it is nothing more than another end run around decisions by those we hire to run the country make. A way to negate the democratic voting process we base our country on.
a) What is NOT debatable is that they do not come even close to contributing what they cost the country. Education alone costs more than their contribution.
b) Great. Let's look at whether our fencing slows the inrush. Lets look at what walls in other countries are doing to stop illegal entry. It's not difficult, and a couple of months with a hundred people can do the job. Funny, though, how those that claim a wall is worthless aren't doing any studies, don't you think?
c: Then buy 100 golf carts and transport them! If you don't want him to profit a few hundred dollars per trip then don't use his facilities. It's really quite simple: Donald Trump didn't order his security to use his facilities; they made the choice themselves as the cheapest available. Can't expect him to supply the tools the SS needs to do their job.a.) I have to concede that point as truth.
b.) Why is it incumbent on those that don't want a wall to study it? Should be on those that propose a wall to sell the rest of us that the costs are worth the expense. And so far, the only data supports continued investment in fencing, which is what is allocated for in the current budget Trump refuses to sign.
c.) What we can expect is for him to not visit his own properties, or if he freely chooses to, to waive the fees for the costs his security detail incurs at his own property in accordance with the LAW.The issue is not that a wall is "worthless". The issue is that responsible, evidence-based decision-making is needed to determine where best to devote finite resources.
For example:
In 2016 the CBP reported around 274,000 successful illegal border crossings (made up of observed crossings and estimated illegal flows)(1).
In the same year, the DHS reported 544,676 "Suspected In-Country Overstays" (reduced from 628,799 after adjustments for "continuing departures and adjustments in status")(2).
So in 2016 there were more people in the country without authorization as a result of entering legally and overstaying their visa, than as a result of crossing the border illegally.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.18)
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … pdf#page=5 (p.5)
I think that the politicians and the people of this country that believe we should open our boarders and just let anybody come into our country. They should all volunteer to take on at least two family's of immigrants and be responsible for them. It is a sad time for our country. When illegal aliens are put above the people of this country that need help.
The politicians and people you refer to are the ones that your right-wing media lie to you about existing. The open borders quote was taken from a speech Hillary made in regards to trade, not immigration. A little research would help you understand where the term came from and how it's been applied out of context.
For your info. I'm a conservative. I'm just tired of hearing about illegal aliens having more consideration than the people of this country that need help. So wake up and smell the coffee. I'm all for building a wall.
It seems that to make a long story short, I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis for putting up a wall verses not putting up one.
Has there ever been one to support its being built outside of proponents saying that it works in Israel, China or Timbuktu, for that matter?
Thoughtful posters have been alluding toward this point.In a way, you have one: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … ost4052924
If the wall will cost what is claimed here - 850,000,000 per mile, or 100 times the cost of a 6 lane freeway - it is not possible that it can pay for itself by any stretch of the imagination.
Plus, of course, the many claims being bandied about that illegal aliens pay more in taxes than it costs to support them; if true no wall is economically prudent. This one is dependent on failure to examine all, or even the majority of, costs, but is still being claimed as true.
"Has there ever been one to support its being built outside of proponents saying that it works in Israel, China or Timbuktu, for that matter?"
Has there ever been one to deny the wall outside of those that make zero effort to determine if it works in any of the nearly 70 countries building walls? Have the deniers every produced evidence of no positive results? I mean, they claim it, but have they ever studied it (with an eye to truth rather than denying it) and reported their results?The benefit is long term. Once you stop an illegal crossing, you save on providing benefits for him and his family...you save on prison incarceration, you save on lower wages for all at the lower economic level, which means less tax revenues to the IRS. You save on court costs and hearings and providing shelter and food for those waiting for court hearings...
You save on drug induced crimes and tragedies of people addicted.
How many ways? They are incalculable.You're confusing those who enter illegally with those who overstay their visas, Jack. The latter accounts for the majority of the now illegal immigrants and most of the expense as well. A wall won't help this problem in the very least, so it won't pay for the wall either. Good try though..
Randy, How do you come to the conclusion that those that overstay a visa account for most of the expenses?
I looked around and couldn't find any support for that contention. I found just the opposite. Very few of the "overstayers" involved families or children that would qualify for entitlements.
The majority of the overstayers seem, (qualified due to lack of concrete data), to be single folks, not moms and kids that are the typical entitlement recipients.
GA
Without an estimate of how many people the wall is likely to prevent or deter from crossing, you can't do a cost/benefit analysis. Therefore you have no idea what benefit the wall would be (if any), long term or otherwise. That's the problem.
In contrast we know the benefit (and estimated benefits) of actions taken over the last few decades to secure the border:
Estimated share of migrants who fail illegal entry and don't try again
Probability of detection while crossing
Detected unlawful entries
Estimated undetected unlawful entries
Successful entries
So how about using the $1.3 billion offered for border security to keep doing the things that are achieving these results. That includes improvements to existing border fencing where it's deemed necessary and most beneficial, based on operational knowledge and experience.
You know that makes sense Jack.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdfYes it make sense only if the results are there...and I don’t see it.
I see in my own community and around the country increasing immigrant population taking over jobs and keeping wages low and keeping jobs away from teenagers...
I see crime being committed like the officer killed recently by an illegal protected by our sanctuary city, and Kate Steinle killed for no good reason...
Talk about walls don’t work...
Tell that to the Palestinians.No one wants to call a spade a spade.
You don’t like the term wall, call it something else.
Don’t beat around the bushes...
It works.But your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by factual information from reliable sources. For example, a review of multiple studies by the National Academies of Sciences says:
"There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants. In addition, recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment levels)(1)".
It seems you prefer anecdotes and narratives that reinforce your worldview, over factual information that doesn't. I just prefer factual information..
If you showed me data from a reliable source showing the proposed wall would significantly improve the issue of illegal immigration, and represent good value for money, I'd support it.
But you haven't. Most likely because no such data exists. That means the idea of the wall is not supported by factual information. That's not bias, it's reality.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public policy to be based on reality.
(1) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin … rdID=23550If your italicized quotation refers to illegal aliens (vs immigrants) then it is not possible that there is a hint of truth in it. This goes back to the false assumption that illegals only work jobs that no one else will, a patently false conclusion that anyone can see with their own eyes...if they choose to. It doesn't take studies by people advocating illegal or unlimited immigration, and it doesn't take a genius, to understand that when an illegal holds a job, an American cannot hold the same job.
While the employment picture is very, very good right now, and the statement may be partially true, it won't be long until it swings the other way. It's been doing it for a long, long time now and there is no reason to think that unemployment will never climb once more...whereupon those jobs held by illegals most definitely means that a citizen is without work.The review considers immigration (authorized and unauthorized) and goes beyond assumptions about job-type.
But this is not rocket science. All that's needed is some data from a reliable source showing that the proposed wall would significantly reduce illegal immigration, and represents good value for money.
Cost-benefit analysis, projected impact, benefits realization, anything that shows it's worth spending $21 billion on a wall.
I have seen no such evidence, either within the 15 pages of this thread or outside it. Have you?
If not, why do you think that is?If it concerns itself with actual immigration then it is worthless in any discussion of border control; something designed ONLY for illegal aliens crossing the border. And includes any cost benefit analysis based on immigration.
You probably haven't seen any analysis of the usefulness of a wall, either economic or otherwise, because you haven't looked for historical information on the walls that have already been built around the world. Plus, of course, you haven't compared the cost of illegal aliens to the cost of a wall, long term. That one would be rather difficult as we don't have a real handle on maintenance or manpower necessary after it is built. Guesses don't count, and so far that's all we're getting, mostly from those adamantly opposed to any wall.Lots of other countries signed the Paris Agreement. The international scientific consensus tells us the agreement is extremely useful. Can I assume you want to implement the Paris Agreement immediately too? Lots of other countries have universal healthcare which has also proven useful. Can I assume you want to implement universal health care immediately also? Or should the government only copy other countries when it comes to building walls? Seems very selective.
If you were buying a business and were told you could only see the projected profits for a similar business in a different country, you wouldn't accept that. You'd want the fundamentals for the business you're planning to buy, to help you decide if it would be a good investment, because you're not foolish.
Likewise, people shouldn't have to look at other countries to see if this wall is a good idea. The government should be able to demonstrate it, at least on paper. No one in their right mind should spend $21 billion without a business case, including cost-benefit analysis. So
you can look at walls in other countries as much you like, but where is the business case for this wall?
The government should publish a business case that indicates the projected impact of the wall on illegal flows, crossing detection, interdictions, likely deterrence, what that all equates to in dollar amounts and over what number of years. While factoring in operating and maintenance costs. And it should include the methodology used to determine all those figures.
If you haven't seen any of that analysis, then you don't know what impact the wall is projected to have, or if it represents value for money. You're just guessing. You said "guesses don't count". So by your own reasoning you shouldn't support the wall without that analysis. Have you seen it? Does it exist?
I wonder if the numbers provided by Don include thousands of people in Central America trying to illegally cross our border all at once? I wonder if it takes in all the additional resources and manpower that is now required to defend our border against such things? I don't see it.
As a Trump supporter, you don't really WANT to see it, Mike. How about the 2,000,000,000,000 dollars added to the debt by your boy in his first two years, Mike? And he didn't have a recession to fight like Obama did but gave almost all of the debt to the rich folks in the form of a tax cut. Brilliant!! Perhaps he's really the "fart of the deal."
I hope you have a good day Randy. We do see things differently.
Apparently so, Mike. What did I say you see different about the over 10% increase in the national debt caused by Trump in his first two years in office?
I would like to suggest you are a little bit off the topic of the thread. It is about the number of illegals entering the United States. My point remains the information provided by Don does not take into account the tens of thousand of people at the boarder right now trying to cross into the country illegally.
Discussing the national budget is a a separate issue.Got a link to the "Tens of thousand" tryin to cross the border "right now?" Or is this simply more Fox spin?
lol, he doesn't because there probably is no link Randy: Pretty soon given the never ending stream of BS and lies coming from the oval office, it will be up to tens of millions at the border then tens of billions and then the greys or reptilians and then the martians are here and on and on with the wall nonsense: lol
In 250 years excluding the soon to be defunct disastrous Trump Administration Era which has driven us into the dirt, we've become a great nation WITHOUT a wall and WITH the monumental help of IMMIGRANTS from every country:
I live in a border state and can't help but laugh every time I come in a forum like this where individuals for what ever reason, who live nowhere near the border are jumping up and down screaming their heads off about tying to impede the entrance of immigrants which their own relatives once were: How ironic is that ??
The oval office is fulla documented bs about everything but it's just inexplicable how Donald's last remaining dwindling number followers still cling to his hate and fear mongering: UNREAL:
I live here, there is no emergency, there is minimal violence and immigrants documented or otherwise are coming here to work jobs nobody else wants and they mean you no harm, unlike the current Oval Office who is desperately trying to sabotage our healthcare system:Good to hear from someone who knows the problem personally, Jake. Those who listen to the talking heads on rightwing TV and websites are being given a bill of goods as to why the wall is needed. No one forced Trump to make a promise he couldn't keep even though anyone with a half a brain knew better. Mexico will pay for the wall...what utter horse hockey!!
It's hilarious to the point of absurdity Randy: Listening to the alt righters around here they would try to convince you that an undocumented person strolls across the border, takes a quick shower, changes clothes, walks into Boeing or Microsoft and gets immediately hired as an engineer at $75 per hour taking a documented persons job away from him or her:
It may happen on that rare occasion but I can attest to the fact that most who cross the border can be found mowing lawns, cleaning our slop from our hotel rooms, picking our fruit and sweating profusely cooking our pancakes and sausages at the local breakfast joint: And that's a FACT:Hmmm..and these are the same jobs that "conservatives" state Americans shouldn't be able to live on anyway--as though all laborers don't deserve a living wage--so why do they even care?
And do YOU think all laborers deserve that mythical "living wage"?
The teen ager living with his/her parents?
The elderly, working to get a few $$ for luxuries to supplement their SSI?
The handicapped, capable of only producing half or less of what others do (shall they be paid double the piece wage simply because they are handicapped?)
The part time worker, laboring 10 hours per week - shall they get that "living wage", enabling them to support themselves on part time work?
Does that "living" part apply to the worker or to the (unlimited) number of people (s)he supports? Shall every job pay enough to raise a dozen kids on?
And that hasn't begun to address just what a "living wage" is: does it mean enough to buy a tent while collecting berries for food or does it mean a penthouse in Manhattan?People who work a standard work week should get living wages in a developed country. That's what I'm stating, and it's not that complicated.
The specifics of such may be worked out but stating not everyone deserves a living wage is akin to taking three steps backward. It's not my job to determine what that wage is, though it's beyond ridiculous to state they don't deserve a living wage. Especially when you aren't part of the elite class. It's self-defeating.
I respect a janitor as much as a CEO. The janitor deserves a living wage.I was all ready to jump in on this one hard sun, but then realized it would hijack the thread. So I started a new one. Hope you will join in.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/342 … ost4053249
GA
Right, these are the jobs Americans won’t do...
But perfectly fine to exploit undocumented labors?Many immigrants would love to do these menial jobs if given a chance, Jack. They would not feel exploited if they were happy with the pay and they would not be in fear for their lives or for their families.
If I was escaping the circumstances many are, I'd be very happy to have a job--low paying or not--and a safe place to live. But that's just me...
Notice how your meme doesn't say that it's the southern border. You know why? Because the current administration is counting all border entry points, including airports, the northern border, and ports.
If the issue only was all border security, then the facts would be accurate, but since this discussion is about that southern border specifically, how about you try to present facts that apply accordingly. Therefore, anyone with half a brain can openly reject that meme as the gaslighting that it is.So what’s your point?
The fact that our borders are pores is excuse not to do anything?
It is this kind of logic and making this about race that drives me to the edge.
What is wrong with doing the fixes incrementally?
We don’t need to fix everyrhing at once or comprehensively...
We need to fix one leak at a time incrementally.What is wrong with telling the truth, Jack? Misleading his base--as well as those of us who never wanted the cretin in office--only serves to make us more stubborn in thwarting the bufoon's wall.
The wall is a symbol, and a metaphor...
It is an attitude.
If I may digress and use the homeless problem as an example.
Back in the 1970s, here in NYC, we had a terrible problem with the homeless and squeegee man... The mayor at the time Dinkins said it is just the way of a large city and nothing can change it...
When Guliani was elected mayor, he declared he would clean up NYC. He did it by changing police policy of dealing with the street derilicks. It was called the broken windows theory...you can look it up.
Well, in a few short years, NYC was on the rebound, Time Square revived and we are a thiving city again...
This is the similar situation with immigration on a smaller scale. The lessons are the same.
If you ignore a problem, it get worse.
It you start small, and deal with the broken windows, then over time, you will make a positive change.
The border on our south, is a “broken window”. Get it?
Get it jack ?? But hey, don't worry Bozo Trump shows every indication that he's willing to declare a 'False Emergency' and then get bogged down in MORE law suits but what does he care ? According to reports, he spent just about his entire private life tied down in a courtroom why should the oval office be any different ??I don't even know what that means but you're welcome jack: The image I posted kinda puts Bozo Trump's retarded wall concept in perspective doesn't it ??
Yeah I did, but they have absolutely nothing to do with a useless wall or the MASSIVE shortcomings and or Vulnerabilities of said waste of tax payer money, but my image clearly illustrates one of the many Herculean FAILURES a useless Trump wall would represent:Your CAPS have got into your brain. Read my post and it has everything to do with the current discussion, and Immigration crisis...
I asked what was wrong with telling the truth instead of the poster wrongly suggesting all of those thousands of immigrants were crossing the southern border. You answered by telling me something about Rudy I already knew and relates not to my question.
Please try again instead of diverting the topic.As I explained, it was a similar case. It has to do with general problem solving and dealing with public issues such as the homeless, crime, and illegal immigration...the comon thread in all three is if you ignore it or support it, it will grow. If you stop it early and focus on the small stuff, there won’t be a chance of it ballooning into a more serious problem.
If you don’t see the parallel, I can’t help you any more.
I try to make it as clear as I can. That is why history is important and learning from history is our best chance of survival.It was simple question, Jack. What is wrong with telling the truth? You can answer, "nothing" or get on board with disliking these untrue memes your group are using.
Exactly Jack, 1.3 billion is a nice increment to add some fencing, technology and other resources without bankrupting a country that's already added two trillion dollars to the national debt under this administration.
Try this for a read: https://medium.com/@vickyalvearshecter/ … uyO7xGGfvA
The BIG lie readmikenow just posted in picture form is one primary reason WHY republicans were wiped out in the midterms, why republicans will be wiped out again in the senate in 2020 and why Bozo Trump will soon be impeached / indicted:
In case you haven't noticed, even Bozo Trump's last remaining followers are looking PAST his never ending bs and looking at the atrocious things he's doing, like giving trillions to the filthy rich and deliberately and recklessly disrupting our government to the point that Americans are being forced to default on mortgages and rent, missing credit card payments and IRS refund checks will be delayed causing even MORE financial harm and despite the lies spewing profusely from his putrid orange mouth, the vast majority of people DO NOT support his insanity:Prove it wrong Jake...I'm waiting. Overwhelm me with an intense intellectual argument. I'm waiting.
The poster is well known to be misleading, Mike. Those stats are for ALL ports of entry into the us, not just the southern border. Not even a good try...
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your … -are-they/
Better move that wall to the north since that might be where the true threats are originating...
Breaking news, Mike. The true number of illegal immigrants/suspected terrorists caught in the first part of 2018 was 6. And none of these were arrested or held.That's right, not the 3000 falsely claimed on your blatantly misleading meme.
Do us all a favor a check out the validity of your memes or don't use them at all! Or are you simply as honest as your idol and do not care you're posting lies which harm the country? I hope not!
Jack, I'm always humored by the way liberals believe everyone coming across the southern boarder illegally are happily skipping along singing a tune like Kumbaya as they plant trees and look for ways to help the sick and elderly. I've been to the southern boarder in California and Arizona. It is an eye-opening experience. In Arizona Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is too dangerous to visit. We can't visit parts of our National Parks because of drug smuggling on the southern boarder. Here is a sign you will often see there. As someone who loves the outdoors...this makes me really mad.
lol, And as a person who has lived near the southern border almost my entire life, I'm always humored by individuals who live nowhere NEAR the border, perhaps way up there in Idaho or upstate New York or Wyoming or some other God Forsaken place playing the snowflakey frightened victim when they've probably never even seen an undocumented immigrant in their lives !!!!:
I can assure you this whole border wall fiasco is a made up farce just like Bozo Trump's entire dark, unholy life of hoodwinking the most gullible among us: PATHETIC: As a matter of fact, I received a knock on my door just yesterday and low and behold, there was a person I presume to be an undocumented man who asked me what I was going to do with the bedroom dresser I had outside waiting to be picked up by the city which offers this free service to residents:
You see, many undocumented individuals when they arrive here in the USA provide necessary services and this 35ish year old gentleman purchased a used truck when he arrived here, and now he drives around the city collecting used furniture for free which he transports down to Tijuana Mexico so the less fortunate children can have at least one place to store their clothing so guess what, I gave him my used bedroom dresser and boy do I feel good about helping the less fortunate who may be needy:Good for you for helping the needy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In this case, it may seem harmless....
But take it to the next level?
If 10 more people come to yor house, do you have 10 more used couches to give away?Most of the time I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at jack, but I do know one thing, Bozo Trump is PAVING a nice big beautiful wide road of lies, deception, unforgivable sin, hate, racism, misogyny and fascism that his last few remaining followers can follow straight down into the white hot abyss and that's a hardcore biblical FACT
And believe me, i try to stay as far away from Trump followers as I possibly can because when the good lord strikes this unholy oval office charlatan down at the time of his or her choosing, his followers just might end up as intended or even collateral damage:Now you are talking like a believer...good luck. You might have better chance of winning the lottery.
As usual, I have no idea what you're trying to get at jack:
I do know one thing, The Far Left is PAVING a nice big beautiful wide road of lies, deception, unforgivable sin, hate, coercion, and socialist authoritarianism that has entranced some followers into taking a road straight down into the white hot abyss, and that's a hardcore biblical FACT.
lol, very creative Hxprof: FYI: Bozo Trump is the dark one, not the left and that's a fact:
:
Jake, I bet you are absolutely right. All of the information from the DHS, ICE agents, local law enforcement and the court system about drugs, human trafficking and more couldn't be true...right? I've spoken to many people who live along the border. Some of them have lived there for their entire lives. Guess what? Many of them disagree with you. It's always good to help Children in Tijuana Mexico, because I suppose there are no children in the United States who could use one place to store their clothing. Would helping a child from the United States not make you feel as good?
Now you sound just like your idol Donald, 2nd, 3rd and 4th source STORIES from supposed individuals who supposedly live along the border who tell you stories that I don't believe without facts: My account is first hand and I'm telling you this border fiasco is one of Bozo Trump's biggest farces to date: lol, when is the last time you had to defend yourself from an undocumented immigrant ??? NEVER ??
lol, emergency ?? Yeah right what a joke, the only emergency is probably that not enough undocumented workers want to work at his golf course:
Emergency ?? Yeah right, I guess that's why undocumented workers seem to be WELCOMED at properties with the Trump name on them:
"New York Times: Trump's Bedminster club hired undocumented immigrants, two workers claim"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics … index.htmlAs Jack said, "the wall a simply a metaphor." But Jack didn't know how right he was or what the wall stands for in Donnie's mind. The Prez is only concerned about his base and failing to keep his main campaign promise. Sure, he promised Mexico would pay for the wall in rather dramatic fashion, but now he's lying about the tariffs paying for the wall as any child can see.
Did you ever notice Donnie's followers having the same traits as their idol, Jake?Randy it's still shocking that even though his base is shrinking fast, there are still individuals who buy into his slobby dangerously absurd bs: By now, everyone realizes the fact that Bozo Trump is a despicable serial, pathological liar who either is aware of his lies or perhaps maybe he's not which would represent an astronomical danger to the USA, and for this alone, he could be immediately impeached:
But what about his enabler liars, his accomplice liars like Kelly Anne CLOWNway and Sarah Huckleberry ? WHY on Earth do they destroy their own credibility and future by becoming complicit with a 72 year old incoherent, angry dictator wanna be who will soon be tossed out of our oval office and if he's lucky, into a prison cell?
Lying so consistently as documented by the press and possibly not being mentally aware that you're doing so could be a sign of serious mental illness and that dangerous scenario cannot be tolerated from an oval office occupant, but what's even worse is an accomplice to those lies like Sarah Huckleberry who as far as we know, understands exactly what she's saying and how false it truly is, and that's just abominable behavior:
Another alt righter around here tried to peddle this ridiculous lie about the number of terror suspects who try to enter the USA but what else is new, this entire white house is one big LIE, and when Fox calls Sarah out on her attempted made up oval office story you know it's beyond ridiculous:
Watch the entire film clip, at the end, Mike Wallace of Fox destroys Sarah's bald face lie with a few simple words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5z1rOxgOxcThat is Chris Wallace, not Mike. The father was with CBS years ago and long gone.
It is funny how someone would go thru the trouble to paraphrase an interview where people can just watch and make up their own mind...
The insanity of it all.
Where will it end?
Why the obession against the wall? When all nations know it works...?
Just answer that simple question.
The cost and all the other detractions are smoke screens.
The left never worry about cost before for anything execept the military and now border security.Which Wallace had the interview with Huckabee doesn't matter, Jack. She lied profusely, just like her boss. Absolutely no terrorists were apprehended on the southern border despite her claiming thousands were caught there.
Yes, that stupid meme poster submitted by Mike was completely misleading, but you do not care. Since Trump was elected you guys love it when he and his cronies lie. Says a lot about his followers doesn't it?
Here is a new twist on the topic.
I live in the Phoenix, AZ area. As you probably know, we have a problem with illegal aliens here. Now some will say, "Oh, it's not a problem!" Just watch the nightly news here. Most estimates are that 25% of these "undocumented aliens" have criminal records. The new twist: with the government shutdown, ICE is releasing many folks who have been detained because they do not have the funds to house them properly. Soooooo.... the churches are overwhelmed with folks who need food, medicine, and a roof over their heads and they are pleading for relief. Most spokesfolks have an air of panic about the situation. Strange how if the government spends imaginary dollars to support its illegal alien problems, there is no crisis. But when the funny money dries up, the sky is falling.
We live in an IQ-devoid worlds.It simply IS a problem, and as you know, it has been for years. Even with the drop in illegal attempts to cross into the US via the Mexican border, there are still hundreds of thousands of folks just coming on in.
No matter how the weak or open borders supporters try to spin this, the problem has to be dealt with because it won't go away.Pleased to have another border resident give his personal views, LM. I do support border security as do most on the left, but we'd prefer more humans involved, as well as electronic security, rather than spending money on a wall.
I'm thankful the churches and other orgs have more compassion for the immigrants than Trump does.Why can't these people be encouraged to go back to the home they had in their country? They shouldn't be welcome here. Legal immigrants have a place to stay or a job or both when they get here. If not, they have a sponsor who will post a bond and work with them to get employment and independence. Legal immigrants pay money and fill out forms. They MUST avoid being arrested for any reason. Legal immigrants have made a commitment to obey the laws of this country. These people who just come across the boarder have only made a commitment to themselves. They need to be sent back to their home country or go back there voluntarily. Unless they go through the same process as legal immigrants...they shouldn't be here.
+10000000000000, thank you Readmikenow! Why can't people SEE this?!
Yep, agree 100%. But we have those in our government that support illegal immigration, whether because of their business sponsors or some perverted idea of "compassion". It's sick and lawless.
President Trump will be making a speech to the American people tonight in prime time 9pm. Please tune in and be a part of this important issue. The time to act is now. If not now, when?
The kicking of the proverbial can down the road stops here and now.It is time for all American citizens to weigh in on this matter.
That is all 300 million of us.
Do we want a continuation of the status quo?
Or do we want open borders? Let anyone in?
Or do we want a systematic immigration process such that only people who applied through the INS are allowed here...with papers, and medical checkup...and skills we need...
Part of this debate is how to deal with illegal crossings.
Do we use drones or wall to stop them?
What legal court actions?
It seems to me, many politicians have decided to walk away from this issue. They don’t want to rock the boat...
But Not Trump...Only those rubes willing to listen to his lies will be watching. Everyone else will wait for the fact checkers to denounce most of his speech.
Plus, most of us know how this speech is going to go already. He will try and blame the Democrats for the shutdown because he knows he's getting killed in the public opinion polls. But he will try and convince people that those not being paid falsely support his decision to shut down the government. He will inflate the numbers of people and drugs being smuggled across the southern border. And then he will inflate how the economy is doing in order to make it seem like America can afford his vanity project.Gime a break...
Why don’t you just watch for 50 minutes and reach your own conclusions?
You rely on fact checkers who themselves are biased...did you know that?
Instead of guessing what he will say, why not just listen to what says for a change?
You TDS people are too much. You wish Trump will be that evil person you personify and then confirm it for yourselve before any evidence.
The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
When will you learn?Jack, if he does indeed do as we suggest he will tonight, will YOU then learn? What do you think he'll say? The truth? Get real, Jack!
I expect him to layout the case why a wall is needed.
He will probaby go over some past history where under both parties they have said the right things, even voted to build a fence but did not fund it...
He will appeal to the American people to hold their congressman to their promise...
He will also bring up the american citizens who have been hurt by illegals such as the Kate Steinle of the country...
He may also bring up the crazy sanctuary policy of some of our biggest cities...
Finally, he will ask Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders of their plan? If they have one, and why it will work this time as opposed to all past actions? None has worked.Yes, I'm sure he'll try to scare people into believing his stupid wall is necessary, and some--like yourself and Mike among others here--will buy it hook, line, and sinker like those under the spell of a conman normally do.
But you didn't say if he'd lie as much as usual though. What do you think?All politician lie. Is that a shock to you?
Obama lied...
Clinton lied...
Bush lied...
It is what they do in office that matters...get it. Not what they say...But the amount of lying is the problem, Jack. And you KNOW your boy will lie his ass off tonight, don't you? You like it!
..You TDS people are too much.."
Is there a 12 step for tds and any plans for a Northern Wall?No, I think Trump has made it impossible for these people to get cured. The only way is for Trump to resign and leave office.
There is no need for a Northern wall, there are not millions crossing it.
The day that becomes an issue is when a Northern wall is called for.The north door is wide open though. I'm thinking feasibility of the project. Pennies on the dollar. Heck they could make the sucker outa Papier-mâché, theyre Canadians after all.
It is open just as your back door is probably open.
Most suburban people leave doors open because we don’t have strangers breaking in.
In the inner cities of NY and else where, not only do they have double locks but bars on the windows. Why?
If you can answer those questions, perhaps you will understand the difference between a North and a South Wall. It has nothing to do with race.Idk. They bring socialist ideas and traffic in maple syrup. High content sugar cause diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
If you wont entertain a northern wall, kind of seems you waffle on security in general.
You gotta be kidding. The best answer you have is we don’t need a southern wall because we don’t have a northern wall?
Where is your common sense?
Even on the southern border, we are not talking about a wall 2000 miles long. We will only build a wall where it is needed.
There are a few locations where they cross...90%.
For the few Canadians that want to come here, fine we can allow that.
We just can’t have 800,000 coming from our southern borders with the help of Mexico...
Just so you understand me perfectly clear. It is not about race.
If 800,000 Canadians started to cross our northern border, I will call for a northern wall.Thankfully, we're not relying on your common sense to protect America. Considering the data listed above, and I'll reshare it since it pretty much backs up Phoenix's claim, it seems we need to be equally prudent on security issues at both the north and southern border:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants on the U.S.-Mexico border whose names were in a federal database of known or suspected terrorists, contradicting earlier White House claims that nearly 4,000 suspected terrorists were stopped at the country’s southern border.
The disclosure, made by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen Monday and first reported by NBC News, concerned only the first half of 2018. Of 41 people stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border by the CBP in that period, 35 were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, with the other six classified as non-residents.
By contrast, the CBP encountered 91 people at the U.S.-Canada border whose names were on the federal list, with 41 of them non-U.S. citizens or residents, NBC said.
If you're scoring at home, that's 41-6 in favor of the northern border being a bigger concern from a terrorism standpoint. In terms of sheer volume of illegal immigration, the south is a bigger concern than the north. But if you're considering volume as your primary goal, overstays make up 58% of illegal immigration and you won't be solving that with a wall.The main problem on the southern border is not terrorists.
The mass number of undocumented low skilled workers is the problem.
They depress wages, they take jobs from our youth, they tax our schools and hospitals, and other social welfare programs...
That is the main problem and it only gets worse year after year...
Here is my question to you -
What number of undocumented immigrants can the US support?
Please think long and hard...
I want a number.Here's a number for you, 1.3 trillion. That's the cost of the failed F-35 jet program. That number is the equivalent to the entirety of student loan debt in the United States.
So saying we can't afford the pressure immigration puts on schools, hospitals, and social welfare programs is something I would disagree with if we simply had some accountability and used the current money in a better manner.
Here's a question for you? How's that infrastructure plan coming along? The United States clearly has a problem there and instead of addressing that, we're throwing money into a useless wall addressing an issue that has shown to be improving.
And this from an article today about ten things you should know prior to tonight:
Illegal border crossings are down. Significantly.
In 2000, 1.6 million people were apprehended trying to cross the southern border into the United States. In 2001, 1.3 million were apprehended. In 2018? Less than 400,000. That’s not just a decline. It’s a significant decline.
A lot of the decline was because of the recession, which dried up jobs migrants were seeking to fill. But if we’re being fair, apprehension numbers reached a low of about 310,000 in 2017 in part because of increased border enforcement and fear of Trump and his anti-immigrant policies.
►The counties along the southern border are among the safest in the United States.
According to data from the Wilson Center, as summarized by The Washington Post, “The crime rates in U.S. border counties are lower than the average for similarly sized inland counties, with two exceptions out of 23 total.”
Anti-immigrant conservatives like to talk about how undocumented immigrants are supposedly menacing border communities and making border states less safe. Recently, in a segment with me on CNN, conservative radio host and Trump supporter Ben Ferguson shouted, “Talk to people in Texas! I’m in Texas right now! People here … have been killed by illegal immigrants that come across the border illegally. And you say it’s fearmongering!?”
Yes, I do. And I’m not the only one. Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Wilson Center, told The Post, “There is no doubt the U.S. side (of the border) is a very safe place.”
►Most undocumented immigrants don’t “sneak” across the border.
The majority of immigrants in the USA without authorization first entered the country legally, and then overstayed their visas. The Center for Migration Studies said in a 2017 report that crossing the border is not the way “the large majority of persons now becoming undocumented.” It reported that two-thirds of undocumented immigrants entered the U.S. legally and then simply overstayed their visas. If you legitimately are concerned about the issue of undocumented immigrants, as opposed to just exacerbating and exploiting fearmongering for political gain, then this is where you would focus — not the border.
►The White House is lying about terrorists crossing the southern border.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted that “nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.” Sanders' careful wording suggests she knew she was more than bending the truth. Fox News anchor Chris Wallace fact-checked Sanders: “Do you know where those 4,000 people come, where they are captured? Airports.”
“The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border,” Wallace stated. But Sanders kept pressing the lie, because Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda relies on fact-less fearmongering.
►Migrant caravans aren’t “sneaking” across the border, either.
If you care about facts, it’s important to distinguish between illegal border crossings and migrants lawfully presenting themselves at southern ports of entry in order to apply for asylum. The simple fact is that large groups of very visible migrants, such as the main so-called migrant caravan of people fleeing violence in Central America, are obviously not trying to “sneak” across the U.S. border. They’re coming to the border to apply for asylum, which was a completely transparent and lawful process until Trump started changing the rules.
►Drugs entering the USA across the southern border are most often hidden in legal shipments.
Trump has suggested that the flow of heroin into the United States would be stanched by his border wall. He’s right that 90 percent of heroin enters through the southern border. However, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, “illicit drugs are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers.”
In other words, a wall wouldn’t stop most heroin from entering the country. And arguably, resources spent on the wall would divert from other enforcement mechanisms, such as more officers and technology at ports of entry to scan vehicles for drugs.
It’s also noteworthy that in ramping up prosecution of migrants trying to enter the United States, the Trump administration actually reduced prosecution of drug traffickers. Last June saw the fewest such prosecutions in two decades.
►Conservative political figures and think tanks think Trump’s wall is pointless.
What apparently began as a memory device to help the undisciplined Trump remember what to thunder about during campaign appearances has turned into a central bone the president won’t let go of. But there’s a reason Trump couldn’t get funding for his wall during the past two years of his presidency when his own party completely controlled both houses of Congress: They didn’t want it. The New York Times reports that leading anti-immigration activists are concerned Trump’s focus on the “relatively ineffectual” wall is distracting from other strategies they would like prioritized.
For instance, Republican Rep. Will Hurd, from the border state of Texas, said in 2017, “I’ve made it clear time and time again that building a physical wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border.” The conservative Cato Institute has called Trump’s wall idea “impractical, expensive and ineffective.” One might suspect that more Republicans would speak out against Trump’s stupid wall idea if they weren’t afraid of alienating the right-wing GOP base.
►There are already 654 miles of border fencing.
The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,933 miles long. Of that, 34 percent already has a wall or a fence — in particular, parts along the areas of the border that are most easily accessed by people traveling by car or on foot. That’s right, there’s already a wall along 654 miles of the U.S. border. What’s the rest? Huge mountains and rivers and vast stretches of land that are privately owned, which the United States would have to seize through eminent domain if Trump got his way. Mind you, those areas aren’t completely open — they’re actively patrolled using sensors and drones and other technology, the sorts of things experts say actually work.
Here it’s worth noting that the less than 400,000 people who were trying to cross the border in 2018 were arrested. They were caught and detained and deported. Because of our already extremely highly militarized and aggressive border patrol efforts.
►Americans do not support Trump’s wall.
“The people of our country want it,” Trump said recently. No, they do not. A mid-December poll found that 54 percent of respondents opposed Trump’s wall. That number even crept up slightly by late December. And more than two out of three Americans don’t think the wall should be a political priority. It’s also worth noting that most Americans blame Trump for the government shutdown that he initiated by trying to hold government funding hostage to get his stupid wall.
Americans don’t support Trump’s wall because they know the truth — that we have a tough immigration and border enforcement system already working, and way bigger problems to focus on fixing in our nation.With all the numbers you provided...you fail to answer my question. How many undocumented immigrants can the US support?
We can not begin to address the problem, until all of us have a basic understanding of the issues. If this number is small, we have a huge problem on our hand. If this number is large, then the problem is not so bad. Finally, if the number is unlimited, them, we have no problem.
You see the thought process...You've just asked me for a research project worth of work. Honestly, I don't see your question as one that is worth the time to investigate, or one that you would even bother to agree with if I provided data to substantiate the conclusions as you just ignored information up above I provided that didn't fall into your narrative.
Like Trump himself, Jack tends to ignore questions he doesn't like or diverts to another subject instead.
You totally miss understand my question. No reserach required. As an American, what number of undocumented immigrants you think our country can support?
There is no right or wrong answer here.
It is to gage your attitude about this problem.I don't 'misunderstand' anything. I just don't make those kinds of guesses without researching it in depth first. And our sources on the issue will likely lead us to different conclusions anyway, so it wouldn't likely be much of a 'gauge' for you any way.
Sure it would be. The reason we have such disparity and confusion is because you and others don’t want to ask the tough questions...and more don’t want to hear answers you don’t like.
This is the real world. We are adults. If we don’t take care of it, who will?
The problem is real.
It is getting worse by the year...
So much so, our country is being torn apart.
Look around your cities..do you like what you see?
In another generation, it will be too late.
This problem was manageable 30 years ago...Reagan did the tough job of passing an amnesty bill and at the same time secure the borders so this problem would be solved for future generations.
Guess what, we had the amnesty but no border security...
It started all over again and now 30 years later, we are worst off now...
Who is not being an adult on this?
I say congress, and all past administrations have ran away.
I can point you to videos of past Democratic and Republican presidents saying the same thing, including Clinton and Obama, and Bush, and many congressional leaders...
All I am asking is for some honesty.
If we all agree it is open borders and fine. Let the country be damned.
But don’t lie and say it is not a problem...Dang Jack, who--besides yourself--said anything at all about open borders being the only alternative to the stupid wall. Not only am I tired of the politicians on the right making this false claim, I'm also weary of those on here who ought to know better doing the same.
But then, they believe what the idiot tells them to think...First off, if you're asking for some honesty, demand it of the guy feeding you false information about the statistics to make you believe immigration is more of an issue than it is. Stats we have presented and you refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't fit your narrative that brown people are bad, but those white Canadian folk are just fine.
If you're being honest with yourself, attack the greatest part of the problem, overstays, simultaneously along with border security instead of committing all your resources to building a wall when fencing should accomplish the same goal of helping diminish the violation of our border laws.
In one breath you say you can point to video of all past presidents saying border security is important (not a wall, mind you), and then in the same breath utter the right-wing phrase open borders to insist that there are some that want that.
One thing I can agree with is that our country is being torn apart. But it's more the partisanship and hate mongering going on than immigrant families coming here looking for a better life, and I won't lay all the blame with one party here. But we're in a cultural war right now and there's no middle ground. Too many are pushed out to the far-right and far-left.
And with Trump, he plays only to his base and not to the rest of America. His partisanship is not helping unite America, that's for sure.Did you watch the speech?
What part of what Trump said you disagree?Of course I didn't watch the speech. But here's where we have disagreements.
I think it's openly racism to intimate that large portions of those coming to the southern border seeking entry are rapists, gang members, or human traffickers. Especially when you set a different standard for a predominantly white population on the border to the north even though statistics say there's likely a greater terror threat at that border.
Second, the 90% figure of heroin coming in through the southern border is accurate. However, he failed to mention that the largest percentage goes through the San Diego area where they already have strong physical barriers. So how exactly would adding a wall stop that since it's currently not stopping it at one of the most secured sections of the border? And his claim that Democrats want a steel barrier is just a straight up lie.
I find that crime is crime. I think within any population, there will be criminals. I don't look at a certain population and think all are planning to do harm and the stats back up that fact. In immigrant populations here in the US, crime levels are lower than national averages. To cherry pick the few instances where crimes have been committed by those here illegally is straight up xenophobia. I think it's been proven that white guys with AR-15's are way more dangerous than immigrants to the country currently. Where is the anger and solutions to that population that mows down hundreds of American lives each year? Holding the government hostage to spend billions for a very negligible effect isn't my idea of wise government spending.Well, said, Valeant. Trump tries to frighten people with cherry picked statistics that ignores "the whole" of the situation. As many thoughtful posters have mentioned before, our problems are not wall jumpers but the millions that overstay their visas and have been ignored and overlooked. How does the wall fix that? There is no substantial information that can support immigrants, even most wall jumpers, as any more prone to criminal activity than domestic populations. Trump is exaggerating, as usual. I personally take offense at his comments regarding reduced labor opportunities for African America or Hispanic workers, as if these labor issues are so easily reduced to this single cause. And, I have seen much more violence by crazed Anglos than from illegal immigrants, most just trying to find safety and employment.
I did see the speech and it is pure Trump, distract and divert attention.Wait. Isn't that it is supposed to work in today's political climate? One side says "We're letting criminals in that kill people" and the other says "That woman with her 3 young children won't hurt anyone". One side says "We caught heroin being transported through the wilds of Texas" and the other says "A wall won't stop the boatload coming in by sea". One side says "M13 gang members snuck across and murdered in NYC", the other says "Here are 10 illegals that killed no one". One side says "We have millions trying to cross the border", the other side says "illegals here just overstayed their VISA'S".
Seems to me it is up to the think, reasoning person to decide that illegal aliens don't kill as a rule, but also that SOME illegals DO kill - if we stop them all we'll save lives. It's up to us to figure out that while some illegals got here via a VISA, more snuck across a porous border.
You want to talk about "the whole" why is half of it set aside as simply "fear mongering"?
You are wrong on all points. As I said many times before, it is not racism. He did not call all of them rapists...you keep repeating the exaggerated lie the media propagate. He said “some”...
The drug problem is real and getting worst. What is wrong with trying to deal with it by tightening the borders? The wall is just one part of the equation. The funding will be used to beef up security...in addition to a wall where needed.
Your final point is unbelievable. Just because illegals comit less crime overall than americans, you think that is great. If that’s case, why not invite all Mexicans here? It will lower our crime rate...by that logic...
The point Trump made is that if we stop these people from coming here, these incidents would be cut down to nil. Even one crime is too many.
How would you feel if the person killed was your family members?
Like Kate Steinle...and thousands of others. Just a small statistic to you but not to their family.
The point about jobs for blacks and hispanics which you got offended is the truth. Even some blacks and legal immigrants say so. It is just simple economics of supply and demand. When you have a large influx of unskilled labor, it drives the wages down. It is not hard even for you...Jack, you need to look up what the word intimate means to understand what I said in my opening paragraph.
Second, you want to tighten up the border. Well, where we have the tightest border currently, it is ineffective in stopping the flow of illegal drugs. So doing the same thing is your answer to solving the problem?
As is the case with open borders, you claim the other side to have a horribly incorrect position with regards to crime. It's never great and for you to suggest that's a belief is offensive. But there exists crime in any population, that's a fact. The point is that immigrants are less of a threat than our own American-born citizenry.
And don't even give me that one 'crime is too many horsesh*t' when the people you are backing aren't doing a thing about school shootings but sending their thoughts and prayers after they continue to happen. Again, if you cared as much about when a white guy shoots someone as when an immigrant did, I wouldn't find your position to be steeped in racism.
You totally miss understand my question. No research required. As an American, what number of undocumented immigrants you think our country can support?
There is no right or wrong answer here.
It is to gage your attitude about this problem.Let me explain it another way.
The reason we are having this shut down and debate over this issue of illegal immigration is clouded by our impressions of this issue.
To some, there is no problem. They are happy to have more people come here..the more the merrier.
To some, they think it is just a nuisance. Not a big deal.
To some, it is a huge problem with our sovereignty and our economy...
To some, it is going to lead to the death of the West.
Which one are you?
Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, we had many politicians who claim they are of one kind but really behaves as another kind. In other words, they are deceiving the public on where they stand.
Yes, your thought process is self evident, Jack. Disregard the facts and buy the BS...
Thank goodness you don't get everything you call for, Jack!
U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants on the U.S.-Mexico border whose names were in a federal database of known or suspected terrorists, contradicting earlier White House claims that nearly 4,000 suspected terrorists were stopped at the country’s southern border.
The disclosure, made by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen Monday and first reported by NBC News, concerned only the first half of 2018. Of 41 people stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border by the CBP in that period, 35 were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, with the other six classified as non-residents.
By contrast, the CBP encountered 91 people at the U.S.-Canada border whose names were on the federal list, with 41 of them non-U.S. citizens or residents, NBC said.
On Friday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, said that CBP stopped nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists from crossing the southern border in 2018. Fact-checks of Sanders’ statement showed that the 4,000 figure applied to 2017, not 2018, and included stops made by DHS officials around the globe, with the vast majority of them occurring at airports.
Seems like the bigger concern should be to the north if we're using data and not judging by the color of the skin...To All of you here on hubpages who are against building a wall on or Southern Borders...
Please give your best answer against it?
Put on your thinking cap...
I want to know...
1. How would you fix the problem assuming you believe it is a problem?
2. If not a wall what else?
3. Why not a wall?
If you don’t think it is a problem, then we have nothing more to discuss.It's ALL a concern. I researched this situation some time ago and did a piece on it, and no doubt, the issue on the northern border is similar to that on the southern border in that terrorists do seek to come in there also. The Canadian border has the advantage of stability and accessibility, there's so much of it left unprotected.
What's a Gime by the way? Is that like Trump language for gimme? I bet you learned that in the same place you discovered the term TDS. If you want to continue to throw around made-up mental illness insults, we can turn this as nasty as you need it to be.
And unlike you, we have seen the evidence that Trump broke the law to become elected and will refuse to follow him in any way shape or form. For a bunch of people that say we need to be a nation of laws, you sure do have a short memory in regards to his illegal use of his foundation's funds on his campaign or the felony campaign finance violation he committed with the payoffs to McDougal and Daniels. Your hypocrisy in this area is a joke.
And you have the gall to speak about the sanctity of life and yet you support a party that backs the NRA as children continue to be shot in schools. You only care about the violent crimes committed by certain segment of the population. Again, be consistent and we might take you seriously."we have seen the evidence that Trump broke the law to become elected"
You mean the evidence that Russians posted "fake news" on FB...without encouragement or knowledge of Trump? THAT breaking of the law, that Trump didn't do?Nice misdirect away from the case where Trump was named individual-1 as a felony co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case where he was found guilty. Or away from the case where the New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood forced closure of the Trump Foundation.
Underwood said that her investigation found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”
I'll try and use less shiny objects in my posts next time so you don't get so distracted.What you seem to be saying is that we were screwed either way. Trump used his foundation to promote his campaign, and Hillary Clinton used her foundation to do the same. If that's what you're saying, at least you're being consistent.
A link to HRC's misuse of foundation money during her campaign as you claim please.
Perhaps I missed it. Where has the Clinton Foundation been charged with illegal campaign funds?
There should be an investigation. The Foundation clearly was interested in a pay for access scenario, which leaves me wondering which foreign countries that paid for this access ALSO tried to assist in her election.
See my remark to Jack, Hx. I assume neither you or Jack are investigators of any sort, so what makes you an expert on what should be investigated? You probably listen to Rush as well.....
Randy, you are a coolaid drinker and you are too far gone. Sorry, no need to continue this conversation.
I don't blame you Jack. You can't stand it when you're so often wrong
Here's a good link for you Randy. The Clinton Foundation was as corrupt as the day is long.
https://observer.com/2016/08/the-six-cl … s-to-know/Same speculation as in the previous comment from Hxprof. No charges for corruption in either case because there was no proof. The same excuse you guys use about Russian collusion so you ought to accept this without question.
There are plenty of proof but a corrupted FBI chose not to pursue...
Yeah the ole "corrupted FBI" excuse! I'm surprised you didn't mention it was because of the mythical Deep State as the moron Rush tells you!
For what? He paid off whores with his own money?. That would be a tough charge to stick since millions in taxpayer money has been used to pay women to keep US congressmen free of scandal. Scandals that may have hurt them in an election. Yeah, good luck with that one. Paula Jones was paid tens of thousands by Clinton when he was president to keep him from a civil suit. What President Donald Trump has done hardly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors considering the political history of Presidents.
If it was such a tough charge to stick, why did Cohen go to jail already for it? Odd they would convict if it wasn't illegal. As soon as Trump is out of office, NY will charge him with his felony in the case where he was named a co-conspirator as Individual-1.
Well then, I say we have some Congressmen who used taxpayer money.
"On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases that need to also be charged and sentenced."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics … index.html
So, I say it's time New York file some charges against some US Congressmen. Put them all behind bars!Except using the money was not against the law. I agree with your point that taxpayer money should not be used in such cases of workplace harassment, but a law was created that allowed taxpayer money to be used in this manner.
But the instance you brought up was not a campaign issue and the felony Trump committed was specific to campaign finance laws, as was his foundation illegalities. Both were used during the campaign and not once he was elected. Big differences and not the same thing to the example you just raised. Just a classic whataboutism to distract from the laws Trump has violated.If you're okay with what Bill Clinton did...what President Donald Trump did was quite innocent in comparison. There is no law covering paying taxpayer money to women on behalf of Congressmen. It is just done. If there is such a law...I'd like to see it. Those payments on behalf of the Congressmen were done intentionally to influence their elections. With this logic, the Congressmen need to be brought up on charges of election finance fraud. So, whether President Donald Trump committed a crime is simply a matter of opinion.
Mike, you are absolutely right. This is a bit off topic but you make great point.
For those of you here who disagree with Trump, I ask you, which part of his speech last night do you disagree?
If you had the courtesy to watch his speech, which item he spoke of is false?
Where are the fact checkers?
Forget foa a moment it was Trump giving this speech.
If it was Clinton or Obama making the same pitch, what would be your reaction?
Finally, if a wall is not needed, what would you suggest to fix this impass?
If you think this is not an on going crisis, then none of what I said matters.
You are just clueless and we have a free country...Here is President Clinton...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=swtDFqaXy6Y
I always wonder why the Clinton Foundation is still open. If we are going to close down all of the alleged criminal foundations. Maybe it's because the state of New York is making too much money on taxes from them. That is my guess. $173 million from the Russians should throw up a few red flags. Excuse the pun.
“In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents — thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors — gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ … -evidence/
Since when is not paying those who protect us in the Department of Homeland Security a sound strategy to improve the security of the country? At the very least, a party concerned with the security of the nation would have let an individual bill to fund Homeland pass the House and Senate.
They are going to be paid once the government starts up, including backpay. This is a drastic measure but necessary. Everytime the GOP gave in on budget items, they loose. Without any pressure, why would Congress do any different? They are spending money out of our pockets, not theirs. The same reason the debt ceiling has been raised everytime it was crossed... the same reason our deficits and debt is at 22 trillion...
You want any more examples...I loved the democratic remarks after Trump's speech; he should set aside his demand, deal with the needs of the country, and then they would "discuss" the border wall.
Do they consider him a literal idiot, with an IQ of 40? Every communication they have provided has said "No money for a wall, not a single penny, not now, not ever" - what person could think they were sincere about talking about it after Trump removed any pressure to do so?
Politics - such a wonderful, open method of compromise and solutions!
I'm simply saying that if your party is truly serious about national security, Homeland should have been allowed to be funded. If the rest needed shutting down to negotiate for a wall, so be it.
In that case I agree with you. The decision of who is a necessary employee and who is not is rather arbitray...
I would also make sure Congress and President and VP does not get paid while the government is shut down.Excellent, I know we can find some common ground. Let’s hope our government can do the same.
Deleted
Today Limbaugh described Nancy as appearing as funeral directors after Trump's "speech" last night. Scroo him!!
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0500 million dollars has been approved by both Republicans and Democrats to build a border wall. Looks like walls are useful after all.
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2 … ordanians/ Point to ponder. NY City just announced it will invest 100 million per year to cover health costs for the poor. It is estimated the program will help 600 thousand people. It is also estimated 300 thousand of those people who will benefit are undocumented immigrants.
Although I think everyone should have a right to basic life saving coverage I also believe the undocumented will take away services from legal citizens in need when the well runs dry each year. That amount won't service the full need in the city.
It's funny how we have no problem understanding legal entry makes sense at airports and ports of entry for sea traffic, but some can't understand that the concept should apply to foot traffic as well.- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
Wondering why Trump didn't get funding for his stupid wall when he had Republican majorities in the House and Senate?
Wondering why it wasn't a crisis then, but is a crisis now?
Wondering why those who support Trump and his stupid wall don't view his failure to get funding when Republicans controlled both houses as gross incompetence on the part of the self-proclaimed master deal maker?
Wondering why anyone would consider this shutdown to be anything other than a stunt given the above questions? Wondering why some ignore the reality of politics. Wondering why some use those self imposed blinders to pose unrealistic questions.
Is it really "unrealistic" to wonder why Trump didn't get his stupid wall when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? And to further wonder why he waited until Dems were in power to have a showdown over it? A showdown that harms people?
Really?It is the same reason Barack Obama did not solve this problem with DACA when he had the majority of both Houses of Congress. He decided to issue an executive order that was unConstitutional to deal with DACA in his last year in office.
In both cases, It was Congress, that failed to act...
The President was pushed into making this last stand by shutting down the government.
Here is what I predict will happen...just the way Congress like it.
Trump will give in and re-open the government with a promise that they will continue to negotiate the wall later...
It will be forgotten...
This had been their tactic in every case...
When the budget negotiations goes to the last minute, the President is force to raise the debt ceiling... else the government will shut down. The minute they raised the ceiling, they go right back and spend like there is no tomorrow on their pet projects.
My question is when will Congress do its job?
Like not spend more than we have, like having a budget on time and not wait till last minute, like writing bills to fix DACA, like fixing the immigration problem...
Some many bills...so few accomplishments...yet, the American people keep re-electing incumbents 90% of the time.Why didn't he take a stand when Republicans controlled both houses?
I don't know for sure but I think the GOP leadership of McConnell and Ryan did not want it but said they were working on it as a delay tactic.
I think Trump miscalculated thinking he could get it done after the mid term election.
Unfortunately, the GOP lost control of the House but remain control of the Senate.
Trump lost his slim majority and now has no choice...
My best guess.
My own feeling is Trump should just pass the bill on border security. Keep the language vague. This way, once passed, he could do whatever he wants and use the funds to build that wall.
In some ways, he could learn from the Democrats.
That is what they did with the ACA bill.
They forced this 2000 plus pages of legislation on us. No one read it and the wordings didn’t even matter. After it was signed into law, the proceeded to rewrite it as they went along...should I remind you how many waviers were granted and how many challenges to the Supreme court and the tortured way Roberts came up to say a penalty is a tax...
The bill wording matters not.
Why not pass a bill saying we want border security and leave it at that.
After it was signed, Trump can say....we tried everything else and they haven’t worked so lets build the wall...So, Trump didn't have enough Republican support to get funding for his stupid wall when he had Republican-controlled House and Senate, but now thinks he can strong-arm the Dems to vote for a wall.that the majority of Americans don't want?
Is he stupid?Please don’t make light of this. It is not a stupid wall. If you have a better idea please share it?
This problem is serious and ever growing.
These Republican leaders are dishonest. They are doing the bidding of their donors and not what people elected them wants.
I hope you see the difference.
Going back to the 2016, you will remember Trump was not their choice. They wanted some Washington insider to be the candidate.
After he was elected, by popular vote, they had no choice but to work with him.
The wall was not their choice because some of the donors wanted cheap labor and division among the people...it is how they maintain control...behind the scene.
I called out Paul Ryan on this in other forums. He gave interviews where he lied to the interviewer. He did this on the appeal of the ACA and he did this on funding the wall.
They give Republicans a bad name.
The people are still behind Trump. At some point, realistically, he cannot keep the government shut down. He will give in and it is unfortunate. The washington insiders got their way again, at the expenses and injury to the American people. How many times can we kick the can down the road?
Sad.Dear All,
I know I said this before but I do mean it this time. I think we have beaten this issue to death.
If people are not convinced by now, they never will.
No amount of evidence will suffice.
I wish you all well.
Even though I started this forum topic,
I am no longer following this forum.
Happy New Year to All. Hope 2019 is a better year than 2018.
Peace be with you.You still haven't answered my question. Why didn't Trump take a stand on this when he had a Repubican-controlled House and Senate? Why did he wait until Dems were in power? Wouldn't he have a much greater chance of persuading a Republican majority to support the wall?
Sorry, Jack, but the wall, as presented by Trump, IS stupid. It's been stupid from the beginning. Everybody with a lick of common sense knows it was just a dumb campaign promise that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The only reason Trump is shutting down the government is because his fragile ego couldn't handle the Rush/Ann/Sean bombardment of criticism. Trump is hurting people because he's a delicate baby who can't withstand the heat every leader must endure. Nobody believes this stupid wall will be built except his gullible followers.
That is the reality.It MUST be a "stupid" wall, for we all know that walls don't work. At least those of us that have no experience with a wall; those that have that experience (like Israel) disagree.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/07 … pHOy6I6nd4
How? Are you assuming that all Republicans support the president as they support each other?
That would be a very foolish assumption to make, particularly as we all KNOW the Republicans don't like him any more than the Democrats do.
Or you just asking questions that you know the answer to, in yet another effort to throw mud at a president that is trying very hard to give the country what it needs?Of course I am not assuming that. I am assuming that vastly more Republicans support a wall than do Democrats. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to take a stand when Republicans are in power since fewer would need to be swayed to his side?
It would be logical to put hundreds of thousands in a position of no paycheck until the last possible moment? Until every other possibility has been tried?
While that may make sense to a Trump hater that just wants to sling mud, it doesn't make any to the rest of us.Huh? So stage a shutdown when there is no chance of getting his stupid wall? I guess that makes sense to him and his followers.
And for at least the fourth or fifth time, I don't hate Trump. I pity him because he is a sad, lonely, mentally ill man who should not be In the position he is in.The "you just hate Trump" mantra seems to be the only excuse his fans can resort to these days, Pretty. Now that Manafort has been shown to have been dealing with the Russians the former mantra of "no proof of collusion by Mueller" has been replaced by the former.
It's still amazing to hear the many weak excuses for the cretin, though not as often these days for the former reason of his cronies being indicted.Truth be told, his enablers bother me more than he does. Chances are, they'll support another loon when this one's gone. We can get rid of Trump, but his supporters will still be voting.
And yet it seems to be the tactic preferred by congress any more when they can't have what they want. A shutdown is certainly nothing new; it has become the modus operandi in recent years.
I'm sorry - a person doesn't take every possible opportunity to throw dirt at someone they find sad, lonely, mentally ill, etc. They don't even call them childish names like "delicate baby". Only the haters do that.Oooh, I called him a "delicate baby." I am stating my opinion of his mental state, an opinion shared by many health care professionals. And before you start tossing rocks about that, I recall at least twice when you referred to a shooter as mentally ill and didn't reply when I called you on your hypocrisy. Some conditions are obvious to those with knowledge and Trump's is quite easily discerned by those who are willing to face reality.
So, you're saying Trump is like every other politician. Convenient, huh? It will stand until he does something utterly boorish, w hen he will then be excused as "not a politician."
I know the routine.
I'm just saying, it's weird. This is a crisis. If Republicans were going to pass a bill, they had a much better chance prior to November. I think now, by making a thing of it, they can blame Democrats. If they had tried and failed prior to November, it would have been all their fault.
That is a much more ignorant meme than you normally post, Onus! We do expect it though!
Personal attacks already? You gonna whine to the admin when I hurt your feelings?
I'm telling!!
Do your best, AA. You don't bother me with your silly memes. They only let people know the true extent of your biases anyway. You can't even figure out my biases, and you follow me around more than anyone.
I just wondered if you make these memes up yourself? I doubt it. It's probably simpler to take others ideas and post them like you thought them up yourself. Am I correct?
Are you afraid to answer?
Like you would ever put in the effort....
I'm sure you put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince other people to think like you, with all your vast keyboard skills and whatnot. But I've got better stuff to do than waste that much time with the meme generator.
So I suppose that's a no, you don't produce them yourself? Just take someone's work and post it? Easy peasy!
You can easily clear it up ya know. I really don't care though, if it makes you happy to post memes instead of your own views, then have at it.
Border Patrol union deletes 2012 anti-border wall web page that argued walls waste taxpayer money
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/11/borde … ed-ol.htmlAlso, see testimony from Anthony M. Reardon to the Committee on Homeland Security in March 2018:
"I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 25,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers . . .
. . . the border security issues of utmost concern to CBP OFO [Office of Field Operations] employees are the hiring and funding challenges that contribute to ports of entry being chronically understaffed . . .
. . . There is an existing vacancy rate of nearly 1,145 funded CBP Officers at the ports and, according to CBP’s analytic workload staffing model, an additional 2,516 CBP Officers and 731 Agriculture Specialists need to be funded and hired in order to meet 2018 staffing needs
. . . this adds up to a total CBP Officer staffing shortage of 3,645 today.
. . . frontline CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists at our nation’s ports of entry need relief, and yet the $33 billion funding proposal to improve border security provides none.
. . . To address the dire staffing situation at the Southwest land ports, as well as other OFO staffing shortages around the country, it is clearly in the nation’s economic and border security interest for at least $1.6 billion of the $33 billion funding proposal to be provided in up-front, no year appropriations to fund an increase in the number of CBP Officers"(1)
(1) https://www.nteu.org/legislative-action … urity-buck
Another caravan is building. 2000 strong already. Mexican social media isn't looking kindly on it, according to reports. It's expected to top 4000 as it moves forward.
It appears circumstances may cause Mexico to ponder solutions now that it isn't just an easy exit into the U.S.Why? Does the hoping for orderly, legal entry bother you?
Not at all. The constant fearmongering from the right does though. Remember the last time when it ended the day after the election?
To those with a limited attention span, I'm sure it seems that the immigration dilemma ended then.
Kathleen Parker made an interesting point in her editorial today. Mexicans can fly to Canada for about $300 and then enter from there quite easily.
That's cheap. I would think if they flew to Canada they'd just stay there.
She leans conservative. I think her point was that a wall won't do anything to stop illegal immigration. Those who want to get in, still have an easy way to do so that's not very expensive.
Most of these people don’t have $300, some are not literate, that is why they are crossing the borders taking risk of injury or death...
The wall will discourage these peope from attempting to cross...that is a humane thing.I think they generally pay coyotes much more than that. A quick Google search will confirm this.
How easy is it for them to obtain a passport...to travel to Canada? It sound easy until you actually try. The hard truth is, it is easier to cross our borders. That is why we have such a crisis...growing by the year...
Again, not growing by the year. Data does not support your fear mongering point of view.
What data?
Can you see with your eyes?
You are living in a dream world where all is perfect and we can all sit around singing kumbyya...
Just go to the borders,
Talk to people who live there,
Look around in your big cities of LA, NY,...
Read the stats on TB and Measles... and other diseases that we cured years ago and now making a come back?
Where is the CDC on this? Hiding under their desk.
You can close your eyes to these issues but it won’t go away...
On the contrary, your kids will feel the impact.
Jack, you are right. ALSO, Mexican citizens must obtain a Canadian visa before visiting. I have no fear of thousands of Hondurans and people from El Salvador flying to Canada. Canadian immigration would stand for it. I've been to Canada many times.
I'm not an immigration expert. I don't even play one on TV or anything. I just know chicken little would feel right at home with this hysteria.
Because illegal immigrants are coming to murder us, right? Murderers and rapists.
Except again, the facts. As a population illegals immigrants commit violent crimes at a rate less than our citizen population. So again, facts, if you actually wanted to reduce crime, based on the data, you would let in more illegal immigrants.Yeah, they're coming for our children. As I've said before, I'd trade many of our drug addicted, thieving neighbors over many of these immigrants. Let's trade..I joke.
It's highly ironic. Trump blew his dog whistle about murderers and rapists, which is a legit concern. Any criminal who crosses the border and commits a crime, particularly a violent one, is one less person who should ever have come here. However, statistically, if he wants to reduce violent crime, he should let in more illegals.
But the fear mongering by those of your ilk continues unabated.
There is no fear mongering. The only hypocrisy is with the Democratic party...let’s see what happens when the new caravan comes to the border...
If they come over, guess what, it will just invite more caravans...
How many immigrants will you take in?And if there's no wild murder sprees or crazed gangs in evidence when and if they arrive, will you admit you're wrong, Jack? Of course not!
What level does it rise to real danger to you?
By the time a gang shows up, it is too late my friend.
When Kate Steinle going out for a walk with her father is shot dead by an undocumented immigrant shooting at seals...I say that is a crisis.
She could have easily be my daughter.
So senseless...so preventable.
Let me know what level would your antenna rise?This young woman's family asked the Trumps and Fox and Friends to stop using their daughter's tragic death for their political purposes.
The CDC is not currently being paid. Did you know today Nancy Pelosi wanted to go to Afghanistan, and Trump denied her use of a military plane to get there? He told her to fly commercial. The idiot doesn't realize that she is 3rd in line of succession, as Speaker of the House. If something unfortunate should happen to both him and Pence, she's the President.She is not allowed to fly commercial. Talk about immaturity.
But Melania is safe on Air Force One for her much needed vacation to Mar-lago she takes each week. She's the most useless First Lady we've had in recent times. And Pelosi is being ridiculed for vacationing in Hawaii during her break. Apparently, some people don't yet know it's a STATE. Or are trying to make it seem not so since Obama was born there.Very venegeful and vindictive, behaving like a screaming toddler in a high chair.
The Presidential timber here is more like particle board....
Having lived in Hawaii, that sense of "foreigness relative to the " lower 48" has always been in the air. I wonder if these same people feel the same about Alaska?
This pretty much explains the people opposing the border wall.
How simple you make things look, Mike. You learn this from Onus?
Are you assuming this explains all people opposing the border wall? Or is it another "alternative fact" your party favors? Inquiring minds and all that...People oppose the wall for many reasons but the most damaging in my opinion is the hypocrisy of the left. They try to make this about a race issue when it is not.
They try to make this about the money when it is not. They waste much more money on programs that doesn’t work and yet they continue to fund it...
They claim this is immoral...
Where the immorality is keeping the status quo where undocumented are exploited and they are second class, and they attempt to come here and die in the process and put their own children at harm...that is immoral.So this is kind of hilarious. The facts, the data, show that illegal immigration has been declining, yet you and Mike are calling the left hypocrites? And then when this point is brought up to you, you simply deny that it's true. But we're hypocrites for not understanding facts? Up is down, right?
That said, I agree with your second point. Illegal immigrants are exploited for their cheap labor and deserve to be paid a fair wage. I completely agree. The businesses want this labor because they don't have to pay benefits or decent wages.
However, given that conservatives generally don't even support a minimum wage and would prefer to let the market determine what a minimum wage is, this is another specious argument from you, Jack. Conservatives support what the market will bear. If illegals come here and get paid 50 cents an hour, then that's just the market deciding what they're worth. Isn't that right, Jack?
I'll coin the phrase used toward me here. People of the ilk who can't hold a meaningful conversation on immigration reform without ignorant remarks implying anyone in favor of legal, orderly immigration somehow thinks immigration is tantamount to letting murderers loose, willy nilly, within our borders are irritating.
If you are saying that these people would willingly mount a tanta, then I think your sexual innuendo is uncalled for.
I got a good chuckle out of that one. If that wasn't a good joke then......say what??
Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one, but apparently you don't care for equal distribution.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
JACKCLEE:
"There is no fear mongering. "
JACCLEE, later in same thread:
"Just go to the borders,
Talk to people who live there,
Look around in your big cities of LA, NY,...
Read the stats on TB and Measles... and other diseases that we cured years ago and now making a come back?
Where is the CDC on this? Hiding under their desk. "
And again:
"By the time a gang shows up, it is too late my friend.
When Kate Steinle going out for a walk with her father is shot dead by an undocumented immigrant shooting at seals...I say that is a crisis.
She could have easily be my daughter.
So senseless...so preventable."I couldn't believe Jack actually asked me for the data I presented earlier in this thread that proved undocumented immigrants had declined 13% in total number since 2007. I kind of worry he might have dementia or he does just ignore data points that don't fit into his xenophobic narrative. Either way, he is one scared, sad human being.
He's like the vast majority of retired folk who make up the people having discussions here - scared of everything.
I'm sorry but this is wrong. Any student of history can tell you Obama got Obama care, Roosevelt got Social Security, Lyndon Johnson got Medicare by telling huge blatant lies to the American public to sell these programs. Oh, it takes too much time, but Roosevelt only intended Social Security for a very short time and a very small amount of money to be taken from workers for it. I could go on, but, someone didn't do their research on history. Obama completely lied to the American public. Sorry, it's a fact. I like "Source Uncertain attributed online to Dan Rather...who has his a unique set of ethical blunders.
Since when does the American public vote on laws? Let us know when you stop studying history and begin studying how government works.
Oh, see the American public votes for politicians who make the laws and pass them. So, they actually work FOR the American public. Now, if they want to remain elected officials they have to have the support of their voters on key issues. Yeah, that is pretty much how our government works. It is called a representative republic.
So, Mike, Trump and Reagan do not and did not tell lies to promote their reactionary agendas?
Progressives lie, while rightwingers are truthful? I will never believe that.
Obviously for all these programs and former Presidents that you hold in derision, there were public mandates expressed by the voters through their representatives or none of the programs would have seen the light of day, Right?Credence, you should have learned by now...
ALL POLITICIANS LIE...But the nature of the lies and liars are being qualified by certain forum participants along ideological and political lines.
What does that mean? Some lies are better than other lies?
Some politicians are better liars than others?
My point is lying comes with the job of being a politician.
It is what they actually do in office that matters... not what they say they will or will not do. agree?Yep, Trump has told over 8,000 lies so far in his first two years in office. Yes, that's typical for a POTUS, right Jack?
So who is counting? Only TDS affected.
So did you also count how many good deed he has done while POTUS?
Not likely...
No, both your words and your actions matter. Truthfulness should be a goal if not a reality or attainable.
Trump lies are OK as long as he performs in office in the way that you prefer? Can I make the same case for my side of the political divide?Sure, it happened under Clinton and Obama. The difference is the media was on their side and they are against Bush, McCain, Romney and Trump...
As simple as that...So why do you conservatives always think that the media is against you?
Could it be that most Americans are against you as well and the media is a reflection of that? What do you think you are going to see in the mirror outside of your reflection?No, because the media even admit it. They are clearly biased and they use to hide it but ever since 2000, they readily admit it.
You question shows how out of touch you are with the real world.
You ask why do I think...the media is biased against conservatives..
You should ask why you think the media is not biased?
When all the evidence points to their bias.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo … 182891bece
There are many other stories...
It is right under your nose and you refuse to believe it.
What can I say?I did not say that there is not liberal bias in the press, I wanted to know why.
The graph you provide is a fair one, yes, the left side of the ledger is a bit heavy, but not overwhelmingly so.
Would the rightwing only be satisfied if there were no left oriented publications or reporting?
There still remain plenty of advocates on both sides of the political spectrum, so the idea that the media is hijacked by the left seems a bit draconianCredence, most polls taken have shown our country is mostly conservative, 40%, Liberal 30% and moderate 30%. Yet, the news room of main street media is 90% liberal and 10% conservative.
On our colllege campuses, Liberal professors dominate by 85% to 15%.
In hollywood, the celebrities are 90% liberal...and most conservatives say nothing for fear of loosing their chance to work...
This is the reality and you are blind if you don’t see it or admit it.
Why? Why? Why?
By the way, you are not seeing the chart correctly.
If you look at who the main stream media companies are, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN... they all lean left. Only one on the right and that is Fox.so, Jack it must be the moderates and liberals getting together to defeat the conservatives in America? Otherwise how do we explain any successful Democratic candidacy anywhere? You seem to always be pointing to some sort of Leftwing conspiracy, are you one of those that blame Soros for hijacking mainstream American thought?
Your man Trump only won because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, not a landslide. This country is politically divided and there are more left leaning people than your statistics seem to suggest.
The people that own these major media outlets, you would think would support the Corporate and Aristocratic classes to who you expect they would give their allegiance.
Why the stand against Conservative objectives and values, by powerful men and institutions? They would have every reason to support the status quo, making sure their wealth and power as those like them remain undisturbed.
Creative thinking and acceptance of new ideas is not a "conservative" value. So in creative environments like the standard university or on Hollywood and Vine, who wants old and staid? So, who wants the old and sclerotic? Clinging to the past and a status quo that is not working does not appeal to many of us. So maybe the people that you do not recognize embrace the alternatives to ''stick in the mud' ideals.
The people are speaking, it is not some sort of conspiracy and it is coming to a town near you as we speak. It will be a matter of time when we will engulf the nation in blue and conservativism as it is currently defined will need a makeover.I don’t think it is a conspiracy but it is orchrstrated by design. That is following the Alensky model... and destroying traditional values from within...using the court... and removing religion from the public square and taking over the public education system and the unions.
" . . . most polls taken have shown our country is mostly conservative, 40%, Liberal 30% and moderate 30%"
"Polls can be manipulated depending how the question is phrased."
(jackclee lm, 2 weeks ago)
(1) https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4053611Touche...but do you deny what I said?
Polls are not the only indicators...
There are other ways to determine the thinking of public sentiment.
What people buy, do they atten church, what books they read...
The silent majority is the conservatives I am talking about.
Don, I am impressed that you are paying attention.
By the way, not all polls are biased or wrong, just some polls.
It depends on who is running it and for what purpose.
The only sure poll is the election."The only sure poll is the election."
Which is the reason the Dems took the House, Jack.Yes, but the Senate remain in GOP majority and increased a few seats...
What does that tell you?Not as much as the fact that the House "flipped" as a result of Nov, 2018. This dilutes the power of Republicans in Congress, what does that tell you?
It tells me the public like a divided government. Too much power focused in one party or the other is not ideal.
That not a whole lot has changed; Congress nearly always "flips" at the two year mark. Did you find it strange or meaningful that history repeated itself?
No, but it does say that the "Mandate" for Trump and his proposals is fickle. For Trump to prevai, he would have to tame cats, or get water to run uphill. He is turning out to be no more than the traditional politician, with any and all the frailties and vulnerability of any politician. No "above the fray" superman, here
Sounds very much like what could be said of Obama's reign, doesn't it, at about the same point in time? And low and behold he created the biggest boondoggle and spending plan in the history of the world with ObamaCare. Plus, of course, illegally gave amnesty, of a sort, to millions of illegal aliens.
Call the Obama era proposals what you will, but you are right in saying the circumstances are similar between what occurred in 2010 and 2018. Now, let us see how well Mr. Trump adapts to the "new reality".
Looks like he's doing just what Obama did: shut down the govt. until he gets some kind of action from Congress. Personally, I find it incredibly sad that our government uses us as pawns in it's political power plays, but at the same time we are the people that keep electing the same kind of people to "serve" - perhaps we deserve masters on the Hill rather than servants.
When has it ever been different? For me, Trump is the wrong kind of "different kind of people".
Congress is a country club filled with fabulously wealthy people, who by their very definition, can be nothing else but oblivious to the needs of the masses of citizens they represent.
This is what I understand as the "same kind of people".So in that case, why don’t we vote all of them out and start over?
That is why I support term limits.Well, that looking for a "different kind" was always a gamble; not only does "different" not mean "better", but there was never a guarantee that it would actually BE different.
At the same time, a different kind of president cannot repair the damage decades of neglect has done, not without the aid of Congress. Last I heard the Democratic controlled House has once more refused any kind of negotiation at all: it's once again "My way or no way at all". Business as usual, then, for Congress and no President can break that at will.
Trump has made some great strides in what he could actually do, but he does not operate in a vacuum. He may be the best negotiator in the world (according to him) but he cannot negotiate with people that refuse to even discuss.
Right now the Dem's are in much the same position as Kim is in North Korea. Both are absolutely refusing any form of compromise and in both cases the talks have broken down into punitive action, with the people, not the leaders, paying the price.'He may be the best negotiator in the world (according to him) ...'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8
"The only sure poll is the election"
So what are these election results saying Jack?
"Democrats won House popular vote by largest midterm margin since Watergate"(1)
"It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote"(2)(3)
(1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi … te-n938996
(2) https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/21/poli … index.html
(3) https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/presidentTrue, unfortunately for Democrats, we have an electoral system.
You suggested election results are the only "pure" way of determining people's political views.
When I pointed out more people voted for Clinton and Democrats at the last two major elections, you mentioned the electoral college.
So just to clarify, when you say the only "pure" poll is an election, what you really mean to say is:
The only pure poll is an election [that uses the electoral college system, because based on popular vote Trump and Republicans were less popular than Clinton and Democrats at the last two elections, which is the opposite of the point I want to make].
Would that be more accurate Jack?
Gotta love the spin here. Democrats received 48% of the votes vs 46% Republican and the terminology is "swamped".
But the Republicans won electoral votes (the only measure that counts) by a margin of 57% vs 43% and it is a "squeaker".This election was effectively decided by 107,000 people in the three states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump won the popular vote there by that combined amount. That amounts to 0.09 percent of all votes cast in this election.
So, what is your point?
The election of Bush vs. Gore was even closer, a few thousand votes in Fl.
Remember the hanging chads?My point is that a 0.09 percent difference in having Clinton become elected can be qualified as a squeaker. Or, that we can add another instance of fact-based denial to some people's resumes.
Not if you go by the electoral count, which is what matters...
Like I said, fact-based denial. Thank you for proving my point yet again.
If you want to determine the presidency, the electoral college result matters.
If you want to determine the popularity of a candidate or party with ordinary voters nationwide, then obviously the popular vote matters.
You chose to use elections as a measure of Trump's and Republican's popularity among ordinary voters nationwide. The popular vote is most relevant to that measure.
The general and midterm elections indicate Trump was less popular than Clinton with ordinary voters nationwide in 2016, and Republicans were less popular than Democrats with ordinary voters nationwide in 2018.
So using the measure you have chosen, Trump/Republicans are less popular than Democrats.This is not a popularity contest. Our founders knew that better than some people today. They have the wisdom to know that sometimes, our leaders needs to do the tough things for the betterment of our country and not please the crowds.
Just for an extreme case,
What if someone promises to give everyone free money...he would be the most popular candidate...but we all know he would be a snake oil salesman...right?Why are you bringing up the Trump tax cut? It's not going to help your cause.
Is this a joke?
The tax cut is giving back peoples money that was taken away in the first place. Unlike entitlement programs like SNAP and others which are freebies.
You see the difference? I guess not...ideolog cannot be convinced of anything. That is the very definition of an ideolog.
Correct, determining the presidency is not a popularity contest.
But that is not what we are trying to determine.
You said the election is a way ". . . to determine the thinking of public sentiment". That is the point I am responding to.
Determining popular opinion (public sentiment as you call it) literally is a popularity contest. Knowing which opinion is held by most people across the country, means counting how many ordinary people voted for each candidate or party nationwide.
Again, based on that measure, in 2016 "public sentiment" was less in favor of Trump and more in favor of Clinton. By the same measure, in 2018 "public sentiment" was less in favor of Democrats than Republicans.
I'm not sure of the original point you were trying to make, or why you were trying to make it, but if it relates to the popularity of Trump/Republicans/conservatism relative to the popularity of Clinton/Democrats/liberalism, then the argument you have used indicates the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting.If you use Obama’s logic, he said 50% of the people who could vote didn’t vote.
Therefore, it is not the will of rhe people...
Just trying to inject some humor and demostrate hypocrisy...
The rule is, even when you win in the polls, you lose - if you are a republican...HahaBreaking news...
Trump just announced the end to the shut down. Till Feb. 15...So he shut down the government for 35 days to get....wait for it...nothing.
Ding ding...I sincerely think that he thought he was getting protection from Mueller.
Yes, but it demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Democrats for all to see.
They rather shut down the government over $5 billion, than protect our borders...protecting undocumented immigrants over American people.
My prediction is in 3 weeks, nothing will have changed and Trump will go ahead with the emergency declaration and move ahead with the wall with or without Democrats....Straight out lie there Jack. In 2013, a bipartisan bill created by the gang of 8 was passed in the senate that both provided barriers and a pathway to citizenship for those here already. It passed 68-32 with every single Democratic Senator voting in favor of it. It went to the House where the Republican leadership refused to bring it to the floor for a vote.
That is an example of both sides working together and getting something to appease their voters. Give me $5.7 billion for a wall and you can have nothing is not bipartisanship, it's dictatorship.
In 3 weeks, nothing will have changed, he will try and declare a national emergency, get sued, and the courts will rule against him as they so often do when he tries to circumvent the Constitution.He did offer a compromise with DACA but Nancy said no. So much for negotiation with good faith...
He offered nothing since the Supreme Court ruled in DACA's favor. And since he flip-flops more than a fish out of water, his promise to do something in the future is baseless, at best. His is not a man whose word you can trust, everyone knows that. So his 'compromise' as you call it was, in Trump terms, a nothing hamberder.
Daca is unconstitutional...as currently instituted by President Obama. Read your Constitution my friend.
And there you go in not using any facts in making a statement. It sure does get tiresome correcting all the false things you say:
"There has been no court decision holding that DACA itself is unconstitutional," Anil Kalhan, an associate professor of law at Drexel University.
A lawsuit to challenge the 2012 DACA was dismissed for lack of standing, and that decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Kalhan said. "So there was never any adjudication on the merits," he said.
"To my knowledge, no court has ruled DACA 2012 as unconstitutional and the one to even reach the court was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds," concurred Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a law professor and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Pennsylvania State University.You know who said it was unConstitutional, no other than your blessed Barack Obama, a Constitutional professor. Before he issued the executive over...go look it up. It is in black and white.
This goes to show how far our courts have deteriorated. The liberal activist judges have no issue about this. It should be one of those slam dunk case. 9-0.I did, and you just lied again. This from your vaunted Heritage Foundation.
Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."
He never said anything in reference specifically to the DACA policy. But nice try. At this rate, if you keep up the lies, your conservative brethren may just elect you president.And yet, just two years later he did just that when he implemented DACA. He says it is not possible (presumably, from his comments, because it is unconstitutional) and then proceeds to do it anyway.
He said it would be unconstitutional for him to bypass Congress and make laws by himself. Is DACA a law? Hence what he was referring to was him making laws on his own. But the right wing media takes him out of context, much the way Hillary referred to open boards while discussing international trade, and you idiots eat it up. Please, for the love of God, fact check your media sources once in a while.
I suppose you are right - he made no laws and that IS what he spoke of.
At the same time he instructed enforcement NOT to enforce the law. Is there actually that much difference between that and changing existing law? When he had the power to end enforcement of laws he didn't like?
As president, his task and duty is not to make law, change law or even judge which laws he likes and enforce only those. That takes the full congress, at least in theory, to actually change those laws. Yet the end result was exactly the same as if they had been changed - they are not enforced (for a select group of people).The discussion was about the constitutionality of DACA. So my original point that it has not been deemed unconstitutional stands. And I believe I've proven that he was taken out of context when Jack tried to quote him, falsely, as usual.
Considering he deported more people than any other president in history and decreased the overall undocumented population by 13% while targeting criminals, getting bent out of shape by his being more lenient on the innocent children brought here by others seems rather misguided.It has not been proven unconstitutional, no. Neither has it been tested, so that leaves it up to the individual to determine if it is. Personally, I find that the President may not refuse to follow the law, or order others to do so. It is beyond his authority.
What I believe should be done with the DACA kids - those "innocent children brought her by others" - is irrelevant. The fact remains that he stepped far outside of his legal bounds, and far outside of his duty, when he decided to order law enforcement to ignore the law. Whether you think those "children" (as much as 30 years old) are being treated humanely and correct does not change that simple fact. Our President does not have that kind of power according to the constitution - it reserves the right to make laws, and change them, to congress.
We do not want, nor can we accept, a President that chooses which laws he will enforce. Unless you wish to give that power to Trump as well? Enforce only those laws he likes, and change the ones he doesn't?You are absolutely correct. Obama has his worshippers worse than Trump. They will bow down to him and let him do what ever he wants and cheer him on even as he breaks our laws and hurt our republic and apologize for us going around the world on his apology tour.
DACA was not a law per se but it was a change of our existing immigration law. He knew very well it was unConstitutional but was bold enough to issue it anyway because he knew that the GOP will not lay a hand on him for fear of the race card.
Salon and BLM are high quality news sources?
Who made this?They are comparable to Brietbart or WMD, how reliable are those?
You need to focus on the story and how accurate they are rather than the group that publish them...even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Just because a story came from a biased group, left or right, does not disquality the veracity of those story...
"But the nature of the lies and liars are being qualified by certain forum participants along ideological and political lines."
Yeah, surprised? This has been happening since there has been a United States. Read about getting public support for the Mexican-American war as well as the Spanish-American war. That is the reality of the beast known as politics. It is not something that will stop in my lifetime or yours.
"I have a very powerful alternative but I didn't want to use it at this time." LOL ..you the man Trump..what a fruit. He's going to jail or Russia..he realized that the shutdown wasn't stopping Mueller and he opened it that day..at least temporarily. I just told someone right after Stone busted that Trump would open the govt.
I just told someone right after Stone busted that Trump would open the govt.
Yes. "Open press event". He needed a distraction.
Ann Coulter
Verified account
@AnnCoulter
Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.
Gloat all you want. Wait till your job or family is hurt by illegals...sad.
Another cute meme attempting to buttress Trump's base...and it apparently worked on those reposting it
Well hells bells, looks like I have found another hole to fall into. I just picked your comment to jump into because we're buds Randy.
I was unaware of this until I checked out the details of the meme.
It appears to be true. So, since Democrats have supported this type of border security on our southern border in pre-Trump times, and they support it for Jordan now, if this concept is what Pres. Trump's "wall" boils down to, should Democrats support it now?
ps. Hopefully, we are past the "beautiful concrete wall" phase. Even Pres. Trump has backed off of that.
GANope GA, he said however they term it, he still considers it a wall and will call it that.....until he calls it something else.
I personally think that cutting off all welfare programs would be much more cost effective way to deter illegal immigration. But showcasing the glaring hypocrisy of liberals who are more than willing to build walls in other countries is a delightful side benefit.
We've decided that walls are now racist...
You seem to be forgetting the other compromises that were in the 2013 immigration reform bill. And you also seem to be forgetting to mention who scuttled that bill, thus preventing said 350 miles of fencing to be erected. That would have been John Boehner of the GOP. So, if you're going to point a finger at why there hasn't been more barriers erected, how about acknowledging all who are to blame.
As for your other comment about who paid for the Jordan fencing. Which party had control of Congress when funding was approved? Isn't it the majority party that has the most say in deciding funding decisions. Seems really simple to just blame Democrats for everything though, regardless of the facts.It was both sides that were in favor of the Jordan wall. You people can't seem to figure out that an organized group full of greedy, evil, politicians are in both parties working together to further their own agenda. The rest is just political theater.
As I said the most effective way to deter illegal immigration is to cut all welfare programs. But then politicians won't be able to show us how benevolent they are by spending all of our money on things that don't work.Onusonus, SMART man. Couldn't agree w/you more. Democrats & Republicans are IN BED together...……...result: shafting the American people. What is needed is a grassroots political movement that serves the American people instead of the politicians. Politicians, no matter if they are Democratic or Republican, serve THEMSELVES, never their constituents. Politics is show business...….
It's fencing, backed up with technology and personnel. Ground sensors and surveillance towers that can detect movement up to five miles on either side of the fence. Supported by the military because of the war happening in Syria.
Who is winning the war in Mexico currently? Is it ISIS or Russia? I forget.
Trump Twitter:
Jan 31 Lets just call them WALLS from now on and stop playing political games! A WALL is a WALL!
Jan 31 Large sections of WALL have already been built with much more either under construction or ready to go. Renovation of existing WALLS is also a very big part of the plan to finally, after many decades, properly Secure Our Border. The Wall is getting done one way or the other!
"“Is there a place where enhanced fencing, Normandy fencing would work? Let them have that discussion,” Pelosi said. “If the president wants to call that a wall, he can call it a wall.”"
It all seems a bunch of hogwash as the old folks say. With the king of hogwash at the helm.
Related Discussions
- 196
Stop Hiding Behind Veterans To Prop Up Your Racist Arguments
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 10 years ago
I have seen a lot of posts made of late against the so-called illegal immigrants from south of the border. I have also heard a lot of smack about how we should be helping our "wonderful veterans" instead. Really?Hear Ye! Hear Ye! I am one of those wonderful veterans. (1974-1981) I am a...
- 26
Immigration Reform:
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/ How about it?Tearing down the wall, would be a better solution?
- 35
Do you think Donald Trump's record on Immigration is Good?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Here is part of what Donald Trump has accomplished on immigration. Trump supported Bolton in a cussing and shouting match with Chief of Staff Kelly where Trump and Bolton think DHS was TOO SOFT on immigration.* Effectively banned Muslims from entering America* Effectively banned refugees from...
- 271
Will the Trump Wall keep us safe?
by Lela Cargill 5 years ago
Explain how Trump's Wall will be different from the Berlin Wall or the Wall in Israel. How will it "keep us safe"?
- 92
What constitutes a crisis?
by John R Wilsdon 5 years ago
We frequently hear Democrats say that there is no crisis on the border. They cite the fact the illegal crossings are down. October 1 through the third week of November, illegal immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala, land El Salvador numbered 25,000 including 15 Syrians. "In FY18, a total of...
- 94
Can our country survive when 30% of Americans is against our President
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is a serious question. Can any country survive when almost 1/3 of our population is against the President and everything he try to do?From Supreme Court nominiations to trade deals to foreign policy and immigration and tax reform...It undermines our republic and how we are to be governed.So...