With or Without Congress

Jump to Last Post 1-1 of 1 discussions (43 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 8 months ago

    Donald Trump has said on many occasions that he will do X (build the wall) "with or without Congress"

    Question - why aren't Republicans going apocalyptic?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they recognize and accept that what we're doing now isn't working.  AND really do want to solve the problem if millions of illegal aliens entering and inhabiting our nation.

      I have my doubts, but it is one possible answer to your question.

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        But they went crazy anytime Obama used an EO, no matter how innocuous. Why not now?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Maybe because Obama used his to perform illegal actions.  Like ignore the laws on immigration.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Obama used his to perform illegal actions"

            Since when did you become concerned  about a POTUS performing legal actions?

          2. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            +10000000000000000000000

          3. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            BTW, exactly what was illegal? Didn't the very conservative SC just uphold DACA? 

            Didn't Trump take three tries to get his Muslim Ban to barely pass muster in a very conservative SC?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              What "Muslim Ban?"  To my knowledge Trump has never said, or instituted or tried to institute any Muslim ban?

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Then you don't listen to him much, do you.  Here is one quote - From a Dec 8, 2015 interview:

                "Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?

                Trump: That would be probably—they would say, “Are you Muslim?”

                Geist: And if they said, “Yes,” they would not be allowed in the country?

                Trump: That’s correct."

                Can't be any plainer than that!!

    2. profile image75
      Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      It may have to do with what it is that Trump is attempting to accomplish.  That said, I'm not keen on him doing it with a national emergency because the precedent will be set, and later some radical will try to do the same thing for an ILLEGIT purpose, and succeed.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        What makes Trump's national emergency a LEGIT purpose?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          As a part of his duty is to protect our borders, protect us from invasion, it is completely LEGIT.

          And no, cries that 600,000 entering the country every year is not an "invasion" are nothing but diversion from fact.

          1. profile image75
            Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            You beat me to it - precisely true.

          2. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Where the hell did you get such a ridiculous number. It hasn't been true since Bush. Obama cut that number down by an order of magnitude. 600,000, indeed.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Reports are that approximately 300,000 are caught, with another 200,000 successfully evading the law.  Here is one such claim, from 2017 (don't forget that the numbers are climbing): "There were 303,916 border apprehensions in the southwest U.S. during fiscal 2017"
              https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … tly-cross/

              I leave it to you to find your own estimate of how many are successful; be sure to look around and check several "estimates" from several different sources.

              (I do apologize for the typo: 600,000 should be 500,000.  For myself, can't see that it makes any difference, though.)

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Here is the first problem in how you interpreted your source.  It does say their were almost 400,000 apprehensions (not your word "caught") in FY 2018. But that sentence finishes with "many were people presenting themselves to border agents and seeking asylum."

                The article doesn't estimate what "many" is, so let's assume 40% since clearly it isn't a majority, which would be "most".  So that leaves 240,000.  The article doesn't say how many are caught trying to come through ports of entry where the vast majority of drugs and other contraband come through. 

                The border patrol estimates that their success rate of stopping people trying to get passed them is between 55 and 85%.  So, doing a bit of math, that means between 42,000 and 200,000 made it across. 

                Before Obama, it was above 2,000,000

                Depending on other non-official sources, that number can be higher or lower, so I will stick with the official CBP estimate.

                Now, what harm does that cause the U.S.?  Not much really. those illegals are, on average, more law abiding than natural born citizens and they are a net gain to the economy.  But, a few do kill Americans and non-Americans in America, but that are Americans kill at a much higher rate than illegals do.

                ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk.  Why not?

                1. profile image75
                  Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "The border patrol estimates that their success rate of stopping people trying to get passed them is between 55 and 85%.  So, doing a bit of math, that means between 42,000 and 200,000 made it across."

                  I don't entirely trust CBP statistics on the percentage of individuals caught while trying to cross - there's too much evidence that there's been some fudging over the years to try and bolster the apparent success rate.  Bottom line?  You can bet that the figures aren't ANYWHERE near 85%.

                  "ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk.  Why not?"

                  No idea why they didn't identify it as a security risk.  I've attached 2 sources to back my views, one of which is an article I wrote a few years ago.  From that article I recommend the sections Border Control Statistics and They're Already here and more are Coming for some very solid information regards the southern border.

                  https://cis.org/Bensman/House-Homeland- … filtration

                  https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Truth … r-Security

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Perhaps CBP counts only those crossings that they KNOW happened but never caught?  While pretending there weren't thousands more than they never knew happened?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    The thing his, HX, the other sources use methods other than actual's.  If they ALL came up lower or higher than the official figure, then that would make the CBP suspect.  But since the independent estimates listed in the article come up on both sides of the official estimate, that gives it credence.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Aw, c'mon Eso.  You can't possibly believe that 40% of the people coming into the country illegally are actually seeking asylum from persecution.  They have been trained to ask that, yes, but there is no chance they believe they will actually get it.  Personally I'd put the number at, max, 5%, although seeking asylum still does not give them the right to cross the border illegally.

                  "Now, what harm does that cause the U.S.?  Not much really."

                  Estimates run around $150B dollars each year, though I did see one "expert" economist put the figure at $500B.  If that isn't "harm" then certainly a measley 6B for a wall is nothing but chump change.  And, of course, it is not possible that illegal aliens residing here are "more law abiding than natural born citizens" - not when they commit a crime every day they are here, every day they work at a job or drive a car.

                  "ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk."

                  Probably for two reasons; 1) they are not concerned with economic, cultural or societal damage; only physical damage such as 911.  2) they value their jobs and in this political world it isn't wise to express such things.  What do YOU think - why did they not indicate that a cost of $150B per year is a "national security risk"?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "Aw, c'mon Eso.  You can't possibly believe that 40% of the people coming into the country illegally are actually seeking asylum from persecution.  " - Yep, I can.  This is today, not 10 years ago when what you think was truer.

                    A "few" is 5% to 10%.  "Several' would be 10 - 20%, "Most" is more than 50%. So that puts "many" between 20 and 50%.  I like my 40%.

                    Are you saying "Estimates run around $150B dollars each year," is the net annual loss for having illegals here? Try this:

                    = Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[18][19][20] (the numbers are source references)

                    - "A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." [8]

                    - "Studies generally conclude there is a small adverse impact on the wages of lower-skilled workers from immigration and some benefit for higher-skilled workers:"

                    - "Reuters reported that illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants in the country less than five years, generally are not eligible for Medicaid. However, they can get Medicaid coverage for health emergencies if they are in a category of people otherwise eligible, such as children, pregnant women, families with dependent children, elderly or disabled individuals, and meet other requirements. The cost of this emergency care was less than 1% of Medicaid costs in North Carolina from 2001–2004 and the majority was for childbirth and related complications.[33] USA Today reported that "Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. But they can't get non-emergency care unless they pay. They are ineligible for most other public benefits."[34]"

                    Donald Trump wants to declare a so-called national security emergency because of the so-called "invasion" of illegals across our Southern borders.  Since the intel chiefs didn't bring it up, they obviously don't agree with you and Trump.

                    BTW, even if the $150B/yr was true, it amounts to rounding error of the national GDP.

        2. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Nothing, Randy, nothing other than his ego which is as big as the sky and as black as night.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)