Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[hail2skins]

1 hour ago, Force1958 said:

The numbers crossing into our country illegally is falling, that's awesome, but they're still getting in, that's bad.  The wall will "help" to further reduce those numbers, like the wall has done where it's been installed in the past.

I do want to point out this statement Force made to ask the group........is there anything about it that isn't true?  Were you against the barriers that were installed late in W's presidency and early in Obama's?  Won't adding more fencing help drive down the numbers attempting to cross (in places where it obviously makes sense, and where natural barriers won't do the trick)?  I guess my thing is that, like everything else, the $1.4 billion allocated by Congress in the bill is just for this year, right?  Why not just use that and then ask for more money to build more next fiscal year?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

One illegal being one too many and that justifying the wall and the billions of dollars it would cost is racist AF. 

 

Exactly, because they certainly don't care about that 1 minority killed by police brutality being too much or that one school child killed by a shooter etc. 

 

But one brown skin that comes in illegally? Whoa, look out. Unacceptable.

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, Force1958 said:

 

The numbers crossing into our country illegally is falling, that's awesome, but they're still getting in, that's bad.  The wall will "help" to further reduce those numbers, like the wall has done where it's been installed in the past.

 

 

And most of those people entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas.  So, to recap, the number of unauthorized immigrants is at a decade-long low. And the majority of them did NOT cross an open border, but came legally and then overstayed their visas. Which a "wall" would do nothing to correct.

 

http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/

 

Here's the stupidest fact in this whole debate:

 

The idea of a wall didn't come from any analysis of need. It was dreamed up by Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg as a mnemonic device to keep Trump focused on immigration during rallies and debates.    it grew as a concept only because of the reaction it got at rallies.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#4c93381c4415

 

 

 

 

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

I do want to point out this statement Force made to ask the group........is there anything about it that isn't true?  Were you against the barriers that were installed late in W's presidency and early in Obama's?  Won't adding more fencing help drive down the numbers attempting to cross (in places where it obviously makes sense, and where natural barriers won't do the trick)?  I guess my thing is that, like everything else, the $1.4 billion allocated by Congress in the bill is just for this year, right?  Why not just use that and then ask for more money to build more next fiscal year?

When looking at an action that is not an emergency in a situation where you see the numbers getting better it's important to weigh the risk as opposed to the benefit in addition to the cost.

 

Will fencing help drive down the numbers? Maybe? Will it do so in an effective way? If the problem is people overstaying their visas is it of any use whatsoever? There is a real argument as to whether the barriers serve any real purpose beyond PR, propaganda, and boogeymanism. Additionally, what problems will the fencing cause? We have begun to see reports of people losing their homes and livilihood due to eminent domain seizures. Is that worth the price? There apparently is going to be an environmental cost as well that impacts migration. Do we care about that?

 

To create a solution where there is no problem that creates additional problems at minimal benefit is not smart governance nor is it wise use of our tax dollars.

[hail2skins]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

When looking at an action that is not an emergency in a situation where you see the numbers getting better it's important to weigh the risk as opposed to the benefit in addition to the cost.

Burg, I agree that we are not looking at an emergency situation. It just seems to me that we have devolved into a political discourse where its become an all-or-nothing thing.......either we have to fund all the fencing right now through emergency measures, or not give one dime for any barriers. I think $1.4 billion for the time being....meaning at least this year.......is fine.  Again, was there this much outcry when the (I might be wrong) 700 miles of fencing we do have was built? I'm sure in the local areas there might have been, but not this huge national issue it has become.

[Bang]

i don't recall mobs of pissed off people screaming lies that Mexico would pay for 700 miles of fence.

Nothing worse than a liar except the ones who believe the lie even after having it thrown back in their faces.

I don't like a cult of personality. Leads to bad things.

 

if he had framed his desires and how he'd get it done in a truthful or even good faith manner,  I'd be much less angry. But the whole thing was complete bull****, and besides that, showed how weak he was when Mexico laughed in his face repeatedly.. and it failed to change a single mind among the thralls.

Since then he has threatened and attacked the lives of Americans rather than ever try anything in good faith at all. He creates fearmongering fantasies rather than try to work to any solutions. 
These definitely lean to all-or-nothing, and the right's propaganda has been convincing their people that their actual enemies are Americans... and so here we are.

 

~Bang

[Fergasun]

@hail2skins,
Bringing up the wall by itself is missing half of the issue -- the political half.

I think the 60-70 percent politicians know that the country needs comprehensive inmigration reform that recognizes dreamers/immigrants like them and legalizes them into the system. They also recognize that more "border security" will help. However, no political environment exists where Dems can talk "border security" on its own... just like no political environment exists where GOP can talk "legalization measures" because funnily enough those discussions become political attacks about, "weak on security", or "supports illegals" that skew the issue. Dems previous positions on the comprehensive bill were thrown back on then the entire time, out of its context.

We never talked about how much it sucks living in the shadows and how painful it is to legit contribute to a country only to see your people demonized and treated like unwanted garbage.

The longer the problem is not fixed conprehensively, the more dreamers and others like them are created.

It's ridiculous that both Presidents have had to take or will take extraordinarily dubious legal measures to do what mainstream Americans want.

If the Supreme Court terminates DACA, I believe the dreamers will be traded to make the Emergency Action wall legal... if Trump is still in office.

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Burg, I agree that we are not looking at an emergency situation. It just seems to me that we have devolved into a political discourse where its become an all-or-nothing thing.......

 

Thats really underselling whats happening here. Long story short The President is asking for money built on the premise of a lie. Thats the first thing. Dont discount it. Second they caved and offered him money and then he tried to basically end migration at the same time. THEN he used government workers as pawns. It devolved long before it became all or nothing.

 

15 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

 

either we have to fund all the fencing right now through emergency measures, or not give one dime for any barriers. I think $1.4 billion for the time being....meaning at least this year.......is fine.  Again, was there this much outcry when the (I might be wrong) 700 miles of fencing we do have was built? I'm sure in the local areas there might have been, but not this huge national issue it has become.

 

Previous fencing had some detractors im sure, but it was done through normal governmental proceedings. This has been anything but. If they people dont want it and it doesnt have votes then its not supposed to happen. Period. Thats how our system works. Its a huge national issue not because Trump wants a wall but because hes not above using racism, Nationalism and subversion of our normal governmental processes to do it. 

 

I can put that in even more laymen terms. Sex is great when you want it. But if you are Paul manafort right now you are gonna probably having much less of a good time than you used to. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

We never talked about how much it sucks living in the shadows and how painful it is to legit contribute to a country only to see your people demonized and treated like unwanted garbage.

 

Because it is irrelevant. They have no legal right to be here.

[PF Chang]

I don't know why but i am amazed that someone actually said we should spend billions on a wall if even one Mexican crosses the border illegally. We should build a 2,000 mile border wall if one person illegally crosses. Like if there was an actual dangerous migrant caravan crossing would President Force just nuke Mexico? 

 

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

I do want to point out this statement Force made to ask the group........is there anything about it that isn't true?  Were you against the barriers that were installed late in W's presidency and early in Obama's?  Won't adding more fencing help drive down the numbers attempting to cross (in places where it obviously makes sense, and where natural barriers won't do the trick)?  I guess my thing is that, like everything else, the $1.4 billion allocated by Congress in the bill is just for this year, right?  Why not just use that and then ask for more money to build more next fiscal year?

 

With all due respect your questions are irrelevant to the current issue. Those were bi-partisan bills that followed rule of law. So against it or not, it followed the law and how our government works. Further, asking if a wall would further reduce crossings seriously over simplifies a very complex issue. Sure, it may stop a few people. But all the data suggest the fencing that's up now along with a few very well placed additional pieces of fencing are appropriate. What is really needed are more border control. the clearing of land around some of the major water between the two countries, additional technology at legal border entries, and better ability to track those here on legal visas. All of those things the democrats have offered repeatedly. But 45 wants a big cement wall ocean to ocean that he said MX would pay for and now that Congress will not give it to him is willing to ignore our Constitution and our laws to get a monument in his name (or at leas that's what he says, more on that later.) Thai does not even discuss the difficulties is actually building such a wall. Eminent domain issues for starters. 

 

The better questions are: 

1. If this were an emergency, why did he not take the $25B offered in late 2017 that included a path to citizenship for people enrolled in DACA? (the answer is in the question but shows it's not an emergency)

2. It this were an emergency, why did he wait for the Democrats to take control of the House to make his stand and disrupt 100,000's of federal employees only to get less than he started out getting? 

3. If this were an emergency, why are 6+ states pulling out their National Guard, leaving only humanitarian support? 

 

I could go on but that's enough to make the point. 

 

The answer is he does not want a wall. He wants something to argue about and to rally his base. If he gets the wall that's one less thing he can use to anger his base with. He is taking a page out of Reagan's playbook. Remember every time Reagan was not getting what he wanted he trotted out Star Wars? Something he knew would never really happen (at least not the way he portrayed it). The difference is here, 45 has not figured out how to leverage the wall into other things because he is too busy being told what to do be radio and TV personalities over his own staff. 

 

He knows if he declares a State of Emergency, it will be tied up in court well past the 2020 election. So he will be able to blame others for his failure - just like he always does. Hopefully, outside his base, most others will see through the charade and vote him out in 2020. 

[No Excuses]

10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Because it is irrelevant. They have no legal right to be here.

 

Yet we rely on them to support our economic growth and basic sustenance. 

 

If a market didn’t exist for their skills and services, they wouldn’t be here. 

 

It’s straight up moral cowardice to ignore their rights on American soil by pointing to their undocumented status. You benefit from their work and existence every single day. 

[purbeast]

But guys...

 

I HAVE MANY STATS!!

[youngestson]

14 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

I don't know why but i am amazed that someone actually said we should spend billions on a wall if even one Mexican crosses the border illegally. We should build a 2,000 mile border wall if one person illegally crosses. Like if there was an actual dangerous migrant caravan crossing would President Force just nuke Mexico? 

 

 

Fairly sure we could find an Alex Jones support web page advocating just that option. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

37 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Yet we rely on them to support our economic growth and basic sustenance. 

 

Quote

If a market didn’t exist for their skills and services, they wouldn’t be here. 

 

A market exists for child labor in China and Cambodia... a demand exists for cheap labor everywhere... so what?

 

The people that benefit the most from undocumented workers are the super rich, who have what essentially amounts to slave labor.  

 

If those companies were forced to pay a fair wage to American workers, American workers would indeed work. 

 

good for depends on how you define good.

 

 

I find find it hard to reconcile the position that a minimum age is needed yet we should be more supportive of illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage.  It’s funny to hear people argue that stopping illegal immigration will make food more expensive but fail to use the same logic when discussing minimum wage.

 

The free market idea of letting low wage workers into the country does appeal to me, but only if it’s consistent and across the board, otherwise I think it’s bad for American middle class...

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

A market exists for child labor in China and Cambodia... a demand exists for cheap labor everywhere... so what?

 

The people that benefit the most from undocumented workers are the super rich, who have what essentially amounts to slave labor.  

 

If those companies were forced to pay a fair wage to American workers, American workers would indeed work. 

 

good for depends on how you define good.

 

 

I find find it hard to reconcile the position that a minimum age is needed yet we should be more supportive of illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage.  It’s funny to hear people argue that stopping illegal immigration will make food more expensive but fail to use the same logic when discussing minimum wage.

 

 

 

 

1. You benefit every single day from the labor of undocumented workers. It is not just the super rich. They are an integral part of the broader economy. 

 

2. No one is proposing that we keep bringing in undocumented immigrants, while paying them crap wages. Pretty much everyone on the left wants them to have a path to legal residency and access to civil rights all productive members of society deserve. 

 

3. They are not displacing native workers, nor is there any consensus between economists that they depress wages for legal residents or citizens. 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

Burg, I agree that we are not looking at an emergency situation. It just seems to me that we have devolved into a political discourse where its become an all-or-nothing thing.......either we have to fund all the fencing right now through emergency measures, or not give one dime for any barriers. I think $1.4 billion for the time being....meaning at least this year.......is fine.  Again, was there this much outcry when the (I might be wrong) 700 miles of fencing we do have was built? I'm sure in the local areas there might have been, but not this huge national issue it has become.

Others have taken this on so I don’t have to, but let me suggest this. The argument over the wall is not political. 

 

Polls show the American people don’t want it, neither liberals nor conservatives. 

 

The Democrats in Congress don’t want it. 

 

The vast majority of Republicans don’t want it. 

 

So, who does?

 

The President and probably his base though polls suggest that even a majority of the base doesn’t want to pay for the wall. 

 

The fight against the wall isn’t about politics. It’s about the will of the American people. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

1. You benefit every single day from the labor of undocumented workers. It is not just the super rich. They are an integral part of the broader economy. 

 

How?

 

Quote

 

2. No one is proposing that we keep bringing in undocumented immigrants, while paying them crap wages. Pretty much everyone on the left wants them to have a path to legal residency and the rights they deserve. 

 

So, open borders then? They have no legal right to be here...

 

Quote

3. They are not displacing native workers, nor is there any consensus between economists that they depress wages for legal residents or citizens. 

 

My argument isn’t that they depress wages for native workers. But that there would be more higher paying jobs for natives because of increased competition for labor. (At a cost of potential less jobs overall)

[PF Chang]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

How?

 

 

Prices would increase. 

[NoCalMike]

The entire Wall issue, is just a microcosm for Trump overall, he feels like he knows the solution to every problem.  It doesn't matter what the opposition says, nor what his own party says, nor what actual non-biased experts say. 

 

Trump knows everything, he has all the unique knowledge no one else can have, because he is........Donald Trump.   This has been the way he has thought about every issue. 

 

He is trying to get the Wall built because......he wants a Wall.  There doesn't need to be any other justification in his mind.  Just listen to the way he talks about himself on a daily basis,  every single thing he says or does includes "......in the history of the country"   The man is delusional. 

 

As much of a waste of resources the Wall will be, I shudder to think what happens when Trump starts getting "bright ideas" about pre-imminent war. 

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If those companies were forced to pay a fair wage to American workers, American workers would indeed work. 

 

While I often argue exactly the position you're expressing here, I will point out that getting rid of illegals will cause some of those jobs to be replaced by higher paid Americans. But some of them will be replaced by automation, and others will move overseas. 

 

[NoCalMike]

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

While I often argue exactly the position you're expressing here, I will point out that getting rid of illegals will cause some of those jobs to be replaced by higher paid Americans. But some of them will be replaced by automation, and others will move overseas. 

 

 

I would argue that since undocumented workers are already here & working, trying to make the American dream happen for their children. Why not give them a pathway to citizenship which will involve them paying taxes on their wages.  They will be contributing to our system.  

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

3. They are not displacing native workers, nor is there any consensus between economists that they depress wages for legal residents or citizens. 

 

Are you seriously attempting to argue that illegal employment does not displace any legal workers whatsoever?  Or to assert that there is no consensus that increasing the supply of a commodity (and a lower-priced supply at that) has any effect on the market price?  

[Forehead]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Arnt the coyotes mainly for getting through Mexico?

 

I'll answer this briefly:  No.

 

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

How?

 

 

Well here's an example.  Lots of people think of illegal immigration, and the first thing they think of is construction, or groups of guys near the convenience store "stealing" construction or moving jobs.

 

Two industries that illegal aliens gravitate to that you may not be aware of are picking fruits and vegetable from farms, and the dairy industry.  Many people who rail against illegal immigration would also be pissed off when the price of their milk, strawberries, oranges etc. double.  You can't have it both ways.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

While I often argue exactly the position you're expressing here, I will point out that getting rid of illegals will cause some of those jobs to be replaced by higher paid Americans. But some of them will be replaced by automation, and others will move overseas. 

 

 

Yes I agree.

8 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

Prices would increase. 

 

I agree, so why have a minimum wage for?

 

The same arguments for the economic argument for minimum wage should also apply to which ever advantage illegal immigration offers in the form of low wage workers (or artificially increasing the cost of labor by creating barriers to entry into the labor pool)