The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Have you even looked at illegal border crossings versus the current "wall"?

From about 2006-2010 we built 700 miles of "wall" (much of it is only cattle fence or vehicle blockades, but a portion of it, about half, is "real wall") and illegal border crossings fell from about 1.2 Million per year to about 400,000 per year. While some of those 400k go under or over the "wall", the vast majority go around the wall or through the large gaps. Coyote trails are littered with trash where these crossings occur. It's pretty compelling that incrementally increasing the "wall" would incrementally reduce illegal Southern border crossings, especially by plugging the currently popular "gaps".

Interior enforcement also affects illegal immigration... since Trump's election, it is obvious that enforcing the laws by finding and deporting illegals reduces the number who come in the first place. If the odds of getting here AND STAYING are reduced, fewer are willing to try to begin with.

Visa overstays are another, but separate problem. The biggest issue is that no one can say how many people, and who, have entered on Visas and remained after their Visa expired. (thanks Obama) This needs to be rectified. But, one positive about Visas is that if you violate immigration laws, you will not be allowed entry on Visa. Border crossers, on the other hand, try again and again and again.

To argue that you must have a plan for an impenetrable "moat" before building or enhancing a single mile of the wall is an intellectually false argument. It indicates that one is just fine with 400,000/year illegal border crossings (or, to the extreme, advocate open borders).

I disagree.

For some reason we had to go through all that other crap just to get to this point. Now we're getting down to brass tacks. No I haven't paid attention nor do I have much detail with regards to how big a problem boarder crossings are. But the fact you have such a poor messenger with such a poorly crafted and simple mind numbing message doesn't help matters one bit.

Now if these numbers are correct it appears that we have reduced the problem significantly already. So maybe such a complete wall might not be necessary. I'd still like to see a bit more along these lines as well as seriously discuss cost. Before someone makes a point that my list of questions will expand after the fact, I retain the right to do that if I think of anything along those lines later. Discussion means discussion.

 

[Birds Away]

Sorry about that... to me, an ignore is an extreme... the "nuclear option"... but I am seriously considering christening my own.

I've never used it. I am considering it for the first time.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have only used it a few times. Two members are currently off it because they have contributed more than they have argued. The other two have been banned. I currently have one on the list.

I never even ignored MrJ or Hornadyl.

 

[Dddrees]

It isn't an either/or. I don't believe 100% of what I get from any source nor do I disbelieve 100% from any one source. Although, WaPo, NYT and CNN are pushing me in that direction.

Sorry but so far I've seen very little come from the Administration where their story has been either a lie or where they have changed their story multiple times before admitting that an initial story from one of these sources are actually correct. The Administration has permanently damaged their credibility,

 

[ghitch75]

Sorry but so far I've seen very little come from the Administration where their story has been either a lie or where they have changed their story multiple times before admitting that an initial story from one of these sources are actually correct. The Administration has permanently damaged their credibility,

and the washington post and CNN are telling the truth with out a agenda?

 

[ghitch75]

Sessions unveiling leak crackdown on heels of transcript bombshell | Fox News

 

[Dddrees]

and the washington post and CNN are telling the truth with out a agenda?

Why didn't I see this coming?


Time and time again reports from these sources have shown to be more reliable than anything coming from the President and the Administration. Have these sources made mistakes? Yes Do they have an agenda? probably true.

Does Trump and the Administration have a crediblbility problem? Most definitely!! Whose responsible for that? Well that ain't the medias fault that's for D*** sure.

 

[Dddrees]

Sessions unveiling leak crackdown on heels of transcript bombshell | Fox News

Fox ain't got an agenda? One of the biggest cheerleaders Trump has. LOL


Quick look in the mirror.

 

[ghitch75]

Fox ain't got an agenda? One of the biggest cheerleaders Trump has. LOL


Quick look in the mirror.

really????......you need to look in your CNN and WP mirror too....

 

[Dddrees]

really????......you need to look in your CNN and WP mirror too....

Thats the point.

Stop preaching to the choir.


What's that about stones and glass houses?

 

[ghitch75]

Sessions unveiling leak crackdown on heels of transcript bombshell | Fox News

where was this preaching?????......just giving the news....

 

[Dddrees]

where was this preaching?????......just giving the news....

Me too.

 

[Jludo]

The most recent Joe Rogan podcast with Ben Shapiro is really, really good.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

For some reason we had to go through all that other crap just to get to this point. Now we're getting down to brass tacks. No I haven't paid attention nor do I have much detail with regards to how big a problem boarder crossings are. But the fact you have such a poor messenger with such a poorly crafted and simple mind numbing message doesn't help matters one bit.

Trump's policy statements have always been pretty clear if you choose to look at them. Point-in-fact, "Mexico will pay for the wall"....

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

So the question of "how can we build the wall until Mexico writes a check" is a false canard.

Now if these numbers are correct it appears that we have reduced the problem significantly already. So maybe such a complete wall might not be necessary. I'd still like to see a bit more along these lines as well as seriously discuss cost. Before someone makes a point that my list of questions will expand after the fact, I retain the right to do that if I think of anything along those lines later. Discussion means discussion.

Estimates in the media for "Trump's wall" are $21.6B or roughly $20M per mile including the cost of acquiring private land. By way of comparison, we spend about $100B per year on new roads each year.

The current line item from the House Appropriations committee is the $1.6 B Trump requested to build 60 miles of new wall in Texas and replace 16 miles of FENCE near San Diego. ANother comparison, the 2017 budget was $4.147T (that's Trillion). The appropriation for that section represents 0.04%.

But it all still hinges upon whether one thinks 400,000 (the entire population of Cleveland) illegals crossing every year is too high or too low?

 

[printcraft]

Sorry about that... to me, an ignore is an extreme... the "nuclear option"... but I am seriously considering christening my own.

I've never used it. I am considering it for the first time.

It makes these pages much more readable.

 

[Dddrees]

Trump's policy statements have always been pretty clear if you choose to look at them. Point-in-fact, "Mexico will pay for the wall"....



So the question of "how can we build the wall until Mexico writes a check" is a false canard.



Estimates in the media for "Trump's wall" are $21.6B or roughly $20M per mile including the cost of acquiring private land. By way of comparison, we spend about $100B per year on new roads each year.

The current line item from the House Appropriations committee is the $1.6 B Trump requested to build 60 miles of new wall in Texas and replace 16 miles of FENCE near San Diego. ANother comparison, the 2017 budget was $4.147T (that's Trillion). The appropriation for that section represents 0.04%.

But it all still hinges upon whether one thinks 400,000 (the entire population of Cleveland) illegals crossing every year is too high or too low?

See that's where I have to stop the discussion. Sorry but it's hard to have a good discussion when you overlook something that seems so obvious to me? Did you not see the phone transcript between Trump and the Mexican President. Doesn't seem to me that all the statements in the world can override the fact that he himself doesn't even believe it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

See that's where I have to stop the discussion. Sorry but it's hard to have a good discussion when you overlook something that seems so obvious to me? Did you not see the phone transcript between Trump and the Mexican President. Doesn't seem to me that all the statements in the world can override the fact that he himself doesn't even believe it.

And, still no answer on 400k too high or too low. I have a lot of patience to the point of it being a character flaw, but...

Congrats... I give up. #Ignore

 

[Dddrees]

And, still no answer on 400k too high or too low. I have a lot of patience to the point of it being a character flaw, but...

Congrats... I give up. #Ignore

LOL

 

[Dddrees]

LOL

Actually that was wrong and I should have taken time to do better.

The fact you can pick something I won't give into you on yet your unable to face the facts just amazes me. I am willing to discuss this, but I just simply can't get beyond the fact that you can't recognize that Trump doesn't even believe Mexico paying for the wall is plausible. He said as much.

This to me is just another thing like people claiming or believing that Trump doesn't lie.

If you can't see these to be the case how can I possibly take you seriously?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump's policy statements have always been pretty clear if you choose to look at them. Point-in-fact, "Mexico will pay for the wall"....

Have you not seen the transcript of the president's phone call with the Mexican president. It's pretty clear that the president doesn't expect Mexico to pay for the wall, unless "come out in a wash" has a different meaning than I'm used to seeing. I think it's time to drop this wall business and move on.