The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[T.Lex]

So here's a solution... The democrats give Trump the 5.7 billion on the condition that the other solutions (employer penalties, mandatory e-verify, stronger vetting, et al) get implemented. IF they're truly interested in meaningful reform beyond just "open up the borders and abolish ICE", that would be a win for them, right? Think that'll happen?

I wish something like that would happen - but its kinda too reasonable.

And the 3rd rail is the issue of illegals already here, who have carved out an otherwise law-abiding and productive life. The hard-right Republicans hate any whiff of pathway-to-citizenship. One of the few policy-level things where Trump and I align (I think) is that something needs to happen for them that is based on decency.

 

[nonobaddog]

The hard-right Republicans hate any whiff of pathway-to-citizenship.

That is just wrong. There has always been a LEGAL pathway to citizenship and always will be. No one is against that.

 

[BugI02]

I remember him saying that during the campaign, but has he tied the wall financing to these other issues? Not asking confrontationally, just asking because I haven't seen him mention it in the context of the shutdown or SOTU scheduling or flight plans.

And I certainly don't expect perfection on the immigration thing. (I don't think such a thing exists for that problem.) But the hype about the wall is about the wall, not about the wall as a part of a larger vision of immigration reform.

I find it ... instructive that a member who exhibits a quite encyclopedic memory for detail in some areas has so many memory gaps in others. Charity compels me to attribute a non-sinister causation - such as Trump says so many things it might be tough to keep up

I would direct your attention to the State of the Union speech, specifically the four pillars Trump stated were essential to comprehensive immigration reform that he could support

Outlined here: https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/four-pillars-the-trump-administration-immigration-plan

And here: https://www.firstpost.com/world/sta...ur-pillars-of-immigration-reform-4330325.html

I will remind those with, shall we say, MDD (Memory Deficit Disorder) that Trump also derailed (by threatening to veto) a 'bipartisan' immigration bill that was basically DACA for some nebulous promises to beef up border security, to be debated at some nebulous future time, in early 18 shortly after the SoU

Prior to these events, in 17, Trump is on record in favor of The RAISE Act, which also contains the gist of the four pillars and also explicitly links border security (not just the wall) to reforms favored by the Democrats

Outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act

And here: https://www.apnews.com/863569966ee443e7b148ff8e7fd03641
Trump links border wall, green-card overhaul to DACA


In summation, it seems obvious to me that the 'hype' about the wall is actually about much more than the wall, it is about taking the first step on the road to a comprehensive re-tooling of the flawed US immigration system. The President has articulated a plan to address what he sees as the core problems with our system, and has done so consistently over a considerable period of time. Indeed he campaigned on the border security issue, so he was in favor of change long before he was elected. I think the desire of some to just see the desire for immigration reform, of which the wall was convenient shorthand as well as an integral part of stiffening controls at the border, as some kind of throw-away sop to the President's putative racist supporters may blind them to the reality

 

[mmpsteve]

So here's a solution... The democrats give Trump the 5.7 billion on the condition that the other solutions (employer penalties, mandatory e-verify, stronger vetting, et al) get implemented. IF they're truly interested in meaningful reform beyond just "open up the borders and abolish ICE", that would be a win for them, right? Think that'll happen?

One problem is the Dems don't want to actually control the employment aspects, but only to implement amnesty to all already here (and keep the border open). And for that matter, Repubs don't want strict e-verify with penalties, either. Makes for an interesting debate, when both sides want some of the same things, but cannot admit it, due to the power struggle.

.

 

[T.Lex]

That is just wrong. There has always been a LEGAL pathway to citizenship and always will be. No one is against that.

Oh really? I don't pretend to know everything, but you seem confident in your assertion. So please explain how an illegal alien, who has a family and life here, can become a citizen while maintaining the family and life here.

I am aware of many cases where that has not been true, but maybe they just aren't as knowledgeable as you.

(You and I both know you are being coy.)

 

[nonobaddog]

Oh really? I don't pretend to know everything, but you seem confident in your assertion. So please explain how an illegal alien, who has a family and life here, can become a citizen while maintaining the family and life here.

I am aware of many cases where that has not been true, but maybe they just aren't as knowledgeable as you.

(You and I both know you are being coy.)

I meant people that are still intending to come here - they have a legal pathway that everybody is aware of, even you. (speaking of playing coy)
I am pretty hard-line on people that are here illegally because they are here illegally. They had the option to immigrate legally but they did not - they have already made a conscious decision to break the law. They need to face the justice system for breaking the law, then and only then should they be allowed to pursue legal immigration.

 

[d.kaufman]

Those that came here ILLEGALLY, should not have a pathway to citizenship! Those that come here legally, should. There's the difference. My son in law came from Columbia, on a student visa. While here, he applied for citizenship, took the test, and became a citizen 2 years ago. That is one proper way to becoming a legal citizen. If you start off illegal, you came thru the backdoor and should be kicked out.

 

[BugI02]

I meant people that are still intending to come here - they have a legal pathway that everybody is aware of, even you. (speaking of playing coy)
I am pretty hard-line on people that are here illegally because they are here illegally. They had the option to immigrate legally but they did not - they have already made a conscious decision to break the law. They need to face the justice system for breaking the law, then and only then should they be allowed to pursue legal immigration.

This^^^. People who knowingly break the law get excluded from a lot of things. They can't be police officers, bank officers, securities traders - heck, they might not even be able to be lawyers (I say might because I'm unsure just how closely 'lawyer' and 'ethics' really are required to dovetail)

 

[BugI02]

Those that came here ILLEGALLY, should not have a pathway to citizenship! Those that come here legally, should. There's the difference. My son in law came from Columbia, on a student visa. While here, he applied for citizenship, took the test, and became a citizen 2 years ago. That is one proper way to becoming a legal citizen. If you start off illegal, you came thru the backdoor and should be kicked out.

And this^^^ is in no way inconsistent with allowing leeway for those covered by DACA (that have not broken any other laws and are gainfully employed and contributing to the nation) on citizenship. Most versions of solutions to their problems only give them only access to petition for citizenship, because they were not of an age when brought here that we would normally hold them responsible for (or even able to participate meaningfully in) the decision of their parents/family members to break the law

 

[T.Lex]

I meant people that are still intending to come here - they have a legal pathway that everybody is aware of, even you. (speaking of playing coy)
I am pretty hard-line on people that are here illegally because they are here illegally. They had the option to immigrate legally but they did not - they have already made a conscious decision to break the law. They need to face the justice system for breaking the law, then and only then should they be allowed to pursue legal immigration.

What you meant, then was a different scenario from what I described. I specifically mentioned people who are already here; you were talking about people intending to come here.

Those that came here ILLEGALLY, should not have a pathway to citizenship! Those that come here legally, should. There's the difference. My son in law came from Columbia, on a student visa. While here, he applied for citizenship, took the test, and became a citizen 2 years ago. That is one proper way to becoming a legal citizen. If you start off illegal, you came thru the backdoor and should be kicked out.

Couple points.

It is possible to come here illegally without knowing it - particularly for children who were brought by their parents. Now, an easy answer is that the sins of the father should taint the children. But, that is perhaps not the most decent answer.

Also, along the lines of the student visa, likely the most populous category of illegal immigrants are those who entered legally but did not stay legally. Back in the day, coming in and out of the border for day trips was pretty easy, without much oversight. So, the "entry" would've been legal. Staying and finding work would've violated the terms of the visa, but the entry itself was not legal.

Fast forward and there are all sorts of visa programs for certain kinds of things that allow or don't allow work. Entry on that kind of visa, then over-staying, is different (IMHO) than sneaking across the border in the middle of the desert.

 

[nonobaddog]

What you meant, then was a different scenario from what I described. I specifically mentioned people who are already here; you were talking about people intending to come here.

I also addressed people that are already here illegally. Read the whole post.

 

[T.Lex]

I also addressed people that are already here illegally. Read the whole post.

Oh I didn't see it in there:

That is just wrong. There has always been a LEGAL pathway to citizenship and always will be. No one is against that.

 

[nonobaddog]

I meant people that are still intending to come here - they have a legal pathway that everybody is aware of, even you. (speaking of playing coy)
I am pretty hard-line on people that are here illegally because they are here illegally. They had the option to immigrate legally but they did not - they have already made a conscious decision to break the law. They need to face the justice system for breaking the law, then and only then should they be allowed to pursue legal immigration.

Oh I didn't see it in there:

How very disingenuous of you to quote a different post. I provided the one again (above) that you replied to in your post #3230

 

[Kutnupe14]

Buzzfeed reporting that the president instructed Cohen to lie to congress. IF TRUE, whoa nelly.

 

[d.kaufman]

Buzzfeed reporting that the president instructed Cohen to lie to congress. IF TRUE, whoa nelly.

Being discussed in another thread. Cant remember which one. Buzzfeed also said they had no evidence to back the claims. Imagine that

Edit with link to Buzzfeed admitting they have no evidence to claims.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/buzzfee...-not-seen-the-evidence-supporting-our-report/

 

[BugI02]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/buzzfee...-not-seen-the-evidence-supporting-our-report/
Buzzfeed News Bombshell Reporter: No We Have Not Seen the Evidence Supporting Our Report


ETA: Whoops

 

[BugI02]

.

 

[jamil]

Bug,

I'm really starting to think you want to think I'm saying things I'm not saying so that you can argue with me. I'm going to try again to say what I'm saying. So please try not to impose any more straw or vinegar into this. It's really unnecessary, and unnecessarily caustic.

Okay, here's post 3173...

Yeah. There's quite a bit of evidence that Trump does believe in many of the things he wants to do. As I said, it's not because he's a conservative. But I do think his heart is in it with the border issue. Also with trade. He's been preaching all that stuff for years before he decided to actually run.

And actually, I think the only logical argument against the wall IS the cost issue. I agree that the politicians who were once on record approving border barriers who now are using the cost issue, are probably just being political. They don't want Trump to have a victory.

But about the cost, it's expensive beyond the proof that it will be worth the money. It seems to come down exactly across political lines which side you're on there. Which makes it largely deterministic. I don't know if it would be worth the cost. I suspect it could be. There's a fair argument either way, but since the current opinions appear to be deterministic, I can't say I trust either.

I did not say the wall *is* more expensive than its possible utility. I said that this is the only reasonable argument I can see against funding it. I stated my own belief about it in the bold text. The deterministic part is the reason I don't accept your arguments as sufficient. More on why later...

Why yes, yes I do call that a reasoned argument. The way I see it, you're free to question the statistics themselves, the sources I chose or even the conclusions I drew

If you look all the way back to post 3173, you're the one saying the wall is more expensive than its possible utility without a shred of corroboration. I made a counter argument (still waiting for an answer to 3180, by the way)

If you wish to attack the quality of that argument, fire away. The quality of your arguments, however, are not up to their usual standards, mostly unsubstantiated opinion and innuendo. Did K14 go on holiday again and hire you to keep his hand in?

Make the strongest case for the other side? That's your job, you ain't Socrates and I hate that **** anyways. En-gin-eer, not PoliSci major

No. It's not my job. As I have stated all along, I have no strong opinion for or against the wall. If you think I should have a stronger opinion about it, it's up to you to make your case why I should care more about it, and what you think I should support. But I'll want to hear the other side. There IS another side. And I'd prefer to hear both sides reasoned from a non-ideological position. That's what I meant about, deterministic conclusions. Where people tend to fall on the issue, particularly as they become more ardent supporters of one side or other, is strongly skewed towards which side of the political divide you're on.

That's a strong indicator that your opinion about it is deterministic. Meaning, that it's highly likely that if you're strongly supportive of one side, you did not arrive at your position about the wall from thoughtful examination and consideration of all the facts, both pro and con. You started with the conclusion you want, then worked your way towards the facts (or non-facts in the case of the moral argument) which tends to support your side.

The pro Trump side, your side, could be overestimating the number of illegal border crossers (at least a little). But mostly you could be underestimating effectiveness of what can be done with $5.7B to curb illegal entry with a wall. That's the part that's most difficult to know with certainty. I haven't seen that case made well from the anti-side.

The progressive side makes two arguments. One: the insufficient-ROI argument, which I said was a valid argument--that doesn't mean it's a true argument, just that it's valid. The truth part is yet unknown with certainty. Two: that it's immoral. This is a silly emotional argument which no reasonable person would consider.

Okay, so all that said, you've tried to fill the role of non-ideological "expert", but you're under-qualified. I'm not slamming you by saying that. You're not an expert in border issues, and you're ideologically supportive of the wall. I'd like to hear honest brokers from both sides of the issue, from reasoned positions, with facts not cherry-picked, making arguments not straw-manned. I think it's probably more likely right now for me to get that from the pro-wall perspective. I don't see much on the anti-side which is willing to make a non-emotional argument. In the rebuttal video, Morticia and Lurch made the claim that there's no ROI but they've not presented facts yet which support that. And I don't trust them to present facts because it's clear that they're not honest brokers.

Okay, so you not being qualified doesn't mean the exercise has no reasonable place. Maybe there's an avid anti-wall person lurking on INGO who might try to make the reasoned case from the other side. Neither of you would be qualified to make the case, because of the probably of deterministic conclusions, but it could be an interesting exercise. Maybe a dialectic of two equal but opposing deterministic inputs might synthesize a reasonably accurate output.

 

[T.Lex]

First, +1 for an implied endorsement of the Hegelian dialectic.

...I have no strong opinion for or against the wall.

That's kinda where I am.

I'm not sure what incremental benefit the wall will have in security (our border security really isn't in too bad a shape now IMHO) for the cost of it. But, I do know that the cost is getting more and more expensive with the gov't shutdown rooted in the issue.

No matter which side is at fault (really, both), a direct line has been drawn between this government shutdown and that wall. Those costs become sunk costs for the wall itself.

 

[BigRed]

This thread needs more Salma.