-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The President Trump Immigration Thread
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Just passing through here. Been a while.
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
Interesting, but not surprising, that there is zero MSM discussion of the Roosevelt Reservation in the discussion of land acquisition for the southern border wall. BUT, it is plainly called out in the border patrol plans for building such a wall, for example, in this April 2018 proposal.
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Apr/Santa Teresa ESP final.pdf
Purposeful propagandizing a la Tass or merely incompetent? I dunno, but it is not a "good look" for those purporting to uncover and present the facts, and this is an immenently pertinent fact in that debate.
Maybe I need to say it again. The Roosevelt Reservation applied to California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and exempted privately owned landed. For those who don't understand what that means, "privately owned land," is property NOT owned by the government, held in private hands, meaning those owners are not subject to the Roosevelt Reservation. Further, California, Arizona, and New Mexico are each individual states along the Mexican border, however, they are not the only states that border Mexico. Texas, is also a state that borders Mexico, and obviously the Roosevelt Reservation does not apply to it.
I will absolutely give Trump credit for something I never thought I'd see: Schumer and Pelosi actually came across as reasonable.
They still suck, but what they said at least superficially made sense. Plus, Trump managed to create a situation where they didn't overplay their hand. Its still pretty early, so that will still probably happen, but last night they struck a reasonable tone.
This 4D chess thing must include making your enemies more appealing, at least at a rhetorical level.
Like I said when this was announced, Trump delivered a watered down stump speech, lacking in emotion, and it didn't play well to the large audience. He didn't deliver anything new to show why there's a crisis now. And some of the stuff he said didn't even make sense.
Why do we care if Guatemalan refugees get assaulted in Mexico on their way to try to get here. No wall is going to convince them not to come. The only thing that will motivate that is to have a ****ty economy and lack of opportunity. I may be anti-Trump, but I don't think he wants to create THAT situation.
I think.
They still suck, but what they said at least superficially made sense. Plus, Trump managed to create a situation where they didn't overplay their hand. Its still pretty early, so that will still probably happen, but last night they struck a reasonable tone.
This 4D chess thing must include making your enemies more appealing, at least at a rhetorical level.
Like I said when this was announced, Trump delivered a watered down stump speech, lacking in emotion, and it didn't play well to the large audience. He didn't deliver anything new to show why there's a crisis now. And some of the stuff he said didn't even make sense.
Why do we care if Guatemalan refugees get assaulted in Mexico on their way to try to get here. No wall is going to convince them not to come. The only thing that will motivate that is to have a ****ty economy and lack of opportunity. I may be anti-Trump, but I don't think he wants to create THAT situation.
I think.
And Taft's "Reservation," gave the govt jurisdiction over private property? Because what these reservations are essentially saying is that government owned property, along the border is subject to government dictates... not exactly a newsflash.
Appearances are deceiving. "Reasonable" should not be based on a lie. For example, what Trump outlined as the problems we're having at the border IS NOT a manufactured crisis. The problems he outlined are essentially real. Yet the point of their rebuttal that appears to be the crux, is that it's fear-mongering and "manufactured". They did some things right though. It is reasonable for them to complain about the wall as a waste of money. They were wise to avoid calling "walls" immoral. It's reasonable enough to call Trump's demand a temper tantrum in the same way it was for Obama with his shutdown. Would have been nice if they'd have acknowledged that it was wrong for Obama to do that, and apologize for pressing their faces Obama's sack in devotional support the whole time.
Also, this did not appear to me to be anything resembling his stump speeches. So that's a pretty far stretch. His stump speeches are designed for the people who agree with him. This was more like a Reaganesque appeal to Americans to drum up support for his wall.
So, because this is INGO, I have to disagree with at least something, and it is the above.
The "crisis" part of this IS manufactured. There is nothing different since Trump's inauguration than what existed before, basically going all the way back to Jimmy Carter (off the top of my head, maybe even further back).
We have had illegal immigration for a long time. A small percentage of those are criminals, even violent criminals. But, they are not responsible for all crime. Heck, by some metrics, crime is being reduced.
The problems with immigration are real, and not new. A wall/fence, could be part of the solution, but it is not a solution in itself. Heck, it may not even be the most effective part of the solution. Mainly because it does nothing to address the illegal immigrants who are already here. THAT is the more difficult part of the solution.
I'm only including all this because I agree.
I do think Schumer missed a great opportunity to echo Reagan, with a riff of the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." His speechwriters let him down on that.
And in the spirit of sandwiching, I disagree. This hit the same points, even the same examples, as his various stump speeches, just with an absence of zeal. As I watched, this actually seemed designed for his base, not for anyone in the middle.
The part about how rich people have walls and fences? Who the heck is that going to appeal to? His base.
He couldn't care less about the people who disagree with him. He wants noise from his base.
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/trproclamations/758.pdf
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_758
I would interpret what I have read so far to indicate that only property legally held prior to the proclamations might have any claim to primacy, with numerous parameters for adjudication that would affect the potential claim; but I lack sufficient information and knowledge of applicable law to assert more than that
I expect that since Arizona and New Mexico were both still territories at the time that the legal situation would be even more complicated, and my personal opinion is that you overestimate how many landholders might object to the building of the wall and thus how embroiled the whole thing would become in legal action. My personal experience is mostly concentrated along and near the Arizona border, and many land owners that I know would welcome a federal or military presence designed to interdict smugglers and sketchy people before they get to their lands. Anecdotally there have been several high profile (locally) killings and/or attacks on landowners and their family members close to the border.
Both proclamations specifically assert FedGov control over the 60 foot buffers. Might want to reread the referenced 2006 MoU
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_758
I would interpret what I have read so far to indicate that only property legally held prior to the proclamations might have any claim to primacy, with numerous parameters for adjudication that would affect the potential claim; but I lack sufficient information and knowledge of applicable law to assert more than that
I expect that since Arizona and New Mexico were both still territories at the time that the legal situation would be even more complicated, and my personal opinion is that you overestimate how many landholders might object to the building of the wall and thus how embroiled the whole thing would become in legal action. My personal experience is mostly concentrated along and near the Arizona border, and many land owners that I know would welcome a federal or military presence designed to interdict smugglers and sketchy people before they get to their lands. Anecdotally there have been several high profile (locally) killings and/or attacks on landowners and their family members close to the border.
Both proclamations specifically assert FedGov control over the 60 foot buffers. Might want to reread the referenced 2006 MoU
When does a problem rise to a national emergency... especially when that problem/national emergency has been declining? Or better yet, at what point is a president able to unilaterally take action to solve it. This IS a manufactured crisis. Rather than letting one happen, and taking advantage of it, he decided to conjure up one of his own. If this "national emergency" was as pressing as the president is trying to tell us, why has he gone to congress, repeatedly, with his hands out, rather than acting on it himself?
