The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

Who gives a flying **** about federal easements? It seems to be more of an argument of who is technically right than an argument about anything substantive.

Well, we lack experimental data to guide us on whether an angel is constrained by the Planck Length in size or can be infinitely (though meaninglessly) small. Thus it is difficult to argue the maximum angel count possible on the head of a pin, even if we could agree to standard pinhead dimensions

So we argue about other things

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ocasio-Cortez says economic migrants who are attempting to enter the country, many of them illegally, are "more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be"

Yes... “Non-Americans are more American than Americans,” said the woman tired of being fact-checked.

 

[jamil]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the manufactured crisis bit. It does seem to be coming to a head at the border. I was going to include a way in which I think Trump may be responsible for it becoming a crisis, but that's not the same thing as manufacturing a crisis. So, because Trump is attempting to detain people at the border instead of continuing status quo, and letting them all in, enforcing the law worsens the situation at the border because of the court ruling about children. Also, it does seem that there's an increase in illegal border crossers using kids to jam things up. So that really makes it bad.

It's not intellectually honest to call a decision to enforce the law as Trump manufacturing a crisis. I want people who enter illegally to be turned away. And I want people requesting asylum to be vetted before being set loose in the country. I want those laws enforced. That's reasonable. It's my understanding that the two main points where the sides disagree is, of course the wall and fixing the problem the court created.

Oh, and the only people I can think of who'd have liked Schumer to echo Reagan's "tear down the wall" bit, would be the delusional progressives. I think you're misplacing where the middle is. I'm not a Trumper, but I'm not an anti-Trumper either. It's good when he's good. It's bad when he's bad. He's often bad. If the middle stands for people who care more about reason than fringe delusions, what Trump is asking for is reasonable, with some exceptions. And some of what Pelosi and Schumer stated was reasonable, as I listed. Them claiming it's fearmongering and manufactured, though, is a partisan stretch. It's what I would expect an entrenched side to claim. Adding a silly quip about the wall just exercises tribal loyalties. It was wise for them not to do that. They're not Jimmy Kimmel, whose job it is to tell jokes which always favor left wing partisans.

 

[jamil]

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?

The emergency that I see is that we can't enforce the laws in a humane way, because the courts made it that way on purpose. I want legal immigration. I don't want illegal immigration. I want illegal immigrants to be sent back home as fast as possible. I don't want people claiming asylum to be free to enter the country until they've been processed and vetted. I don't really care all that much about a wall. Maybe it would be an effective deterrent. Maybe it would be a waste of money.

As to the last point, I'm not sure what he could do on his own. So, what is conjured? Itemize for me each point he made, and detail how it was conjured.

 

[T.Lex]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the manufactured crisis bit. It does seem to be coming to a head at the border. I was going to include a way in which I think Trump may be responsible for it becoming a crisis, but that's not the same thing as manufacturing a crisis. So, because Trump is attempting to detain people at the border instead of continuing status quo, and letting them all in, enforcing the law worsens the situation at the border because of the court ruling about children. Also, it does seem that there's an increase in illegal border crossers using kids to jam things up. So that really makes it bad.

It's not intellectually honest to call a decision to enforce the law as Trump manufacturing a crisis. I want people who enter illegally to be turned away. And I want people requesting asylum to be vetted before being set loose in the country. I want those laws enforced. That's reasonable. It's my understanding that the two main points where the sides disagree is, of course the wall and fixing the problem the court created.

I think you misunderstand the history of the immigration enforcement, or at least what might be different now. Although it may just be the shorthand way in which these things seem to be talked about.

We always enforced our laws. We never just "let people in." Or rather, if people meet certain criteria, they can come in and wait for a decision. That still happens, even under Trump. If someone enters and has family members here, they can stay (generally). In fact, there was a recent anecdote (portrayed as if to make it seem it was commonplace) that people are being released inside the US pending the hearing even more quickly than under previous administrations. That is, "catch and release" is alive and well under Trump.

It may be more limited, but it still exists.

There are other examples, depending on the context. The point is, it isn't intellectually honest to say that Trump is now enforcing the laws, to imply that other administrations did not. The Chief Executive has certain discretion, and Trump is exercising that discretion differently, but he's not really enforcing the laws any differently.

We've always vetted people coming in, as best we can. There's literally nothing new about that.

Trump wants people to think that he's doing things differently. In policy, he's trying. But the laws haven't changed and the published rules haven't changed. From what I can tell at a practical level, nothing has changed. He hasn't exactly done a very good job in explaining what he's doing differently. He throws numbers around, but without any real context.

Oh, and the only people I can think of who'd have liked Schumer to echo Reagan's "tear down the wall" bit, would be the delusional progressives. I think you're misplacing where the middle is. I'm not a Trumper, but I'm not an anti-Trumper either. It's good when he's good. It's bad when he's bad. He's often bad. If the middle stands for people who care more about reason than fringe delusions, what Trump is asking for is reasonable, with some exceptions. And some of what Pelosi and Schumer stated was reasonable, as I listed. Them claiming it's fearmongering and manufactured, though, is a partisan stretch. It's what I would expect an entrenched side to claim. Adding a silly quip about the wall just exercises tribal loyalties. It was wise for them not to do that. They're not Jimmy Kimmel, whose job it is to tell jokes which always favor left wing partisans.

Oh, the Reagan-wall reference is something I would've liked to see simply as a really good rhetorical flourish. One that would've crossed parties/tribes, too.

Trump is fearmongering, just like he did in the campaign. Because it works.

I have no interest in watching Schumer and Pelosi be successful. Their success will likely be detrimental to the long term future of our country. That Trump is making their success more likely is hard to stomach. His only hope is that they will - as usual - push too hard. That was the most effective part of their response last night. They were restrained in their tone.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The emergency that I see is that we can't enforce the laws in a humane way, because the courts made it that way on purpose. I want legal immigration. I don't want illegal immigration. I want illegal immigrants to be sent back home as fast as possible. I don't want people claiming asylum to be free to enter the country until they've been processed and vetted. I don't really care all that much about a wall. Maybe it would be an effective deterrent. Maybe it would be a waste of money.

As to the last point, I'm not sure what he could do on his own. So, what is conjured? Itemize for me each point he made, and detail how it was conjured.

No funding for a wall ....abracadabra.... "national emergency"

 

[T.Lex]

The emergency that I see is that we can't enforce the laws in a humane way, because the courts made it that way on purpose. I want legal immigration. I don't want illegal immigration. I want illegal immigrants to be sent back home as fast as possible. I don't want people claiming asylum to be free to enter the country until they've been processed and vetted. I don't really care all that much about a wall. Maybe it would be an effective deterrent. Maybe it would be a waste of money.

I am not aware of any court decision that has changed the enforcement of the existing laws - are you referring to something in particular?

The laws are incredibly complicated. So much so that there is basically an entire administrative judicial agency that handles this stuff.

We can "enforce the laws in a humane way" and generally have for the last couple generations. We still are, generally.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm ready for the southern border to be closed. No more people welcome. Install the mine field today. Put up signs so it's not a surprise. In places where there is no room for one, patrol it like the Korean border.

 

[Trigger Time]

T-lex, you see Pelosi and Schumer as reasonable because you hate Trump that much. They are not reasonable, they are the same scum bags they've always been. Traitors to the Republic.
I'm sure of what is to come in this country. A repeat. I will be on the correct side of history and not the Democrat side that wishes to destroy America or morph it into a socialist wasteland. If the Democrats want their ideas that much and are willing to inflict the high cost it will take then bring it on. Give it your best shot

 

[T.Lex]

T-lex, you see Pelosi and Schumer as reasonable because you hate Trump that much. They are not reasonable, they are the same scum bags they've always been. Traitors to the Republic.

You clearly do not understand the words I use, so I'll try to use different words.

Trump's flaws make Schumer and Pelosi look reasonable.

The point about Schumer and Pelosi being the same scumbags they've always been is absolutely true. That's the problem. They haven't changed, but when framed against Trump, they don't look so bad to people who are non-partisan.

That's a YUGE problem for America.

I'm sure of what is to come in this country. A repeat. I will be on the correct side of history and not the Democrat side that wishes to destroy America or morph it into a socialist wasteland. If the Democrats want their ideas that much and are willing to inflict the high cost it will take then bring it on. Give it your best shot

You armchair revolutionizing is duly noted.

 

[Trigger Time]

You clearly do not understand the words I use, so I'll try to use different words.

Trump's flaws make Schumer and Pelosi look reasonable.

The point about Schumer and Pelosi being the same scumbags they've always been is absolutely true. That's the problem. They haven't changed, but when framed against Trump, they don't look so bad to people who are non-partisan.

That's a YUGE problem for America.



You armchair revolutionizing is duly noted.

I'm not revolutionizing. I can see history repeating. Its going to happen as clear as the seasons change. What I think or say will do nothing to prevent or speed it up. I'm just calling it like nostradamus if you will. It's not that hard to see.
I'll just not be taken by surprise when it does like some others will.

Also I do not think Trump was unreasonable at all. I think he made a good case. I think it's a shame the Democrats were even allowed to have a rebuttal to the president addressing the nation. They still think they won the election in 2016 or something. And that's what this all comes down to. Resists anything Trump. Even if Trump came out tomorrow in support of the Democrat platform they would be against it suddenly

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not revolutionizing. I can see history repeating. Its going to happen as clear as the seasons change. What I think or say will do nothing to prevent or speed it up. I'm just calling it like nostradamus if you will. It's not that hard to see.
I'll just not be taken by surprise when it does like some others will.

Also I do not think Trump was unreasonable at all. I think he made a good case. I think it's a shame the Democrats were even allowed to have a rebuttal to the president addressing the nation. They still think they won the election in 2016 or something. And that's what this all comes down to. Resists anything Trump. Even if Trump came out tomorrow in support of the Democrat platform they would be against it suddenly

The question is, if Trump came out in support of the Democrat platform, would YOU be against it?

 

[JettaKnight]

So, everyone else is talking the border with Mexico and you counter with what about Canada? Who cares. that is not what we are talking about in this thread.

Well maybe you should care. It seems more "terrorist" were caught sneaking across the Canadian border than the Mexican border.

 

[Trigger Time]

The question is, if Trump came out in support of the Democrat platform, would YOU be against it?

Absolutely. Just like I'm against what he did towards bump stocks and I never owned one.

 

[T.Lex]

Absolutely. Just like I'm against what he did towards bump stocks and I never owned one.

And yet, since he appears to be adopting what Dems have said in the past... it makes sense to you now.

 

[actaeon277]

The first thing out of her mouth was criticizing the President for preying on fear - All she and Chucky S have done is prey on fear to further their gun control agenda!!

Well, it's okay when THEY do it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, it's okay when THEY do it.

I wish the government shutdown would shutdown the hypocrisy in DC.

 

[mmpsteve]

Oh, the Reagan-wall reference is something I would've liked to see simply as a really good rhetorical flourish. One that would've crossed parties/tribes, too.

And you don't think people would remember the Reagan-wall reference was about a wall to keep people prisoner inside said wall? Little bit of difference to what's being talked about here. Rhetorical or not, it would not have been positively accepted across party lines/tribes.

.

 

[printcraft]

The more you try, the sillier you look. Have you ever admitted a mistake or misstatement?

Silly to whom?

 

[T.Lex]

And you don't think people would remember the Reagan-wall reference was about a wall to keep people prisoner inside said wall? Little bit of difference to what's being talked about here. Rhetorical or not, it would not have been positively accepted across party lines/tribes.

.

Yeah, it would've been a bit of an inversion of the original line, which is kinda why I think it would've been a cool reference.

I don't have to agree with something to admit it is good writing/speaking.

Heck, at a policy level, I disagreed with almost everything Obama said (partly because there was no consistency), but he knew how to deliver a good speechification.