The President Trump Immigration Thread

[KG1]

The media are a bunch of asshats.

That ego maniac Jim Acostya was up to his same old crap when he asked Kelly Ann Conway if the President was going to tell the truth in his address to the nation. What the hell kind of question is that?

She wasn’t having any of his nonsense and ripped him a new one for being a perpetual jerk that nobody likes.

 

[KG1]

Wasn't that an offer related to DACA protections?

Yeah it was but my point is that the border wall didn’t seem to be so objectionable back then when the Democrats tried to get something for their approval which proves that their wall issue is nothing more than a game of political football and right now they are playing prevent defense trying to keep Trump out of his campaign promise end zone.

 

[ghitch75]

as i said.....if the state can take land for a interstate the Feds can take land for a wall.....

 

[jamil]

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, 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.

I think you saw the addresses that you imagined in your head, from both Trump and the high priestess and priest of the Leftist Church of Bat****opia.

The statements Trump made were mostly factual, along with some fairly mild exaggerations by Trumpian standards.

Now contrast Trump's address with some assertions from the clergy.

Sadly much of what we heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice. The president has chosen fear. We want to start with the facts.

Holy Fearmongering! Malice I say!

These are opinions, not facts. They did present some effective facts though, from their side. There are two sides. Trump presented an unexpected reasonable side. He presented his case (at least he read the case his speechwriters made) in a way that you'd expect a president to do. I expected the usual Trumpian boastful blather. But all I got was some laid out facts along with some not-unexpected embellishments and very few hyperbolic adjectives. Embellishments I can tolerate. That's pretty standard for any president wanting to convince America to side with him.

Fearmongering? That's delusional. Fearmongering is a fairly Trumpian thing to do in many circumstances, like when he's doing one of his stump speeches. And if you're seeing a stump speech in his speech last night, you reading into it what you expected to see or what you were told you saw.

The tallest Umpa Lumpa presented his side of the argument in a surprisingly presidential way. Malice? Seriously? With the exceptions I mentioned, the Democratic response was hyperbolic partisanship. If they had stuck to just the facts, they could have made quite a strong case. But they just couldn't help themselves. Their deep resentment is obvious and it hurt them. They couldn't help but do the partisan jabs. They're deluded with hate. They should have just talked about ideas.

Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes. This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.

More hyperbole. Noble purposes like, "if you like your doctor..." Presidents do these national addresses to appeal directly to the people for the things they want to get done legislatively. Of course they present things from their point of view. Of course they make supporting facts sound supportive. They leave out the bad stuff. This is not new. Nor is it "noble", per se. It's salesmanship. The tone with which these two delivered their response was unnecessarily hyperbolically adversarial.

And no. It's not exactly manufactured. You can argue whether it rises to the level of "crisis" or not. Trump laid out a reasonable case for why it's a "growing crisis". Some of his numbers were embellished, but to be fair, not to the usual Trumpian levels. It's clearly an important priority for him and for many Americans who think it's been a crisis for a long time. Calling it a crisis is objectively fair. Calling it not a crisis is objectively fair. It depends on what priority you give it. So why the urgency now? It's been a problem for decades, why is it suddenly a crisis? Opportunity to make it happen is now. And so is the necessity to stop it. That's the urgency.

 

[T.Lex]

I think you saw the addresses that you imagined in your head, from both Trump ....

The statements Trump made were mostly factual, along with some fairly mild exaggerations by Trumpian standards.

Unlike you, I'm not grading on a Trumpian curve. He doesn't get credit for exaggerating less than he usually does, or being less vile than usual, or for being less of a douchebag than usual.

Now contrast Trump's address with some assertions from the clergy.

No thank you. I'll not have you jedi-mind-trick me into defending Schumer and Pelosi. I really can't.

But I'll also not give Trump a pass because he's not as bad as other people that I know to be vile, exaggerating, hypocrites.

To the point of how long this "crisis" has existed, ok... that's fine. I think every POTUS I can remember has tried to resolve the problem. I'm ok with labeling it a crisis overall, but what is the urgency now? This "opportunity" - what "opportunity"? We had the presidency and both houses of Congress. THAT was our opportunity. Right now, the only opportunity is for gridlock (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

If Trump wants to win the middle, he should come out with the wall as a piece of a larger immigration reform bill. Like I said earlier, a wall does nothing for the people that are already here, some of whom came as children and are leading productive lives.

 

[Trigger Time]

They should all be rounded up and sent back. No job too big

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. Let's at least have a national debate about that. Pass the laws that would support that (to the extent that they don't already), have Congress allocate funds for it, have the executive branch enforce it, and have the judicial branch figure out where the lines are.

 

[Trigger Time]

Ok. Let's at least have a national debate about that. Pass the laws that would support that (to the extent that they don't already), have Congress allocate funds for it, have the executive branch enforce it, and have the judicial branch figure out where the lines are.

The laws already exist to make it possible. The government just needs to start doing it.
The courts are being used to tie the hands of the government to enforce the laws that legally passed.
I'm about ready to see Marshall law. Suspend the courts, suspend congress. It can happen.
Illegals are going to cause a war in this country. Are they worth it? Not even close.

 

[T.Lex]

The laws already exist to make it possible. The government just needs to start doing it.

I'm not sure that this is true. For instance, I do not know of a mechanism for law enforcement to determine citizenship of someone. Maybe after the Real ID thing is fully effective, but not right now.

It may also require some tweaking of civil rights laws to allow for the prolonged holding of suspected non-citizens who turn out to be actual citizens.

The courts are being used to tie the hands of the government to enforce the laws that legally passed.
I'm about ready to see Marshall law. Suspend the courts, suspend congress. It can happen.

You keep saying "Marshall" but I think you mean "martial" right? And suspending the courts/Congress can happen, I guess, but would be a significant step towards despotism.

Illegals are going to cause a war in this country. Are they worth it? Not even close.

Seems to me the "legals" are more interested in war than the "illegals."

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm not sure that this is true. For instance, I do not know of a mechanism for law enforcement to determine citizenship of someone. Maybe after the Real ID thing is fully effective, but not right now.

It may also require some tweaking of civil rights laws to allow for the prolonged holding of suspected non-citizens who turn out to be actual citizens.



You keep saying "Marshall" but I think you mean "martial" right? And suspending the courts/Congress can happen, I guess, but would be a significant step towards despotism.


Seems to me the "legals" are more interested in war than the "illegals."

Yeah sorry wrong word spelling.
I'd be willing to declare war on illegals. Note this isnt a civil war or revolution. This would be an actual war to end the invasion and occupation. 25 million or so? Time to get it started.
They need to go now

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah sorry wrong word spelling.
I'd be willing to declare war on illegals. Note this isnt a civil war or revolution. This would be an actual war to end the invasion and occupation. 25 million or so? Time to get it started.
They need to go now

So "hunting" really does mean "hunting and shooting" now?

 

[KG1]

Ok. Let's at least have a national debate about that. Pass the laws that would support that (to the extent that they don't already), have Congress allocate funds for it, have the executive branch enforce it, and have the judicial branch figure out where the lines are.

 

[Dead Duck]

So "hunting" really does mean "hunting and shooting" now?

That all depends on them now, doesn't it.

 

[Trigger Time]

So "hunting" really does mean "hunting and shooting" now?

No. I said before what it meant. If someone wants to fight back then self defense applies. I'm sure a bunch of criminals who have anonymity arent going to go willingly. Do you harass your cop buddies when they have to use guns to shoot people to catch criminals? Self defense.
The only time I've advocated shooting people is on the border before they get in. I stand by those comments. I'd kill anyone trying to come over that wall if it was up to me. That's why we need a mine field. If they cross it, they kill themselves.
I have no problem doing what is necessary to protect our country. Looks like I voted for the right guy because he's the only one trying to protect us.

 

[Trigger Time]

Also I dont give a crap what the courts say. I'd be asking to see ID if I ran any law enforcement agency in this country. If you look like you are from south of the border (because other ethnicities do look a certain way its fact) and you cant speak English then I bet you're illegal or if you arent be on your way. I have zero problem doing this.

Bleeding heart pansies havent ever been the ones that's saved or protected this country. They destroy it from the inside like a cancer.
If you cant handle what's going to happen in this country then stay huddled up inside of your residence while real Americans fix it as always.

 

[T.Lex]

No. I said before what it meant. If someone wants to fight back then self defense applies. I'm sure a bunch of criminals who have anonymity arent going to go willingly. Do you harass your cop buddies when they have to use guns to shoot people to catch criminals? Self defense.
The only time I've advocated shooting people is on the border before they get in. I stand by those comments. I'd kill anyone trying to come over that wall if it was up to me. That's why we need a mine field. If they cross it, they kill themselves.
I have no problem doing what is necessary to protect our country. Looks like I voted for the right guy because he's the only one trying to protect us.

Also I dont give a crap what the courts say. I'd be asking to see ID if I ran any law enforcement agency in this country. If you look like you are from south of the border (because other ethnicities do look a certain way its fact) and you cant speak English then I bet you're illegal or if you arent be on your way. I have zero problem doing this.

Bleeding heart pansies havent ever been the ones that's saved or protected this country. They destroy it from the inside like a cancer.
If you cant handle what's going to happen in this country then stay huddled up inside of your residence while real Americans fix it as always.

Just so's I understand, because I will readily admit that I'm not sure I understand your position (not due to your lack of trying), if some local yokel thought you were illegal, didn't like the documents you may or may not have with you, and tried to herd you into a cattle car, you wouldn't push back - not even a little?

 

[Trigger Time]

Just so's I understand, because I will readily admit that I'm not sure I understand your position (not due to your lack of trying), if some local yokel thought you were illegal, didn't like the documents you may or may not have with you, and tried to herd you into a cattle car, you wouldn't push back - not even a little?

I guess its gonna get interesting. I will gladly prove I'm not an illegal.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess its gonna get interesting. I will gladly prove I'm not an illegal.

How?

 

[printcraft]

Just so's I understand, because I will readily admit that I'm not sure I understand your position (not due to your lack of trying), if some local yokel thought you were illegal, ....

"I'd be asking to see ID if I ran any law enforcement agency in this country. " - statement said if TT ran the law enforcement agency, not TT is just going down there and checking documents as a normal "yokel".

...didn't like the documents you may or may not have with you, and tried to herd you into a cattle car, you wouldn't push back - not even a little?

Deporting illegals is the same as the holocaust? Ease up there guy.

 

[T.Lex]

Deporting illegals is the same as the holocaust? Ease up there guy.

I didn't mention the holocaust. (Actually, I was thinking of Texas cattle cars, literally the things they haul cattle in.)

But... TT said "war" against illegals. I didn't make him say that. Don't know about you guys, but "war" isn't exactly peaceful.