The President Trump Immigration Thread

[jamil]

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.


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.

Oh, is that so? Are you sure you're not grading on a TDS curve?

I'm not giving Trump a pass. Personally I don't really have a firm position on the wall. It's expensive and unclear if it will deter enough illegal entrants to be worth the price tag. Also, it's unclear that it won't. People on both sides declaring it absolutely will or won't are pulling that from their asses. It's a wistful guess.

We're talking about the speech he actually gave, not the one you imagined. So in the speech you heard, Trump was at least a little vile, at least a little douchbaggy, at least a exaggerating, at least a little hypocritical? Okay. Tell you what. Below is a link to the transcript of the speech. Quote all the vile, douchbaggy, exaggerating, hypocritical parts of his speech, and explain why they're those things.

Before you click the link, I need to remind you that the curve I'm grading on isn't Trumpian but past presidents. Trump did not embellish any more than any of the other presidents have. If you're prepared to call the other presidents, vile, exaggerating, hypocritical douchebags, well, okay then. Trump's speech wasn't really out of line with any of the others, his embellishments weren't that far off from reality. Though I don't buy into the need for a wall, the speech was reasonable.

So have at it: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/6832...ess-on-border-security-and-democrats-response

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.

I don't agree that every president has tried to solve it. I don't really think they want to solve it, which is a major reason why it's not solved and why Trump is so popular with the people who see the problem as a high priority.

About the opportunity, fair enough. It seems like a better time to press the issue is when he has both the House and Senate. However, I don't think he could have gotten it done. Probably could have gotten a bill passed through the House. I think there's no way he'd have gotten it past a filibuster in the Senate. I think he needed some Democratic support.

Of course he could have employed the same strategy of holding the government hostage. Maybe that could have worked. But. The opportunity I think is now. It's not going to get any easier for him to get it done, and I think the odds are against him now. I think he won the night in terms of how he came off vs how the Temple of Bat****opia clergy came off.

 

[printcraft]

I didn't mention the holocaust.

If you sez so but the "put them in train cars" imagery has a pretty solid basis in one particular event in history.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, is that so? Are you sure you're not grading on a TDS curve?

I'm positive that I don't suffer from this fictional TDS thing.

I'm not giving Trump a pass. Personally I don't really have a firm position on the wall. It's expensive and unclear if it will deter enough illegal entrants to be worth the price tag. Also, it's unclear that it won't. People on both sides declaring it absolutely will or won't are pulling that from their asses. It's a wistful guess.

Agreed. To me, that's part of the problem. He hasn't made his case that this wall is worth either the $5.7B of national fisc nor the unquantifiable cost of shutting down the government. Neither he nor his proxies have made that case in any sort of persuasive way.

I don't agree that every president has tried to solve it. I don't really think they want to solve it, which is a major reason why it's not solved and why Trump is so popular with the people who see the problem as a high priority.

Every POTUS I can remember (basically goes back to Reagan) has made an effort. I don't think we need to quibble about whether it was earnest or not.

GWB made a solid run at it, but was stymied by those who made "amnesty" a 3rd rail.

About the opportunity, fair enough. It seems like a better time to press the issue is when he has both the House and Senate. However, I don't think he could have gotten it done. Probably could have gotten a bill passed through the House. I think there's no way he'd have gotten it past a filibuster in the Senate. I think he needed some Democratic support.

Ok, but its not like that situation has particularly improved now.

(I've not the time nor inclination to play the "diagram the speech" game. That'll just lead to esoteric semantics like whether the geographic border of a nation is private property or not. Was this or that phrase vile/hypocritical/douchbaggy/exaggerated is something we can skip to the agree-to-disagree point.)

 

[JettaKnight]

If you sez so but the "put them in train cars" imagery has a pretty solid basis in one particular event in history.

You hear dog whistles often, do you?

 

[jamil]

Wait. I thought I was going to get a list of all the vile, douchebaggy, exaggerating, hypocritical statements contained in Trump's speech.

 

[BugI02]

I'm positive that I don't suffer from this fictional TDS thing.



Agreed. To me, that's part of the problem. He hasn't made his case that this wall is worth either the $5.7B of national fisc nor the unquantifiable cost of shutting down the government. Neither he nor his proxies have made that case in any sort of persuasive way.


Every POTUS I can remember (basically goes back to Reagan) has made an effort. I don't think we need to quibble about whether it was earnest or not.

GWB made a solid run at it, but was stymied by those who made "amnesty" a 3rd rail.


Ok, but its not like that situation has particularly improved now.

(I've not the time nor inclination to play the "diagram the speech" game. That'll just lead to esoteric semantics like whether the geographic border of a nation is private property or not. Was this or that phrase vile/hypocritical/douchbaggy/exaggerated is something we can skip to the agree-to-disagree point.)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! that you looked off the challenge to ground your ... reflexive ... anti-Trump hyperbole in some sort of reality

point jamil

 

[DoggyDaddy]

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.

When you have state and local governments REFUSING to enforce or aid in the enforcement of Federal laws (Sanctuary cities/states), those laws don't have much in the way of "teeth". I think it would be appropriate to remove all federal funding to those states/localities. Maybe they'd change their tune.

 

[BugI02]

You hear dog whistles often, do you?

No more often than some hear National Socialist whistles. Printcraft is correct, 'placing people in train cars' only brings one thing to mind

 

[JettaKnight]

No more often than some hear National Socialist whistles. Printcraft is correct, 'placing people in train cars' only brings one thing to mind

But those trains sure ran on time.

 

[BugI02]

But those trains sure ran on time.

Unless they met a P47 on the way

 

[Dead Duck]

20 future democrats murdered.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexican-police-find-20-bodies-most-burned-close-to-u-s-border

 

[actaeon277]

Wait. I thought I was going to get a list of all the vile, douchebaggy, exaggerating, hypocritical statements contained in Trump's speech.

Seems to be, that people are surprised at his delivery.

 

[KG1]

Jim Acostya reporting from the border that he does'nt see anything resembling a national emergency while standing next to a steel slat barrier. I'm glad to see he's on Trump's side now. What'ta dope.

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta appeared to inadvertently make the case on Thursday for a steel version of President Donald Trump’s border wall.

“I found some steel slats down on the border,” Acosta tweeted. “But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today”:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...kes-case-wall-no-emergency-where-theres-wall/

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Agreed. To me, that's part of the problem. He hasn't made his case that this wall is worth either the $5.7B of national fisc nor the unquantifiable cost of shutting down the government. Neither he nor his proxies have made that case in any sort of persuasive way.

A one time cost of $5.7 Billion dollars to help solve a problem that costs a net $116 Billion per year at all levels of government? My math says that if it is "only" 5% effective, it would yield a 100% return each and every year. Investment-wise, that's a no-brainer.

To me, that math changes the debate to require those opposed to any enhancements to the physical barrier to make their case that it would be 0% effective.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait. I thought I was going to get a list of all the vile, douchebaggy, exaggerating, hypocritical statements contained in Trump's speech.

Well, you still have the link, right? Read the transcript and pretend it is Bill Clinton.

When you have state and local governments REFUSING to enforce or aid in the enforcement of Federal laws (Sanctuary cities/states), those laws don't have much in the way of "teeth". I think it would be appropriate to remove all federal funding to those states/localities. Maybe they'd change their tune.

So that's kind of what I'm talking about. Immigration laws are generally enforced by federal authorities. We would either need more people with those kinds of badges or some other mechanism to both allow and compel local authorities to do more in that regard.

It seems odd that so many people who would ordinarily be champions of states' rights carry the banner of expanding federal authority. But, positions can be pretty mercurial if not supported by some moral framework.

A one time cost of $5.7 Billion dollars to help solve a problem that costs a net $116 Billion per year at all levels of government? My math says that if it is "only" 5% effective, it would yield a 100% return each and every year. Investment-wise, that's a no-brainer.

To me, that math changes the debate to require those opposed to any enhancements to the physical barrier to make their case that it would be 0% effective.

See, that's the kind of thing that I don't think has been properly communicated or even sourced. But, at least the discussion could involve substantive, practical things, rather than the "show me in the speech where he was a dick" type thing.

To your point, I think the $5.7B is an initial payment. The estimates I've seen for the total cost will be more like $10B+. Which still might be palatable if you use your other number, although you're still not taking into account the ongoing maintenance and such associated with the wall.

Plus, there's a logical problem: the wall won't actually solve "the problem" you referenced. Those people are already here. The wall might mitigate that in the future, but if we're being intellectually honest, the wall is an attempt to fix a different part of the problem than what the "cost" is.

 

[bwframe]

Is Friday "national emergency" day???

I'm hearing some talking heads forecasting Trump declaring the national emergency for border security and opening the government. Win/win...

 

[Twangbanger]

...It seems odd that so many people who would ordinarily be champions of states' rights carry the banner of expanding federal authority. But, positions can be pretty mercurial if not supported by some moral framework...

Curious to know how one can posit enforcing the border as somehow "expanding" federal "authority"...unless you never believed it should have been done in the first place.

You did not say "budget." You said "authority."

...But then, the concept of what the federal government should, and should not be doing, can be pretty mercurial if not supported by some consistent idea of what limited government actually is.




​

 

[KG1]

Well, you still have the link, right? Read the transcript and pretend it is Bill Clinton.



So that's kind of what I'm talking about. Immigration laws are generally enforced by federal authorities. We would either need more people with those kinds of badges or some other mechanism to both allow and compel local authorities to do more in that regard.

It seems odd that so many people who would ordinarily be champions of states' rights carry the banner of expanding federal authority. But, positions can be pretty mercurial if not supported by some moral framework.



See, that's the kind of thing that I don't think has been properly communicated or even sourced. But, at least the discussion could involve substantive, practical things, rather than the "show me in the speech where he was a dick" type thing.

To your point, I think the $5.7B is an initial payment. The estimates I've seen for the total cost will be more like $10B+. Which still might be palatable if you use your other number, although you're still not taking into account the ongoing maintenance and such associated with the wall.

Plus, there's a logical problem: the wall won't actually solve "the problem" you referenced. Those people are already here. The wall might mitigate that in the future, but if we're being intellectually honest, the wall is an attempt to fix a different part of the problem than what the "cost" is.

As far as your point goes about taking into account the ongoing maintenance associated with the wall I believe the cost of that would be absorbed by his point about yielding a 100% return on initial investment each and every year.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

See, that's the kind of thing that I don't think has been properly communicated or even sourced. But, at least the discussion could involve substantive, practical things, rather than the "show me in the speech where he was a dick" type thing.

To your point, I think the $5.7B is an initial payment. The estimates I've seen for the total cost will be more like $10B+. Which still might be palatable if you use your other number, although you're still not taking into account the ongoing maintenance and such associated with the wall.

Sure, something around 10-20% of the total cost for annual maintenance is reasonable, IMO. Probably lower when new, higher end as it ages. So, $1-2 Billion per year in maintenance. Doesn't much put a dent in the ROI (return on investment) if this part of the solution "solves" 5% of the problem.

Plus, there's a logical problem: the wall won't actually solve "the problem" you referenced. Those people are already here. The wall might mitigate that in the future, but if we're being intellectually honest, the wall is an attempt to fix a different part of the problem than what the "cost" is.

First, I stipulated the wall was extremely cost effective (most companies have a 30% return threshold for investing in projects) if it "solved" a mere 5% of the problem just on costs to all levels of government. That does account for the whole host of ills, including exploitation of undocumented workers and depression of blue collar wages for those with legal rights to work.

Second, border security absolutely is part of the solution for the huge population of those illegally present. As long as it is easy to cross the border, deporting over and over is bailing out the canoe with a coffee cup. I'm not sure what you think the purpose of "the wall" is, but that is it. To argue that it will never be 100% impenetrable is intellectually dishonest while 100's of thousands cross illegally each year, including mothers/fathers with young children in tow. Heck, I'd settle for a wall that a fat old man like me couldn't defeat in no time with simple hand tools or a ladder and a rope. Or, merely stepping over a "pasture fence" or walking around a vehicle barricade.

BTW, I think the MOST effective single mechanism would be eVerify. Trump does not need a new law to make eVerify "de facto" mandatory. Start by fining and prosecuting any employer that employs illegals and doesn't use eVerify. File in court that avoiding eVerify indicates "intent". But, even that, alone, does not "solve" the problem.