The President Trump Immigration Thread

[jamil]

I would hate to see what you consider an emergency... Apparently the American people being used by invaders that do not even belong here is no biggie and the billions per month dumped into providing for the illegals, the fact that with those funds freed up our country would be much better off. Without the flood of illegal labor, a man could work a construction job and still be in the middle class.. I would look up emergency just as you had to look up the word invader..you may be suprised, or not..you dont seem to be to hung up on a words definition

You must think Donald Trump should be emporor. There. Now I’ve projected beliefs you don’t have on you. We’re not getting anywhere. I’ve said my peace. I don’t think I can say it any clearer. Yet people keep saying I must think this or that. It’s getting boring.

 

[fnpfan]

You must think Donald Trump should be emporor. There. Now I’ve projected beliefs you don’t have on you. We’re not getting anywhere. I’ve said my peace. I don’t think I can say it any clearer. Yet people keep saying I must think this or that. It’s getting boring.

It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the laws and rules we all live by as civilized humans so we dont revert back to flinging poop at each other from trees, I like a world with structure and personal accountability...where people understand the definition of words and do not try to argue them because they dont like it..

 

[jamil]

"Human beings taking action to improve their own lives" doesn't have that urgent "support my authoritarianism" ring to it. Those people are the ones actually ambitious and motivated to do something about the hand they were dealt. The losers and the lazy stay home.

There are (give or take) 330,000,000 people in the US today. A caravan of 30,000 people changes that by 0.0001 percent. Invasion? Hardly...NPR reports that three times that many people cross the border every day at just one checkpoint (San Ysidro Land Port of Entry).

Nobody on INGO has any problem seeing very clearly how the left-wing media uses footage of weeping parents to manipulate their liberal audience into believing there is a "Gun Violence Epidemic" occurring right now on the streets of America. We know it's bull****. The facts and numbers don't support it. It is a manipulation tactic that works on that audience.

INGO seems to have more of an issue identifying when these tactics are being used against us, though...and I think this is a perfect example. The right-wing media uses these images to play on their audience's fear of a changing American demographic. They try to reinforce the idea that a changing American Demographic necessarily equals a permanently diminished America...a diminishing that only their guys can fix.

It's total bull****, of course, but people really do buy into it...just look around this thread.

Mostly yeah, but no, just because 30k people is a small number compared to the 330M, doesn’t mean we should nust let them in illegally. It’s just that what Trump is doing isn’t going stop that. The wall as he’s funding it now will likely be tied up in courts untill past the election. So using emergency powers inappropriately to get what they want isn’t going to have any impact but make people think they’re foolish.

 

[jamil]

It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the laws and rules we all live by as civilized humans so we dont revert back to flinging poop at each other from trees, I like a world with structure and personal accountability...where people understand the definition of words and do not try to argue them because they dont like it..

You shouldn’t project upon me then that I must not want order, just because I disagree with you on how to do it. Using emergency powers inappropriately is an abuse of rule of law. That’s disorder.

I’m not going to bother repeating all the reasons why it’s foolish for Trump to get his wall this way. You’d only project more nonsense opinions on me. That’s getting boring.

 

[KLB]

Mostly yeah, but no, just because 30k people is a small number compared to the 330M, doesn’t mean we should nust let them in illegally. It’s just that what Trump is doing isn’t going stop that. The wall as he’s funding it now will likely be tied up in courts untill past the election. So using emergency powers inappropriately to get what they want isn’t going to have any impact but make people think they’re foolish.

Did they enter illegally? Was their intention to enter illegally?

Getting a mob of 30K people doesn't seem the best way to enter a country illegally.

 

[fnpfan]

You shouldn’t project upon me then that I must not want order, just because I disagree with you on how to do it. Using emergency powers inappropriately is an abuse of rule of law. That’s disorder.

I’m not going to bother repeating all the reasons why it’s foolish for Trump to get his wall this way. You’d only project more nonsense opinions on me. That’s getting boring.

And I wont bother to explain definition and laws again.. I have a wall right next to me to explain it to

 

[T.Lex]

Did they enter illegally? Was their intention to enter illegally?

From what I've read, a majority (or at least a significant percentage) of those here illegally actually entered legally and overstayed various visas.

Their intention - and action - was to enter legally. At some point, they decided to remain here illegally. Or didn't actually decide to, but are categorized as illegal because of a failure to follow the rules.

 

[mmpsteve]

From what I've read, a majority (or at least a significant percentage) of those here illegally actually entered legally and overstayed various visas.

Their intention - and action - was to enter legally. At some point, they decided to remain here illegally. Or didn't actually decide to, but are categorized as illegal because of a failure to follow the rules.

Right. I've read 42% are visa over-stayers. That still leaves 58% as illegal entries. Also a "significant percentage", no?

Plus, where do the numbers come from? We don't have a freakin clue how many illegals are in this country. How could we, with an open border? Do you not feel even a little bit uncomfortable with this? We know it's a big number; but it ranges from 12 million to 30 million. Personally, I don't care for ambiguous numbers.

.

 

[jamil]

From what I've read, a majority (or at least a significant percentage) of those here illegally actually entered legally and overstayed various visas.

Their intention - and action - was to enter legally. At some point, they decided to remain here illegally. Or didn't actually decide to, but are categorized as illegal because of a failure to follow the rules.

But...

Right. I've read 42% are visa over-stayers. That still leaves 58% as illegal entries. Also a "significant percentage", no?

Plus, where do the numbers come from? We don't have a freakin clue how many illegals are in this country. How could we, with an open border? Do you not feel even a little bit uncomfortable with this? We know it's a big number; but it ranges from 12 million to 30 million. Personally, I don't care for ambiguous numbers.

.

People like to use wording which makes it sound like they're right and the other is wrong. This is an example of that. When they say "most", and for the sake of discussion let's say they're right, that it's 60/40. People hear "majority" without any discussion of the numbers and impact of the other side of that, and in their minds they conceptualize it as that's the only story. But, even if it's only 40% of illegals who enter across the border illegally, that's still a significant number, which could be reduced if take steps to stop it. And I'm not saying a wall won't help. It's not going to stop it but it could probably help. My problem with it is that exploiting presidential emergency powers to get it is authoritarian, and that's a price too high. Much like Harry Reid's nuclear option did for Democrats, this will pay negative dividends later.

 

[fnpfan]

But...



People like to use wording which makes it sound like they're right and the other is wrong. This is an example of that. When they say "most", and for the sake of discussion let's say they're right, that it's 60/40. People hear "majority" without any discussion of the numbers and impact of the other side of that, and in their minds they conceptualize it as that's the only story. But, even if it's only 40% of illegals who enter across the border illegally, that's still a significant number, which could be reduced if take steps to stop it. And I'm not saying a wall won't help. It's not going to stop it but it could probably help. My problem with it is that exploiting presidential emergency powers to get it is authoritarian, and that's a price too high. Much like Harry Reid's nuclear option did for Democrats, this will pay negative dividends later.

Just a quick bit of history...Obama declared 13 national emergencies....

 

[T.Lex]

...And I'm not saying a wall won't help. It's not going to stop it but it could probably help. My problem with it is that exploiting presidential emergency powers to get it is authoritarian, and that's a price too high. Much like Harry Reid's nuclear option did for Democrats, this will pay negative dividends later.

Exactly. I'm not anti-wall at all. I'm not sure it actually will make a dent in illegal immigration, but among .gov's wasteful efforts, it probably isn't even in the top 10.

To your point, we have a process for assigning priorities to our government expenditures. It is mostly a legislative process. The 2 branches have to work together on those priorities, including horse trading. If POTUS wants $5b for widgets but Congress will only give $1b now, then you take what you can get (or not) and proceed.

Using a cheat code to get your $5b just ain't right.

 

[BugI02]

"You never, ever answer the question about why it is so important to have vocal converts to your viewpoint."

It's an absurd question. Ask something applicable to me and I'll answer it. [IMO it most certainly is applicable to you. From my viewpoint, in your world, people cannot be believed to harbor any doubts about Trump unless they confess. Torquemada would approve]

Okay, so now, answer my question. Are you capable of criticizing Trump. Now. If the essence of your question was to enquirer why I ask this question, you should probably word the question in a way which means a lot closer to what I'm actually asking.

[Not gonna happen. I go to sleep btw 10 and 11 most nights. The response to questions posted after midnight will have a severe built-in latency]

I ask because I'm hoping you'll think about it and admit to your self whether or not you're capable of critical thinking regarding Trump. It looks to me like some of you guys rationalize pretty heavily. No one is 100% great all the time. If you're making excuses for why he is, well, that's not critical thinking, now is it?

Still playing Socrates, I see. I will assume the thrust of the question to be the interpretation I can answer

Things I could criticize about Trump (recent events edition)

1) Staying in Syria after not staying in Syria after staying in Syria. I see nothing to potentially be gained in Syria worth anything near the likely cost in blood and treasure. The leave Syria/Stay Syria cost him Mattis (ignoring the supposition that Mattis was a snake, which I don't think is completely correct) for no gain whatsoever. I sympathize with the plight of the Kurds somewhat, but not enough to sacrifice one more US soldier. They have the same problem the Palestinians do, to a lesser degree - so much of what they want just isn't going to happen

2) Not declassifying and releasing all the source material surrounding Russia! Russia! Russia! that is possible. I believe the narrative that the Obama appointed/supporting heads of the DoJ and the surveillance state conceived and executed a plan to weaken Trump, make it harder for him to get quality cabinet members, and distract him from actually running the country at a crucial time in order to hopefully get rid of him with your cherished BAMN. I think this borders on actual treason on their part. If he has relevant data and can release it, he should. Many of us are bright enough to see where that evidence leads, regardless of the expected howling and spin of the MSM. I am still hopeful that this is the intent and the delay is a matter of timing

3) The bumpstock ban. Deeply ambivalent about this one, though. I don't like our guy giving an inch on 2A without a fight; but I believe that these are the stupidest, most useless accessories for a firearm and only serve some purpose in the most unlikely #ResistTyranny fever dreams. If you have rapid fire but you can't aim it, you might as well just have a MAC10. I'm pissed that morons made this the hill they wanted us to die on. Almost a wash for me except I wish he had put up more of a fight, if he thought rolling over would get him some maneuvering room elsewhere he was wrong and this calls into question the whole 4D chess thing - maybe should stick to 3D

4) I'm ambivalent about the plan to end the criminalization of homosexuality. We already pretty much don't have that, neither does the civilized west. He's going to have to make headway in the ME, the far east and Africa. It's a tough row to hoe, is a distraction from arguably more important first order concerns, and lacks an apparent carrot or stick. It just seems like cynical pandering designed to give the appearance of doing something without any real expectation he can affect the issue in anything more than a marginal way. This makes me wonder if he is more cynical and political than I currently believe

5) The wall emergency declaration, but not for any reason remotely similar to you. As I've stated previously, I think the only thing that has prevented Democrats from using exactly these methods is they might not have thought of it. Once it was talked about, I don't think anything Trump does or does not do will affect the likelihood of them using the stratagem in the slightest, so the whole bad precedent thing is a non-starter for me. What bothers me is if this was deliberately timed. If the whole point is that the planning encompassed the knowledge it would be tied up in the courts for quite a while, this too speaks to cynical politicking - giving the appearance of going to the wall for the wall just to seem to be fighting the good fight.
I see two ways it could play out. First, the timing correctly allows for the court challenges to exhaust themselves and the wall is well under way in November 2020 - I'm OK with this, even if the timing is off. Second, the timing is designed to not be effective before the election and is thus intentional manipulation - it could be indicative of re-election being of greater relative importance to him than this core promise. This affects my level of cynicism


There, are you happy now? I'm betting not, that no level of admitted doubt less than your own will satisfy you - which should maybe be instructive for you about why people won't play that

Nothing I know or suspect now if known in 2016 would make me any less likely to vote for him in the primary or the general. Nothing I know now would make me one iota more likely to vote for any of his likely potential challengers in 2020

Now will you answer why this form of overt witnessing to your favored viewpoint is so important to you. Can you truly not spot the thoughtful Trumpers, or do you just doubt there are any?

 

[BugI02]

If these people were as motivated as you say, they would be striving to make their county great...not walk to a new country willing to provide free stuff.. These people claim to be fleeing gang violence and poverty.. Do what our forefathers did..change your world..you have thousands fleeing gang violence..when it should be thousands fighting gang violence..and dont say that cant be done because a rag tag group of settlers took on the largest army in the world to claim our independence.. They are taking the easy way..not the admirable way..make your country great. We are working on ours too..if you truly want freedom you are willing to fight for it.. Not just walk for it..

This. They even have a concurrent example in Venezuela. Ordinary Venezuelans are working to take their country back, not charging the US border. You might claim that repressive governments or narco gangs would be more likely to kill people challenging their rule than Maduro, but I don't think that question has played out yet

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Fox News:Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn't honor ICE detainer, feds say
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-who-...-but-cops-wouldnt-honor-ice-detainer-feds-say

Illegal alien.

"Bad hombre."

Protected by California sanctuary policies.

Tried to murder a patrol officer at traffic stop.

 

[KLB]

From what I've read, a majority (or at least a significant percentage) of those here illegally actually entered legally and overstayed various visas.

Their intention - and action - was to enter legally. At some point, they decided to remain here illegally. Or didn't actually decide to, but are categorized as illegal because of a failure to follow the rules.

I was referring specifically to that mob, not overall.

 

[JettaKnight]

If these people were as motivated as you say, they would be striving to make their county great...not walk to a new country willing to provide free stuff.. These people claim to be fleeing gang violence and poverty.. Do what our forefathers did..change your world..you have thousands fleeing gang violence..when it should be thousands fighting gang violence..and dont say that cant be done because a rag tag group of settlers took on the largest army in the world to claim our independence.. They are taking the easy way..not the admirable way..make your country great. We are working on ours too..if you truly want freedom you are willing to fight for it.. Not just walk for it..

Sounds like someone who's only lived in the land freedom and opportunity.


It's not always as easy as it seems, otherwise, the USSR would have fallen long before the mid-90's.

 

[jamil]

And I wont bother to explain definition and laws again.. I have a wall right next to me to explain it to

No need to explain. I'm at last as aware of the laws and definitions. But this is some faulty logic and to me explains a lot of the communication problems the whole thread.

First, you're conflating my distaste for authoritarianism for wanting hordes of people to enter illegally. That's a projection. The truth of it is that I don't want the president to use emergency powers to get it. He's already admitted he only did this for expedience. This is an unprecedented use of emergency power. The wall is not worth that cost, especially given the uncertainty of how effective it would to be. It won't stop 100%. It won't stop 0%. It is some unknown but not completely inestimable number in between.

If you think in binary terms, which, it seems likely you may given the language you've used, you might think because it's not 0% effective it must be way closer to 100%, and you seem to estimate that it's much more like the warm fuzzy wall next to you. That's a facile viewpoint and a failure of logic to assume that the effectiveness of a wall right next to you is comparable with the wall that could possibly be built under this emergency order. I assume since you're quite confident your wall. And maybe it's difficult to breach. But your wall isn't at the border between two nations where every day thousands of people are highly motivated to get to the other side. You don't have thousands of desperate people trying desperate measures to get to your side of your wall.

 

[jamil]

Just a quick bit of history...Obama declared 13 national emergencies....

Just a quick bit of history. They were all uncontroversial sanctions against foreign groups or nations. Zero national emergencies that any POTUS ever declared since the existence of that law were used to get around congress. If this stands, something tells me that this won't be the last time.

 

[BugI02]

Sounds like someone who's only lived in the land freedom and opportunity.


It's not always as easy as it seems, otherwise, the USSR would have fallen long before the mid-90's.

So how many are you willing to have settle in your community at your expense (through higher local taxes)

I've noticed a bit of an inverse relationship between likelihood refugees would be able to settle in one's neighborhood and likelihood that person has a positive view of asylum - no skin in the game

 

[fnpfan]

No need to explain. I'm at last as aware of the laws and definitions. But this is some faulty logic and to me explains a lot of the communication problems the whole thread.

First, you're conflating my distaste for authoritarianism for wanting hordes of people to enter illegally. That's a projection. The truth of it is that I don't want the president to use emergency powers to get it. He's already admitted he only did this for expedience. This is an unprecedented use of emergency power. The wall is not worth that cost, especially given the uncertainty of how effective it would to be. It won't stop 100%. It won't stop 0%. It is some unknown but not completely inestimable number in between.

If you think in binary terms, which, it seems likely you may given the language you've used, you might think because it's not 0% effective it must be way closer to 100%, and you seem to estimate that it's much more like the warm fuzzy wall next to you. That's a facile viewpoint and a failure of logic to assume that the effectiveness of a wall right next to you is comparable with the wall that could possibly be built under this emergency order. I assume since you're quite confident your wall. And maybe it's difficult to breach. But your wall isn't at the border between two nations where every day thousands of people are highly motivated to get to the other side. You don't have thousands of desperate people trying desperate measures to get to your side of your wall.

you go back to the cost of the wall, simple math will tell you that if you stop paying the way for illegal invaders by giving them free medical care, free food, free or discounted housing.. the wall would pay for itself in no time, and again I will mention...obama declared an emergency 13 times.. so did he abuse power 13 times or is it only because it is Trump? and you debate the effectiveness of walls? do you have 4? do they keep people from strolling through your living room? do people walk in and help themselves to your money? I would like to argue the effectiveness of walls.. walls plus security will equal a significant amount of decreased illegal entries..to argue that fact is ...well