The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

Back to back National Emergencies? Not even Trump is that stupid. Not to say he won't try it again, but I think he's smart enough to allow for a cool down.

I don't follow your logic.

How many people thought he was "too smart" to try for a bumpstock ban?

Or a trade war with China?

Or a muslim visa ban?

And to declare an emergency over a non-emergency?

If the rules don't prevent him from doing something, he sees that as authority to do that thing. (And, in terms of executive authority, he's probably right.)

I can absolutely see him turn around and declare something closely related to the wall as a new emergency.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't follow your logic.

How many people thought he was "too smart" to try for a bumpstock ban?

Or a trade war with China?

Or a muslim visa ban?

And to declare an emergency over a non-emergency?

If the rules don't prevent him from doing something, he sees that as authority to do that thing. (And, in terms of executive authority, he's probably right.)

I can absolutely see him turn around and declare something closely related to the wall as a new emergency.

Touché

 

[jamil]

When he's stupid he's bag-o-**** stupid. When he's smart, eh, he's alright. When he's an authoritarian, none of that matters, he's a **********.

 

[Dead Duck]

When he's stupid he's bag-o-**** stupid. When he's smart, eh, he's alright. When he's an authoritarian, none of that matters, he's a **********.

I couldn't agree more but you're in the Wrong Thread.
Here you go...

Obama's Latest Efforts to reduce gun violence

 

[Dead Duck]

The Pentagon will deploy 1,000 more troops to the southern border next week, a senior U.S. defense official said Friday afternoon.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-troops-being-dispatched-to-the-southern-border

 

[jamil]

I couldn't agree more but you're in the Wrong Thread.
Here you go...

Obama's Latest Efforts to reduce gun violence

No. I just checked. This is the president Trump immigration thread. I'm talking about Trump. He's been a bit of an authoritarian ********** the last couple of weeks.


Wait. Did you just say Obama does some things right?

 

[mmpsteve]

But...

Originally Posted by mmpsteve
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.

So my counterpoint, and questions, is just to prove the other side wrong. No duh. Care to comment on the content of my post, other than just to characterize it as a ploy?

.

 

[jamil]

So my counterpoint, and questions, is just to prove the other side wrong. No duh. Care to comment on the content of my post, other than just to characterize it as a ploy?

.

What? Dude, this is part of what I have against sides. You identify with a side instead of just some issues and you start to think it’s gotta be us versus them on everything. You think because I’m against the use of emergency powers that I must be the enemy. So maybe you start thinking I must disagree with you on everything.

I used your post to counter what T.Lex said and then expanded on it. Maybe you might rereading that post, including the point T.Lex made, what I quoted from you, and then my post. But this time try to imagine that I can agree with you on one issue while disagreeing with you on another. This is what individuals do. They talk. They figure out they disagree on some things, maybe intensely even, and agree on some other things.

But instead of thinking about what I’m saying, people think how I’m against their group in an all or nothing sort of way. Individuals can have multiple differences in opinions, without this belief that you’re the enemy if you don’t conform to the group orthodoxy.

 

[KLB]

What? Dude, this is part of what I have against sides. You identify with a side instead of just some issues and you start to think it’s gotta be us versus them on everything. You think because I’m against the use of emergency powers that I must be the enemy. So maybe you start thinking I must disagree with you on everything.

I used your post to counter what T.Lex said and then expanded on it. Maybe you might rereading that post, including the point T.Lex made, what I quoted from you, and then my post. But this time try to imagine that I can agree with you on one issue while disagreeing with you on another. This is what individuals do. They talk. They figure out they disagree on some things, maybe intensely even, and agree on some other things.

But instead of thinking about what I’m saying, people think how I’m against their group in an all or nothing sort of way. Individuals can have multiple differences in opinions, without this belief that you’re the enemy if you don’t conform to the group orthodoxy.

 

[mmpsteve]

What? Dude, this is part of what I have against sides. You identify with a side instead of just some issues and you start to think it’s gotta be us versus them on everything. You think because I’m against the use of emergency powers that I must be the enemy. So maybe you start thinking I must disagree with you on everything.

I used your post to counter what T.Lex said and then expanded on it. Maybe you might rereading that post, including the point T.Lex made, what I quoted from you, and then my post. But this time try to imagine that I can agree with you on one issue while disagreeing with you on another. This is what individuals do. They talk. They figure out they disagree on some things, maybe intensely even, and agree on some other things.

But instead of thinking about what I’m saying, people think how I’m against their group in an all or nothing sort of way. Individuals can have multiple differences in opinions, without this belief that you’re the enemy if you don’t conform to the group orthodoxy.

I did misread your comment. I thought you were using my comment as proof that people just want to take sides and prove the other side wrong, or we have to form distinct teams. My apologies. I know you're not like that, and neither am I. Most people here probably agree on much more than we disagee.

.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

[/COLOR][/B]If congress believes this president has gone too far, they pass a joint resolution, overriding his likely veto, and declare it is not an emergency.

If the congress believes they err'ed in giving any president this much leeway, they re-write the law.

It's how our system works.

Slate: Democrats Are Forcing Vulnerable Republicans to Take Their First Tough Vote of the 2020 Campaign
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-border-wall-emergency-terminate-vote.html

The US House will vote Tuesday on rescinding the President's border emergency declaration.

If (when) it passes, the Senate must also vote, it's not optional according to the National Emergencies law.

The joint resolution will will either pass both houses of Congress, or it won't.

If it does, the President could veto (he likely will).

Both houses of Congress either will or will not muster enough votes to override the veto.

The voters will have the opportunity in 2020 to vote either for or against all parties involved in the actions above.

There is no "constitutional crisis."

 

[BugI02]

I hope McConnell doesn't get distracted from holding that on the record vote for GND. That's a tougher vote for the Dems than voting on rescinding the wall emergency declaration would be for Reps

Tough to say you're not crazy when you vote for crazy, tough to keep the twitter mob at bay when you don't

 

[T.Lex]

I think this is an example of Trump not thinking things through, or at least not recognizing the issues that face "fellow" Republicans in the senate.

I'm sure to some INGOers, this exercise will be considered a brilliant move to smoke out RINOs. The reality is that Trump wants what Trump wants and is incapable of accepting that he can't always get his way.

Alas, this could end up being an exercise in futility anyway. As I noted earlier, I think he can either declare another emergency if this one is ended by Congress, or force a constitutional crisis in the courts.

The third option would be a negotiated resolution, but I don't really see that as a viable option for him.

 

[BugI02]

Sigh

I think this is an example of Trump not thinking things through, or at least not recognizing the issues that face "fellow" Republicans in the senate.

I'm sure to some INGOers, this exercise will be considered a brilliant move to smoke out RINOs. The reality [in my opinion] is that Trump wants what Trump wants and is incapable of accepting that he can't always get his way.

Alas, this could end up being an exercise in futility anyway. As I noted earlier, I think he can either declare another emergency if this one is ended by Congress, or force a constitutional crisis in the courts.

The third option would be a negotiated resolution, but I don't really see that as a viable option for him.

FTFY there, Carnac

 

[jamil]

Sigh



FTFY there, Carnac

The facts seem to support the conclusion. Trump really hasn't displayed much to the contrary. And I thought that's one of the attributes you like about him. He doesn't take no for an answer. Which I suppose is at least superficially good as long as what he wants = what you want. When it doesn't, it seems apparent on a few occasions that at least a few die hard supporters might tend to adjust what they want so that they can maintain fierce loyalty. Because we can't give aid and comfort to the enemy, now can we?

 

[T.Lex]

I think there's another exception to the "Trump wants what Trump wants" conclusion - when he doesn't really want it or even care about it.

The repeal of Obamacare was a big campaign promise. He took it to the GOP controlled Congress and it didn't work. So he gave up.

 

[BugI02]

I think this is an example of Trump not thinking things through, or at least not recognizing the issues that face "fellow" Republicans in the senate.

I'm sure to some INGOers, this exercise will be considered a brilliant move to smoke out RINOs. The reality is that Trump wants what Trump wants and is incapable of accepting that he can't always get his way.

Alas, this could end up being an exercise in futility anyway. As I noted earlier, I think he can either declare another emergency if this one is ended by Congress, or force a constitutional crisis in the courts.

The third option would be a negotiated resolution, but I don't really see that as a viable option for him.

The facts seem to support the conclusion. Trump really hasn't displayed much to the contrary. And I thought that's one of the attributes you like about him. He doesn't take no for an answer. Which I suppose is at least superficially good as long as what he wants = what you want. When it doesn't, it seems apparent on a few occasions that at least a few die hard supporters might tend to adjust what they want so that they can maintain fierce loyalty. Because we can't give aid and comfort to the enemy, now can we?

Maybe give that post a bit closer of a reading, there padre. The only aspect presented as a certainty rather than opinion is the one ascribing selfish motivation to what Trump does. So if the facts seem to support a conclusion, whether those facts prove it or not, we're good? Given that; I swear, sometimes I wonder just how many sock puppets Kut actually has

 

[jamil]

I think there's another exception to the "Trump wants what Trump wants" conclusion - when he doesn't really want it or even care about it.

The repeal of Obamacare was a big campaign promise. He took it to the GOP controlled Congress and it didn't work. So he gave up.

Wait. You're a lawyer right? And you logic like that? That's not an exception. It's understandably part of the rule. "He wants what he wants" doesn't include what he really doesn't want such that it should be an exception.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wait. You're a lawyer right? And you logic like that? That's not an exception. It's understandably part of the rule. "He wants what he wants" doesn't include what he really doesn't want such that it should be an exception.

Shots fired!

 

[BugI02]

I think there's another exception to the "Trump wants what Trump wants" conclusion - when he doesn't really want it or even care about it.

The repeal of Obamacare was a big campaign promise. He took it to the GOP controlled Congress and it didn't work. So he gave up.

“But they were good men and Trump isn’t.” They were all flawed men in their own way. They weren’t gauche men. Trump is gauche. Doers and builders tend to be more crass and base than thinkers and philosophers and technocrats. This excessive focus on form over substance leads to consistently losing elections and therefore consistently losing important and life-changing issues. It is gauche to rob people of their dignity with stupid environmental deals that kill jobs. It is gauche to fund the killing of babies. It’s gauche to send America’s best and brightest into the teeth of endless, winless wars. It’s gauche to warp the Constitution into a pile of legal jello to be moulded by whatever progressive whim holds sway. It’s literally gauche to support Democrats over Republicans. (Gauche means “Left” in French.)

*.*