The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

Progress? I've always opposed illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants DO have a significant impact on economy of the nations they migrate to. Don't think just because I'm against that ridiculous wall, which would be a monument to America stupidity, that I am pro-Illegal.

So, you're against illegal immigration but against doing anything that might make it more difficult and aid in interdiction. Got it

 

[JettaKnight]

So, you're against illegal immigration but against doing anything that might make it more difficult and aid in interdiction. Got it

That, my friends, is the best example of a straw man argument I've seen all year.


One can be against vehicle collisions, yet believe that a flat 20 mph speed limit is not the best solution.
Implanting tracking chips in all Americans would help cops track criminals, but I'm not in favor of it.


I.e. just because you're against a proposed solution doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

 

[nonobaddog]

That, my friends, is the best example of a straw man argument I've seen all year.


One can be against vehicle collisions, yet believe that a flat 20 mph speed limit is not the best solution.
Implanting tracking chips in all Americans would help cops track criminals, but I'm not in favor of it.


I.e. just because you're against a proposed solution doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

The wall would help reduce vehicle collisions too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, you're against illegal immigration but against doing anything that might make it more difficult and aid in interdiction. Got it

Cost/Benefit. If I thought it was worth it, and there wasn't a better alternative, I would support it. Contrary to what many believe, illegals don't come here to earn their living committing crimes, as in criminal offenses Americans also commit. The come here because someone will employ them. I'm much rather the money be spent on prosecuting and locking up employers.

 

[nonobaddog]

Cost/Benefit. If I thought it was worth it, and there wasn't a better alternative, I would support it. Contrary to what many believe, illegals don't come here to earn their living committing crimes, as in criminal offenses Americans also commit. The come here because someone will employ them. I'm much rather the money be spent on prosecuting and locking up employers.

Then they would be unemployed and robbing quickie marts.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Cost/Benefit. If I thought it was worth it, and there wasn't a better alternative, I would support it. Contrary to what many believe, illegals don't come here to earn their living committing crimes, as in criminal offenses Americans also commit. The come here because someone will employ them. I'm much rather the money be spent on prosecuting and locking up employers.

I also agree with prosecuting the employers, but a lot of them (illegals) do end up here with ill intent. (MS13 ring a bell?) There have been plenty of documented examples recently where illegals that had been deported multiple times were released and went on to commit more heinous crimes (murder and rape). They were released because the sanctuary cities' judicial and corrective systems refused to execute ICE detainers.

 

[BugI02]

That, my friends, is the best example of a straw man argument I've seen all year.


One can be against vehicle collisions, yet believe that a flat 20 mph speed limit is not the best solution.
Implanting tracking chips in all Americans would help cops track criminals, but I'm not in favor of it.


I.e. just because you're against a proposed solution doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

That, my friends, is the best example of posturing I've seen all year

You know, where you offer criticism but no better solutions (because you don't have any)

One can be against a proposed solution because one doesn't really want the problem solved (until after tax time)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That, my friends, is the best example of posturing I've seen all year

You know, where you offer criticism but no better solutions (because you don't have any)

One can be against a proposed solution because one doesn't really want the problem solved (until after tax time)

 

[jamil]

Then they would be unemployed and robbing quickie marts.

Or go back home.

 

[jamil]

That, my friends, is the best example of posturing I've seen all year

You know, where you offer criticism but no better solutions (because you don't have any)

One can be against a proposed solution because one doesn't really want the problem solved (until after tax time)

There was a solution offered. You may disagree whether it’s better, but it was offered. You’ll neex to explain how that is posturing. What JK said is logically sound.

 

[KLB]

I've wondered about this. Do you really think Mexico is putting in an honest effort to stop immigration, or do you think it's just window dressing to sell to the gringos. I can see see then working along their southern border to prevent it, because they don't want them draining their country. But at the northern border? Why prevent people who are a drain on your economy from leaving?

I don't know what they are doing about stopping their own people, but they seem to be stopping those trying to transit their country to get here.

 

[drillsgt]

There was a solution offered. You may disagree whether it’s better, but it was offered. You’ll neex to explain how that is posturing. What JK said is logically sound.

A lot of things can be 'logically sound' but be nonsense, going after those that employ illegals could be part of the plan but may not be as easy as you think. Are you going to just levy civil fines if a business is found to employ illegals or pursue some type of criminal charges? Who do you go after, the front line manager who's under pressure to keep costs down and productivity up or those at the top encouraging the policy? Many of these illegals have forged documents/SSN's then what do you do? It'll likely take a multi-pronged approach, build the wall and implement additional policies.

 

[nonobaddog]

Or go back home.

I kinda think that is not on their to-do list, no matter what.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't know what they are doing about stopping their own people, but they seem to be stopping those trying to transit their country to get here.

Yup! IMO, they've realized that the masses of Central American illegals create a crisis that makes things like walls, which will stop Mexicans also, more likely. I agree that they have no problem with Mexican citizens crossing illegally since they tend to send $$$ back home... to Mexico.

Reuters: Mexico halts migrant caravan, deports hundreds to Honduras
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...an-deports-hundreds-to-honduras-idUSKBN1ZK1PW

Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM) said it deported 219 migrants to Honduras by plane in two separate flights. Ebrard said another 144 people were sent by bus.

“These two flights are the first of the year and we expect to carry out more in the coming days,” the INM said.

They are deporting them all the way back to Honduras, not just back across the order with Guatemala where they can easily re-attempt crossing into Mexico.

 

[JettaKnight]

That, my friends, is the best example of posturing I've seen all year

You know, where you offer criticism but no better solutions (because you don't have any)

Well, you can hire a lot of agents for what it cost to build this wall. That's just the start of exploring the solution space...

I thought you were in a techie/engineering job? You should know that solution should be found using proper methods rather than, "this is what the pointy haired boss says he wants."


Nevertheless, you clearly threw up a strawman with Kut, and there's no requirement that I have the correct solution in order to point out your fallacy.

One can be against a proposed solution because one doesn't really want the problem solved (until after tax time)

I expect that sort of attack from Printcraft; you're better than that.

 

[BugI02]

So, you're against illegal immigration but against doing anything that might make it more difficult and aid in interdiction. Got it

That, my friends, is the best example of a straw man argument I've seen all year.


One can be against vehicle collisions, yet believe that a flat 20 mph speed limit is not the best solution.
Implanting tracking chips in all Americans would help cops track criminals, but I'm not in favor of it.


I.e. just because you're against a proposed solution doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

There was a solution offered. You may disagree whether it’s better, but it was offered. You’ll neex to explain how that is posturing. What JK said is logically sound.

The exercise is trivial. Which is the simpler solution, and via Ockham thus more likely to be successful?

1) Build barriers to illegal immigration at the border to keep the problematic individuals from availing themselves of the misguided support of bleeding hearts and tax preparers to game the system and avoid the consequences of their actions in the hope that some future deal will grant them a golden ticket if they can only hang on long enough (or perhaps deliver an anchor baby). 'No wall' has a track record, which has given us 22 million non-citizens HODLing while exacerbating the problem. A wall being almost purely in the purview of the FedGov streamlines the necessary chain of command to achieve it within realtime

2) Engage in an attempt to build a secondary line of defense (or more precisely 50 second lines of defense) by trying to make employing illegals less commodious but which requires the change of many state laws as well as federal ones and allows for US court challenges to every single decision and with much of the legal sabot thrown into the machinery by entities intent on exploiting the illegals for monetary gain. If a number of jurisdictions won't even detain criminals for ICE, what makes JK and K14 think they will comply any more readily when it affects the donor/power broker bottom line even more

To my mind JK fulminating about straw man arguments is only slightly less egregious than Kut doing so if the aim is truly a system that makes effective changes as quickly as possible rather than hoping to see control of illegal immigration die the 'death of a thousand injunctions'. We have tried the solution Kut favors before with lackluster results. The argument that 'this time we'll get it right' is reminiscent of the arguments for why socialism won't fail 'this time'. As Einstein said, we can't solve our problems using the same methods used to create them

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't even want to be in this argument - I just call out a foul when I see it. It's no different than calling out the pastor for taking a verse out of context in Sunday's sermon.


Heck, I may think the wall is a great idea - just argue about it fairly.

 

[printcraft]

I expect that sort of attack from Printcraft; you're better than that.

LULZ... It's not an attack ack ack ack you oughta know by now.
Excuse me, I'm now going to "attack" a ruben sandwich for lunch.

 

[nonobaddog]

Making laws about employing illegal immigrants is not a solution, it is just the creation of more problems, and we already have enough problems.

 

[BugI02]

Well, you can hire a lot of agents for what it cost to build this wall. That's just the start of exploring the solution space...

I thought you were in a techie/engineering job? You should know that solution should be found using proper methods rather than, "this is what the pointy haired boss says he wants."


Nevertheless, you clearly threw up a strawman with Kut, and there's no requirement that I have the correct solution in order to point out your fallacy.


I expect that sort of attack from Printcraft; you're better than that.

I will grant that I responded sarcastically (which I hope is certainly not out of character) to a challenge from an unexpected quarter. I deliberately mimicked the form you used and didn't necessarily spend a great deal of time on any other aspect of the reply other than it should show displeasure, and i will grant that the tax season criticism was chosen to be biting, not because I really believe that is what might be motivating you. I am taking the time to make these admissions because I do actually like and respect you for the most part so I am sorry about the parts that may have been less than fair. At jamil's behest, I have addressed the necessary refutation of Kut's 'solution'. I guess a solution on offer doesn't have to offer any practicality, thus I reserve the right to switch allegiance to overlapping fields of fire if a mere wall doesn't work

Perhaps next time you could shout "Point of order" as a preface to your jumping into the ring