The President Trump Immigration Thread

[nonobaddog]

I believe MSP has a significant population of Somalis, perhaps some will push to implement the system used in their country of origin. I believe their is already gang activity associated with the community

Yes, definitely lots of somalis, including gangs.

Maybe that is what the city council has in mind - gang control - kind of like the mexican model where the cartels rival the strength of law enforcement.

 

[BugI02]

Now I understand how modern day Republicans spend Trillions.

At least when we spend trillions, we try to get something tangible in exchange, like infrastructure, a 600 ship Navy or the prosperity generated when those who earn it can keep more of their hard-earned money. We don't spend it paying jizya to the heathens in the hope they'll come for us last

 

[foszoe]

At least when we spend trillions, we try to get something tangible in exchange, like infrastructure, a 600 ship Navy or the prosperity generated when those who earn it can keep more of their hard-earned money. We don't spend it paying jizya to the heathens in the hope they'll come for us last

Don't forget masks, ventilators for the flu and 600$ to stay unemployed!

 

[Jaybird1980]

Every wall they put up gets defeated....but I guess we can turn into liberals and say...."If it saves just one life!"

Come up with something that dramatically works. Seismic sensors, infrared drone patrols etc...then let's have a real conversation!

I believe these technologies are already in use, the problem may be getting enough boots on the ground to investigate.

 

[Twangbanger]

I will say that we do exactly what's been done to Trump, drag the decision through all the courts in succession up to and including the supreme court, and if we lose then we find a way to live with it. That is the real essence of rule of law, and the reason why the judiciary is one of the more important reasons to re-elect Trump and has been one of his most important contributions so far. We cannot end legislation by and from the bench without filling the ranks of the judiciary at all levels with constitutionalists. The danger isn't so much in a president overstepping his authority as it is in a partisan judiciary absolving him because he's a fellow traveler. The rule of law resides in the tension between the three branches, and if they are allowed to devalue the constitution sufficiently, it will come to an end

Your argument that we must limit the use of power to only what's been done before, because court acceptance of new strategies might give our opponents ideas, seems more worthy of Mike Braun than jamil

Edit: and doesn't Abrams have to resign as pretend governor of Georgia in order to campaign to be the pretend vice president?

We live in a Dictatorship by Judges. That was what I was trying to get Jamil to see, back in the old "The Law that Ate the Constitution" thread. I don't think he got it. The way America works now, is that we throw sxxt up against the wall, and see if the Judges will allow it. As you mentioned before, if the Courts say "stop" and the offending party "stops," that is the rule of law we are now living under. There is just a certain Luddite way of thinking, that if you test the limits in the first place, you "don't care about rule of law." That Luddite way of thinking is that Only The Legislature may legislate. That concept has been stolen right out from under its proponents, and I'm not really sure many of them (including Jamil) get that. Today the Legislature is only the starting point. Their role has evolved into one of "shooting the puck into the zone." It then goes in and ricochets around the boards, and it's up to the wingers (Judges) to bat it around, decide what it means, and score the goals. The Luddites think the Legislature are the goal-scorers. In reality, ever since the Civil Rights Act, they've been relegated to nothing more than mid-fielders generating "sales-leads" for the Judges. I don't like this, but it exists independent of my feelings about it.

To abuse the paradigm of sports analogies even further, this reminds me of a game of flag football. You know how this always works. In the heat of the game, somebody gets a little "overzealous" with a tackle, and physically hammers somebody, or even knocks them down. What happens next is, the tackled party pulls off their flag and tosses it on the ground, and says, "Whoo - looks like I wont be needing _this_ anymore." Now if there was an actual referee there, who would give out a "half the distance to the goal" penalty for that, then indeed, the old-fashioned classical "rule of law" could still exist. The overstep gets punished immediately, and the offending party is not allowed to benefit even for a limited duration of time.

That is not what we have in America since the Civil Rights Act. We only have a part-time referee (the "fellow traveler syndrome" you reference above). The offenses do not reliably get called immediately. It is allowed to stand until a court stops it, unless somebody can get an injunction (which, in issues involving immigration, the Left can always get). If The Right doesn't get an injunction to stop DACA, for example, then the doctrine of the courts switches to not wanting to "change the ground-rules of peoples' lived existence." In other words, it may have been bull**** at the time it was enacted, but since nobody stopped it and people have lived their lives according to that guidance, now we _can't_ change it because that would be "inhumane."

If you give a whit about the rule of law, then you have to care enough to play it the same way the other side does. That is the only chance you have to get back to any historical conservative notion of the ideal. This is where the INGOers are really talking-past each other. Jamil defines "caring about the rule of law" as the application of the Luddite Golden Rule of Jesus - "turn the other cheek." Others are calling bull on that. I simply happen to be one of them.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Every wall they put up gets defeated....but I guess we can turn into liberals and say...."If it saves just one life!"

Come up with something that dramatically works. Seismic sensors, infrared drone patrols etc...then let's have a real conversation!

Dramatically, as in decrease by 90%? Reduce the problem to one tenth? See link below, which includes before/after pictures of the old corrugated tin structures versus the new replacements which are much more effective.

The false strawman argument you present, is either build a 100% effective wall or have no wall is analogous to saying install a 100% un-breachable door or have no door whatsoever.

DHS: Walls Work
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

Don’t forget the campaign to deconstruct law enforcement and rebuild it. Many of those good police officers are quitting because their cities and departments are throwing them under the bus. Some key cities have capitulated and have agreed to defund police. I strongly suspect that the idea is to create a police force that looks a lot more like the UK, where they care more about finding and catching “hate speech” than thieves and murderers.

I don’t imagine that the “peace officers” they imagine for the future would have any problems enforcing whatever elected officials want.

Willing? Perhaps. Able? That's a different question altogether.

Antifa types are great with a lock in a sock on the unsuspecting from behind... force-ably disarming the molon labe types, a whole different ballgame.

 

[jamil]

We live in a Dictatorship by Judges. That was what I was trying to get Jamil to see, back in the old "The Law that Ate the Constitution" thread. I don't think he got it. The way America works now, is that we throw sxxt up against the wall, and see if the Judges will allow it. As you mentioned before, if the Courts say "stop" and the offending party "stops," that is the rule of law we are now living under. There is just a certain Luddite way of thinking, that if you test the limits in the first place, you "don't care about rule of law." That Luddite way of thinking is that Only The Legislature may legislate. That concept has been stolen right out from under its proponents, and I'm not really sure many of them (including Jamil) get that. Today the Legislature is only the starting point. Their role has evolved into one of "shooting the puck into the zone." It then goes in and ricochets around the boards, and it's up to the wingers (Judges) to bat it around, decide what it means, and score the goals. The Luddites think the Legislature are the goal-scorers. In reality, ever since the Civil Rights Act, they've been relegated to nothing more than mid-fielders generating "sales-leads" for the Judges. I don't like this, but it exists independent of my feelings about it.

To abuse the paradigm of sports analogies even further, this reminds me of a game of flag football. You know how this always works. In the heat of the game, somebody gets a little "overzealous" with a tackle, and physically hammers somebody, or even knocks them down. What happens next is, the tackled party pulls off their flag and tosses it on the ground, and says, "Whoo - looks like I wont be needing _this_ anymore." Now if there was an actual referee there, who would give out a "half the distance to the goal" penalty for that, then indeed, the old-fashioned classical "rule of law" could still exist. The overstep gets punished immediately, and the offending party is not allowed to benefit even for a limited duration of time.

That is not what we have in America since the Civil Rights Act. We only have a part-time referee (the "fellow traveler syndrome" you reference above). The offenses do not reliably get called immediately. It is allowed to stand until a court stops it, unless somebody can get an injunction (which, in issues involving immigration, the Left can always get). If The Right doesn't get an injunction to stop DACA, for example, then the doctrine of the courts switches to not wanting to "change the ground-rules of peoples' lived existence." In other words, it may have been bull**** at the time it was enacted, but since nobody stopped it and people have lived their lives according to that guidance, now we _can't_ change it because that would be "inhumane."

If you give a whit about the rule of law, then you have to care enough to play it the same way the other side does. That is the only chance you have to get back to any historical conservative notion of the ideal. This is where the INGOers are really talking-past each other. Jamil defines "caring about the rule of law" as the application of the Luddite Golden Rule of Jesus - "turn the other cheek." Others are calling bull on that. I simply happen to be one of them.

I’ve made similar points in the past about judiciaries making law, that we got to this place by judges making rulings that essentially change the constitution to establish new precedents. It started with Marbury v Madison which established judicial review, making the SCOTUS the final arbiter of what is constitutional. So no, I get the point you made. And I do understand the nature of the asymmetrical warfare. I also think it’s wiser in the long run to keep the concept of rule of law intact to the extent possible. If for no other reason than to keep the tools of war manageable.

Rather than saying you don’t get the folly of each side escalating one-upsmanship, handing each other perpetually stronger tools to dominate when they have the stick, which is the very reason for the concept of rule of law, I’ll just say we disagree.

 

[foszoe]

interesting.....I didn't use 100% effective in my post at all.

I will meet halfway. At whatever level a mask becomes scientifically proven to be beneficial. Design a wall with an equivalent scientific proven effective rate. The wall argument presented here seems to be different than the mask argument, almost opposite even.

As to trusting a *.gov website...nah. Not unless cdc.gov also suddenly became a valid source to prove an argument or is it exactly the same? So hard to tell these days.

Dramatically, as in decrease by 90%? Reduce the problem to one tenth? See link below, which includes before/after pictures of the old corrugated tin structures versus the new replacements which are much more effective.

The false strawman argument you present, is either build a 100% effective wall or have no wall is analogous to saying install a 100% un-breachable door or have no door whatsoever.

DHS: Walls Work
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work



Willing? Perhaps. Able? That's a different question altogether.

Antifa types are great with a lock in a sock on the unsuspecting from behind... force-ably disarming the molon labe types, a whole different ballgame.

 

[BugI02]

He's right SD4L, he used an imprecise term because, as such, it serves admirably as wheels under the goalposts

Now instead of refuting the idea he can argue the minutae

 

[foszoe]

Offered a choice between 100, 90, and 10% I think I was very precise in what would fit the bill. Please offer up advice on how to be clearer?

He's right SD4L, he used an imprecise term because, as such, it serves admirably as wheels under the goalposts

Now instead of refuting the idea he can argue the minutae

 

[jamil]

Is there any better evidence that walls are effective in specific circumstances than masks?

But anyway, I don't think it's a very grand analogy regardless. I haven't heard too many people say they don't think masks have any value at all, but it's more that they don't think they should be mandated. Foszoe is trying to make a bang-for-the-buck argument, which is applicable to walls but not so much with masks. And, it's a personal choice whether you wear a mask or not, and it's a personal belief how effective you really believe they are. I suppose you can apply the latter to the wall as well. That's a matter of belief too. I don't really see enough commonality between the two to make the comparison of any argumentative value.

 

[BugI02]

interesting.....I didn't use 100% effective in my post at all.

I will meet halfway. At whatever level a mask becomes scientifically proven to be beneficial. Design a wall with an equivalent scientific proven effective rate. The wall argument presented here seems to be different than the mask argument, almost opposite even.

As to trusting a *.gov website...nah. Not unless cdc.gov also suddenly became a valid source to prove an argument or is it exactly the same? So hard to tell these days.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Results


The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

So wall only has to turn back perhaps a bit more than 3% to meet your criterion. D'Accord

 

[nonobaddog]

I really don't take it very seriously when people suggest a scientific study about walls. It is too silly to get randomized groups of illegal aliens with placebos and all.
People have been using walls to restrict movement for centuries. If someone does not believe walls are effective, that is simply their choice to take that route.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I really don't take it very seriously when people suggest a scientific study about walls. It is too silly to get randomized groups of illegal aliens with placebos and all.
People have been using walls to restrict movement for centuries. If someone does not believe walls are effective, that is simply their choice to take that route.

Exactly. How long has China's Great Wall been around? And how many illegal Mexicans and Central Americans do they have in their country?

 

[jamil]

I really don't take it very seriously when people suggest a scientific study about walls. It is too silly to get randomized groups of illegal aliens with placebos and all.
People have been using walls to restrict movement for centuries. If someone does not believe walls are effective, that is simply their choice to take that route.

Of course, that's not the only way to use science to figure things out like, is something like a border wall effective? How effective is it? But it's not really going to answer the question, is it cost effective? Because the answer to that is subjective.

 

[nonobaddog]

3?

 

[foszoe]

3?

42! Again!

 

[nonobaddog]

42! Again!

That is probably more like it, they are sneaky.

 

[Twangbanger]

I don't like the analogy, because I have a lot of personal latitude and a wide range of options to choose from, in mitigating my personal tolerance for disease risk / totalitarianism (pick one) with regard to the wearing of masks, and the relative perception of benefit/worthlessness (pick one) associated with it. From a variety of viewpoints, I can refuse to go to places that require masks (Menard's is personally dead to me), I can stay away from people not wearing them, I can stay home, etc, etc.

With The Wall, I have no such choice. The Angela Merkels of the world will mandate mask-wearing while throwing open the borders. If the Rule of Law is that immigration is to be controlled at some level (and that IS the rule of law in America, let's not forget), I cannot reasonably amble down there and put in place my own risk-mitigating countermeasures to help prevent my community from being overrun by what I perceive to be an adverse oversaturation of low skill immigrants.

Also, I believe the "prove the wall is effective" argument to be as logically invalid as the "prove voter ID is effective" argument. Both are essentially an attempt to defend doing nothing. Whether it's illegal crossings or voter fraud, you really can't effectively, scientifically evaluate something when government policy is to ignore it.

 

[jamil]

I don't like the analogy, because I have a lot of personal latitude and a wide range of options to choose from, in mitigating my personal tolerance for disease risk / totalitarianism (pick one) with regard to the wearing of masks, and the relative perception of benefit/worthlessness (pick one) associated with it. From a variety of viewpoints, I can refuse to go to places that require masks (Menard's is personally dead to me), I can stay away from people not wearing them, I can stay home, etc, etc.

With The Wall, I have no such choice. The Angela Merkels of the world will mandate mask-wearing while throwing open the borders. If the Rule of Law is that immigration is to be controlled at some level (and that IS the rule of law in America, let's not forget), I cannot reasonably amble down there and put in place my own risk-mitigating countermeasures to help prevent my community from being overrun by what I perceive to be an adverse oversaturation of low skill immigrants.

Also, I believe the "prove the wall is effective" argument to be as logically invalid as the "prove voter ID is effective" argument. Both are essentially an attempt to defend doing nothing. Whether it's illegal crossings or voter fraud, you really can't effectively, scientifically evaluate something when government policy is to ignore it.

Being skeptical that building a wall will pay off, is not the same thing as defending doing nothing.