Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,906
|
Post by Bick on Apr 6, 2019 8:24:17 GMT -8
Trump used to criticize Obama for publicly announcing military strategy, tipping off the enemy. He did the same thing here. Like it or lump it, border security is far more complex than what happens at the border. Simply putting up a bigger barrier or arresting more people isn't what border security is really about. NAFTA actually did more to improve immigration than a wall because it provided jobs and financial security for border cities in Mexico. This reduced violence in favor of legitimate commerce. Fair enough. Trump saying he's going to build the wall has put illegals on notice that if they plan to cross into the US, they had better hurry up and do so. A few questions for you regarding what Border Security is really all about: Is it considered racist to want to stop people from coming into the country illegally? Between human, technological, physical, and LEGAL barriers, wouldn't the physical barrier be where you would begin? I'm sure we'd agree the reason for this illegal immigration is a function of some incentive(s). We're being told the primary incentive is to escape the corruption and violence in their Central American countries. Once they've crossed into Mexico, that primary incentive is allayed. BTW, they could also take a shorter route into Panama. Notwithstanding that very real concern for their safety, which set of incentives are they seeking by continuing on to the US that are arguably reserved for its citizens? |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 6, 2019 21:47:04 GMT -8
I understand your perspective, but it sounds like you’re recommending he do nothing so as to stop that chaos. if that is what you’re saying, or even if it’s not, I disagree with it. Trump is doing “something” as you say, but he is not creating chaos at the border. He hasn’t yet built the wall, which is “the” event all these “caravans “ are trying to beat, because once it is in place, their progress will be greatly diminished (though obviously not stopped completely). But the caravan traffic HAS been created, and funded, and driven by financiers (mostly people,who do not have our best interests in mind). Other than he wants to stop it, Trump has nothing to do with it. Trump used to criticize Obama for publicly announcing military strategy, tipping off the enemy. He did the same thing here. Like it or lump it, border security is far more complex than what happens at the border. Simply putting up a bigger barrier or arresting more people isn't what border security is really about. NAFTA actually did more to improve immigration than a wall because it provided jobs and financial security for border cities in Mexico. This reduced violence in favor of legitimate commerce. Trump is a bully and the best way to beat a bully is ignore them as long as you can and then punch them in the mouth. That is what is bound to happen and since Trump does NOT have the majority of the country behind him, I'm unsure of what could happen if someone decides to really call his bluff. Whatever it is, it will be painful for all of us. Only question is, for how long. I'm not sure how it can be said that Trump does not have the majority of the country behind his efforts to reduce illegal immigration. This was his signature issue from the day he announced for POTUS, and despite universal demonization from nearly every corner of elite opinion-shapers, he still won the Electoral College quite handily. In fact, I would venture to say it was the #1 reason he won the GOP nomination and then the Presidency. Polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans (80%) see illegal immigration as a problem and most want a more skill-based immigration system, as opposed to the anyone and everyone approach favored by the Democrats. www.numbersusa.com/blog/polls-show-voters-are-divided-about-wall-united-opposition-illegal-immigration-strongly-favor |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Apr 7, 2019 5:10:17 GMT -8
Trump used to criticize Obama for publicly announcing military strategy, tipping off the enemy. He did the same thing here. Like it or lump it, border security is far more complex than what happens at the border. Simply putting up a bigger barrier or arresting more people isn't what border security is really about. NAFTA actually did more to improve immigration than a wall because it provided jobs and financial security for border cities in Mexico. This reduced violence in favor of legitimate commerce. Fair enough. Trump saying he's going to build the wall has put illegals on notice that if they plan to cross into the US, they had better hurry up and do so. A few questions for you regarding what Border Security is really all about: Is it considered racist to want to stop people from coming into the country illegally? Between human, technological, physical, and LEGAL barriers, wouldn't the physical barrier be where you would begin? I'm sure we'd agree the reason for this illegal immigration is a function of some incentive(s). We're being told the primary incentive is to escape the corruption and violence in their Central American countries. Once they've crossed into Mexico, that primary incentive is allayed. BTW, they could also take a shorter route into Panama. Notwithstanding that very real concern for their safety, which set of incentives are they seeking by continuing on to the US that are arguably reserved for its citizens? Stopping people at the border is not racist. It's called security. We are all stopped at the border of any country we enter and when we come back to the US. As long as everyone crossing gets the same treatment, I'm good. It's also fine in my book to preform profiling, even when race is a component of the profile. What is not fine is for race to be the only component. The question you are asking though is different. You are asking if I think it is racist to want better border security. My answer is, it depends. It depends on why you think that is necessary, because many of the reasons cited are racist. I've heard a quote recently from Trump where he says our country is "full". Really? Should we stop people from having babies then? What about tourists? What does that even mean? We're not "full". When the reason for wanting better border security is to keep out "those dirty Mexicans" that "rape our women and children", then YES, it is racist. Motivation is key here and I've yet to hear a real good argument for this "crisis" we supposedly have that demands new and different emergency action that isn't based heavily on stereotypes and fear-mongering. Border security isn't about the border and security isn't about keeping people out. The issue is much broader than that. We have a neighbor to the south that we have partnered with for generations. We have enjoyed the fruits of their labor when we wanted it. We have often turned a blind eye to where they came from when we needed them to herd our cattle, pick our crops or do other odd jobs we didn't really want to do ourselves, but didn't want to pay someone a lot of money to do it either. Our neighbors from Mexico have been very happy to do this work as they don't need a lot of money back in Mexico. This "business relationship" continues to exist to this day. Our immigration system has completely failed us. We have no clear path to legal immigration, legal work visas, citizenship for those who want it. We have random limits and years long processes that haven't changed in many decades. We can't handle the many asylum seekers because our policies did not contemplate the current conditions. Yes, I would begin with physical barriers, but I would argue that we have those already. I do not support building large sections of new wall/fencing. With respect to Central America. I'm conflicted here. I've been to some areas of Columbia and Costa Rica as a tourist. I think many of those seeking asylum could (and should) do so in their own countries. I know. That's not the definition of asylum. We need a much improved process to take these people in, get them the food, water and medical attention they need. Hear their cases and then in most instances, send them back to their own country. This requires cooperation from that government and we're not going to get that the way our current administration is handling things. As for Panama, that's no real escape. They want to come to the US because, why not? Hard to imagine why anyone would question that why they want to come here. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Apr 7, 2019 5:14:35 GMT -8
Poll after poll after poll shows that approximately 40% of Americans support a border wall. I suppose it could be in how you ask the question, but that's a minority. Yes, most American's want something done about illegal immigration, but what exactly that means is very different. What a lot of folks mean when they say that is they expect a pathway to citizenship and a completely reformed method that allows much larger number of legal immigrants. Remember, one way to curb the number of illegal immigrants is not to reduce the number of people coming here, but to increase the number of those people who can come here legally.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 7, 2019 13:08:59 GMT -8
Poll after poll after poll shows that approximately 40% of Americans support a border wall. I suppose it could be in how you ask the question, but that's a minority. Not if 35% don't want the wall and the remaining 25% respond Don't care/Refuse to respond. You hit the nail on the head, it is so much about how the question is asked. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 5:53:00 GMT -8
Poll after poll after poll shows that approximately 40% of Americans support a border wall. I suppose it could be in how you ask the question, but that's a minority. Yes, most American's want something done about illegal immigration, but what exactly that means is very different. What a lot of folks mean when they say that is they expect a pathway to citizenship and a completely reformed method that allows much larger number of legal immigrants. Remember, one way to curb the number of illegal immigrants is not to reduce the number of people coming here, but to increase the number of those people who can come here legally. Those who remember our good friend and calm, understanding fellow TOB poster, Bev, will recall she DID support both: Reducing the number of immigrants overall, as well as increasing those who came here legally (but still fewer than come here legally, now). Bev was an ardent, passionate supporter of F.A.I.R. and invariably regaled us with citations and references and statistics from their website. She was all about stiffening the requirements for legal immigration, the first of which (in her FAIR mind) should be the U.S. need for whatever it is the immigrant beings to the table. If they couldn’t prove we “need” them, they got rejected. I don’t reject the needs test, but I don’t place it as primary either. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,906
|
Post by Bick on Apr 8, 2019 7:34:18 GMT -8
Poll after poll after poll shows that approximately 40% of Americans support a border wall. I suppose it could be in how you ask the question, but that's a minority. Yes, most American's want something done about illegal immigration, but what exactly that means is very different. What a lot of folks mean when they say that is they expect a pathway to citizenship and a completely reformed method that allows much larger number of legal immigrants. Remember, one way to curb the number of illegal immigrants is not to reduce the number of people coming here, but to increase the number of those people who can come here legally. Do you have a link that supports this? I'd like to review to see what's actually being proposed to see where I'd land on the subject. I thought there already is a pathway to citizenship. And those same polls, while they do not support a border wall, where do they and you stand on border security? While there may very well be a valid argument for increasing the number of immigrants from ?? to ??, I don't agree at all with the idea that the way to stop people from breaking the law, is to move the goal posts. Now before I become too much of a hypocrite, I DID support increasing the speed limit on the highways from 55, but I don't recall advocating there would be less speeding tickets as a primary reason for doing so. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 8, 2019 8:14:45 GMT -8
I think this entire discussion revolves around two fundamental truths:
1. The number of people allowed to immigrate into a country, and the skills/abilities those people should possess, are at the sole discretion of the host country, and not at the discretion of the people wanting to enter. It's a basic tenet of national sovereignty.
2. We already have current laws that govern (a) how legal immigrants may come into this country, (b) how they may become citizens, (c) how to apply for asylum and the factors that determine if it will be granted, and (d) what the punishments are for being here illegally or (e) employing illegal aliens. More and more, I believe the Democratic call for "comprehensive immigration reform" is a smokescreen, because the laws we need are already in place and they are fair. The problem is when communities, cities, states and employers choose to disobey or not enforce them, and the resulting signal it sends to aliens that there's no downside to storming our borders in huge numbers.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 8:35:13 GMT -8
I think this entire discussion revolves around two fundamental truths: 1. The number of people allowed to immigrate into a country, and the skills/abilities those people should possess, are at the sole discretion of the host country, and not at the discretion of the people wanting to enter. It's a basic tenet of national sovereignty. 2. We already have current laws that govern (a) how legal immigrants may come into this country, (b) how they may become citizens, (c) how to apply for asylum and the factors that determine if it will be granted, and (d) what the punishments are for being here illegally or (e) employing illegal aliens. More and more, I believe the Democratic call for "comprehensive immigration reform" is a smokescreen, because the laws we need are already in place and they are fair. The problem is when communities, cities, states and employers choose to disobey or not enforce them, and the resulting signal it sends to aliens that there's no downside to storming our borders in huge numbers. BOFFO! #2 hits it n the head. Add to the list of scofflaws, “Presidents” because I believe no recent president has seriously addressed illegal immigration or, by extension, immigration reform. President Trump has come the closest when he erased Obama’s unilateral “dreamers” executive order AND told Congress to do its job... but, alas, the ball got dropped and, in its place, he has substituted this current clamor for a wall. NOT that a wall is a bad thing. But it is only one thing, a part of immigration reform that 1) will not end illegal immigration (only slow it) and 2) should not exist in a vacuum (and it seems like it does, when nothing else meaningful is being worked on). |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 8, 2019 8:51:57 GMT -8
If we really insist on "comprehensive immigration reform", I think the bill to implement it can be written in 21 words:
"Obey and enforce the laws that are already on the books or you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable."
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Apr 8, 2019 9:54:14 GMT -8
The question you are asking though is different. You are asking if I think it is racist to want better border security. My answer is, it depends. It depends on why you think that is necessary, because many of the reasons cited are racist. I've heard a quote recently from Trump where he says our country is "full". Really? Should we stop people from having babies then? What about tourists? What does that even mean? We're not "full". I'm not sure America being "full" means we should stop having babies. That's just as loony as another Democrat talking point that argues that since more rapes and murders are committed by our citizens, then we shouldn't try to stop illegals who commit such crimes. Look, maybe we aren't completely "full," but a little perspective here, if you don't mind. When the words of Emma Lazarus, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" were placed upon the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, the population of the United States was 50 million. Today it is nearly seven times that many. - Just sayin.' How long will it be, at today's rates of legal and illegal immigration, before it is our shores that are teeming? In some places it already seems that way. We could severely cut down illegal immigration by using ALL the tools at our disposal (including physical barriers), and then dramatically increase the number of legal entries into the U.S., and still have fewer total immigrants over all. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 8, 2019 11:59:34 GMT -8
When the words of Emma Lazarus, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" were placed upon the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, the population of the United States was 50 million. Today it is nearly seven times that many. There's another point to be made in reference to those famous words. The left likes to insist that our refusing to accept all immigrants that want to come into this country somehow means we've hardened our hearts and turned our backs on the spirit of those words. In fact, what it really means is that we are facing the new reality, whereas they aren't. When Lazarus wrote those words in 1883, and for the next 80 or 90 years, America was still a growing industrial giant, and its demand for unskilled laborers to fill manufacturing jobs was almost unquenchable. Those times are gone, and those kinds of jobs are disappearing. We now need immigrants with other kinds of specialized skills, and the hordes at our southern borders don't possess them. There are only so many lettuce pickers, dishwashers and hotel maids we can absorb, and we may have reached our limit. So when it comes to our demand for that kind of immigrant, we may indeed be "full". |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,381
Member is Online
|
Post by SK80 on Apr 9, 2019 6:26:46 GMT -8
Watch Crazy Cuomo get whacked
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,906
|
Post by Bick on Apr 9, 2019 6:58:48 GMT -8
Did you happen to notice anyone even remotely looking like the threats POTUS rails on about in his reasoning for the wall? Me neither.
We have to secure the border by whatever means is necessary to do so - wall, physical barriers, technology, legal, and human. But damn it...be honest about it.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 9, 2019 8:42:23 GMT -8
Asylum is another legal term that Democrats are trying to emotionally broaden in order to get what they want. Asylum in the U.S. may be granted when an applicant is persecuted by his government because of his race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinions. Poverty, crime, violence from gangs or drug cartels and lack of economic opportunity are not legal grounds for asylum, despite what the Democrats may wish.
|
|
