Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Pettifogger]

You said the discussion would "lead to a discussion of US drug policy and how the US keeps the cartels in business", which is sort of like saying Chicago in the 1920s was a dangerous place but that we might be able to mention the Mob and prohibition further down the line.

My contention was that the border is not a problem-free zone. And it isn't. And in so doing, I wanted to make it clear I recognized the role of the US in that.

Sweeping changes in US drug policy, on a level to change the demand of meth and heroin in the country, isn't happening. And there isn't a clear solution on that front to eliminate the cartel violence. So while it's totally reasonable to blame the American population for creating the space for the cartel to operate and thereby destroy border cities, there isn't any magic pill to solve the situation from a policy perspective.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well that's a rather self-serving way to look at it, but alright.

Are you denying that people have a very distorted view of migrants? I thought that was well established, whether it's the numbers of them or their economic impact.

 

[Pettifogger]

Are you denying that people have a very distorted view of migrants? I thought that was well established, whether it's the numbers of them or their economic impact.

I'm sure plenty of people do have mistaken beliefs about migrants. But that certainly doesn't apply to everyone who favors borders.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Be realistic. Democrats don't want to give Trump anything, and they're probably not excited about border control measures in the first place. America has no legitimate obligation to grant a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally. Most Americans, however, want that to happen. Most Americans also want to avoid this situation in the future.

It doesn't seem at all possible to do DACA, and then just *hope* Democrats will be nice and work on border security with Trump. It didn't happen when it was promised to Reagan in the 80s, why would we take that chance again?

And the CHIP argument is false. The GOP already proposed continued funding for CHIP prior to the shutdown debate, and both Senate and House Republican majorities had already expressed favor for a reauthorization. CHIP was never legitimately at risk.

Well I guess that's where you and I differ.

When we are talking about people who were brought to the country as children, through no fault of their own... who have known no other home (or at least not for any significant time), then I think there is very definitely an obligation. A legal one? No. A moral one? Absolutely.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Are you denying that people have a very distorted view of migrants? I thought that was well established, whether it's the numbers of them or their economic impact.

It is.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm sure plenty of people do have mistaken beliefs about migrants. But that certainly doesn't apply to everyone who favors borders.

When the majority have incorrect beliefs, are those beliefs a sound basis on which to propose policy? By pretty much any metric you care to use, free movement in Europe has been a resounding success, yet despite that, many people in Britain don't like foreigners. It's the job of politicians to work with how things are, not how people think they are.

 

[Pettifogger]

Well I guess that's where you and I differ.

When we are talking about people who were brought to the country as children, through no fault of their own... who have known no other home (or at least not for any significant time), then I think there is very definitely an obligation. A legal one? No. A moral one? Absolutely.

I also think America has a moral obligation to people who are waiting in line in legal channels, and to citizens who will fund the costs associated with illegal immigration.

In other words, I don't necessarily disagree that the right thing to do is to solve the DACA issue, but I also think fixing our broken immigration system is a moral and legal obligation as well. Hence, I advocate they should be done in tandem.

 

[Pettifogger]

When the majority have incorrect beliefs, are those beliefs a sound basis on which to propose policy? By pretty much any metric you care to use, free movement in Europe has been a resounding success, yet despite that, many people in Britain don't like foreigners. It's the job of politicians to work with how things are, not how people think they are.

I'm not going to comment on things I don't know about (whether or not relaxed borders in Europe is a resounding success). But Europe and America and Mexico are all different, and I'm not sure how one subjective belief about what is good or is not good should dictate the decisions of other nations.

If someone else in Europe tells me they want to know that their country has full awareness of who is coming in, why and for how long, my argument that Schengen provides economic benefits doesn't necessarily win the day, that I can see.

 

[BlueTX]

I also think America has a moral obligation to people who are waiting in line in legal channels, and to citizens who will fund the costs associated with illegal immigration.

In other words, I don't necessarily disagree that the right thing to do is to solve the DACA issue, but I also think fixing our broken immigration system is a moral and legal obligation as well. Hence, I advocate they should be done in tandem.

The hence does not necessarily follow. That is a political calculation.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I also think America has a moral obligation to people who are waiting in line in legal channels, and to citizens who will fund the costs associated with illegal immigration.

In other words, I don't necessarily disagree that the right thing to do is to solve the DACA issue, but I also think fixing our broken immigration system is a moral and legal obligation as well. Hence, I advocate they should be done in tandem.

And yet Trump blew up a bipartisan deal to increase funding for border security and give Dreamers a path to citizenship. How odd.

 

[RAFUH]

But the huge majority of Americans, including Democrats in the US, are against open borders.

Democrats don't want to give Trump anything, and they're probably not excited about border control measures in the first place.

 

[BlueTX]

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized miles of fencing, a huge increase in number of border agents and funding. Some neophyte Senator from Illinois voted in favor of it and when he became POTUS he saw its full implementation as well as additional supplemental bills as needed to address specific, timely concerns.

 

[Pettifogger]

The hence does not necessarily follow. That is a political calculation.

My conclusion isn't free of political calculation. I do think it's odd, if you accept my premise, to say that one moral obligation should be done now, but the other moral obligation can wait.

 

[Pettifogger]

The Republicans passed the tax bill when it had low approval (it's moving up).

That the American public wants something doesn't necessarily mean either party will respond to that. What was the ACA's approval at passage?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

That helps to clarify things. But the huge majority of Americans, including Democrats in the US, are against open borders. So we probably don't have anywhere to go on this subject.

As the son of penniless migrants (albeit in my case Irish migrants to the UK) I passionately believe in the benefits of open borders per se. In large store migrants - when pushed - are desparate for the opportunity to work and will readily do jobs that indigenous folk turn away.

My parents never took a penny in benefits and paid into the economy at a significant level. Likewise by siblings and I.

I have never seen a coherent intellectual argument defending the closed borders concept.