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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueTX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dead on...

What's hilarious is right next to the samples of wall form those contractor mock up is an actual wall (fence) from what you mention. I remember the pictures and news reports when it was being upgraded or erected in new spots.

Yet they claim there is no protection what so ever and people simply walk in.

Didn't Trump lately claim that not all of it had to be wall either? So are they going to leave the current fence or spend millions taking it down?

Oh and 3 of last big crimes reported on the border were tunnels used by cartels

3 tunnels were dug under said fence by drug cartels that stretched for miles. In 3 different locations from San Diego to Texas.

Here was an article from the BBC back in 15 talking about cartels and how they move drugs north

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34934574

The people ICE have been picking up in Southern California are people who have been here quite a while. Not one who have crossed the border recently.

People either too old to apply for DACA or simply overstayed their welcome by a number of years.

Didn't homeland recently publish a report saying that VISA overstays were the majority of illegals and even that was decreasing each year.

But sure lets now make it about cartels, which in itself is funny because we have not heard about Terrorists using Mexico as a way in off late. Now its about criminals and cartels.
 
Charlie Sweet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's one:

Not everyone responds like you do. Taking in migrants and dependents can be very costly, and in the United States, that cost is carried largely by states and localities, many of which already have budgetary struggles.

Whether or not you find the economic burden of funding people who can't provide in a new country compelling or not, it's an entirely coherent argument.

Note that I'm not advocating for truly closed borders, I'm advocating for controlled migration that prioritizes the needs of the host country and the neediest of those who would migrate to it.
 
Pettifogger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Odd? How or why? People and governments prioritize moral obligations to address each and every day.

Glad you could be honest in admitting the combining of DACA and border security measures is political in nature.
 
BlueTX said:
Odd? How or why? People and governments prioritize moral obligations to address each and every day.

Glad you could be honest in admitting the combining of DACA and border security measures is political in nature.
Click to expand...

What else would it be? I mean, it's also entirely reasonable and logical, but sure, combining two related policy moves into one action is the product of political strategy.
 
Pettifogger said:
What else would it be? I mean, it's also entirely reasonable and logical, but sure, combining two related policy moves into one action is the product of political strategy.
Click to expand...
As I'm the one who pointed out it was political strategy I'm not sure why I would be tasked with arguing the opposite.

The combination of two things that are separate but related (closely or loosely) and demanding both be addressed at the same time is not entirely reasonable or logical and may, in fact, be unreasonable or illogical. In this specific case, combining DACA and "border security" is being done for political purposes, not ones entirely related to reason or logic.
 
Pettifogger said:
A dishonest and intellectually inept response from someone ill prepared to discuss the topic.
Click to expand...

I think it was a fair statement to be honest. I too have been to Tijuana, Juarez, and Mexicali. They are no more of a war zone than St Louis, Baltimore, or Detroit.

Good, honest hard working people also live in all of those places. I think it's a costly mistake for you or Trump or anyone to demonize a nation that we share a border with. It's terrible diplomacy to even consider building a wall.

I take comfort in knowing the two nations we share borders with are friendly allies. Building a wall sends an absolutely horrible message and could have far reaching reprocussions down the road.
 
BlueTX said:
As I'm the one who pointed out it was political strategy I'm not sure why I would be tasked with arguing the opposite.

The combination of two things that are separate but related (closely or loosely) and demanding both be addressed at the same time is not entirely reasonable or logical and may, in fact, be unreasonable or illogical. In this specific case, combining DACA and "border security" is being done for political purposes, not ones entirely related to reason or logic.
Click to expand...

Combining DACA and border security are being done in combination for political purposes and because it makes logical sense to seek to fix one of the problems giving rise to the need for DACA when making a permanent move on DACA.

Democrats have made the political decision to oppose the right's preference to solve the border security issue before granting amnesty. Republicans have made the political decision not to grant any form of amnesty without combining that with border security.

As you know, taking two things that are separate but related (closely or loosely) and demanding both be addressed independently is not entirely reasonable or logical, and may, in fact, be unreasonable or illogical.
 
ilikecheese said:
I think it was a fair statement to be honest. I too have been to Tijuana, Juarez, and Mexicali. They are no more of a war zone than St Louis, Baltimore, or Detroit.

Good, honest hard working people also live in all of those places. I think it's a costly mistake for you or Trump or anyone to demonize a nation that we share a border with. It's terrible diplomacy to even consider building a wall.

I take comfort in knowing the two nations we share borders with are friendly allies. Building a wall sends an absolutely horrible message and could have far reaching reprocussions down the road.
Click to expand...

A) Even if your comparison to US cities were fair, I'm not sure how this is relevant. We have enough crime in the United States, I'm not sure why more crime along our southern border is somehow made less notable by virtue of that. Of course, with very few exceptions, we do not have anything resembling the decapitations, mutilations and related attacks we see from the cartels. We don't have open war on journalists and public officials.

B) Of course they do. The idea that I'm demonizing all Mexicans because of the cartels is silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top