The Border Wall or Fence

[iNow]

You may be right. He’s painted himself into a corner. Declaring a national emergency allows him to blame the courts for his own lack of an exit strategy. 

It also, however, allows the democrats to declare a “national emergency” when they win back the White House and use their national emergency trump card on climate change and Medicare for all.

Dangerous precedents he’s setting... or, more specifically, that the GOP members of Congress are allowing him to set. 

Edited January 12, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

It also, however, allows the democrats to declare a “national emergency” when they win back the White House and use their national emergency trump card on climate change and Medicare for all.

1

If Trump get's struck down by the supreme court, I suspect the same exact thing would happen to Democrats if they tried declaring it for climate change and medicare for all.

[iNow]

Depends on who picks the justices

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 Dangerous precedents he’s setting... it, more specifically, that the GOP members of Congress are allowing him to set. 

Not really a precedent as an example of why it doesn't work.

Assuming the Judicial branch does its job and strikes it down.

The U.S. was designed as a country with a lot of checks and balances. While I'm not particularly pleased with how it works out on the smaller things, it does a very good job of keeping it from literally falling to pieces as so many democracies/republics have before, including the first United States(articles of confederation), or the French Republic. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Depends on who picks the justices

Eh. I heard things back when Kavanaugh was being nominated. Things like "If he gets in, then the first thing Republicans will do is defund planned parenthood."

Still sitting here waiting for them to do that. 

Additionally, I heard the same type of thing when Obama was in office, whenever he went to appoint a judge. Except for the other side. "If he gets in, it's all over."

 

Basically, it really doesn't matter who is in office, as a general pattern the U.S. government continues to operate and continue. The doomsday scenarios that are predicted with basically every election/appointment simply never happen. There are certain lines that just don't get crossed.

Allowing the President to declare a national emergency over basically nothing in order to go around the legislative branch is one of them.

This is, of course, simply opinions. In no way am I saying this is a fact, it's what I generally see it like.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Eh. I heard things back when Kavanaugh was being nominated. Things like "If he gets in, then the first thing Republicans will do is defund planned parenthood."

 Still sitting here waiting for them to do that. 

Dude. It’s been like 3 weeks. That’s a lifetime appointment. You’re also drifting us further from the actual topic. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/shutdown-cou-mean-2-billion-less-consumer-spending-a-week-hitting-these-retailers-the-most.html

Quote

According to an estimate by S&P Global Ratings, it will only take another two weeks to cost the economy more than $6 billion, exceeding the $5.7 billion that President Donald Trump demanded to fund his proposed border wall. The U.S. economy will have lost $3.6 billion by Friday, according to S&P.

The Friday mentioned in that article? That was today. 

 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

You may be right. He’s painted himself into a corner. Declaring a national emergency allows him to blame the courts for his own lack of an exit strategy. 

Claiming victory no matter what is the only exit strategy Trump ever has. Just look at North Korea. Trump and Kim were trading threats of all out Nuclear war and then overnight they were best bros meanwhile nothing changed on the ground. North Korea still has Nuclear weapons, China is still violating the sanctions we put in place, and Kim still occasionally makes threatening demands. Trump just need to stand his ground and appear tough long enough to convince his base that he tried his best. After that his base will accept any result. Trump will get an "A" for effort. That is what happened with healthcare. Trump insisted the ACA had to go and Republicans had a better plan. Trump twisted arms, attacked fellow Republicans who didn't get on board, and then after it failed Trump just moved on. Same goes for the various versions of the Muslim Ban that kept losing in court. It seems, at least to me, that the Conservative base is comforted by Trump simply trying to do stuff they like. They is no penalty for failure provided an effort was made.

Now that the shutdown can be spun as lasting a record amount of time (it is actually only a partial shutdown) Trump can claim he has fought harder for this than any President in history has ever fought for anything. He has stood his ground and will receive credit from his base for it regardless of what happens next. My guess is that just as McCain was thrown under the bus over healthcare Trump will wait for GOP Senators to break with him on this and then use them as his scapegoat. GOP Senators Murkowski, Collins, Portman, and Gardner all appear ready to break and Graham is on the edge as well. I suspect Trump and his allies would love to see Romney break ranks because given there history and Romney's profile he'd make a great scapegoat to blab about allover social media and cable news. That is where I think we are right now. GOP senators sitting around trying to decide which one among them takes the blame. 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

It also, however, allows the democrats to declare a “national emergency” when they win back the White House and use their national emergency trump card on climate change and Medicare for all.

Dangerous precedents he’s setting... or, more specifically, that the GOP members of Congress are allowing him to set.

I do not believe this. Republicans are better at this game. The majority of the Republican base is all demographically/culturally similar (white, Christian, rural) which enables them to be ideologically unified in a way Democrats could never. While Minorities, LGBTQ community, the highly educated, and etc all predominately vote Democrat they all ideologically care about different things. Any individual issue like Climate Change or Medicare would be an over reach for Democrats to declare an emergency over. Democrats didn't even aggressively get behind Obama so Garland could get seated. That will go down is history as one of the biggest missed opportunities any party ever had. 

 

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I do not believe this. Republicans are better at this game.

It seems there's one thing the Republicans are better at.

Trying to screw over  the workforce.
http://deadstate.org/here-are-the-7-republicans-who-voted-against-backpay-for-workers-furloughed-during-the-shutdown/?fbclid=IwAR1PkfpilqIZZwxbN9P-ONnQg-Tkd5FER6ftzv18iMyEdfSPn5qWBZXbiO4

[Airbrush]

The question I've never seen answered is what exactly does Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter want to do with $5 Billion for a "W A L L"?

What does their "wall" mean exactly?  Is that just the first installment for a 30-foot "wall" that should cost a total of about $50 Billion?  Does it include tearing down the tall steel fencing that already exist to replace it with the new improved "steel slats"? 

Trump already admitted when he visited the wall samples that the current fencing between San Diego and Tijuana is 95% effective.  Why not just extend that fencing that already exists for another 100 miles?  There is a lot of terrain between the US and Mexico where a wall is impossible, such as along the Rio Grand in Texas, and mountainous or hilly areas where a wall won't work at all.  That is where you cannot have a "wall" but rather you can have more technology and patrols, which is what the Democrats want.

Before building anything else there should be a complete survey of the border to see exactly where illegals are streaming across, and that  is where you improve security.  That survey alone may disprove the so-called "crisis" at the border.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

@Airbrush you hit on a very important (at least in my opinion) point. Trump wasted tax payer having samples for his wall constructed. All samples were concrete structures. Now he is demanding 5.7 billion for what he's describing as a steel fence. The official White House's plan for the money references a DHS border improvement proposal from 2017. That proposal calls for improving existing barriers, hiring more agents, and hiring more immigration judges. It doesn't detail constructing a 5.7 billion dollar wall. So we are on in this strange position where the govt is shutdown over Trump's demand for funding yet what he plans to specifically do with said funding isn't known or hasn't been communicated. 

[CharonY]

On 1/11/2019 at 5:33 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

It doesn't.

It means he prioritizes other things. I drive a vehicle. I realize it harms the environment, yet still do so. Does this mean I don't care about the environment?

That is not a fitting analogy. So far folks appointed to head the EPA have not only roll back regulations, but actually weakened the ability of EPA to set standards and eliminated key positions that would normally alert folks of environment-related health effects. It is not a prioritization on other aspects, it is specifically a dismantling of the EPA itself. A more apt analogy would be to take a car and rebuild it to increase pollution (rolling coal?). While it may be a protest against regulations, it also means you do not care for the environment. And given the information that is available regarding environmental health, he would not only have to be misinformed but willfully misinformed.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Airbrush said:

there should be a complete survey of the border to see exactly where illegals are streaming across

If they knew that...

Mind you, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe it as "streaming across", unless you mean out of the US, and back to Mexico.

"The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007."
From
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

[Ten oz]

Today Trump rejected attempts by his own Party to re-open the govt.. This further illistrates that the current impasse in less about partisan politics and more about Trump himself. The govt isn't currently shutdown over clear ideological difference between numerous elected officials. It is shutdown for the pleasure of one man. 

Quote

 

On Monday, President Trump rejected a proposalfrom one of his top congressional allies to temporarily reopen the government to buy more time for negotiations over the wall.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested over the weekend that Trump sign a stopgap spending measure to entice Democrats back to the negotiating table.

But asked Monday about Trump's proposal, Trump said, "I did reject it."

"I'm not interested. I want to get it solved. I don't want to just delay it. I want to get it solved," he told reporters.

Link

 

 

[Raider5678]

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Mind you, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe it as "streaming across", unless you mean out of the US, and back to Mexico.

 "The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007."
 From

Just out of curiosity, did that include the 690,000 DACA immigrants? I mean they went from illegal to authorized(so not illegal). 

From the graph, a significant decline was from 2007 to 2012, before DACA was even implemented. But after that it does seem to go down about 700,000, which fits with DACA immigration.

Except, if that included DACA immigrants, that would indicate that the decline in illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. basically came to a stop after DACA was implemented, other then those gaining basic protection under it.

[Ten oz]

On 1/10/2019 at 5:56 PM, Ten oz said:

The overwhelming majority of non-locally produced illicit drugs which are shipped in from other countries enter via air or sea. Illegal border crossings have been in decline for years and border cities do not have crime rates which differ from the rest of the nation, Link. Every argument I have heard Trump make for the Wall (fence, technology, buzz word of the week) has been inaccurate. Additionally not all the land Trump wants to build on belongs to the Govt. Immanent Domain will need to successfully be use in Federal Court and then the administration will have to successfully beat back law suits from States and private land owners. So a Wall still has a lot of hurdles to pass. Then there is the cost. 5 billion won't cover it. Just has past fencing requires constant maintenance so to will any new fencing. Just has Trump claims some of the 5 billion will repair existing fencing so to will money have to be spend indefinitely  on any new fencing. 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Just out of curiosity, did that include the 690,000 DACA immigrants? I mean they went from illegal to authorized(so not illegal). 

From the graph, a significant decline was from 2007 to 2012, before DACA was even implemented. But after that it does seem to go down about 700,000, which fits with DACA immigration.

Except, if that included DACA immigrants, that would indicate that the decline in illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. basically came to a stop after DACA was implemented, other then those gaining basic protection under it.

Illegal border apprehensions were 1.6 million per year in '00 and by 17' were just 301k per a year. Deferred action only impacted those already living in the U.S. and not illegal crossings. It is illegal crossings that a Wall would be attempting to prevent. The number of illegal crossings having been falling your whole life. Less and less people have been illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico for decades. Embadded in the above link are attachments for CBP reports showing the volume by year. It is down. It has been falling your whole life. 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Except, if that included DACA immigrants, that would indicate that the decline in illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. basically came to a stop after DACA was implemented, other then those gaining basic protection under it.

If that interpretation is correct then there have been essentially no "new" immigrants in 10 years.

What's the wall for?

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If that interpretation is correct then there have been essentially no "new" immigrants in 10 years.

What's the wall for?

Right, the assertion is just Gish Gallop. It doesn't really matter how one spins the numbers illegal immigration has been falling for decades. 

Crime will never be zero. People over staying their Visa's will never be zero. There will always be examples of whatever for a politician to point to and cry crisis. 

[Raider5678]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Illegal border apprehensions were 1.6 million per year in '00 and by 17' were just 301k per a year. Deferred action only impacted those already living in the U.S. and not illegal crossings. It is illegal crossings that a Wall would be attempting to prevent. The number of illegal crossings having been falling your whole life. Less and less people have been illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico for decades. Embadded in the above link are attachments for CBP reports showing the volume by year. It is down. It has been falling your whole life. 

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article. SO this entire post here is meaningless to me.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Right, the assertion is just Gish Gallop. It doesn't really matter how one spins the numbers illegal immigration has been falling for decades. 

 Crime will never be zero. People over staying their Visa's will never be zero. There will always be examples of whatever for a politician to point to and cry crisis. 

FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article.SO this entire post here is meaningless to me.

Conveniently...

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. 

 

when?

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Conveniently...

...because he had already read it in the link...

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...because he had already read it...

how does an illegal immigrant not cross a border?

Edited January 15, 2019 by dimreepr

[Externet]

Hi all.

Not trying to be annoying; but you have to see this.  I do not think it is 'photoshopped/videoshopped'

----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=224COMfMwtc

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Externet said:

Hi all.

Not trying to be annoying; but you have to see this.  I do not think it is 'photoshopped/videoshopped'

----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=224COMfMwtc

That's hilarious!

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article. SO this entire post here is meaningless to me.

You were posting about the number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. and this is a thread about a Border Wall. So border crossings are at the heart of the matter as they are how the illegal immigrants currently in the country, ones a wall would potentially prevent, got here in the first place. The number of illegal border crossing directly related to the number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. who crossed the board. 

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. 

You implied John's numbers may reflect a change in classification rather than a true diminishment in numbers. As John accurately pointed out if your "interpretation is correct then there have been essentially no "new" immigrants in 10 years.". 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article. SO this entire post here is meaningless to me.

FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. 

I think the confusion arises as it is not quite clear what you are asking and why. As Ten Oz mentioned, the topic of this thread makes it likely that it is about border crossing. If you read the links more carefully, you will also have noted that the Pew research center found a) a total decline of unauthorized immigrants which b) was driven by a decline in Mexican immigrants. They also accounted for DACA recipients. Those are still not legal residents, i.e. their status does not change by enrolling.

There has always been a bit of a back-and forth across the USA-Mexican border, which was slowed down due increased border security since the 2000s. This has led to a stronger net migration to the USA but that has dropped following the recession. In the last years, the reduced immigration, voluntary returns and increased deportation have resulted in the net decline. While I hope that clears things up, I am not entirely sure what broader point would be.

The main point that John made,  i.e. that illegal border crossing is rather low and therefore there is a net reduction still holds. One would need to check the numbers to see how many returns are voluntary vs deportations, for example.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article. SO this entire post here is meaningless to me.

FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. 

This is the assertion you made.

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

that would indicate that the decline in illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. basically came to a stop after DACA was implemented, other then those gaining basic protection under it.

And it may be close enough to true.
But it's beside the point.

To be fair, Charony misses part of it too

 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

The main point that John made,  i.e. that illegal border crossing is rather low and therefore there is a net reduction still holds. One would need to check the numbers to see how many returns are voluntary vs deportations, for example.

If the net number of immigrants is near zero, then: 
The existing system works (you don't need to look at whether it's voluntary or deportation etc)


Of course, it's possible that the wall is a "better" way to address the "problem" of immigration.
Well, if that's the case then you can take funding from the current system to pay for the wall.
there's no need to find money to pay for a wall.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by John Cuthber